Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s recently introduced “American Privacy Restoration Act,” a one-page bill to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, has garnered attention for its bold stance on civil liberties. Luna asserts that her legislation will “strip the deep state” of its surveillance tools and restore Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights.

However, while the repeal of the Patriot Act may appear as a commendable effort to protect privacy, it functions more as a symbolic gesture than a substantive reform. The surveillance state has evolved far beyond the confines of the Patriot Act, embedding itself within a complex web of executive orders, regulatory frameworks, and opaque intelligence operations.

For instance, President Donald Trump’s recent executive order titled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” aims to reduce the criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses. While this order addresses concerns about regulatory overreach, it does not dismantle the extensive surveillance mechanisms that operate independently of the Patriot Act.

Moreover, the administrative state continues to expand its reach through various executive actions. Executive Order 14215, signed by President Trump, directs independent agencies to submit significant regulations for White House review and mandates adherence to legal interpretations issued by the president or attorney general. Such measures consolidate power within the executive branch, potentially bypassing constitutional checks and balances.

The surveillance apparatus also thrives on technologies and practices that fall outside the scope of the Patriot Act. From data collection by private corporations to intelligence-sharing agreements between agencies, the mechanisms enabling mass surveillance are deeply entrenched and multifaceted.

Therefore, while Luna’s bill may signal a commitment to civil liberties, it fails to address the broader systemic issues that perpetuate surveillance and executive overreach. True reform requires a comprehensive approach that scrutinizes and restructures the underlying frameworks enabling these practices.

In conclusion, the repeal of the Patriot Act, though symbolically significant, is insufficient in curbing the expansive surveillance state. Without addressing the foundational structures that facilitate mass surveillance and executive overreach, such legislative efforts risk being mere political posturing rather than catalysts for genuine change.