Concerns Raised Over New FISC Lawyer Connected to Disinformation Board

Republican lawmakers are voicing strong criticism regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC) recent decision to appoint a lawyer with ties to the Biden administration’s controversial Disinformation Control Board. They’re calling the move “insane.”

This month, FISC judges appointed Jennifer Daskal to advise the secretive court, which authorizes warrants for federal surveillance on foreign intelligence targets. Critics, particularly Republicans, are questioning her ability to assess warrant appropriateness given her history with the disinformation commission.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan expressed his discontent, stating, “The same person who contributed to censoring American speech is now advising judges on protecting our freedoms. It’s ridiculous, which is precisely why Congress needs to keep an eye on this.”

Senator Eric Schmidt from Missouri echoed these sentiments, labeling Daskal’s appointment as “insane” and advocating for reforms within the FISC process. In a video shared on social media, he confronted Daskal during a hearing about her involvement in managing what the administration referred to as misinformation, particularly concerning COVID-19 guidelines and election security.

The FISC operates confidentially and often in an “ex parte” manner, meaning that individuals subject to surveillance are usually kept unaware of the process. A judge reviewing petitions can rely on appointed lawyers like Daskal to present counterarguments to government applications. This grants her a unique and significant role in potentially opposing federal surveillance requests.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government is granted access to various surveillance tools intended for foreign intelligence. Still, there are instances where U.S. citizens have been monitored improperly. Advocates for privacy have long debated the need for greater safeguards within these laws. Many Republicans found themselves embroiled in controversy concerning the FISC after it was revealed that the court approved a flawed FBI warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page in 2016.

Senator Chuck Grassley commented, “The American public must trust those serving as amici in these processes.” He mentioned a bill he proposed, the FISA Accountability Act, aimed at giving Congress more influence over such appointments.

Both Jordan and Grassley have been vocal about the necessity to limit the federal government’s FISA usage, highlighting past instances where intelligence officials supposedly abused their authority and infringed on Americans’ privacy rights. In Page’s case, a Justice Department Inspector General’s report in 2019 pinpointed numerous “significant errors or omissions” in the FBI’s warrant applications. In her advisory role, Daskal is positioned to provide crucial legal insights that might support or contest intelligence officials’ requests for surveillance.

Having served as a top lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security, Daskal was instrumental in establishing the disinformation board. This initiative faced severe backlash from conservatives, who denounced it as a “Department of Truth” aimed at stifling dissenting viewpoints, arguing it violated the First Amendment.

During her tenure, Daskal appointed Nina Janković as executive director of the board, a choice that further provoked Republican ire due to Janković’s seemingly partisan social media activity. For instance, she criticized a 2020 New York Post article about Hunter Biden, suggesting it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Biden officials refute the article’s claims regarding the former vice president’s involvement with Ukraine, although the laptop’s authenticity has been validated in court.

The disinformation board was disbanded shortly after its formation due to heightened pressure from Republicans, who deemed it a misuse of taxpayer funds. They pointed out that it inaccurately framed legitimate policy disagreements regarding COVID-19, election integrity, and immigration as misinformation.

Daskal maintained that “it’s not appropriate for the government to censor any views” during her exchange with Schmidt, but she has yet to respond to inquiries regarding this situation.