An important story on the new administration's efforts to stymie The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board.

BrianKrebs

An important story on the new administration's efforts to stymie The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. From Charlie Savage at the NYT:

"The Trump White House is moving to paralyze a bipartisan and independent watchdog agency that investigates national security activities that can intrude upon individual rights.

The move comes as the new administration is vowing to put its own stamp on federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It also comes ahead of a new conflict over whether or how Congress should renew a warrantless surveillance law that is set to expire in 2026.

Congress established the agency, called the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, as an independent unit in the executive branch after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It has security clearances and subpoena power, and is set up to have five members, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, who serve six-year terms. Some members are picked by the president, and some are selected by congressional leaders of the other party.

It needs at least three members in order to take official actions like starting a new investigative project or issuing a board report with a policy recommendation. Its work has included scrutiny of surveillance and bulk data collection activities, terrorism watch lists and the use of facial recognition and other biometrics at airports.

On Tuesday evening, each of the three members who were picked by Democrats — Sharon Bradford Franklin, Edward W. Felten and Travis LeBlanc — received an email from the White House telling them to submit resignation letters by the close of business on Jan. 23, according to three people with knowledge of the situation.

The people spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. They said the email, sent by Trent Morse, the deputy director of presidential personnel, told the board members that that President Trump would terminate their positions if they did not resign by that deadline.

The fifth seat is currently vacant. The Trump White House did not tell the board’s sole current Republican-picked member, Beth Williams, to leave, two of the people familiar with the matter said.

The departure of the three Democratic-picked members would mean the agency would lack enough members to function as the Trump administration begins its efforts to reshape the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is frequently critical of surveillance programs, denounced the move in a statement, saying it was related to accusations that Mr. Trump was trying to install his own loyalists and partisans at the F.B.I. and intelligence agencies to weaponize the government against his enemies.

“By purging the Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Trump is kneecapping one of the only independent watchdogs over government surveillance who could alert Congress and the public about surveillance abuses by his administration,” Mr. Wyden said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/22/us/trump-privacy-civil-liberties-oversight-board.html

Steve Bellovin

@briankrebs I worked part-time for PCLOB for a year—I resigned in mid-January 2017, before the inauguration. (Full disclosure: for assorted legal reasons, I couldn't have stayed on past mid-February 2017, and since the Board didn't have a quorum (thank you, Mitch McConnell) there was nothing for me to do anyway—but I'd have resigned in any event.) It is instructive to read 42 U.S.C. §2000ee(h)(2) on the qualifications for being a board member (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000ee

"Members of the Board shall be selected solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, expertise in civil liberties and privacy, and relevant experience, and without regard to political affiliation, but in no event shall more than 3 members of the Board be members of the same political party. The President shall, before appointing an individual who is not a member of the same political party as the President, consult with the leadership of that party, if any, in the Senate and House of Representatives.”

In other words, other than party affiliation, political party is expressly ruled out as a reason to appoint someone. At most, it's a disqualifier for someone in the president's party. But there's no way to force Trump to appoint people at all, three Republicans can constitute a quorum, and he could always choose to appoint people who are members of the AfUSA party or the remnants of Strom Thurmon's States' Rights Democratic Party.

T2R

@briankrebs the fat orange fascist is a traitor to the constitution and should be dealt with accordingly.