Former CIA General Counsel Jim Petrila joins Peter Mina to break down the evolution of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the controversies surrounding Section 702, and the growing tension between national security surveillance and civil liberties. Petrila explains how technological shifts after the Cold War and 9/11 transformed intelligence collection, leading to major legal and policy battles over government access to communications data.

The conversation explores incidental collection of Americans’ communications, debate over the need to obtain warrants, oversight concerns, and the expanding role of third-party data brokers that collect and sell personal information outside many traditional safeguards. Petrila also warns how surveillance authorities and emergency powers can become vulnerable to abuse when accountability and public trust erode.

View the episode transcript

Watch and listen to new Sentinel episodes each Tuesday. Subscribe and review us on your favorite podcast platform.

About the guest: James Petrila spent over thirty years as a lawyer in the Intelligence Community, working at the National Security Agency and, for most of his career, at the Central Intelligence Agency. He has taught courses on counterterrorism law and legal issues at the CIA at the George Washington University School of Law. He is currently a senior advisor to the Institute for the Study of States of Exception and is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Under the banner of “narco-terrorism,” the U.S. has embraced a doctrine of extrajudicial violence that weakens both the rule of law abroad and constitutional restraints at home.

Every week or so, brief new blurbs appear in print and cable news shows – such as “US strikes alleged drug boat in the Pacific, kills two” – and then coverage moves on to larger conflicts on bigger global stages. But these brief stories actually are related to those larger conflicts; let’s go back and remember how we got here.

Using the U.S. military to kill suspected drug traffickers without detention or trial, which started in September 2025, was a “starter drug” for our current wanton disregard for international norms of minimal use of force or clear definition of ‘enemy combatants.’

Why is our nation still committing extrajudicial killings, basically murdering people at sea, and what does it mean for our democracy and national security? Without the permissive response that this Administration received when it first started violating clear international laws, would our world be different today?

As of May 5, the U.S. military had publicly claimed striking 53 boats and killing 188 people: a running tally is maintained by Airwars.org. After reporting a strike and resulting deaths, the U.S. generally has not provided further information about the evidence that provoked the strike, what was found in the wreckage, or potential linkages between those boats and larger trafficking organizations in the origin countries or in North America and Europe.

The executive branch has offered various justifications for this series of military actions, now in its eighth month, with no formal objection by Congress or much public reaction in the United States. These justifications center on defining drug cartels as terrorist organizations and calling drug couriers terrorists who are assaulting the United States and causing US deaths through overdoses. There is no clear rationale offered as to why lethal force is needed if no imminent danger is posed and other options (such as non-lethal disabling of the boat or warning shots) have always been available. In fact, legal experts have made it clear that these actions are better described as extra-judicial killings, because under both U.S. and international law, the military cannot be used to kill civilians for committing non-lethal crimes such as smuggling.

Some in the US military have questioned these actions and lost their jobs. In December, Southern Command head Admiral Alvin Holsey was forced to retire, reportedly for objecting to the lethal strikes.

The boat strikes fail even to achieve their ostensible purpose of stopping the flow of drugs to the United States. Evidence from survivors, and from washed-up remains on the shared Colombian-Venezuelan Guajira Peninsula, indicates that many of these may have been simple fishing boats or else boats running marijuana to neighboring islands. It’s unlikely that significant methamphetamine or cocaine cargoes would be sent on boats too small to have had any chance of reaching the United States.

None of this makes strategic sense. The Administration’s National Security and National Defense strategies emphasize the importance of the Western Hemisphere to U.S. interests and security, yet we are raising the political cost of securing Latin American alliances. We damage our broader security interests: Colombia and the United Kingdom (with significant presence in the Caribbean) have both suspended some counternarcotics intelligence-sharing over this issue. Worldwide, U.S actions grant tacit permission for China to sink vessels in the high seas in defense of whatever it chooses to define as terrorism or criminal behavior. And we can’t discount the risk to American citizens traveling abroad that our refusal to respect international norms entails: Our citizens will be subject to whatever rough justice any country chooses to mete out – as long as it’s in international waters.

Meanwhile, the United States’ reputation as a violator of international laws is taking shape. In January 2026, families of two Trinidad fishermen killed in a boat strike filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts against the United States government, using two federal statutes: the “Death on the High Seas Act” which allows family members to sue for wrongful deaths occurring on the high seas, and the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreign citizens to sue in U.S. federal courts for violations of well-recognized human rights norms. And in response to a petition filed last December by a Colombian family, in March the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held a hearing questioning the legality of U.S. actions. At that hearing, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for protecting fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism accused the U.S. of “lawless violence that flagrantly violates human rights, in its phony war on so-called narco-terrorism,” stating that the portrayal of suspected drug traffickers as responsible for “speculative drug overdoses” did not constitute a “permissible law enforcement action in personal self-defense or the defense of others.”

We have watched Congress repeatedly abrogate its responsibility to restrain the Executive’s use of force overseas. After failing to do so regarding the boat strikes, Congress remains mute regarding the extrajudicial rendition of the former Venezuelan president. It is no wonder that Congress is having difficulty remembering its War Powers Act responsibilities with respect to Iran.

These military actions are a human, legal, and security disaster, and are being conducted in a manner that is incompatible with our democracy, norms, and, likely, constitution.

We must not turn away from reports of yet more deaths. The point may never have been the drugs or the lives. It was the normalization of rhetoric that can be turned against any of us, lethally, without due process of law. And that’s just plain frightening.

A retired U.S. Department of State senior career diplomat with 30 years’ experience in security, human rights, and counter-narcotics policy, Annie Pforzheimer was Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Kabul and is currently an adjunct professor of international relations. She is a member of The Steady State.

Luis G. Moreno, former U.S. Ambassador to Jamaica, with a 35-year career, spanning Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Europe. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

THE EXTREMISTS

America’s most dangerous extremist threat is not ANTIFA but the far-right fringe of the MAGA movement, where racism, religious nationalism, and contempt for constitutional democracy increasingly converge to justify violence and authoritarianism.

Extremists of all stripes claim to right great wrongs; to represent that which is self-sacrificing and noble; to lead the uninformed masses either back to a grand and glorious past or into a bright and promising future. They are utterly convinced of the rectitude of their cause. They are therefore self-righteous. They are also extravagant in their claims. It sure sounds a lot like the far-right fringe of the MAGA political movement, who represent positions that are racist, religiously based, and anti-Constitutional. Typically, these violence prone extremists are easily misled by the self-interested and unscrupulous, Donald Trump for example.

This president identified ANTIFA as a domestic terrorist organization in an executive order. But, according to The Hill, “ANTIFA lacks “…formal leadership and structure…”. Moreover, the political objectives of those who identify with ANTIFA’s goals are anti-Fascist, anti-authoritarian, and supportive of democratic norms. But there is still more. Trump’s DOJ removed a 2024 study from its website that stated, “The number of far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violence extremism.” The insurrection that took place at the US Capitol Building in 2021 still resonates. Here, extremists claiming to be patriots, committed horrendous acts of violence in the service of a corrupt sitting president who is pathologically unable to admit defeat. These acolytes, generally Caucasian, proclaim to be anti-immigration; anti-Black; anti-Muslim; and oftentimes antisemitic, anti-abortion, anti-elite, anti-government, anti-tax, and anti-vax. In fact, it is difficult to know precisely what the far-right wing of MAGA supports beyond pasty complexion and in-your-face religious faith, leading inexorably to violence.

ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL

MAGA’s right wing extremists are also relentlessly anti-constitutional. They appear to believe in the absolute right of the individual to pretty much do as they please. During the pandemic, disciples of MAGA in many cases refused to wear masks and repudiated vaccinations based on the absurd notion that both were somehow an invasion of their right to choose. They took no notice that their exercise of rights endangered others through the spread of COVID and resulting deaths. They seemed to be all about individual rights without bearing any responsibility for their actions or lack thereof. Their issues with our constitutional democracy did not end with the pandemic. In his quest to establish an authoritarian regime in his second term, this president is seeking to restrict voting, is promoting grossly- expanded executive authority,, has challenged the 14^th Amendment; and is ignoring the separation of powers. Regrettably, these unlawful positions are also found within what passes for moderation within the MAGA Movement as a whole.

RELIGION IN POLITICS: A BAD IDEA

Hindus, Zoroastrians, Muslims, Rastafarians, Jews, Animists, Wiccans, and the many fractured sects of Christianity–as well as those practicing no religion, are all guaranteed the same protection under the law, whereas this administration asserts that Christianity is to be the Religion of the State. Under the US Constitution, religion is supposed to be a protected and private matter, and rightly so. When religion goes public, belief comes to dominate all public discourse. Those who believe differently are marginalized, imprisoned, or killed. Am I being unnecessarily alarmist? I do not think so. Religious fanaticism has been responsible for more spilled blood than any other cause in history.

RACIAL VIOLENCE: STILL THRIVING

It is often repeated that slavery is America’s original sin. That stain was not washed clean by the US Civil War: far from it. Racism subsequently went underground. Separate but equal really meant Jim Crow Laws, poll taxes, and midnight lynchings – all designed to control Blacks and suppress their right to vote. Black Americans remain today far behind whites in nearly every metric used to judge the health of a society with the notable exception of the rates of incarceration. In 2024, the FBI identified “11,679 hate crime incidents” with over half relating to anti-Black bias. White House demands for increased Congressional gerrymandering, designed to suppress the Black vote, have become a national embarrassment. Stripping Black people of their Constitutional right to have their vote count is another form of violence that merely wears a contemporary suit of fancy clothes instead of a pointy hat. Violent white supremacists find shelter in the far-right of the MAGA movement.

CONCLUSION

This presidential administration’s focus on ANTIFA is a red herring. The greater threat of violence is from the far-right of the MAGA movement. That threat is defined by the confluence of multiple influences. Three of the more prominent are anti-constitutionality, twisted religion, and violent racism. These positions and beliefs have served to create, support, and expand the ranks of today’s MAGA right-wing extremists. A secular government – intended by the Founders – requires reason and compromise. Religion requires belief. Racism requires stupidity. Anti-Constitutionality requires lawlessness. Whether or not America can withstand these negative influences remains an open question. With the upcoming mid-term elections and given this Oval Office’s history of fomenting MAGA far-right extremist violence, I fear there is much worse to come.

With special thanks to Professor (emeritus) Ben Lawton of Purdue University

Robert Bruce Adolph , a qualified Military Strategist,is a retired senior US Army Special Forces soldier. He holds graduate degrees in both National Security Studies & International Affairs and was formally trained as a counterintelligence special agent. Robert also taught university level courses in American Government, US History, and World Politics. Following his retirement from the active military, he joined the UN, subsequently seeing service in Sierra Leone, Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Indonesia and more, culminating in the role of Chief of the Middle East and North Africa at UN Headquarters in New York. He is the author of “Surviving the United Nations,” now out in a second edition. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

The Chairman of the Board of The Steady State, Jim C. O’Brien, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 30 2026.

His Opening Comments:

“Thank you to the Committee for highlighting the importance of the Baltic Sea and the infrastructure under its surface. The Committee – and my fellow witness, Dr. Schmitt – have laid out the factual context very well. Simply put, the globe’s 500 or so cables carry more than 99% of the world’s digital traffic, and undersea infrastructure will be increasingly important for the transmission of energy and electricity. Over the last decade undersea infrastructure has become a site of considerable investment by America’s largest companies, adding another strong US interest in its protection. There are 100 – 200 outages in a typical a year. Most are accidental, but there is a growing and troubling pattern of disruption by Russian and Chinese ships.

I will focus on some policy implications of this last point. The first lesson is timeless: we can deter now or pay later. Russian and Chinese ships have been involved in multiple attacks in the Baltic over the last several years, and those countries are learning how and whether the US will answer. The Allies affected directly by sabotage in the Baltic — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany through to Belgium, France, and the UK – are NATO’s fighting flank. They are critical to defending the Arctic as well as Russia’s northern sea routes to the globe. If we do not stand with them potential adversaries will believe that we will not stand with anyone.

Also, our current posture poses a risk of escalation. Russia is reported to be placing armed personnel on shadow fleet vessels, raising the cost of stops intended to ensure that the ships do not threaten lives, other ships, and the environment. Ukraine is targeting Russian export infrastructure used in the region, arguably because without further US action in the Baltic it is difficult to stop Russia from earning funds from oil exports. Our NATO Allies may face strong domestic pressure to answer Russian provocations. In short, the conditions are ripe for miscalculation or error to lead to more violence. A stronger US presence can persuade everyone that escalation is in no one’s interest.

Finally, the Baltic Sea presents a test case of an issue that will face US Administrations for decades: how can the US ensure that the basic conditions of prosperity and security — including undersea cables and pipelines, freedom of navigation, and assets in space – are provided and protected?”

• Download Full Testimony

Jim O’Brien is a distinguished visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. At ECFR, he works on identifying issues that can form the basis of a renewed and sustained transatlantic partnership.

Previously, O’Brien served as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs in the Biden administration, as head of the Office of Sanctions Coordination, and under President Obama as the special envoy for hostage affairs. He was also a career official at the State Department from 1989 to 2001, serving in the Office of the Secretary, Policy Planning, and the Office of the Legal Adviser as well as presidential envoy for the Balkans.

Outside government, O’Brien was a founder and Vice Chair of international advisory firm Albright Stonebridge group (ASG), which has worked in more than 100 countries globally since 2001. He holds a JD from Yale Law School, a MA from the University of Pittsburgh, and a BA from Macalester College.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

The Revolution was won through alliances, humility about power, and relentless resolve—not bluster or unilateralism. As the nation marks 250 years, it falls to citizens—not politicians—to reclaim those truths and apply them to the present moment.

In two months, the United States will celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The signing of the Declaration marks the official beginning of the nation, and the start of a lengthy struggle to make our independence a reality. That struggle contains important lessons today.

It is our tragedy that not since the Declaration was written, 250 years ago, have we been led by people more ignorant of the Declaration, or more contemptuous of its principles, than we are now. We can expect little of value from the official messages and ceremonies organized by the federal government. Every effort will be made to turn these into celebrations of Donald Trump.

Fortunately, the administration does not have a monopoly on the American story. Now is the time for true patriots to offer our own thoughts, our own reflections, our own commemorations. We should not do this, however, in a spirit of nostalgia. Instead, we should look back on the Declaration and the Revolution it ignited to strengthen ourselves with lessons that speak to our time.

Lesson #1–Allies Matter

The current administration has little use for allies or practicing diplomacy. Countries once viewed as trusted partners are described at the highest levels as vampires, sucking America’s blood and treasure and giving nothing in return. Arbitrary tariffs, threats to Greenland, and a major war in the Middle East—about which no American friend was consulted—are leading allies to distance themselves from America. Meanwhile, ambassadors around the world have been fired for the crime of having been appointed under Biden. Key positions sit vacant, while obnoxious political hacks have been sent to Paris, Warsaw, and other major posts.

How different was the perspective of American leaders in 1776. It was sustained and clever American diplomacy that won the war by drawing France to our side. The country’s best and brightest—Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson—were sent to Paris to build relations and persuade France to send aid. A great effort was made to influence public opinion and educate the people of France about the American cause.

America welcomed French sympathizers like the Marquis de Lafayette, who developed close friendships with people like Washington and Jefferson. These French sympathizers played a central role in persuading their countrymen to side with the Americans.

The Americans understood how their interests and those of France could be aligned. France wanted to weaken its great enemy, England. The French had recently been humiliated during the Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War, as it is known in the United States). They had lost Canada to the British. They wanted revenge and saw the creation of an independent United States, indebted to France and allied against British power, as a tremendous opportunity.

Benjamin Franklin, the most famous American of his time, arrived in Paris in December 1776. He adroitly reshaped his image to gain entrance to French society. Franklin was a sophisticated scientist at home in London’s best salons, but he donned a fur hat and play-acted the uncouth American frontiersman to win over the French. As Stacy Schiff describes the effect in “A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France, and the Birth of America, the French quickly adopted the ‘coiffure a la Franklin,’ in which every effort was made to sculpt hair into the shape of a backwoods hat.”

One might think it would be impossible to convince a French King and Queen to support a revolution against kings and hereditary privilege. Somehow, Franklin did it. That’s diplomacy.

French artillery helped the then-colonials win the Battle of Saratoga. French soldiers joined with Americans to besiege Savannah. France established a permanent naval base at Newport. The French fleet defeated the British at the Battle of the Chesapeake, enabling the decisive American-French victory at Yorktown that ended the war.

With France showing the way, Spain joined the war against England. So did the Dutch. Isolated and faced with threats across its Empire, Great Britain was forced to concede.

Lesson #2–No One Holds All the Cards

Donald Trump regularly opines that the weak have no chance against the strong. He berated Ukrainian President Zelensky for imagining he could hold out against Russia, since “without us, you don’t have any cards.” Iran is repeatedly imagined to be on the brink of surrender in the face of American firepower.

One might imagine that recent American experiences in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan would have taught a different lesson. But any American paying attention would have learned this lesson in elementary school. On paper, the American revolutionaries had no chance against Britain, the world’s premier naval power. We had no professional army, no navy, and few trained officers. We were divided into 13 separate states without a central government. We had agricultural economies and little industry.

But we won. Strength has many sources, and the power of a nation’s weapons is just one factor. Determination and leadership matter. Morale matters. Friends and allies matter. Intelligence and spycraft matter. Even the strongest opponents have weaknesses that careful planning and execution can exploit. The British were forced to realize that the costs of continuing to fight a war across the Atlantic, in a landscape where the enemy could always melt away, against a people no longer willing to be subservient, outweighed any possible gains.

As historian Jonathan Dull notes in A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution: “The British government, blind to the danger of an American rebellion, failed to provide itself in advance with allies or to compromise with its enemies.” Making concessions to the Americans was seen by British imperialists as a dangerous weakness. Forcing the rebels to cave would send the right signal to the other colonies.

Overconfidence in hard power can be fatal. Real strength often lies elsewhere, as our revolutionary forebears demonstrated. A country that foregoes soft power and imagines that everyone will roll over for its bullying is setting itself up for hubris and humiliation.

Lesson #3–We Have Not Yet Begun to Fight!

John Paul Jones uttered these famous words while captaining the Bonhomme Richard, a ship given to the Americans by Louis XVI and named after Franklin (in his guise as Poor Richard, author of the famous Almanac). The Richard was sinking, and Jones was being asked to surrender. Instead, he fought on.

We, too, must fight on by not letting others define who we are. We must not let our history, our symbols, our anniversaries be appropriated by those who seek to twist them for their own un-American purposes. Let’s remember, learn, and celebrate.

Adam Wasserman is a retired CIA analyst with experience on failing democracies in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. He served on the State Department Policy Planning Staff, the CIA Red Cell, and the National Security Council staff. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 400 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.