Trump Just Said He Wouldn’t Spy on Americans. Here Are 4 Times He Vowed to Do So.

From surveilling mosques to reinstating Patriot Act provisions, the GOP nominee has repeatedly called for more domestic spying.

Matt Rourke/AP

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


“The United States government should not spy on its own citizens. That will not happen in a Trump administration.”

The Trump campaign issued that straightforward declaration on Tuesday to Science Debate, an organization that asks the presidential candidates for their views on science-related issues. But Trump has repeatedly supported wide-ranging surveillance measures during the campaign, and there’s no evidence that he has changed his views.

Science Debate asked Trump, Hillary Clinton, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, and Green Party nominee Jill Stein how they would “protect vulnerable infrastructure and institutions from cyber attack, and…provide for national security while protecting personal privacy on electronic devices and the internet.” Cyberwarfare and digital security have only been mentioned infrequently during the general election, but they played a much larger role during the Republican primaries. Back then, Trump positioned himself as a surveillance hardliner willing to authorize wider spying programs on Americans, particularly Muslims.

Following the terrorist attacks in Paris in November, Trump said the government should surveil mosques and supported reinstating the New York Police Department’s “demographics unit,” which spied extensively on the city’s Muslims after 9/11. He also backed spying on mosques after the Orlando shootings in July. “We ought to start [surveillance] up again, and we ought to start it up this morning,” he told the Breitbart News Daily radio show in November. “We ought to start it up again and get going. And use your head. This is a lot of nonsense that we ended that.” The program was exposed in 2011 by the Associated Press, sparking an uproar and leading to two lawsuits against the NYPD. The police ended the program in 2014 and settled the suits earlier this year by agreeing to stronger oversight and stricter controls on surveillance practices.

Trump has also refused to rule out more restrictive measures against Muslims, including creating a database of Muslims in the United States and allowing warrantless searches against them. “Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy,” he told Yahoo News. “And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.

But Trump was also in favor of reinstating a major mass surveillance programs that affected all Americans. In December, he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that he supported reinstating provisions of the Patriot Act that allowed intelligence agencies to collect the phone records of Americans en masse. That program was ended when Congress passed the USA Freedom Act last May, which instead requires the government to get authorization from a federal judge to collect specific records.

The Trump campaign did not respond to questions about whether Trump had changed his views since the primary debates or how he defines spying on Americans.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest