WASHINGTON — Lawmakers and outside experts are raising fresh, bipartisan alarms about a recent expansion of Section 702 surveillance powers and the government’s ability to sidestep court oversight by buying Americans’ data, as Congress gears up for the next reauthorization fight ahead of a 2026 expiration. Dec. 22, 2025.
At the center of the debate are two flash points: a broadened requirement that could force “any service provider” to help facilitate surveillance, and the so-called data-broker loophole that privacy advocates say lets agencies purchase sensitive data without a warrant.
The concerns surfaced again at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this month, where witnesses ranged from civil-liberties advocates to conservative legal voices and tech policy critics. The committee’s hearing materials list testimony from Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice, conservative litigator Gene Schaerr, former U.S. attorney Brett Tolman and Consumer Choice Center policy analyst James Czerniawski. (House Judiciary hearing record and witness filings)
Section 702 expansion and the “any service provider” clause
Section 702 allows the government to collect foreign intelligence by targeting non-U.S. persons abroad, but it also sweeps in Americans’ communications when they interact with those targets. Critics say a 2024 change widened who can be compelled to assist that collection — potentially reaching beyond telecom and internet giants to businesses that merely “have access” to communications equipment.
In reporting on the hearing, WIRED quoted Goitein warning that the new language could force commercial landlords and other nontraditional entities into the surveillance pipeline, arguing they may lack the technical ability to isolate specific messages without exposing broader traffic. (WIRED report on the December hearing)
The Justice Department has pushed back, describing the “any service provider” revision as a technical fix and stressing limits on targeting people inside the United States. In an April 2024 letter backing reauthorization, the department wrote it would be unlawful under Section 702 to compel any service provider to target communications of anyone inside the U.S. (Justice Department letter on the ECSP change)
A Congressional Research Service analysis later summarized the change as an expansion of the “electronic communication service provider” definition to cover entities with access to certain equipment, while also noting carve-outs and ongoing arguments about how broad the net really is. (Congressional Research Service report on Section 702 and the 2024 law)
Section 702 and the data-broker loophole
Even as lawmakers debate how Section 702 collection is compelled, another fight centers on what the government can simply buy. Privacy advocates argue agencies can purchase location history, browsing data and other sensitive information from commercial brokers — information that might otherwise require a warrant or court order if demanded directly.
At the House hearing, critics framed that practice as a growing end-run around constitutional guardrails, especially as Congress approaches the next Section 702 deadline. Supporters counter that tighter rules can be added without “going dark,” and that Section 702 remains a core foreign intelligence tool.
A recurring surveillance fight
The clash has been building for more than a decade. The 2013 disclosures about NSA collection programs, including PRISM, helped set off the modern wave of Section 702 scrutiny and public skepticism about how “foreign” surveillance can pull in domestic communications. (The Guardian’s 2013 report on PRISM)
Congress has repeatedly renewed Section 702 while promising better safeguards. In 2018, President Donald Trump signed a bill extending Section 702 for years over objections from privacy advocates, Reuters reported at the time. (Reuters report on the 2018 Section 702 renewal)
Now, with Section 702 set to lapse again in 2026 unless Congress acts, lawmakers face familiar questions: how to preserve intelligence value while narrowing who can be compelled, curbing warrantless searches of Americans’ data, and closing the data-broker loophole that critics say makes those reforms easier to evade.
