Patriot Act repeal bill puts controversial law in the crosshairs: 'Let's end the abuse!'
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., has introduced a one-page bill to repeal the controversial Patriot Act, which was passed on the heels of the horrific Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
The text of the measure, dubbed the "American Privacy Restoration Act," reads, "The USA PATRIOT Act … is repealed, and each provision of law amended by such Act is amended to read as such provision read on October 25, 2001."
"For over two decades, rogue actors within our U.S. intelligence agencies have used the Patriot Act to create the most sophisticated, unaccountable surveillance apparatus in the Western world," Luna said, according to a press release.
"My legislation will strip the deep state of these tools and protect every American's fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It's past time to rein in our intelligence agencies and restore the right to privacy. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is using 'security' as an excuse to erode your freedom."
In a post on X, Luna thanked Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., for cosponsoring the bill.
"Let's end the abuse!" she declared in the post.
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who has previously pushed bills involving repealing the Patriot Act, pointed out in a post on X last week that just three Republicans voted against passing it in October 2001 — one of them was former Rep. Ron Paul, the father of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.
"Abuse of the PATRIOT Act over time revealed they were justified. Imagine the pressure they were under just one month after 9/11. I'm sure they were called every name in the book," Massie wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's top general just undercut his ‘invasion' claims
One of the problems with making a series of brazen and hyperbolic claims is that it can be hard to keep everyone on your team on the same page. And few Trump administration claims have been as brazen as the idea that the Venezuelan government has engineered an invasion of gang members into the United States. This claim forms the basis of the administration's controversial efforts to rapidly deport a bunch of people it claimed were members of the gang Tren de Aragua – without due process. But one of the central figures responsible for warding off such invasions apparently didn't get the memo. At a Senate hearing Wednesday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman retired Lt. Gen. Dan Caine acknowledged that the United States isn't currently facing such a threat. 'I think at this point in time, I don't see any foreign state-sponsored folks invading,' Caine said in response to Democratic questioning. This might sound like common sense; of course the United States isn't currently under invasion by a foreign government. You'd probably have heard something about that on the news. But the administration has said – repeatedly and in court – that it has been. When Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly deport migrants without due process, that law required such a foreign 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion' to make his move legal. And Trump said that's what was happening. 'The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States,' reads the proclamation from Trump. It added that Tren de Aragua's actions came 'both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela.' So the White House said Tren de Aragua was acting in concert with the Maduro regime to invade; Caine now says 'state-sponsored folks' aren't invading. Some flagged Caine's comment as undermining Trump's claims of a foreign 'invasion' in Los Angeles. Trump has regularly applied that word to undocumented migrants. But the inconsistency is arguably more significant when it comes to Trump's claims about the Venezuelan migrants. Perhaps the administration would argue that Trump has halted the invasion and it is no longer happening; Caine was speaking in the present tense. Caine did go on to cite others who might have different views. 'But I'll be mindful of the fact that there has been some border issues throughout time, and defer to DHS who handles the border along the nation's contiguous outline,' he said. But if an invasion had been happening recently, it seems weird not to mention that. And if the invasion is over, that would seem to undercut the need to keep trying to use the Alien Enemies Act. The Department of Homeland Security is certainly not in the camp of no invasion. On Wednesday, DHS posted on Facebook an image with Uncle Sam that reads: 'Report all foreign invaders' with a phone number for ICE. When asked about the image and whether the use of the term 'foreign invaders' had been used previously, DHS pointed CNN to a number of posts from White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller using terms like 'invade' or 'invaders' when referring to undocumented immigrants. Plenty of Trump administration figures have gone to bat for this claim. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said soon after Trump's proclamation that Tren de Aragua gang members 'have been sent here by the hostile Maduro regime in Venezuela.' Then-national security adviser Michael Waltz claimed Maduro was emptying his prisons 'in a proxy manner to influence and attack the United States.' We soon learned that the intelligence community had concluded Venezuela had not directed the gang. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio stood by Trump's claim. 'Yes, that's their assessment,' Rubio said last month about the intelligence community. 'They're wrong.' Trump administration border czar Tom Homan has said the gang was an 'arm of the Maduro regime,' and that Maduro's regime was 'involved with sending thousands of Venezuelans to this country to unsettle it.' The question of Venezuela's purported involvement actually hasn't been dealt with much by the courts. A series of judges have moved to block the administration's Alien Enemies Act gambit, but they've generally ruled that way because of the lack of an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion' – without delving much into the more complex issue of whether such a thing might somehow have ties to Maduro's government. One of the judges to rule in that fashion was a Trump appointee, US District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. So the intelligence community and a bunch of judges – including a Trump-appointed one – have rebutted the claim the underlies this historic effort to set aside due process. And now, the man Trump installed as his top general seems to have undercut it too.
Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
'You can't serve on Facebook': Military spouse calls Americans to act on Flag Day
All times eastern Special Report with Bret Baier FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends 'Les Misérables' premiere at Kennedy Center
Washington Post
17 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump White House opens door to historic military deployment on U.S. soil
President Donald Trump is prepared to send National Guard troops into more U.S. cities if protests against immigration raids expand beyond Los Angeles, administration officials said Wednesday, potentially opening the door to the most extensive use of military force on American soil in modern history. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in testimony to Congress that the Pentagon has the capability to surge National Guard troops to more cities 'if there are other riots in places where law enforcement officers are threatened.' Press secretary Karoline Leavitt warned protesters beyond Los Angeles that more 'lawlessness' will only increase Trump's resolve. 'Let this be an unequivocal message to left-wing radicals in other parts of the country who are thinking about copycatting the violence in an effort to stop this administration's mass deportation efforts,' Leavitt said. 'You will not succeed.' The White House's message coincides with a rise in bellicose language from Trump, who in recent days has threatened the use of force not only against immigration activists but also against any protesters who attempt to disrupt the military parade scheduled in Washington Saturday to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary. The parade, which Trump has wanted for years and will feature tanks, helicopters and Army parachutists, is shaping up to be a symbolic culmination of a dramatic week in which in which the president not only prepared for a historic deployment of armed forces against domestic adversaries but openly embraced shows of military force. In a speech at Fort Bragg in North Carolina Tuesday, the president reveled in the nation's military power as base leaders showcased several tactical demonstrations. 'Time and again, our enemies have learned that if you dare to threaten the American people, an American soldier will chase you down, crush you and cast you into oblivion,' Trump said. In threatening the use of force against protesters, Trump notably did not distinguish between those committing acts of violence and those peacefully protesting against his policies. Leavitt, at the White House briefing Wednesday, answered a question on the subject by saying that 'of course' the president supports the right to peacefully protest and declared the inquiry a 'stupid question.' The administration's escalating rhetoric has invited comparison to the language used by autocrats in foreign countries, where leaders more frequently deploy their military forces within their own borders. White House officials maintain that the president is showing strength and dominance — and standing up for 'law and order' as Democrats go soft on violent agitators. Trump and his advisers have highlighted footage of looting and cars being set ablaze to justify taking action over local officials' objections. 'President Trump is fulfilling the promise he made to the American people to deport illegal aliens and protect federal law enforcement from violent riots, said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. 'This kind of thing doesn't happen in democracies, and it's becoming a routine part of our politics,' said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University, who has long warned that Trump poses a threat to American democracy. (Federal campaign finance records show that a person named Steven Levitsky who works at Harvard has made small campaign donations to Democratic candidates.) Trump has given himself more flexibility this term to escalate the military intervention and to upend democratic norms with fewer constraints. In his first term, military leaders prevented Trump from deploying troops within the United States. This time, he has surrounded himself with loyalists — though he still could face obstacles in the courts. California has sued to block the administration from deploying troops within its borders. Protests over the administration's immigration policies are expanding to more cities, including Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco. More are scheduled this weekend as part of an event called 'No Kings Day,' which activists are holding in opposition to Trump's attempts to test his executive power and, protesters say, defy the courts. Amid protests in Chicago, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, said it would be 'a serious decision' for Trump to deploy troops across the country. Durbin said he has not spoken with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker about the possibility of Trump doing so in their state. Durbin said Trump is treating the deployment of the National Guard 'as this routine decision.' 'It is not routine, using our military force to enforce criminal laws in our country,' he said. Earlier in the week, Trump warned that any protests against immigration raids in other cities will be 'met with equal or greater force' than used in Los Angeles. He said those troops would remain in the city 'until there's no danger,' providing only a subjective timeline for the length of their deployment. Trump and California leaders have sparred over whether the troops were ever a necessary response to the protests, which have been confined to several blocks and have included sporadic episodes of violence. He said he 'would certainly' invoke the Insurrection Act, which can be used by presidents to expand the role of the military in responding to domestic incidents, if he viewed it as necessary. The fact that he is even considering it is an ominous sign, several scholars said. 'In a democratic society, citizens don't have to think twice or think three times about peaceful expressions of opposition — that's what life is like in a free society,' Levitsky said. 'In an authoritarian regime, citizens have to think twice about speaking out because there is risk of government retribution. Maybe you'll be arrested, maybe you'll be investigated, maybe you'll have an IRS audit, maybe you'll have a lawsuit.' The showdown over the military intervention has intensified since Saturday, when Trump deployed the National Guard to California without the permission of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who believed sending troops would escalate the protests. Newsom warned in a speech Tuesday that the deployment marked the onset of a much broader effort by Trump to threaten democracy. 'California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next,' Newsom said. 'Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived.' Also Tuesday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he was deploying his state's National Guard ahead of planned protests. An Abbott adviser said the decision did not result from Trump's rhetoric. The governor has previously deployed Guardsmen ahead of protests, such as during George Floyd demonstrations in 2020. 'This is not a frivolous thing. This is not a political thing,' said Dave Carney, a longtime political adviser to Abbott. 'If this was happening four years ago or eight years ago, he would have done the exact same thing. This is instinctively protecting people.' Carney said he suspects Republican governors will call up the National Guard only if they have 'good intelligence of what's being planned.' In other Republican-run states with recent clashes with ICE — either through protests or Democratic-leaning cities pushing back on enforcement — governors have resisted announcing any proactive deployments, despite GOP officials vowing to punish violent agitators. In Atlanta, where authorities used tear gas and made arrests Tuesday as anti-ICE protesters threw fireworks at police, state officials believe local and state law enforcement have been able to manage the demonstrations, according to a person with knowledge of the situation there who was granted anonymity to speak freely about plans. Likewise in Nashville, where Department of Homeland Security officials have clashed with the mayor of the heavily Democratic city, large protests have not materialized, and the Republican governor has not announced any deployment of military personnel. Meryl Kornfield contributed to this report.
