Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

We shouldn’t be spying on Americans without a warrant. It’s that simple. FISA was meant for foreign intelligence, not sweeping up your calls and texts just because you talked to someone who talked to someone overseas. I’m putting forth an amendment that would make the government obtain a warrant... show more

Rand Paul

5,974,220 subscribers

111,098 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

While surveilling foreign targets under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the US government collects exabytes of data pertaining to American citizens. The Constitution requires a warrant to query that vast database for Americans. End warrantless spying now.

While surveilling foreign targets under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the US government collects exabytes of data pertaining to American citizens. The Constitution requires a warrant to query that vast database for Americans. End warrantless spying now.

Thomas Massie

284,494 views • 3 years ago

Under FISA Section 702, any administration can spy on Americans without a warrant. It’s a ridiculous loophole that Congress has temporarily extended. Mike Johnson should immediately bring an amendment to the floor to require warrants and stop this unconstitutional surveillance.

Under FISA Section 702, any administration can spy on Americans without a warrant. It’s a ridiculous loophole that Congress has temporarily extended. Mike Johnson should immediately bring an amendment to the floor to require warrants and stop this unconstitutional surveillance.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal

11,114 views • 5 months ago

I just spoke on the House floor to urge my colleagues to move forward with a vote on an amendment requiring warrants for FISA surveillance of Americans. If the warrant amendment doesn't pass, we must vote no on FISA reauthorization.

I just spoke on the House floor to urge my colleagues to move forward with a vote on an amendment requiring warrants for FISA surveillance of Americans. If the warrant amendment doesn't pass, we must vote no on FISA reauthorization.

Thomas Massie

390,570 views • 2 years ago

FISA EXPIRES IN ONE WEEK. Liberty must never be traded for the illusion of security. If the government wants to spy on Americans, it should get a warrant. #DontSpyOnMe

FISA EXPIRES IN ONE WEEK. Liberty must never be traded for the illusion of security. If the government wants to spy on Americans, it should get a warrant. #DontSpyOnMe

Rep. Keith Self

11,188 views • 4 months ago

Intel agencies have abused FISA to spy on Americans without a warrant. No more backdoor searches—if the government wants your data, they need a judge’s approval. Americans deserve real due process, not secret courts rubber-stamping warrants.

Intel agencies have abused FISA to spy on Americans without a warrant. No more backdoor searches—if the government wants your data, they need a judge’s approval. Americans deserve real due process, not secret courts rubber-stamping warrants.

Senator Rand Paul

41,199 views • 5 months ago

Elizabeth Goitein, a well-known expert on national security law and surveillance reform confirms the FBI has a database full of unlawful surveillance on American citizens Rep Brandon Gill: “So there’s millions of, potentially more, bits of communication information of American citizens sitting in various government databases that FBI agents have access to without obtaining a warrant? That seems like a pretty egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment, does it not?” Elizabeth Goitein: “To me, that is a violation right there, even if every single query complies with the internal standards and procedures that have been adopted. It’s not probable cause in a warrant, and therefore, it’s a Fourth Amendment problem.” Brandon Gill: “Agreed” This is all being obtained with FISA It concerns Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) This program allows the US government to target non-US persons overseas for electronic surveillance like emails, texts, call without a warrant. The main issue is this sweeps in massive amounts of Americans’ communications Once collected, the data sits in government databases. FBI agents (and others) can then perform “backdoor searches” called US person queries on that data without a warrant, using Americans’ names, emails, phone numbers and more

Elizabeth Goitein, a well-known expert on national security law and surveillance reform confirms the FBI has a database full of unlawful surveillance on American citizens Rep Brandon Gill: “So there’s millions of, potentially more, bits of communication information of American citizens sitting in various government databases that FBI agents have access to without obtaining a warrant? That seems like a pretty egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment, does it not?” Elizabeth Goitein: “To me, that is a violation right there, even if every single query complies with the internal standards and procedures that have been adopted. It’s not probable cause in a warrant, and therefore, it’s a Fourth Amendment problem.” Brandon Gill: “Agreed” This is all being obtained with FISA It concerns Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) This program allows the US government to target non-US persons overseas for electronic surveillance like emails, texts, call without a warrant. The main issue is this sweeps in massive amounts of Americans’ communications Once collected, the data sits in government databases. FBI agents (and others) can then perform “backdoor searches” called US person queries on that data without a warrant, using Americans’ names, emails, phone numbers and more

Wall Street Apes

46,369 views • 3 months ago

Trump, once a vocal critic of FISA Section 702, is now pushing to reauthorize it. Section 702 allows the government to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant — and it must be reformed. Watch @TrevorTimm explain and find out how you can help:

Trump, once a vocal critic of FISA Section 702, is now pushing to reauthorize it. Section 702 allows the government to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant — and it must be reformed. Watch @TrevorTimm explain and find out how you can help:

Freedom of the Press Foundation

10,344 views • 6 months ago

🚨Speaker Mike Johnson defended shredding the 4th Amendment and passing FISA warrantless surveillance after a top-secret briefing with the NSA, CIA, FBI, DNI and DOJ. Well, Thomas Massie was in the same SCIF as Speaker Johnson, and he's fed up with the lying. Massie says there was NOT ONE EXAMPLE spying on Americans without a warrant was able to prevent terrorism. It's all a scam. Shame on Republicans who fall for it. #SCIFGATE

🚨Speaker Mike Johnson defended shredding the 4th Amendment and passing FISA warrantless surveillance after a top-secret briefing with the NSA, CIA, FBI, DNI and DOJ. Well, Thomas Massie was in the same SCIF as Speaker Johnson, and he's fed up with the lying. Massie says there was NOT ONE EXAMPLE spying on Americans without a warrant was able to prevent terrorism. It's all a scam. Shame on Republicans who fall for it. #SCIFGATE

Charlie Kirk

1,635,746 views • 2 years ago

Here’s a crash course on the FISA 702 warrant debate. I’m not going to mince words - the Congressmen demanding a warrant to simply search a database full of foreign terrorist and foreign intelligence conversations are refusing to learn the basic facts. Let’s do a thought exercise: if you get a warrant to tap a criminal’s phone, do you think police just ignore the people he speaks to? No of course not. They hear it. And if the police want to hear more about the person on the other side of the phone call, they get a new warrant for it. THAT IS ALSO HOW FISA WORKS. Stupidity is a choice. These Members of Congress refusing to listen to the facts and President Trump aren’t “guardians of civil liberty.” They are dishonest fools looking for affirmation from social media. The worst part? They’ve been told the facts in classified sessions, and THEY DO NOT CARE. They couldn’t care less if an attack kills Americans and it could have been prevented. They know they won’t get blamed. They know the internet will make up some other absurd narrative and they’ll jump on board. It’s disgraceful.

Here’s a crash course on the FISA 702 warrant debate. I’m not going to mince words - the Congressmen demanding a warrant to simply search a database full of foreign terrorist and foreign intelligence conversations are refusing to learn the basic facts. Let’s do a thought exercise: if you get a warrant to tap a criminal’s phone, do you think police just ignore the people he speaks to? No of course not. They hear it. And if the police want to hear more about the person on the other side of the phone call, they get a new warrant for it. THAT IS ALSO HOW FISA WORKS. Stupidity is a choice. These Members of Congress refusing to listen to the facts and President Trump aren’t “guardians of civil liberty.” They are dishonest fools looking for affirmation from social media. The worst part? They’ve been told the facts in classified sessions, and THEY DO NOT CARE. They couldn’t care less if an attack kills Americans and it could have been prevented. They know they won’t get blamed. They know the internet will make up some other absurd narrative and they’ll jump on board. It’s disgraceful.

Dan Crenshaw

42,998 views • 5 months ago

Tucker likes to have friendly conversations with bad people. When he realizes that he’s talking to Iranian intelligence officials that we already collect on, he pretends to be a victim of “spying.” He’s an idiot, and he thinks you’re an idiot too. You always need a warrant to “wire tap” any American citizen. Full stop. But if you’re communicating with a criminal and that criminal’s phone is tapped (because a judge authorized it), then your conversation is now part of that investigation. If the police also want to tap *your* phone, they would need a warrant. FISA is no different. Tucker knows all this but his favorite grift is to play the victim. I’m surprised he hasn’t blamed the Jews yet. Give it time.

Tucker likes to have friendly conversations with bad people. When he realizes that he’s talking to Iranian intelligence officials that we already collect on, he pretends to be a victim of “spying.” He’s an idiot, and he thinks you’re an idiot too. You always need a warrant to “wire tap” any American citizen. Full stop. But if you’re communicating with a criminal and that criminal’s phone is tapped (because a judge authorized it), then your conversation is now part of that investigation. If the police also want to tap your phone, they would need a warrant. FISA is no different. Tucker knows all this but his favorite grift is to play the victim. I’m surprised he hasn’t blamed the Jews yet. Give it time.

Dan Crenshaw

402,168 views • 6 months ago

Q: You're a constitutional lawyer. Can you detail the 4th Amendment protections someone has if an ICE agent approaches their home with an administrative warrant? MIKE JOHNSON: When ICE goes to execute a warrant, it's an administrative warrant and it's issued by an immigration judge, and that is a sufficient legal authority to go and apprehend someone

Q: You're a constitutional lawyer. Can you detail the 4th Amendment protections someone has if an ICE agent approaches their home with an administrative warrant? MIKE JOHNSON: When ICE goes to execute a warrant, it's an administrative warrant and it's issued by an immigration judge, and that is a sufficient legal authority to go and apprehend someone

Aaron Rupar

795,364 views • 8 months ago

FISA allows the U.S. government to spy on suspected foreign terrorists, but it also allows the FBI to spy on Americans. We’re simply asking for a warrant requirement to protect our constitutional rights. And if Rs want a short term extension to work out the details, Kash Patel has got to go.

FISA allows the U.S. government to spy on suspected foreign terrorists, but it also allows the FBI to spy on Americans. We’re simply asking for a warrant requirement to protect our constitutional rights. And if Rs want a short term extension to work out the details, Kash Patel has got to go.

Rep. Ted Lieu

30,060 views • 5 months ago

My position on FISA is simple: no warrant requirement, no renewal. What they did to Trump in 2016 was an abuse of power. It's happened to tens of thousands of Americans, too. Want to spy on an American citizen? Ask a judge. We were one vote away from fixing this. One vote. Like I told Maria Bartiromo: I'll keep fighting until we get it right.

My position on FISA is simple: no warrant requirement, no renewal. What they did to Trump in 2016 was an abuse of power. It's happened to tens of thousands of Americans, too. Want to spy on an American citizen? Ask a judge. We were one vote away from fixing this. One vote. Like I told Maria Bartiromo: I'll keep fighting until we get it right.

Rand Paul

117,912 views • 4 months ago

This may come as a surprise to you (it was for me when I found out), but we can’t legally use FISA authorities to “wiretap” the Mexican drug cartel affiliates or the Chinese companies that make precursors for fentanyl. We are missing an enormous amount of information about supply chains, money laundering, trafficking, and production - all because the law isn’t updated to deal with this new fentanyl problem. So today I offered an amendment to change that. It was very simple, only one sentence. It would simply allow us to apply for warrants to wiretap these cartel organizations operating overseas. It was NOT attached to any other legislation or “poison pills” that would give anyone a reasonable excuse to vote against it. No brainer right? Luckily it passed. It will likely become law. It will help stop these thugs and save American lives. Who would be against that? Well, it turns out about 83 Republicans and 69 Democrats are against collecting intelligence on cartels or their Chinese partners. Ironically, many of these members talk a really tough talk about cartels. They talk about “fighting them.” How do you fight an enemy you can’t even collect intelligence on? But when given a simple choice, they chose NOT to take the first step necessary to actually be “tough” against murderous cartels and their buddies in China. The reasons I got? It “expanded” surveillance. No, it updates the list of FOREIGN targets in FOREIGN lands that we can apply for a warrant to target. Am I surprised? Pissed? Maybe. Definitely disappointed. I’m tired of seeing people up here say one thing and do another. It’s exhausting. They might be against the FISA program (that’s a whole other debate), but against collecting intelligence on cartels? Seriously? They had the chance to vote against the FISA bill (which they did) but still support the amendment to target cartels if they had wanted to. They were separate votes. The amendments always come first. Sorry, but you need to hear this. You need to know the truth about what goes on up here. You need to know that those 83 Republicans aligned with the far-left progressives to try and take down this amendment. I count many of them as friends and partners, even if we don’t always agree. So I was astonished by this result. But it passed. Thank God. I can go home and tell the parents of fentanyl victims that we are fighting for them, and actually taking action. But if you hear the Nay votes talking tough about the cartels, make them explain why they voted to protect El Chapo, Chinese companies making precursors, or money launderers in Mexico. Ask them why they don’t want us to spy on them *even with a warrant.* (yes! This amendment actually just allows us to APPLY for a warrant!!!) I was tempted to list their names here. I won’t. I’m not trying to get you to swarm their offices. But I’m not going to sugarcoat the truth either. You can look up vote records easily by googling “house roll call votes Bill Number: H. R. 7888" and clicking on Roll Call Votes - Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.

This may come as a surprise to you (it was for me when I found out), but we can’t legally use FISA authorities to “wiretap” the Mexican drug cartel affiliates or the Chinese companies that make precursors for fentanyl. We are missing an enormous amount of information about supply chains, money laundering, trafficking, and production - all because the law isn’t updated to deal with this new fentanyl problem. So today I offered an amendment to change that. It was very simple, only one sentence. It would simply allow us to apply for warrants to wiretap these cartel organizations operating overseas. It was NOT attached to any other legislation or “poison pills” that would give anyone a reasonable excuse to vote against it. No brainer right? Luckily it passed. It will likely become law. It will help stop these thugs and save American lives. Who would be against that? Well, it turns out about 83 Republicans and 69 Democrats are against collecting intelligence on cartels or their Chinese partners. Ironically, many of these members talk a really tough talk about cartels. They talk about “fighting them.” How do you fight an enemy you can’t even collect intelligence on? But when given a simple choice, they chose NOT to take the first step necessary to actually be “tough” against murderous cartels and their buddies in China. The reasons I got? It “expanded” surveillance. No, it updates the list of FOREIGN targets in FOREIGN lands that we can apply for a warrant to target. Am I surprised? Pissed? Maybe. Definitely disappointed. I’m tired of seeing people up here say one thing and do another. It’s exhausting. They might be against the FISA program (that’s a whole other debate), but against collecting intelligence on cartels? Seriously? They had the chance to vote against the FISA bill (which they did) but still support the amendment to target cartels if they had wanted to. They were separate votes. The amendments always come first. Sorry, but you need to hear this. You need to know the truth about what goes on up here. You need to know that those 83 Republicans aligned with the far-left progressives to try and take down this amendment. I count many of them as friends and partners, even if we don’t always agree. So I was astonished by this result. But it passed. Thank God. I can go home and tell the parents of fentanyl victims that we are fighting for them, and actually taking action. But if you hear the Nay votes talking tough about the cartels, make them explain why they voted to protect El Chapo, Chinese companies making precursors, or money launderers in Mexico. Ask them why they don’t want us to spy on them even with a warrant. (yes! This amendment actually just allows us to APPLY for a warrant!!!) I was tempted to list their names here. I won’t. I’m not trying to get you to swarm their offices. But I’m not going to sugarcoat the truth either. You can look up vote records easily by googling “house roll call votes Bill Number: H. R. 7888" and clicking on Roll Call Votes - Clerk of the United States House of Representatives.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw

112,180 views • 2 years ago

DHS has launched a secretive campaign to allow warrantless entry into the homes of Americans. Republicans brand themselves as the party of “small government.” But if DHS can kick in your door without a warrant, that isn’t limited government. And if you’re allowing it, you’re not for freedom.

Rep. James Walkinshaw

54,603 views • 7 months ago

✨Michaela on the DSA panel at the Socialism conference: "What would it be like to live without debt? What would it be like to live knowing that you would not actually fall into homelessness or death if you had to change your job and don't have insurance, because you wouldn't need it because we would have universal healthcare for all? I really do want to emphasize that Socialism is a vision for a future without capitalism. It is not just 'government does things.'"

✨Michaela on the DSA panel at the Socialism conference: "What would it be like to live without debt? What would it be like to live knowing that you would not actually fall into homelessness or death if you had to change your job and don't have insurance, because you wouldn't need it because we would have universal healthcare for all? I really do want to emphasize that Socialism is a vision for a future without capitalism. It is not just 'government does things.'"

adri ♡

15,321 views • 1 month ago

Has this ever happened to you? Your neighbor is walking their dog, the dog goes to the bathroom on your lawn, and you politely ask the owner to clean it up. Her response? “No, I’m not cleaning it up.” At that point, it’s not just about the dog poop. You’re completely disrespecting a neighbor you’re going to have to see on a regular basis. Why create that kind of unnecessary tension with someone who lives right next door? If your dog does its business on someone else’s property, pick it up. It’s basic courtesy and respect for the people around you.

Has this ever happened to you? Your neighbor is walking their dog, the dog goes to the bathroom on your lawn, and you politely ask the owner to clean it up. Her response? “No, I’m not cleaning it up.” At that point, it’s not just about the dog poop. You’re completely disrespecting a neighbor you’re going to have to see on a regular basis. Why create that kind of unnecessary tension with someone who lives right next door? If your dog does its business on someone else’s property, pick it up. It’s basic courtesy and respect for the people around you.

Gitmo (Health is a Wealth) 🇺🇸🇮🇱

178,269 views • 16 days ago