“Get a Warrant”: Boebert Pushes Back Against Big Brother Surveillance

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is speaking out forcefully against what she describes as a dangerous and unconstitutional expansion of government surveillance powers. In her recent broadcast, Boebert warned that federal agencies have quietly gained the ability to monitor Americans’ private communications, financial records, and digital activity without warrants or probable cause. She pointed to her own experience as evidence of how easily these powers can be abused, explaining that she was subjected to a year‑long federal investigation that included monitoring her phone logs and bank records despite prosecutors expressing doubts about the allegations. She said she only learned about the surveillance years later through whistleblower disclosures, not through any official notification, and argued that if federal agencies can spy on a sitting member of Congress without evidence, they can do the same to any American.

Boebert says modern surveillance tools—facial recognition systems, automated license plate readers, and the government’s ability to purchase massive amounts of commercial data—have created a digital trail that can reveal nearly every detail of a person’s life. She argues that these technologies have outpaced the legal safeguards meant to protect Americans from unreasonable searches, allowing federal agencies to build detailed profiles of citizens’ movements and habits without judicial oversight. To address this, Boebert and Congressman Thomas Massie have introduced the Surveillance Accountability Act, legislation requiring federal agencies to obtain a warrant before conducting searches or using biometric tracking. The bill also prohibits the government from purchasing data from third‑party brokers to bypass constitutional requirements and restricts the use of surveillance cameras and similar technologies to track citizens’ travel patterns. Under the proposal, federal employees who violate these limits could be sued personally for abusing surveillance powers.

For Boebert, the issue is fundamentally about protecting constitutional rights. She argues that convenience and technological capability can never justify surrendering freedoms that Americans fought and died to secure, and that Congress and the courts have allowed loopholes to erode the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. She points to doctrines and laws that have weakened privacy safeguards, including the Third Party Doctrine—which removes protections for data shared with banks, phone companies, and internet providers—and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows officials to search Americans’ overseas communications without a warrant. While some argue that limiting surveillance powers would hinder national security, Boebert counters that warrantless spying endangers the Constitution itself. She notes that leaders who once demanded strict warrant requirements have grown complacent, accepting surveillance expansions as routine rather than exceptional.

Boebert and Massie recently joined a bipartisan group refusing to reauthorize certain surveillance authorities without reforms, and they are considering using procedural tools to force votes on accountability measures. She warns that as more data becomes vulnerable to warrantless searches, the chilling effect will extend far beyond politicians. Whistleblowers, journalists, activists, and everyday Americans could all face silent monitoring simply for exercising their rights. In her view, the message is direct: if the government wants to spy on its own people, it must get a warrant—no exceptions, no shortcuts, and no excuses.