Short Answer

Both the model and the market expect FISA to be reauthorized again before May 3, 2026, with no compelling evidence of mispricing.

1. Market Behavior & Drivers

This prediction market has demonstrated a strong and consistent downward trend, with the implied probability of FISA being reauthorized falling from a peak of 31.0% to a current low of 1.0%. The price action was characterized by significant volatility in late April, including several sharp declines. Notably, the market saw an 11.0 percentage point drop on April 18, followed by other substantial drops on April 19, 24, and 27. An outlier during this period was a sharp 12.0 percentage point spike on April 23, though this upward momentum was short-lived and quickly reversed. The opening price of 31.0% effectively served as a resistance level that was never re-tested, while the current price near 1.0% has established a clear support floor.
The specific drivers behind these volatile price swings are not explained by the provided context. The series of sharp drops and the brief rally occurred without accompanying news events, suggesting traders were reacting to factors not detailed here or to evolving internal market dynamics. The total volume of 20,236 contracts traded indicates significant engagement and conviction among participants. Overall, the chart illustrates a decisive shift in market sentiment. The sustained downtrend and the price stabilizing near zero imply that the market has moved from initial uncertainty to an overwhelming consensus that reauthorization will not happen by the market's resolution date.
  • Significant bipartisan opposition challenges "clean" FISA reauthorization.
  • Key senators intend to block reauthorization without reform amendments.
  • A standalone legislative vehicle likely causes reauthorization delays.
  • Recent market movements suggest low probability of immediate reauthorization.

2. Price Chart

Historical Price (Probability)

Outcome probability
Date

3. Significant Price Movements

Notable price changes detected in the chart, along with research into what caused each movement.

Outcome: Before May 3, 2026

📉 April 28, 2026: 11.0pp drop

Price decreased from 93.0% to 82.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

Outcome: Before Apr 29, 2026

📉 April 27, 2026: 10.0pp drop

Price decreased from 12.0% to 2.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

Outcome: Before May 2, 2026

📉 April 26, 2026: 11.0pp drop

Price decreased from 95.0% to 84.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

Outcome: Before Apr 30, 2026

📉 April 25, 2026: 13.0pp drop

Price decreased from 49.0% to 36.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

📉 April 24, 2026: 13.0pp drop

Price decreased from 62.0% to 49.0%

What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.

4. Market Data

Contract Snapshot

This market resolves to Yes if legislation reauthorizing FISA Section 702 authority becomes law before May 1, 2026. It resolves to No if such legislation does not become law by that date, including instances where a presidential pocket veto expires. For resolution, legislation must be signed by the President or pass through veto override, with verification from the Library of Congress, and the market closes by May 1, 2026, at 10:00 am EDT if the event has not occurred earlier.

Market Discussion

Traders are primarily discussing the timing of FISA Section 702 reauthorization, with probabilities indicating increasing confidence for reauthorization as the deadline extends into early May 2026. Arguments for "Yes" emphasize the unlikelihood of a full lapse due to pressure from the Intelligence Community, while "No" arguments highlight potential delays from the legislative calendar and perceived lack of progress. A notable insight is the consideration that a temporary "lapse" or a stopgap measure might occur instead of a formal reauthorization by the earliest deadlines.

5. Why Did Bipartisan Groups Oppose FISA Reauthorization Rule?

House Freedom Caucus OppositionAt least 19 Republican members voted against the rule for a FISA reauthorization bill on April 10, 2024, due to the absence of a warrant amendment vote [1].
Congressional Progressive Caucus StanceOfficially opposed FISA Section 702 reauthorization without a warrant requirement for U.S. person searches on April 10, 2024 [2].
Rule Vote OutcomeThe rule for a FISA reauthorization bill was defeated on April 10, 2024, by a bipartisan vote, effectively stalling the bill [1].
On April 10, 2024, Republican members opposed a FISA rule lacking a warrant amendment. At least 19 Republican members, many associated with the House Freedom Caucus, committed to voting against any rule for floor debate on a FISA reauthorization bill (specifically H.R. 7888) that did not allow a vote on an amendment requiring a warrant for U.S. person queries [1]. These "GOP rebels" or "conservative rebels" were notably incensed that the proposed rule did not permit a vote on such a crucial measure [1]. Their unified opposition ultimately led to the defeat of the rule, effectively stalling the Speaker's plan to bring the bill to the floor [1].
The Congressional Progressive Caucus also took a firm stance on FISA reform. Concurrently, on April 10, 2024, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) officially adopted a position opposing the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) without "meaningful and comprehensive civil liberties protections, including a warrant requirement for U.S. person searches" [2]. While the CPC's press release did not provide a specific whip count for a rule vote, their leadership's commitment clearly signaled a strong stance on the warrant amendment. The fact that Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the rule on April 10 indicates that members of the Progressive Caucus, adhering to their stated position, likely contributed to the rule's defeat [1].
Sources (2)
  1. 1GOP rebels block leaders’ last-minute FISA Section 702 spy powers dealnewsnationnow.com
  2. 2Congressional Progressive Caucus Adopts Official Position Opposing Reauthorization of Surveillance Law Without Civil Liberties Protections | Press Releases | Congressional Progressive Caucusprogressives.house.gov

6. What is the Preferred Legislative Vehicle for Section 702 Reauthorization?

HPSCI Chairman's StanceAdvocates for standalone, clean bill [1]
FY2026 NDAA InclusionNot mentioned by HASC/SASC Chairs [2], [3]
Senator Grassley's ViewCalled for a clean FISA extension [4]
The legislative strategy for Section 702 reauthorization favors a standalone measure. This approach is strongly supported by public statements from key committee chairs. In April 2026, Chairman Crawford of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence explicitly stated his preference, affirming, "I believe Section 702 should be reauthorized as a standalone measure and that a clean bill is the best path forward to ensure the speedy reauthorization of this critical national security tool" [1]. This declaration from a leading committee chair highlights a strategic preference for a dedicated legislative process for Section 702.
Key committee chairs omitted Section 702 from NDAA discussions. Public statements from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rogers regarding the FY2026 NDAA [2] and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Wicker concerning the final passage of the FY2026 NDAA [3] did not mention Section 702. This omission suggests that attaching Section 702 reauthorization to the NDAA was not the preferred or pursued legislative strategy by these critical committees during that cycle, thereby reinforcing the likelihood of a standalone approach for future reauthorizations. Senator Grassley's call for a "clean FISA extension" [4] further aligns with the concept of a standalone measure.
Sources (4)
  1. 1Chairman Crawford Statement on FISA 702 Reauthorization - House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligenceintelligence.house.gov
  2. 2Chairman Rogers' Floor Statement on the FY26 NDAA | House Armed Services Committeearmedservices.house.gov
  3. 3SASC Chairman Wicker and Ranking Member... | U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Servicesarmed-services.senate.gov
  4. 4Grassley Calls for Clean FISA Extension... | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciaryjudiciary.senate.gov

7. What are Senators Wyden's and Paul's Stances on FISA Section 702 Reauthorization?

Senator Wyden's StanceIntends to object to a straight reauthorization of FISA Section 702 (April 2026) [1]
Wyden's Demand for ReauthorizationRequires inclusion of 'real reform' to protect constitutional rights [2]
Senator Paul's StanceNo information suggests a formal hold or filibuster threat on FISA reauthorization [research findings] [2]
Senator Ron Wyden strongly opposes a straight reauthorization of FISA Section 702. He has publicly stated his intention to object to any motion to proceed for such a bill, informing Senate leadership in April 2026 of his position and indicating that other senators also planned to object [1]. This concerted opposition makes a straight reauthorization highly improbable in the Senate, as Wyden and his allies intend to use procedural tactics, including holds, to block such a measure [3]. Senator Wyden has historically employed similar holds on past FISA-related amendments [4].
Wyden demands "real reform" to FISA Section 702 to lift his objections. He has stipulated that his objections would only be lifted if the reauthorization bill includes "real reform" to Section 702, which he asserts is necessary to protect Americans' constitutional rights [2]. Senator Wyden has highlighted the bipartisan and bicameral support for these reforms, and, along with other senators, successfully pushed Senate Majority Leader Schumer to allow amendment votes on surveillance reform measures [1].
Senator Rand Paul has not placed holds or demanded concessions on FISA. The available research contains no information indicating that Senator Rand Paul has placed a formal hold or publicly threatened a filibuster concerning the motion to proceed for a FISA reauthorization bill. Furthermore, the research does not detail any specific concessions demanded by Senator Paul in this context.
Sources (4)
  1. 1Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 67 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)govinfo.gov
  2. 2Wyden Urges Senators to Reject Handing Donald Trump Unchecked Surveillance Authority, Insist on Reforms to FISA Section 702 | U.S. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregonwyden.senate.gov
  3. 3A view from DC: Congress' FISA Section 702 stalemate reveals a rocky road ahead | IAPPiapp.org
  4. 4Senate wades apprehensively into FISA slogpunchbowl.news

8. What Terror Plots Were Thwarted Before Section 702 Reauthorization?

Foiled Terror Plots (December)Four [1]
ISIS-Inspired PlotsThree [1]
FBI Queries Increase (ODNI Report)35% [2]
FBI Director revealed specific thwarted terror plots to Congress. During testimony before Congress in the 90 days preceding legislative efforts for Section 702 reauthorization, FBI Director Kash Patel disclosed that agents successfully thwarted four terror plots in December, three of which were inspired by ISIS [1]. This testimony served to provide concrete examples of recent threats against the U.S. that were neutralized. In contrast, the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released its 13th Transparency Report, which indicated an increase in Section 702 targets and a 35% rise in FBI queries [2]. However, this report focused on statistical data and did not offer new declassified intelligence detailing specific thwarted threats against the U.S. within the specified timeframe.
Impact on undecided members from intelligence disclosures remains unclear. The available research does not contain information detailing how the FBI Director's testimony regarding the foiled terror plots, or any other intelligence, specifically influenced the public statements or voting intentions of previously undecided members of Congress concerning Section 702 reauthorization [2]. While broader legislative discussions in April 2026 did indicate "frustration" and "apprehension" among officials and legislators regarding the renewal of surveillance laws, this general sentiment is not directly linked to the specific impact of the intelligence disclosures on undecided members [3].
Sources (3)
  1. 1FBI director ticks off terror threats foiled by agentsfoxnews.com
  2. 2ODNI 13th Transparency Report: 702 Targets Up Again, FBI Queries Rise 35% - State of Surveillancestateofsurveillance.org
  3. 3After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers: NPRnpr.org

9. What Happens to Intelligence Collection if Section 702 Lapses?

Statutory Basis for Wind-Down50 U.S.C. §1881a(h) [1]
New Intelligence Collection During LapseNot allowed once Section 702 authority expires [2]
Handling of Previously Collected DataCan still be processed, used, disseminated, and retained [1]
Section 702 wind-down procedures manage intelligence collected before expiration. The operational wind-down procedure for Section 702 primarily addresses intelligence gathered before its authority expires. Under 50 U.S.C. §1881a(h), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) may authorize the government to continue applying minimization procedures to, and to use, disseminate, and retain, information collected prior to the expiration date [1]. However, this statutory provision strictly prohibits any new collection of foreign intelligence once Section 702 authority has lapsed [2]. Although arguments have been presented by the government suggesting the wind-down provision might allow for temporary collection on targets certified before expiration, this is not considered an accepted operational procedure for continuous new collection following an expiration [2].
New intelligence collection ceases immediately upon Section 702 expiration. Public guidance specifies that new intelligence collection must cease immediately when Section 702 authority expires [2]. There is no permitted grace period, nor a maximum number of hours or days, during which new collection can continue after authorization has lapsed [2].
Sources (2)
  1. 1https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702-documents/declassified/2024/FISC_Memorandum_Opinion_Order_Redacted_April_2024.pdfintelligence.gov
  2. 2https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48592/R48592.2.pdfcongress.gov

11. Historical Resolutions

Historical Resolutions: 5 markets in this series

Outcomes: 5 resolved YES, 0 resolved NO

Recent resolutions:

  • KXFISAEXTEND-26MAR-APR28: YES (Apr 18, 2026)
  • KXFISAEXTEND-26MAR-APR25: YES (Apr 18, 2026)
  • KXFISAEXTEND-26MAR-APR21: YES (Apr 18, 2026)
  • KXFISAEXTEND-26MAR-APR19: YES (Apr 18, 2026)
  • KXFISAEXTEND-26MAR: YES (Apr 18, 2026)