Here’s how I’m concerned the Trump administration could use it in the future if Congress reauthorizes it:
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Oregon
Ron Wyden
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 772
Yes26%
No72%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align97%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Ron Wyden
U.S. SenatorDemocratOregon
SoupScore
Ron's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 73 sponsored · 333 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Those are the ways in which we KNOW this law has been abused. The takeaway here is that NO ONE’S personal information or communications are safe.
The Trump administration has more than tripled the number of warrantless searches of political and religious figures and journalists. There were 227 of these searches in 2024. There were 839 in 2025.
In 2022, the Biden administration used it to spy on a state court judge who reported police abuses to the FBI.
In 2019, Trump used this law to spy on members of Congress.
In 2022, an NSA employee used the 702 database to stalk women he met on dating apps.
Also in 2021, the Biden administration used it to spy on 19,000 donors to a political campaign.
In 2021, the Biden administration used 702 to search the communications of multiple government officials, journalists and political commentators.
In 2020 Trump used 702 to spy on Black Lives Matter protestors.
The NSA and FBI have been spying on you without a warrant using section 702 of FISA for decades.
Trump wants Congress to renew the law. Here are concrete examples of how this law has been abused – across administrations – and why Congress shouldn't rubber-stamp it.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Senator Mike Lee and I disagree on a lot. But we both are deeply concerned about warrantless government surveillance of Americans.
Read our op-ed in NYT below about how we can reform FISA Section 702 to protect our national security while upholding Americans’ constitutional rights.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Sen. Wyden: As of December, you are still appointing people who are trying to undermine [vaccine] policy. That’s not in the interest of families, and that’s why the presidents pollsters are telling him to isolate you and keep you from talking about it.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden is demanding answers from the EPA after an extreme move that could hinder access to abortion and birth control pills.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
The Trump admin wants to test drinking water for abortion and birth control pills -- a “backdoor attempt to strip access to reproductive health care,” says Sen. Ron Wyden.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
The U.S. Forest Service and Oregon’s U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley announced the state would get $48.6 million in the current fiscal year to distribute to 30 rural counties and their schools.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
CHRIS WRIGHT: What happens when the wind blows right now? We turn down natural gas plants and we save 2 cents in reduced natural gas price. We pay a 4 cent subsidy and save 2 cents
WYDEN: What you are describing is fiction
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Great work by @wyden.senate.gov and his colleagues working to expose the sham of Trump's drug price deals.
www.axios.com/2026/04/21/t...
Update on where things stand on FISA: this deal is a win. We got the House to back down from an 18 month extension, buying us time to negotiate on real reforms. I'll be fighting like hell for reforms that put your privacy first, and will have more to share soon.
Reposted bySenator Ron Wyden
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) suggested reformers are still in the driver's seat.
I sent a classified letter to House and Senate colleagues about a secret interpretation of surveillance law that every American should be concerned about.
Representative Massie is right. The Constitution requires EVERY member to vote against a clean reauthorization.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History772 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
772 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-23 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-45) |
| 2026-03-22 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-37) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (41-49, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-21 | S. 1383 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (49-41, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-20 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (47-37, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-18 | S.J. Res. 118 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 118 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-17 | S. 1383 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-03-17 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (51-46, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-12 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Final passage | YES | YES | ✓ | Bill Passed (89-10) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (82-11, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-11 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (84-10) |
| 2026-03-10 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (89-9, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (71-29) |
| 2026-03-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (68-28) |
| 2026-03-05 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (51-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-03-04 | S.J. Res. 104 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 104 | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (47-53) |
| 2026-03-04 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (90-8) |
| 2026-03-02 | H.R. 6644 (119th) | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (84-6, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (57-33) |
| 2026-02-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (60-34) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-45) |
| 2026-02-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2026-02-24 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End filibuster to begin debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.R. 7147 (119th) | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-02-12 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Joint Resolution H.J.Res. 142 | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (49-47) |
| 2026-02-11 | H.J. Res. 142 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2026-02-10 | S.J. Res. 95 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-51) |
| 2026-02-10 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2026-02-09 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-05 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (50-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-46) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2026-02-04 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (58-39) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (55-39) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-44) |
| 2026-02-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (54-40) |
| 2026-02-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-40) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Final passage | NO | NO | ✓ | Bill Passed (71-29, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Merkley Amdt. No. 4287) | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (58-42) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Kill the motion | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Table Agreed to (67-33) |
| 2026-01-30 | H.R. 7148 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (32-67) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.