Wyden and Schiff say US is hiding secret FISA court ruling on Section 702

Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Adam Schiff of California say the Trump administration is illegally withholding a secret court's findings from Congress until lawmakers renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the program that lets federal agents read Americans' communications without a warrant. WIRED obtained the senators' demand letter exclusively.

Seven months ago, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court objected to search filters that let intelligence analysts pull Americans' messages from intercepted data without the approvals, written justifications or records the law requires. The court approved another year of surveillance anyway. The ruling has never been made public. The administration's own public documentation says rulings like this are reviewed for public release 'within 180 days of issuance.' That window closed September 13, even as intelligence officials press lawmakers to reauthorize the program by the end of the year. Section 702 itself lapsed in June after Congress failed to renew it, though collection continues under the court's March approval, which expires in March.

Wyden, the longest-serving member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Schiff, the former chair of its House counterpart, say the administration owes Congress an explanation for the delay, and the names of the officials responsible, by November 6. In the letter to Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton and Attorney General Todd Blanche, they wrote that if the administration will not follow this simple statutory directive, it is unclear why Congress or the public should trust it to follow the other legal limits on Section 702. Demand Progress and 22 other civil liberties and government accountability groups, from the ACLU to the conservative-backed Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, separately urged congressional leaders on Monday to refuse reauthorization while the administration withholds legally mandated information.

The administration has been pressed before, and has made a promise. In April, Senators Tom Cotton and Mark Warner, the Intelligence Committee's Republican chair and Democratic vice chair, asked for release within 15 days. In July, asked in writing whether he would commit to declassifying the ruling by the 180-day deadline, Blanche replied, 'Yes.' Clayton, who is legally responsible for declassifying it, has made no such promise. Before his July confirmation he wrote only that the government was 'working arduously to expeditiously declassify' the opinion and had given lawmakers the full text. Warner's communications director, Rachel Cohen, told WIRED that neither former DNI Tulsi Gabbard nor Bill Pulte, who briefly replaced her as acting director, were responsive, but that Warner expects Clayton to declassify it. Cotton's office did not respond; the White House, ODNI and the Justice Department did not answer WIRED's questions.

Some of the court's thinking is already known. A FISA court opinion declassified last year described a similar FBI tool, a 'participants filter' that let agents select people in contact with surveillance targets and read their messages. In February 2025, the Justice Department's National Security Division told the court the tool had been running searches no one counted. The FBI shut it off the next month and turned it back on later that year after the department approved a rebuilt version. This year's ruling went further: according to The New York Times in April, citing unclassified administration talking points sent to lawmakers, the court found that tools used to narrow intercepted data to an American's messages amount to searches of Americans, subject to the same limits, and ordered them rebuilt. Senator Alex Padilla said in a written question to Blanche that the Justice Department 'is appealing portions' of the ruling limiting the government's use of certain filtering tools.

WIRED also points to a gap between public messaging and the secret ruling. Seven intelligence agency fact sheets from March 2026, one dated the day of the ruling, cited a 98.9 percent compliance rate for FBI searches of Americans and credited Section 702 with stopping a planned terrorist attack on a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna. None mentions the court's findings. The 98.9 percent figure appears nowhere in the Justice Department inspector general's October 2025 review, which put the rate at 98.6 percent and could not conclude that the FBI's querying compliance issues are entirely in the past. The fact sheets say FBI auditors review every such search, but FBI director Kash Patel closed the bureau's Office of Internal Auditing last May and moved its auditors into another division. The bureau's search counts before 2025 also omit queries run through the participants filter, which the government's own privacy watchdog calls 'not possible to track.'

Lawmakers who have read the ruling hint it says more. Senator Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, urged colleagues on the Senate floor in June to read it in a secure room: 'I have seen it,' he said, and their opinion of the role of FISA and the rights of Americans 'will be impacted for sure.' Wyden has separately warned about a classified interpretation of Section 702 that he says multiple administrations have relied on and refused to declassify.

What comes next: the administration has until November 6 to answer. Surveillance reform advocates say it may try to avoid a fight by attaching a renewal to the annual defense authorization bill, which Congress usually finalizes in December. In 2023, lawmakers extended Section 702 for four months through that year's defense bill after a Senate effort to strip the provision failed. This year's House and Senate versions do not yet include it.

Key facts

Senators Wyden and Schiff say the administration is illegally withholding a FISA court ruling that objected to search filters used to pull Americans' messages from Section 702 data; the ruling was issued about seven months ago and remains secret.
The administration's own 180-day window for reviewing such rulings for public release closed September 13; the senators demand an explanation and the names of responsible officials by November 6.
Blanche answered 'Yes' in July when asked in writing if he would declassify by the deadline; Clayton, who is legally responsible for declassification, has made no such promise.
March 2026 fact sheets cited a 98.9 percent FBI compliance rate and a Vienna concert plot without mentioning the court's findings; the Justice Department inspector general's October 2025 review put compliance at 98.6 percent.
Section 702 lapsed in June but collection continues under the court's March approval, which expires in March; reform advocates expect an attempt to attach renewal to the defense authorization bill.

Why it matters

Congress is being asked to renew a warrantless surveillance program by the end of the year while, the senators say, the court's most recent findings about how that program is used remain hidden. WIRED reports that the court found filters used to narrow intercepted data to an American's messages count as searches of Americans, subject to the same limits, and ordered them rebuilt. That finding comes via the New York Times and administration talking points, not the ruling itself. The senators' sharper point is about trust: if the administration will not follow a simple statutory release rule, they ask why anyone should believe it follows the other limits on Section 702.

Who it affects

Americans whose messages are caught up in intercepted data and then searched by FBI and other analysts are the people the court's objection concerns. Members of Congress, who must decide on reauthorization, are the other group: some have read the full opinion in a secure room, and most of the public cannot. The FBI and the intelligence agencies are affected directly, since the ruling reportedly orders filtering tools rebuilt and the Justice Department is reportedly appealing parts of it.

How to use it

This is a policy story to watch rather than a tool to adopt. The dates that matter: the administration's answer to the senators is due November 6; the annual defense authorization bill is normally finalized in December and could carry a renewal; the court's current approval expires in March. Anyone tracking the debate can compare the March 2026 fact sheets with the inspector general's October 2025 review, as WIRED does, and look for whether Clayton declassifies the opinion before Congress votes.

How solid is it

The core facts are on the record: the 180-day window and its September 13 close come from the administration's own public documentation, and the quotes come from a letter WIRED obtained and from Blanche's and Clayton's written answers. The illegality charge is the senators' claim. The description of what the court found is secondhand, from the New York Times citing unclassified talking points, and the ruling's text is not public. Warner's office, through his communications director, says it expects Clayton to declassify the opinion.

Risks and caveats

The White House, ODNI and the Justice Department did not answer WIRED's questions about the delay, and Cotton's office did not respond, so the administration's reasons are not given. The article does not state the outcome or timing of the Justice Department's reported appeal, or what happens if the November 6 deadline passes. It does not say the FBI's current search tools are unlawful. Durbin's remarks hint that the ruling says more than is publicly known, but that is inference by lawmakers, not content anyone has published.

“If this administration won’t follow this simple statutory directive, it is unclear why Congress or the American people should trust this administration to follow any of the other legal limits to Section 702.”

— Senators Ron Wyden and Adam Schiff, in a letter to Jay Clayton and Todd Blanche