Senator Wyden Presses the DHS on ‘Unconstitutional’ Surveillance

Senator Wyden Presses the DHS on ‘Unconstitutional’ Surveillance

Senator Wyden Presses the DHS on ‘Unconstitutional’ Surveillance

The Oregon senator asked for confirmation of The Nation’s reporting on the tapping of protesters’ phones in Portland.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

On Monday, The Nation reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intercepted protesters’ phone communications in Portland this summer. Today, Senator Ron Wyden sent a letter to the DHS demanding answers. 

As Wyden explained to us in an e-mail, “There are still a lot of questions about what DHS has been doing in Portland, but I’m pushing hard for answers. The bottom line is, it would be totally unacceptable, illegal, and unconstitutional for the Trump administration to spy on people because of their political beliefs.”

Wyden, a US Senator representing Oregon, serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, responsible for conducting oversight of the intelligence community. The letter, addressed to DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf and signed by both Wyden and Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, contains a list of detailed questions relating to the intelligence operations reported by The Nation earlier this week.

The first question concerns former DHS intelligence chief Brian Murphy, who it says declined to confirm to the committee that his agency “had neither collected nor exploited or analyzed information obtained from the devices or accounts of protesters or detainees,” as he had stated in a briefing in July. The letter goes on to ask whether the DHS extracted data from protesters’ phones, if it later analyzed this data, and whether it obtained authorization from a judge to do so. 

The letter begins by stating, “A recent article in The Nation alleges that an interagency task force involving DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted surveillance of protesters’ phones in Portland.” As we reported on Monday, the DHS conducted a cell phone cloning attack in order to intercept Portland protesters’ phone communications this summer. The letter notes that these activities would qualify as unconstitutional.

Congress has enacted strict legal protections that require government agencies to obtain the approval of an independent judge before searching Americans’ devices and surveilling their communications—absent an emergency. That is to prevent the government from suppressing legitimate free speech protected by the First Amendment and violating Americans’ right to privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

These recent reports, which allege that the DHS has deployed high-tech surveillance technologies against protesters in Portland, raise serious concerns, which Congress has a responsibility to investigate.

The DHS’s deployment to Portland was a controversial one, having taken place against the wishes of many local officials, including Portland’s mayor, Ted Wheeler. Forces mobilized included Border Patrol Tactical Units (Customs and Border Protection’s elite special forces equivalent) and Justice Department assets like the US Marshals. While the response was widely criticized as heavy-handed, the Trump administration justified it as necessary to respond to civil unrest and protect federal property.

“DHS is not going to back down from our responsibilities,” Acting Secretary Wolf said in response to criticism in July. “We are not escalating, we are protecting.”

N

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x