Speaker Mike Johnson just handed conservatives a surveillance bill that reads like a masterclass in missing the point entirely. The latest proposal to extend Section 702 of FISA landed Thursday, and it’s got about as much backbone as a wet noodle when it comes to protecting Americans from warrantless spying. Three more years of the same tired framework, dressed up with what amounts to bureaucratic window dressing.

Here’s what you need to understand about Section 702. It was designed to spy on foreign adversaries, which sounds reasonable enough until you realize that Americans’ private communications get swept up in the dragnet without a warrant. That’s not some minor technicality. That’s a direct affront to the Fourth Amendment, the very provision that’s supposed to shield citizens from government overreach. You know, the kind of overreach our founders explicitly warned us about.

The conservative demands were straightforward and entirely reasonable. They wanted a warrant requirement before the FBI could rummage through Americans’ communications. They wanted provisions blocking federal agencies from doing an end run around privacy laws by simply purchasing data from third-party brokers. These aren’t radical ideas. They’re basic constitutional protections that should’ve been baked into this system from day one.

What did leadership deliver instead? Additional oversight and audits. More boxes to check. More compliance theater that lets agencies say they’re following the rules while the fundamental violation continues unabated. It’s like putting a fresh coat of paint on a house with a crumbling foundation and calling it renovated.

Rep. Warren Davidson is calling this a win, arguing that Congress should “bank” these reforms and move forward. He’s got his eye on dismantling the broader surveillance state later, which is admirable in theory. But here’s the problem with that strategy. When you accept crumbs today with promises of a full meal tomorrow, you usually end up hungry. The intelligence community and its legislative allies have been playing this game for decades. They give just enough to quiet the loudest critics while preserving the core architecture of mass surveillance.

Not everyone’s buying what leadership is selling. Sen. Ron Wyden, who’s been beating the privacy drum longer than most, sees right through it. He’s calling this a rubber stamp for warrantless spying, and honestly, it’s hard to argue otherwise. The bill doesn’t end warrantless surveillance. It doesn’t create meaningful transparency. It requires a few more officials to sign off on the same activities that have been happening all along. That’s not reform. That’s rebranding.

Patrick Eddington from the Cato Institute, a guy who actually worked at the CIA and knows how these systems function from the inside, isn’t mincing words either. He’s calling this a Trojan Horse bill that leaves the Fourth Amendment violation structurally intact. When former intelligence officials are sounding the alarm about intelligence overreach, maybe it’s time to listen.

Elizabeth Goitein at the Brennan Center points out something even more damning. This bill doesn’t just fail to include a warrant requirement. It makes zero changes to the standard or procedures for conducting backdoor searches of Americans’ communications. Zero. It’s the legislative equivalent of rearranging deck chairs while the ship takes on water.

Reps. Lauren Boebert and Eric Burlison wrote about how federal agencies purchasing Americans’ data through brokers creates something akin to a gun registry, except it’s your entire digital life. Think about that for a second. The same government that many Americans don’t trust to manage a post office efficiently is buying detailed information about where you go, what you search, who you talk to, all without a warrant. And leadership thinks a few extra audits will fix that problem.

The data broker loophole is particularly galling because it’s such an obvious workaround. Can’t get a warrant? No problem. Just buy the information from a company that harvested it from your phone or browser. It’s the kind of creative constitutional dodging that would impress the worst lawyers and horrify the best citizens.

This fight matters beyond the technical details of surveillance law. It’s about whether we still mean what we say when we talk about limited government and individual liberty. Those aren’t just talking points for campaign mailers. They’re supposed to be governing principles that shape how we write laws and constrain power. When Republican leadership can’t muster the courage to demand warrant requirements for searching Americans’ communications, what exactly are we conserving?

The April 30 deadline is looming, and that’s by design. Deadlines create urgency, and urgency creates pressure to accept whatever deal is on the table. But some things are worth the fight, worth the delay, worth the political capital. The Fourth Amendment is one of them. If we can’t get this right, if we can’t insist on basic constitutional protections in exchange for extending sweeping spy powers, then what’s the point of having majorities at all?

Related: Hawley Warns House Leadership That Federal Money for Child Transitions Hangs in the Balance