CENTER FOR ETHICS AND THE RULE OF LAW​

Does the “SAFE” Act sufficiently protect U.S. national security interests?

With the current extension to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) expiring on April 19, CERL Advisory Council member George Croner analyzes the latest efforts by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) to reauthorize the foreign intelligence program but with significant reforms. In an opinion for Just Security, Croner explains why the bill they introduced last month—the Security and Freedom Enhancement (“SAFE”) Act of 2024—is flawed and leaves the United States vulnerable to foreign adversaries.

George W. Croner was the principal litigation counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the National Security Agency (NSA). He is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) in its national security program and a member of CERL’s Advisory Council. You can follow him on Twitter (@GeorgeCroner) and find a list of his publications at FPRI.org. Read his full bio here.

The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of any organization or university.

Mailing List

Submissions

Submissions to The Rule of Law Post. Please refer to CERL’s submission guidelines for additional details on the blog post format. Should your submission be accepted, we ask that you please complete the Agreement to Transfer Copyright.

Please upload text in one document under 6 mb. Preferred format as a simple text file (.txt).

Share Does the “SAFE” Act sufficiently protect U.S. national security interests? on:

LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Email
Print
Does the “SAFE” Act sufficiently protect U.S. national security interests?