Over two weeks ago, domestic terrorists stormed the United States Capitol, disrupting the flow of American democracy and horrifying many across the globe. Political leaders were quick to denounce the events, including President Joe Biden. In his inaugural address, Biden noted that there was a “rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism” that we must “confront… and defeat”. He joins many leading Democrats who are calling for new legislation to strengthen the ability of law enforcement to monitor suspected terrorists. However, well-intentioned legislation can lead to poor outcomes in the long term, as we’ve seen in the past. The question emerges: how much should we be willing to sacrifice in the name of privacy?

This situation isn’t purely hypothetical; indeed, we can look to the past to see what has happened when legislators faced similar demands. Less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (or USA PATRIOT Act). Among many provisions, it gave federal agents the power to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order. At the time, the act was met with bipartisan support: it passed in the Senate with only one dissenting vote. (Notably, Biden claimed many provisions in the bill as his own; some portions were taken from a bill he set forth in 1995.) Today, however, the act is a symbol of overreaching government surveillance. The ACLU condemns it succinctly: “While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into suspects.”

As the debate over national security continues, many are pushing back against the call for tougher domestic terrorism legislation. Some are concerned that any such legislation would hurt the communities it’s meant to protect. In an opinion piece for NBC News, Hina Shamsi and Manar Waheed of the American Civil Liberties Union write, “by using the ‘domestic terrorism’ label to promote more criminal statutes and police authorities, our country's leaders are invoking systems that have been — and will continue to be — used to target and harm Black and brown people.” Is there a clear solution to the resurgence of domestic terrorism? Not necessarily. But one thing’s for certain: if we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of our past, we need to stay informed and hold our elected leaders accountable.