The following is from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) are urging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to amend its procedures for congressional attendance at Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) proceedings ahead of the expiration of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) next April.
The current procedures, first established by the Biden administration in November 2024, and continued under the current administration, hinder congressional oversight and conflict with Section 5(d) of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA).
“The FISC Procedures, as drafted, comport with neither the plain language nor the spirit of RISAA, and raise numerous separation of powers concerns. As the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate’s primary committee of jurisdiction over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we are troubled by the Department’s lack of transparency and failure to engage meaningfully with our committee as these procedures were developed. We request that the Department amend the FISC Procedures to comply with the Constitution and RISAA,” the lawmakers wrote.
RISAA – signed into law in April 2024 – requires DOJ to allow select members of Congress and designated staff to attend and conduct oversight of FISC proceedings. In November 2024, the Biden DOJ implemented a policy that requires members of Congress and their staff to agree to a series of arbitrary and inappropriate procedures before being allowed to attend FISC proceedings, which the Trump administration has maintained.
Some of DOJ’s policies and procedures include:
- Prohibiting members of Congress from sharing information with other members of Congress and members of their staff;
- Restricting members of Congress from requesting information or documentation from participants of FISC proceedings;
- Allowing DOJ staff to remove congressional observers, including members of Congress, from FISC proceedings at any time and at the sole discretion of DOJ;
- Allowing only a limited number of congressional observers to attend FISC proceedings at any one time;
- Prohibiting designated staff from attending the same FISC proceeding as their specified member of Congress; and
- Prohibiting note taking during proceedings, despite congressional staff’s ability to maintain classified notebooks.
Read Grassley and Durbin’s letter to DOJ HERE or below.
Background:
Section 5(d) of RISAA requires DOJ to allow specified members of Congress and designated staff to “attend any proceeding of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or any proceeding of the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.” Section 5(d) was included in the 2024 reauthorization of Section 702 of FISA to protect Congress’ ability to perform effective oversight over FISC proceedings.
The Honorable Pamela J. Bondi
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Attorney General Bondi:
We write to express our concern with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Attorney General Procedures for Congressional Attendance at Proceedings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (hereinafter “FISC Procedures”) issued on November 18, 2024 by the prior Administration.
The FISC Procedures were drafted in response to section 5(d) of the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA). Section 5(d) plainly and unequivocally requires that specified members of Congress “shall be entitled to attend any proceeding of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or any proceeding of the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review.”¹
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that Congress is able to perform effective oversight of these proceedings, including the conduct of the executive branch before the FISC. While these procedures were issued under the previous administration, we have been disappointed with both the former and current administrations’ reluctance to revise them.
The FISC Procedures, as drafted, comport with neither the plain language nor the spirit of RISAA, and raise numerous separation of powers concerns. As the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate’s primary committee of jurisdiction over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we are troubled by the Department’s lack of transparency and failure to engage meaningfully with our committee as these procedures were developed. We request that the Department amend the FISC Procedures to comply with the Constitution and RISAA.
Below is a non-exhaustive list of our concerns with the procedures as currently drafted. We urge you to engage with us as you amend the procedures to ensure that these concerns are adequately addressed.
At the outset, the FISC Procedures impermissibly limit congressional oversight functions, undermining Congress’s constitutional role as a check on the executive branch. For example, paragraph C.5 of the Procedures requires that “Specified Members and Designated Staff shall not disclose (or otherwise disseminate) the contents and nature of Proceedings to anyone other than Specified Members and Designated Staff…”²
As members of a separate branch of government with oversight authorities designed to ensure the executive branch executes the law as intended, members of Congress have the prerogative to share information with each other and their appropriately cleared staff without such restrictions—indeed, such sharing was an express purpose of Section 5(d).
Similarly, the Department attempts to restrict Congress from requesting information or documentation from participants or the Court. Congress, not the Department, decides when it needs to make such requests in furtherance of its constitutional duties.
The Department also attempts to restrict information requests generally by requiring their transmission to and through DOJ Legislative Affairs. The Department lacks the authority to prohibit designated members from sharing information with other members or their fully cleared staff and it likewise lacks the authority to impose restrictions on Congress’s constitutional oversight authorities to obtain information in the manner Congress chooses.
The Department also insists that it may “bifurcate” FISC proceedings and remove congressional observers, including specified members, for portions of any proceeding at its sole discretion.³ This violates the requirements of RISAA and impermissibly intrudes on Congress’s authority as a separate, coequal branch of government.
Section 5(d) of RISAA was intended to ensure that Congress may hold the executive branch accountable for abuses in FISC and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) proceedings and act as a check on executive authority. DOJ’s assertion that it may remove not only congressional staff, but also specified duly-elected members of Congress is an abrogation of RISAA’s express requirement that specified members and designated staff shall be entitled to attend “any proceeding” of the FISC or FISCR.
While we understand the need to protect sensitive sources and methods, only members of Congress and fully-cleared staff are eligible to observe these proceedings so the protection of classified or sensitive information is no justification for restricting access to proceedings. Congress’s clear language in section 5(d) of RISAA and the section’s lack of any exception to this requirement affirm that DOJ’s attempted alteration is inappropriate and outside the bounds of its legal authority. The Department cannot rewrite laws enacted by Congress to suit its preferences.
The Department’s assertion that it may only accommodate up to four congressional observers at a time⁴ does not comply with the requirements of section 5(d) of RISAA. RISAA requires that the specified members and staff “shall be entitled to attend any proceeding” of both the FISC and FISCR. This is a statutory mandate, not a request. The Department and the FISC/FISCR must accommodate all congressional observers who seek to attend “any proceeding” of the FISC/FISCR in full compliance with RISAA, including both full audio and visual access in any overflow or virtual observation space provided.
Finally, the Department has failed to articulate any substantive reason why it seeks to prohibit designated staff from attending the same proceeding as the specified member they work for (without regard to space constraints or any other logistical issue).⁵ Congressional staff serve an essential role as subject matter experts to inform members’ understanding of the process.
The Department’s assertion in section B.6 of the Procedures is both arbitrary and inappropriate as it seeks to enforce this unnecessary blanket restriction without furthering any articulated security or logistical objective. Furthermore, it hinders specified members’ abilities to fully understand the scope of “any proceeding” for which they elect to exercise their statutory and constitutional authority to attend.
In a similar vein, the Department’s prohibition on note-taking during proceedings is unnecessary and encroaches on Congress’s ability to effectively carry out its constitutional oversight functions. Cleared congressional staff routinely keep classified notebooks that are kept secure by the security offices of the House and Senate. We are aware of no security or logistical obstacles to staff doing the same at FISC/FISC proceedings and the ability to take notes is essential for meaningful observation of the proceedings and the ability to conduct oversight effectively.
We reiterate that the enumerated concerns with certain provisions of the Procedures in this letter are not an exhaustive list. We look forward to the Department’s engagement with us as it amends these procedures to comply with the Constitution and the clear text and intent of RISAA to ensure that Congress is able to conduct its oversight responsibilities without improper constraints.
In the Department’s response to our letter, please describe any engagement the Department had with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), FISC, FISCR, or other congressional committees in developing these procedures and a timeline of such engagement. We look forward to the Department’s response.
We look forward to your reply no later than December 5, 2025.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley – Chairman
Richard J. Durbin – Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Shilo,
–wish I could post my “Anatomy of a Revolution”
here, but it’s too-large a document.
An excerpt :
“Western merchants knowingly sold Hitler the
means to wage war – and the chemical with which
to gas millions – while contemporary “American”
businessmen sell Red China the means to destroy
our cities in a future confrontation.”
Rappaport comes close to my ‘Anatomy’ thesis :
Traitorous Capitalists :
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/03/16/anti-russia-try-this-on-for-size/ ]]
-Rick
How did we arrive at the point where the top priority of the Justice Department is to keep the overseers from overseeing? Well, could be because they have been untrustworthy. Unfortunately, the overseers have also proven untrustworthy. The framers of the Constitution formed a government for a “moral and religious ” people.
Out of a population of 380 million or so, how many meet that criteria in 2025 ? With all the cheating and rigging of political races, the populace, which includes voters and non voters as well as legal and illegal people, have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. So basically we are trying to manage a government for moral and religious people where the entire country is made up of a majority of people who have no sense of honesty or honor, no belief in a higher power and who are voting for candidates selected by political parties whose whole purpose for existing is to seize power and keep it. Those candidates are selected for ability to raise money and loyalty to the political party. Every decision they make will be filtered through the lens of what is good for the party, the people are incidental. Every government office has been infiltrated and only party loyalists are allowed to advance. In 1828 Andrew Jackson won an election after losing in the previous election on an electoral college scandal. He joined the Democratic Republican Party which led to the modern day democrat party. The reason ? To eliminate the electoral college he perceived to be corrupt. The democrat party continued to assail the Constitution in attempts to turn it into a democracy, a political system soundly rejected by the founders. ( Ask your favorite how many times the word “democracy” appears in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the Bill of Rights or even the Pledge of Allegiance. The answer is 0). So the answer to the Senators railing against the spooks is simple. No one can trust the other.
Many variables. 1. Foreign intelligence is a special tool that the government has to keep us safe but it can be used to betray the interests of the United States. First and foremost there should be oversight by both parties. The problem is that oversight can lead to leaks and that is where accountability should step in.
We saw FISA courts illegally allow investigations that relied on false information. No accountability. No officers found in contempt. No judge held in review for allowing this to happen.
2. We have a government to big that it can’t operate efficiently. We have judges that go beyond their authority and yet there is no accountability. We have a corrupt system that allows fraud and waste for the sake of politics and not looking out for the best interest of America.
3. We have a media who gives us half truth’s because the whole truth doesn’t fit the narrative and the ability to raise money. We have a government that gets into the lives of American people because the people want these programs. For instant; Why do we need the federal government handing out SNAP or any other program? Where did all the churches go? Local distribution of needs of local people?
4. We became so wealthy as a nation that we lost accountability but now we are in 38 Trillion in debt and climbing. The system can’t sustain this. Doge was a great start to eliminating fraud and waste but politicians cried because all the truth was coming out.
Long ago it was stated that an informed voter is an intelligent voter but how can that be obtained when the news media is not held accountable because the powers that be don’t want the whole truth to be known. Where is the FCC in reigning in this system of corruption?
We have a nation that doesn’t vote. If we are lucky then we might get 50-60 percent of people vote. We have a system of check and balances but there is no accountability. Until the accountability starts our nation can’t start of a path of getting right.
Well spoken, Kent. I concur with you. I feel that section 702 needs to be rewritten or removed since we have seen that it has been corrupted by many with no recriminations or accountability. Boasberg and others used their power to interfere with a prior administration as well as an election. They haven’t been addressing many issues of national security like elections, immigration, fraud, etc. Our country is spiraling around the crapper.