Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
April 23
The Washington Post says FISA is for national security, not illegally spying on US citizens
America’s spy programs are complex, but the Fourth Amendment is simple. It says the government cannot collect and search through the private communications of United States citizens without a warrant.
Congress is deadlocked on renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the Fourth Amendment points to a straightforward compromise. That is: Keep up overseas surveillance to protect U.S. national security, but require a warrant whenever the resulting database is used to look through a specific American’s communications.
The distinction between foreigners and Americans gets elided, sometimes deliberately, in debates about 702. The program, put into law in 2008, was set to expire April 20, and Congress didn’t have the votes last week to reauthorize it. Instead, lawmakers pushed back its expiration by 10 days and are now scrambling to find a resolution by April 30.
Supporters of a “clean” reauthorization say that failure to do so will expose the U.S. to foreign threats. But almost nobody is advocating that U.S. intelligence agencies stop spying on foreigners. The complaint about the program as it currently exists is that it allows government officials to search the overseas calls, emails or text messages of U.S. citizens without probable cause that they committed any crime.
The Trump administration doesn’t want Congress to add a warrant requirement for such searches, but it hasn’t explained why that dose of Fourth Amendment hygiene would harm national security — especially because proposed bipartisan legislation contains an exception for genuine emergencies. In any case, the point of the Bill of Rights is to keep Americans free from overreaching government even, sometimes, at a cost to their safety.
FISA’s Section 702 lets agencies such as the FBI, CIA and NSA search foreigners’ electronic communications for intelligence purposes. The target might be an Iranian government official who often calls up a Hezbollah commander in Lebanon, or an executive at a French defense company who often calls her American lover.
There’s nothing wrong with targeting foreigners in other countries, who aren’t protected by the Constitution, for warrantless surveillance. Indeed, it is essential to national security. Nor is it necessarily a problem if Americans’ communications are swept up in the process.
In ordinary law enforcement, incidental collection happens all the time: A wiretap on a suspected bank robber isn’t a violation of his mother’s Fourth Amendment rights because his conversations with her are also recorded.
The problem is that an awful lot of information about American citizens is building up on government servers. The feds can then search that data trove to dig up information about individuals they otherwise would have needed a warrant to collect.
As one appeals court put it in 2019: “If such a vast body of information is simply stored in a database, available for review by request from domestic law enforcement agencies solely on the speculative possibility that evidence of interest to agents investigating a particular individual might be found there, the program begins to look more like a dragnet.”
Just how often the program gets misused is up for debate. Recognizing that abuse was a serious problem, Congress enacted reforms in 2024 that aimed to tighten access to the database by adding layers of supervision within the executive branch. The circle of people in the intelligence community who can search for an American citizen’s communications has shrunk.
But adding bureaucracy is no substitute for a warrant requirement. If a police officer wants to conduct a Fourth Amendment search of a U.S. citizen, he doesn’t merely get sign-off from other police officers. He gets sign-off from a judge, sometimes in a matter of hours if the need is urgent.
The judge is supposed to bring an independent set of eyes to the process. Requiring spooks or FBI agents in Washington to get a court order before they pore over troves of a particular American citizen’s private communications is not a radical policy. Indeed, it could streamline the process by reducing “the need for the multiple layers of internal oversight that have been established in a futile effort to replicate the function of judicial approval,” as the Brennan Center’s Elizabeth Gotein puts it.
Trump argues that Congress should extend 702 without revision because of the Iran war. That might be a more compelling argument if he had asked Congress for authorization to go to war in the first place. Perhaps Congress needs to extend the tool for a limited period to work out the language for a warrant requirement, but that shouldn’t be so hard: Two years ago, legislation to require a warrant fell one vote short in the House.
Obfuscation abounds in the 702 debate, but don’t credit claims about the horrors that will befall the U.S. if the program lapses. The foreign surveillance program is valuable, and it will continue. The only question is whether it will continue to present a tantalizing Fourth Amendment loophole for whichever administration happens to be in power. Both parties ought to have the foresight to see the problem with that.
April 25
The Guardian says as US alliances crumble, a new world emerges
When Donald Trump hosted Sanae Takaichi, the Japanese prime minister, last month, he could not resist a gratuitous reference to Pearl Harbor. The US president is impelled to trash longstanding alliances. He has done more than anyone to demolish the postwar global order.
This week alone, the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, questioned whether the US would be “loyal” to Nato if Russia attacked. A Pentagon memo reportedly floated suspending Spain from Nato and reviewing support for the British claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. And a report said US officials believe that it has depleted munitions so rapidly in Iran as to put in question contingency plans to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion in the near future.
But the outlines of the new world being built in response to authoritarian menace and US unpredictability also came a little more clearly into view. Two major powers are shaking off postwar restraints. Germany published its first military strategy since the end of the second world war – laying out the context for its vast rearmament and recruitment plans. While the country says it is taking on more responsibility within Nato, it is also setting out its national interests more distinctly.
Nato was famously intended “to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down”. With the US threatening exit and Russia knocking at the door, other members are mostly urging Germany upwards – even if the popularity of Alternative für Deutschland, and its sympathy for Moscow, may give some pause for thought. But there are concerns at home and abroad around the politics and economics of this shift. Defence will always be the most sensitive part of pooling sovereignty – and defence industries gain lobbying power at times of economic stress. This week France and Germany yet again failed to resolve differences over the Future Combat Air System joint fighter jet project, announced shortly after Mr Trump first took office.
Meanwhile, Japan relaxed its export rules for lethal weapons. Many saw that as a direct challenge to its postwar pacifism. Conservatives have long wanted the 1947 constitution to be revised and Ms Takaichi has seen her opportunity. Whatever happens on paper, Japan is already becoming more like a normal military power, committed to doubling its arms spending to 2% by 2027.
Major recent protests demonstrate deep domestic concern at a shift away from pacifism, including from fear that Japan may be drawn into US wars. Greater anger comes from China and South Korea, where many believe Japan has never sincerely or sufficiently atoned for wartime atrocities. Yet Ms Takaichi and her South Korean counterpart Lee Jae Myung have, perhaps against expectation, continued a bilateral thaw. Both countries are heavily dependent on the US for security; both are anxiously watching China’s growing might and forcefulness, and a North Korea which is fast expanding its nuclear capacity and working more closely with Russia.
As the second world war reaches the peripheries of living memory, the fear of new conflict looms. And as Mr Trump hammers relationships, others are seeking to strengthen partnerships near and far: visiting Tokyo and Seoul last week, Mr Tusk described South Korea as Poland’s most important ally after the US. Politicians know that security must be built on diplomacy as well as defence budgets. But acting on that insight, perhaps especially with neighbours, can prove tougher.
April 23
The Wall Street Journal says there is no justification for the government bailout of Spirit Airlines
Who could have imagined that the U.S. government would deem a budget airline too big to fail? Yet here we are, as President Trump is flying to the rescue of the beleaguered Spirit Airlines. This is a story of how one misconceived government intervention leads to another.
Spirit last summer declared bankruptcy for the second time in less than two years. A hefty debt load and challenging business model has made a turnaround difficult. The Biden antitrust cops closed one escape hatch by blocking its merger with JetBlue in 2024. Now Spirit is getting slammed by soaring prices for jet fuel because of the war in Iran.
All of this means that the no-frills carrier could have to liquidate and lay off some 14,000 workers. Enter Mr. Trump, who floated a bailout of Spirit in a CNBC interview this week. Press reports say his Administration is negotiating a rescue that would lend the carrier some $500 million in return for warrants to buy as much as 90% of equity in the company. Is this the revival of the Trump Shuttle, circa 1989?
The rescue model seems to be the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler amid the 2008-09 financial crisis. The government justified that bailout on the need to prevent collateral harm to suppliers. But Spirit’s failure wouldn’t damage industry supply chains. Other carriers could scoop up its jets, pilots and airport gate slots.
Amid the bailout talk, it’s worth recalling how government policies contributed to Spirit’s tailspin. More than a decade of low interest rates let Spirit load up on debt and expand. Spirit offered uber-low, unbundled fares, charging more for carry-ons and picking a seat in advance of boarding. No free pretzels.
Larger carriers followed with their own no-frills economy options, which spurred Spirit to further cut its prices to unprofitable levels. Rising interest rates and labor costs after the pandemic led to growing losses. A 2023 labor agreement with flight attendants boosted wages by more than 40% over two years.
JetBlue swooped in with a $3.8 billion merger bid that promised to keep Spirit afloat. But the Biden Justice Department sued to block the deal on the dubious rationale that it would reduce competition, never mind that both carriers lacked the scale on their own to compete with the giants. Combining gates, planes and pilots would have increased airline competition.
A federal judge blocked the merger in 2024, while acknowledging it would “allow for more vigorous competition with the Big Four, which carry most passengers in the country.” JetBlue and Spirit have continued to struggle. Neither has posted an annual profit since 2019.
Spirit used bankruptcy in 2024 to restructure its debt, but the competitive dynamics didn’t change. It filed for bankruptcy again last August. If Spirit now has to liquidate, shareholders and creditors would take big hits, but they also took a big risk. Lenders were rewarded commensurately with higher yields. Letting Spirit fail would be a useful lesson in market discipline.
The mooted Trump bailout would fuel moral hazard. Don’t be surprised if JetBlue seeks a rescue too. Government ownership would also lead to regulatory and political favoritism that harms competition. That’s no doubt why stocks of other airlines fell following reports of the Trump intervention.
Washington could wind up subsidizing Spirit’s money-losing business indefinitely. The Trump Shuttle didn’t succeed, and the U.S. doesn’t need an Amtrak of the airways.
Recommended for you
April 22
The Boston Globe says it's time to fire FBI director Kash Patel
Kash Patel, the conspiracy theorist and podcaster -turned FBI director, is sleeping on the job — literally. According to a recent report from The Atlantic, members of Patel’s security detail have, on multiple occasions, had “difficulty waking Patel because he was seemingly intoxicated.” At one point last year, a request was made for equipment used by SWAT teams in order to get through to the FBI director because he “had been unreachable behind locked doors.”
The Atlantic’s reporting makes clear what has been obvious from the start: Patel is unfit to lead the FBI, and President Trump should fire him.
Patel has now sued The Atlantic for defamation, and the lawsuit claims that the article is “replete with false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel’s reputation and drive him from office.” The magazine stands by its reporting. According to the article, Patel has displayed clear signs of paranoia, delayed time-sensitive investigations, and even rescheduled meetings and briefings for later in the day because of his drinking habits. As one official told The Atlantic, “We don’t have a real functioning FBI director.”
Even if Patel’s claim that the allegations are false has any merit, what is already publicly known about his time at the helm of the FBI is enough grounds for dismissal. And if Trump refuses to fire him, Congress should investigate Patel to get a full accounting of his mismanagement of one of the country’s most important federal law enforcement agencies.
Since he was appointed to lead the FBI, Patel has been no stranger to scandal. He has, for example, used FBI jets for vacations and dates. He has demanded that SWAT teams escort his girlfriend when she’s out for personal engagements or running errands. He flew to Milan on the taxpayers’ dime to watch the Olympics — a trip in which he was filmed chugging beer in the locker room with the USA men’s hockey team. House Democrats have already launched a probe into the FBI director’s personal use of the FBI jet.
But Patel has also displayed poor judgment far beyond his personal use of government equipment. He has made impulsive and misleading public statements during ongoing and highly sensitive investigations. During the manhunt after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, for example, Patel announced on social media that “the subject” was in custody, even though the suspect had not yet been arrested. (The subject Patel was referring to was a person of interest who was released after being interrogated.) Patel’s post led to confusion over whether law enforcement had found the gunman. The governor of Utah had to later clarify at a press conference that the gunman was still at large.
Patel has also made decisions that seemingly have nothing to do with public safety. He has fired agents for what can only be construed as political reasons. Those firings include agents who knelt during the George Floyd protests in 2020 and agents who worked on probes into Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the US Capitol.
A 115-page report compiled by an alliance of on-duty and retired agents concluded that Patel is “in over his head” and that under his leadership, the FBI has turned into a “rudderless ship.”
Needless to say, the FBI is a critical law enforcement and intelligence agency that is tasked with protecting Americans and investigating some of the most complex crimes and terror plots. Putting someone without the right experience in charge of that agency was a mistake from the start, and it’s only become more and more obvious how big of a mistake that was since Patel was confirmed by the Senate in a 51-49 vote. Now, the new reporting from The Atlantic only adds more reason to believe that Patel is not suited for his role, and his leadership is putting the nation at risk.
For the good of the country and the people he claims to serve, Patel should resign. If he doesn’t, Trump should fire him.
April 25
The Philadelphia Inquirer says Trump chose Iran war, but what is the plan?
Donald Trump ’s handling of the war in Iran has been so incompetent that he struggled to explain who would lead the peace negotiations, or when they would begin.
As Energy Secretary Chris Wright and United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz were telling the TV networks the vice president would lead the diplomatic talks in Pakistan, Trump, separately, was telling reporters JD Vance would not be traveling because of security concerns.
After some back and forth, the trip was shelved, and the ceasefire extended. Mission confounded.
When the war will end remains a mystery, and not even Trump knows the answer. Despite his bluster, he no longer holds all the cards, as the Iranians have huge leverage with control of the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s differing account of the most basic facts surrounding the war — such as whether the strait is open or closed, when the war may end, or why the war was even started — has added to the amateur hour feeling emanating from the Oval Office.
Even some of Trump’s most ardent MAGA supporters have soured on him. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson expressed regret recently over supporting Trump and apologized for “misleading” people.
Candace Owens, a right-wing political commentator, said in June after the U.S. first bombed Iran that she was “ embarrassed ” for supporting the president. In November, former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene apologized for contributing to Trump’s brand of toxic politics. “Humbly, I’m sorry,” she said.
As some rats abandon the failed ship of state, Trump has raised concerns again about his mental health with his erratic behavior and a barrage of late-night social media posts on a range of issues from Iran to coal plants in Pennsylvania.
More than two months after attacking Iran, Trump has yet to explain to the American people why he launched the war. The New York Times detailed how he was primed for battle by Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, but this war was the president’s choice.
Since the bombing began, none of the various goals offered have been accomplished. The regime was changed — but for the worse — and Iran still possesses enriched uranium.
Trump makes outrageous threats about attacking civilian targets in Iran, including bridges, power plants, and hospitals. “A whole civilization will die tonight,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social network. “Never to be brought back again.”
Fortunately, he has not followed through on such blatant war crimes, but this is not normal behavior for the president of the United States, and should not be ignored.
Trump has also threatened to seize Cuba, Greenland, Mexico, and Canada. After failing to follow through on each threat, Trump appears more like the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, but what happens if he snaps and none of his advisers stop him?
Trump’s on-again, off-again threats to impose tariffs on at least 10 occasions earned him the nickname “ TACO,” for Trump Always Chickens Out.
Through all the bluster, a pattern has emerged: Trump’s word is no good.
That’s not surprising for a twice-impeached so-called world leader who has told more than 30,000 lies since entering the White House.
The corruption Trump commits in broad daylight is even worse. Since returning to power, he has enriched himself by at least $1.4 billion — making him the most corrupt president ever. And there are another two years of pocket lining to go.
Trump’s decision to send Vance to campaign for Viktor Orbán, the corrupt Hungarian strongman who recently lost in a landslide, was a humiliation across the board for Trump, Vance, and the United States. Not to mention, a waste of tax dollars.
Similar incompetence and inconsistency from Trump have enabled Russia to prolong its senseless war in Ukraine.
Between 500,000 and 600,000 lives have been lost in four years of war. Trump’s inaction has enabled hostilities to drag on, while the U.S. military wastes resources in Iran and in helping Israel commit war crimes in Gaza.
Trump rolled out the red carpet for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, while he and Vance lectured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the only hero in this sad saga.
Trump’s mismanagement has resulted in death, destruction, wasted tax dollars, and a huge loss in respect for the United States — all to accomplish nothing. The wars in Ukraine and Iran have left the United States with nothing to show for all of its military might except higher gas prices.
It should be painfully obvious by now that there is a difference between electing a president who is thoughtful, experienced, and surrounds themself with dedicated public servants and Trump.
Former President Barack Obama had a team of professional diplomats negotiate with Iran over 20 months on a nuclear deal. The agreement required Iran to limit its nuclear program in return for economic sanction relief.
Trump withdrew from the deal in his first term in office and reimposed the sanctions. Iran returned to its nuclear activity. Trump created this entire mess.
Instead of a nuclear treaty, the U.S. is at war, and gas is more than $4 a gallon.
Now, the world watches: Can the U.S. get a deal that’s even close to Obama’s nuclear agreement?
Don’t hold out much hope from the inexperienced brain trust of Vance, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and New York real estate tycoon Steve Witkoff. Trump doesn’t know who is getting on the plane, let alone anything about the substance of a deal.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.