'Fundamental rights': Jim Jordan comes out swinging against searches of citizens' data

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) argued in a Washington Post opinion piece Wednesday, that it's every Americans' constitutional right to require the government to obtain a legal warrant based on probable cause before conducting a search on private records.

"That’s a key part of the Bill of Rights and an important protection against government abuse," Jordan wrote, adding that "short of imminent threats to national security, there is no good excuse for ignoring the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement."

Jordan's piece comes in advance of an upcoming congressional debate that he called "one of the most important debates we will have this Congress." Jordan maintained, "It is vital that we begin working now to protect Americans’ constitutional rights."

He wrote that up until now the federal government "has searched millions of Americans’ data...without ever obtaining a warrant," adding, "that’s not how it’s supposed to work in America."

ALSO READ: 'Alarming': Small colleges bullied into silence as Trump poses 'existential threat'

The House tried once before to add an amendment to the nation’s warrantless surveillance authority, Jordan wrote, but "came up just short" with the vote, so the warrant requirement was not adopted.

But Congress will have a chance to reconsider when "the foreign surveillance authority, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, expires again next year, on April 19, 2026," Jordan wrote.

"Congress has a responsibility to fix this," Jordan wrote. "We can balance the need to protect Americans’ fundamental constitutional rights with the need to give our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies the tools to fight those who want to do us harm."

Jordan wrote that last year, Congress pass the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act that included "some much-needed reforms" on searches.

"We took these important steps, and we have seen some improvement, but they did not go far enough. Until we pass a warrant requirement, the government’s powerful surveillance authorities will always be subject to abuse," Jordan argued.

"Our fidelity must always be to the Constitution," Jordan wrote. "We must continue to protect and enhance it" by passing an agreement on warrants before government searches take place.

Jordan's comments came as President Donald Trump is criticized for multiple actions deemed by many to be in conflict with the Constitution.

He has sought to consolidate executive power, questioned the independence of the judiciary, and made false claims about election integrity in an apparent effort to overturn democratic results. These actions have been viewed by many as assaults on the rule of law and the system of checks and balances.

Read The Washington Post opinion piece here.