[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Page S675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NOMINATION OF LTG JOSHUA M. RUDD

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Joshua Rudd to 
be Director of the NSA. His responses to questions posed to him at his 
confirmation hearing, as well as to written questions, reveal a lack of 
familiarity with basic constitutional rights that is incompatible with 
the position for which he has been nominated.
  The NSA's surveillance authorities are vast and, if anything, 
underappreciated by the American people. The Agency plays a central 
role in executing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , but also 
conducts extensive operations outside of FISA and pursuant only to 
Executive order. The potential for abuse is enormous, as we saw when 
the Agency secretly conducted an illegal, warrantless surveillance 
program that it hid not only from the public but from Congress.
  Our country faces a dangerous moment in which constitutional rights 
are under attack. For example, we recently learned that the 
administration secretly decided that the government doesn't need a 
judicial warrant to break into a private home. In other words, the 
administration is trying to invalidate the Fourth Amendment.
  It was in that context that I asked General Rudd what he would do if 
directed to target people in the United States for surveillance without 
a judicial warrant. I offered him the opportunity to answer with a yes 
or a no. I didn't get an answer. I proposed that he offer general 
thoughts on the matter, but got nothing of substance. I did everything 
in my power to allow him to demonstrate some understanding of the basic 
guardrails of NSA's authorities and got nothing but vague assurances 
about following the law.
  There were other topics on which General Rudd's responses were 
disappointing. He wouldn't associate himself with NSA's previous 
commitment not to buy and use Americans' location data. He also refused 
to say whether the government should be allowed to mandate backdoors 
into encryption used by Americans.
  His responses related to transparency were also troubling. In 
addition to statutes and the Constitution, NSA is bound by numerous 
procedures and guardrails which are publicly available. So I asked 
General Rudd whether, if the NSA were to operate in violation of those 
procedures and guardrails, he would inform the American people. He 
refused to make that commitment. He even refused to promise to inform 
the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  The Director of NSA has another job, that of Commander of U.S. Cyber 
Command. The demands of this job are mind-boggling. The cyber threat to 
the United States cannot be overstated. And, as SALT TYPHOON 
demonstrated, our adversaries have succeeded in inflicting serious 
damage to U.S. national security. The Commander of CYBERCOM needs to 
have a sophisticated understanding of this threat and how it has 
evolved over time. He or she needs to be able to see this threat in its 
geopolitical context and to fully grasp both the technical capabilities 
and the policy options that might help counter the threat. General 
Rudd, despite his service, does not have the background that would 
allow him to immediately step into this role. He is not qualified for 
this job. And, when it comes to the cybersecurity of this country, 
there is simply no time for on-the-job learning. The threat is just too 
urgent for that.
  For these reasons, I oppose the nomination.

                          ____________________