The House on Wednesday approved a bill that would limit how the government can purchase data from third parties — legislation that scored a vote after negotiations with a group of GOP colleagues who briefly tanked a vote on warrantless spy powers.

Dubbed the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale, the legislation passed 219-199. It requires law enforcement and other government entities to get a warrant before buying information from third-party data brokers who purchase information gleaned from apps.

Division over the bill forged familiar fault lines to those seen in the debate over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), linking both conservatives and progressives who want greater privacy protections and pitting them against members from both parties who fear such protections could undercut an important law enforcement tool.

Those in favor of the bill argue the government should have to get a warrant before buying the commercially available information to carry out law enforcement activities.

“If the government wants to track a suspect today, they could go through the trouble of establishing probable cause and getting a warrant. Or federal law enforcement could simply purchase data from a third party about the target of their operation,” House Judiciary ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the bill, said during debate.

“If that purchased data included location data for their subject, they would have no need for checks and balances, no need for a warrant, and during an ensuing criminal trial, no obligation even to tell the court how they obtained the initial data in the first place.”

“We have the Fourth Amendment for a reason,” Nadler continued. “If law enforcement wants to gather information about you, they should first obtain a warrant.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), the sponsor of the bill, pegged it as a reinforcement of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“The reality is the technology today effectively puts the government everywhere we go. We all essentially have a digital ID, a phone number. And we carry it with us. It’s tracked. It goes to your car. Your car spies on you as well. This data is being collected,” he said.

“Nothing in this bill would prohibit a search paid for or otherwise of public information. It would, however, restore privacy protections, grossly infringed by current practices.”

Still, it garnered pushback from House Intelligence Committee members, the White House and voices in the law enforcement community.

“It generally would prohibit the intelligence community and law enforcement from obtaining certain commercially available information — subject only to narrow, unworkable exceptions. It does not affect the ability of foreign adversaries or the private sector to obtain and use the same information, thus negating any privacy benefit to U.S. persons while threatening America’s national security,” the White House wrote in a statement of administrative policy.

“Responsible access to, and use of, commercially available information is critical to scores of vital missions carried out on behalf of the American people.”

House Intelligence Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) argued the bill was poorly written, with broad language and few exceptions.

“The bill bans law enforcement from paying for information available to any willing buyer in all contexts. There is no exception. Zero. There is no exception to even allow law enforcement to pay for stolen information to investigate and solve identity theft, data theft, data breaches, ransomware attacks. The bill will not make people safer,” he said.

The bill was a top priority of GOP privacy hawks in the House, who negotiated a stand-alone vote for the legislation after failing to attach it to the broader legislation reauthorizing FISA 702. 

But Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ahead of its separation from FISA 702, said the fast-tracking of the bill left for little consideration of something that would have sweeping consequences.

“What are we going to do? We’re going to prohibit the CIA from buying data without ever having a hearing in Intel?” Himes said last week before it was clear the provision would get its own vote on the House floor.

“It’s very saddening because it’s a super interesting topic. We probably should regulate it maybe more than we are today. But it just should not be brought out of nowhere.”

Senior administration officials said the measure would blind U.S. intelligence outfits from getting information easily purchased by foreign intelligence operations. 

“In practice, these standards make it impossible for the [intelligence community], law enforcement to acquire a whole host of readily available information that they currently rely on,” an administration official said.

“Covered customer records as defined in the bill is very broad and includes records pertaining to any U.S. person or indeed any foreigner inside the United States. And as a practical matter, there’s often no way to establish whether a particular individual was in the U.S. at a particular time a piece of data was created. Unless you did one thing, which is paradoxically to intrude further into their privacy just to figure out whether you could obtain some data.”

“It can be impossible to know what’s in a data set before one actually obtains a data set,” the official continued. “So you’d be barred from getting that which you don’t even know.”

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The US House of Representatives is expected to vote on sending additional aid to Ukraine and Israel on Saturday evening, in a move that could provide $95bn in critical support to American allies and end months of congressional inaction.

Mike Johnson, the Republican Speaker of the House and ally of Donald Trump, told fellow party members on Wednesday that he would publish draft legislation on three bills with additional military funding for Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine.

House members will have 72 hours to study the legislation, setting the stage for a final vote on all three measures on Saturday evening that will be watched closely by US allies in Europe.

Johnson’s gambit comes at a critical time for Kyiv in its war against Russia’s full-scale invasion, and follows months of lobbying by US allies who have warned that Ukraine’s defences could be overrun by far superior Russian firepower without fresh military aid from Washington.

But the decision to send the legislation to the House floor comes with considerable political risk for Johnson. Rightwing opponents within his party have vowed to eject him as Speaker if he allows a vote on the aid, and Johnson is expected to need Democrats’ support to get the funding passed — and to stay on as Speaker.

Momentum to reintroduce the aid packages picked up after Iran’s weekend attack on Israel, with President Joe Biden calling it a “brazen” and “unprecedented” attack on one of the US’s closest allies in the Middle East.

The possible breakthrough on US funding for its allies follows months of inaction in the Republican-controlled House, which has refused to take up a Senate-approved $95bn national security supplemental aid package that included $60bn in funding for Ukraine, as well as billions of dollars for Israel and Taiwan.

US allies in Europe have been alarmed at the deadlock in Congress over more support for Ukraine, where Russian forces have threatened to gain more territory two years after Vladimir Putin launched the full-scale invasion.

The Russian military has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine in recent weeks as well, amid fears that Ukraine’s aerial defences are growing weaker.

While the EU has scrambled to put together stop-gap military funding packages in recent months, European diplomats admit they lack the defence capabilities and manufacturing capacities to replace the US.

The frozen funding stream has also spooked some European capitals that fear it is a harbinger for US policy towards Ukraine under a potential Trump presidency, should he win back control of the White House in November’s election.

Jens Stoltenberg, Nato’s secretary-general, said on Wednesday he was “encouraged by indications that the US Congress may take up further aid to Ukraine in the coming days”.

“My message is clear: Send more to Ukraine,” he added.

Johnson’s plan, unveiled on Monday, splits the aid into three separate bills, including a $60.8bn Ukraine aid bill, a $26.4bn measure in support of Israel, and an $8.1bn package to send aid to Taiwan and other countries in the Indo-Pacific intended to deter Chinese aggression.

Johnson has said he will also publish a draft of a fourth bill that would seize Russian assets, impose additional sanctions on Russia, China and Iran, and ban TikTok from app stores unless its Chinese owner divests ownership of the video-sharing platform. A fifth bill would seek to boost security on the US-Mexico border.

But passage of the bills is not guaranteed. Republicans control the House by a tiny margin that will shrink to just one vote on Friday, when Wisconsin Republican Mike Gallagher is expected to step down from the chamber.

The White House and senior Democrats have reserved judgment on Johnson’s plan, saying on Tuesday that they were awaiting more details before taking a position.

Johnson’s leadership has been on shaky ground for weeks, since the firebrand Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene threatened to call a vote of no confidence in his speakership. On Tuesday, Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, said he would join Greene’s effort and called on Johnson to resign.

But Johnson vowed to fight on, telling reporters it was an “absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion when we are simply here trying to do our jobs”, He said he considered himself a “wartime Speaker”, adding: “I didn’t anticipate this would be an easy path.”

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and their fellow Republican impeachment managers walk back through the U.S. Capitol Rotunda after transmitting articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate on Tuesday.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and their fellow Republican impeachment managers walk back through the U.S. Capitol Rotunda after transmitting articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate on Tuesday.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

To debate or not debate?

That’s the question facing the upper chamber Wednesday ahead of afternoon plans to swear in all 100 senators as jurors in the impeachment trial against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was expected to dispose of the charges, with either a motion to dismiss or by tabling them, but discussions continued late Tuesday for a potential bipartisan deal for debate. A deal had yet to be reached by early Wednesday.

“We want to address this issue as expeditiously as possible,” Schumer said Tuesday. “Impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement. Talk about awful precedents.”

The trial comes roughly two months after House Republicans voted to impeach Mayorkas by one vote, the tightest of margins. The House impeachment managers delivered the articles to the Senate on Tuesday, triggering the next steps in a trial.

“Alejandro N. Mayorkas thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States,” the lead House impeachment manager, House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green, R-Tenn., read from the resolution to the Senate chamber.

The Democratic-led Senate is not expected to convict or remove Mayorkas.

What the charges are

The House impeachment resolution includes two charges — willfully ignoring the law and breaching the public’s trust.

At the center of the procedural fight is the U.S.-Mexico border and the people who have crossed it in record numbers. Republicans accuse Mayorkas of refusing to enforce immigration laws, Democrats and the Biden administration say Republicans have a policy disagreement with the White House and impeachment isn’t the way to address it.

Republicans in both chambers are eager to put the issue of border security front and center during this election year. President Biden’s handling of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border remains a weak spot politically for him, according to recent public opinion polls.

Republicans demand debate

No other legislative business can be taken up during the trial, unless all 100 senators agree otherwise. That’s a concern for Democrats, with Congress facing a Friday deadline to renew legislation to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which remains quite controversial. Congress is also debating additional aid for Israel, following the attack from Iran over the weekend.

However, a conservative wing of Senate Republicans has joined their House counterparts in calling for debate on the charges facing Mayorkas. On Tuesday, Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, a moderate, joined the calls.

“I far prefer having a debate and discussion of some kind or a trial or a committee discussion,” Romney told NPR. “I think a motion to table sets a very unfortunate constitutional precedent.”

Democrats are watching moderate Republicans like Romney very closely in the narrowly controlled chamber because he is a key swing vote who could help wrap the effort up as quickly as possible.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday on the floor that “history and precedent dictate” that the Senate hold a trial.

“It would be beneath the Senate’s dignity to shrug off our clear responsibility and fail to give the charges we’ll hear today the thorough consideration they deserve,” he said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had earlier urged Schumer in a written statement to hold a public trial.

“The catastrophe at the southern border is the number one issue for the American people. We must hold those who engineered this crisis to full account,” he said.