“Committed, through the Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Surveillance Act, to set guardrails blocking bulk exports of Americans' private, sensitive data to high-risk foreign nations.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Verification confirms the CHAMPIONED rating. (1) The Record (June 14, 2023) documents Wyden co-introducing the Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Surveillance Act of 2023 with a bipartisan coalition (Lummis, Whitehouse, Rubio, Hagerty) to block bulk data exports to China/Russia; the cited Wyden quote appears verbatim. (2) Wyden's official press release (Feb 28, 2024) responds to Biden's data-export executive order while promoting his own bill; the cited quote "President Biden deserves praise for taking the first step in fighting back" appears verbatim, and Wyden simultaneously criticized the EO as too narrow — supporting the read that guardrails were substantially (not fully) achieved and that Wyden kept driving the cause. (3) GovTrack S.1974 confirms the statute was introduced June 14, 2023, sat in the first stage (referred to committee), and never advanced; the "6% chance of getting past committee / 3% chance of being enacted" prognosis is genuine. The evidence shows sustained leadership beyond a single vote — lead authorship, bipartisan reintroduction, and public pressure tied to the EO — which fits CHAMPIONED rather than FULL (statute never enacted) or a bare PARTIAL. The outcome does not overstate the evidence: the rationale openly acknowledges the bill failed and the EO is narrower than his statute, and confidence stays moderate to reflect the defensible PARTIAL alternative.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.