United States congressman Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, is privately lobbying colleagues to preserve the FBI’s power to conduct warrantless searches of Americans’ communications, WIRED has learned, arguing that he has seen no evidence that the Trump administration is abusing its authority.

In a letter obtained by WIRED, Himes urges fellow Democrats to support the White House’s request to renew a controversial surveillance program that intercepts the electronic data of foreigners abroad. While targeted at foreigners, the program—authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—also sweeps in vast quantities of private messages belonging to US citizens.

Himes’ pitch relies on the “56 reforms” passed by Congress in 2024, which codified the FBI’s own internal protocols as a substitute for constitutional warrants. In the letter, Himes claims these changes are “working as intended” to prevent domestic misuse, citing a compliance rate “exceeding 99 percent” over the past two years.

The structural foundations of that defense, however, have been fundamentally altered by recent changes within the FBI. Himes’ “99 percent” compliance metric was produced by the Office of Internal Auditing, for instance—a unit that long served as a smoke alarm designed to detect illegality, but no longer exists.

The unit was shuttered by FBI director Kash Patel last year. Historic court opinions based on its data had previously exposed hundreds of thousands of improper FBI searches. Without the auditors required to calculate failure rates, the compliance mechanisms Himes points to have effectively ceased to function.

In a statement, Himes’ office largely reiterated the positions laid out in his letter to colleagues. “I am open to making further reforms to Section 702, building on the many successful reforms we made in reauthorization legislation two years ago,” he says. “A short-term reauthorization of Section 702 will enable Congress to thoroughly debate the pros and cons of these suggested reforms—and to determine if compromise is possible—without placing our national security in peril by allowing the program to expire.”

As a member of the so-called Gang of Eight—a bipartisan group of lawmakers who are briefed on highly sensitive classified information—Himes possesses some of the deepest knowledge of the spy program. Nevertheless, his letter contains several other claims that appear fundamentally at odds with the mechanics of FISA oversight.

“Because of how heavily it is overseen by all three branches of government,” Himes says, “any effort to misuse the program would almost certainly become known to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and to Congress.”

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is a secret court that possesses no investigative arm to audit FBI databases. Similar to Congress, its oversight role is purely reactive, relying entirely on the US Justice Department to self-report violations.

“Neither Congress nor the FISA Court conducts independent audits of the FBI’s queries,” says Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program. “They rely on the Department of Justice to conduct thorough audits and to report the results truthfully and promptly. This particular Department of Justice has gutted internal oversight mechanisms and has been rebuked by dozens of federal courts for providing inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete information.”

There are no judges standing between the FBI and the private communications of millions of Americans, something that Himes and other members of his committee claim is necessary for the government to react quickly to terrorist threats. Critics argue that, given the current administration’s efforts to dismantle internal checks at the FBI, this is a massive vulnerability, leaving Americans exposed to surveillance abuses that will take years to declassify—if they’re ever reported at all.

Could a three-hour workshop on an advanced materials analysis technique turn someone into a detective — or perhaps an art restorer?

At MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms in late January, about a dozen students explored that possibility during an Independent Activities Period (IAP) workshop on Raman spectroscopy, a technique that uses laser light to “fingerprint” materials. The session even featured a robotic dog equipped with sensing equipment, demonstrating how chemical analysis can be done remotely.

The workshop, led by MIT postdoc Lamyaa Almehmadi in collaboration with the CBA, introduced participants to a powerful technique now used by law enforcement and first responders to identify narcotics and explosives, by gemologists to authenticate precious stones, and pharmaceutical companies to verify raw materials and ensure product quality. CBA graduate researcher Jiaming Liu co-hosted, delivering lectures, demonstrating Raman equipment, and contributing to the curriculum and hands-on demonstrations.

“It can open up new possibilities for innovation across many fields,” said Almehmadi, an analytical chemist in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering (DMSE). After attendees learned the fundamentals, she encouraged them to think creatively about new applications: “My hope is to inspire all of you to think about doing something with Raman spectroscopy that no one has done before.”

Fingerprinting materials

Participants brought items to class to analyze using handheld devices, which fire laser light and measure how it bounces back. The resulting pattern behaves like a molecular fingerprint, identifying the materials in the item — whether it’s a paper clip, a piece of tree bark, or a mixing bowl.

Workshop attendee Sarah Ciriello, an administrative assistant at DMSE who brought a stone she found at the beach, was taken aback by the results. The Raman device suggested a 39 percent probability that the sample contained concrete-like material, with the remaining readings matching synthetic compounds — blurring the line between natural and manufactured materials.

“It’s man-made — I was surprised,” Ciriello said.

Developed in 1928 by Indian scientist C.V. Raman, who later won the Nobel Prize in Physics, Raman spectroscopy was groundbreaking because it used visible light to probe materials without destroying them, a major advantage over other techniques at the time, such as chromatography or mass spectrometry. But for decades, the Raman signal — the light scattered back from a sample — was weak, and the instruments were big and bulky, limiting its practical use.

Advances in lasers, computing power, and miniaturized optics have transformed Raman spectroscopy into a portable tool. Today’s handheld devices can instantly compare a sample’s molecular fingerprint against vast digital libraries, allowing users to identify thousands of materials in seconds. Because it doesn’t destroy the sample, Raman is especially useful in fields that require preserving materials — such as law enforcement, where evidence must remain intact, and art restoration.

Almehmadi’s own research focuses on advancing Raman spectroscopy by developing highly sensitive, semiconductor-based sensors that make portable chemical analysis possible, with applications ranging from medical diagnostics to forensic and environmental monitoring.

“Raman can be used to analyze any material,” Almehmadi says. “That’s why I decided to introduce it to students from diverse backgrounds.”

IAP classes are open to students and staff across MIT, and the Raman workshop reflected that range — from administrative staff to graduate and undergraduate students and postdocs in departments and labs including DMSE, the Department of Mechanical Engineering, the Media Lab, and the Broad Institute.

Walking the robot dog

A crowd-pleasing element in the workshop was the integration of a robot dog that belongs to the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL). The demonstration highlighted how Raman technology can be used in dangerous environments, such as crime scenes or toxic industrial sites.

The handheld device was secured to the robot using tape, and Almehmadi showed how she could navigate the dog to a plastic bag filled with a white powder — baking soda.

But in a real-world scenario, “How can we know if it is baking soda or not?” she says. “So we just shined the light, and then the instrument told us what it was.”

Participants used a Wi-Fi app on their phones to view the results and a small remote controller to operate the robotic dog themselves.

“I loved the robot dog,” Ciriello says. “I was able to control it a bit, but it was challenging because the gauge was really sensitive.”

Michael Kitcher, a postdoc in DMSE, also praises the robot demonstration.

“Given that we just duct taped the device onto the dog — it was cool to see it actually worked,” he says.

Looking ahead

Kitcher, who researches magnetic materials for electronic applications, joined the workshop to learn more about Raman spectroscopy, which he had read about but never used. He was impressed by its versatility — in addition to the beach stone and baking soda, the device identified materials in a contact lens, cosmetics, and even a diamond.

Although it struggled to analyze a piece of chocolate he brought — other signals from the chocolate interfered — Kitcher sees strong potential for his own research. One area he’s interested in is unconventional magnetic materials, such as altermagnets, with unusual magnetic behavior that researchers hope to better understand and control for more energy-efficient electronics.

“Over the last couple of years, people have been trying to get a better sense of why these materials behave the way they do — how we can control this unconventional magnetic order,” he says. Raman spectroscopy can probe the vibrations of atoms in a material, helping researchers detect patterns in the crystal structure that underlie unusual magnetic behaviors. By understanding these vibrations, scientists could unlock material design rules that enable ultra-fast, low-energy computing.

Hands-on workshops like this — that inspire innovative future applications — Almehmadi says, are at the heart of an MIT education.

“I’ve always learned best by doing,” she says. “Lectures and reading are important, but real understanding comes from hands-on experience.”

After a day of widespread, overwhelming pushback, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang doubled down and said gamers are “completely wrong” about DLSS. (You know how much gamers love being told that they’re wrong.) But developers at Capcom and Ubisoft say they didn’t even know what the tech demo would look like and, according to Insider Gaming, found out about it the same time everyone else did and were just as surprised. (Nvidia, Ubisoft, and Capcom did not immediately get back to our request for comment.)

“I think the reaction from gamers is understandable,” Marwan Mahmoud, a game developer at Incrypt, wrote in an email to WIRED. “Some games started relying too heavily on these technologies instead of focusing on proper optimization. From a developer perspective, it feels a bit different because you see DLSS as a tool that helps rather than a core solution.”

The problem for many people, developers included, is the one-size-fits-all approach of a technology that can adjust visuals across various game types.

“The artist has a style, the artist has an art direction that you’re going to give him, and that’s something that AI kind of doesn’t respect all the time,” says Raúl Izquierdo, an indie game developer in Mexico, “Maybe I don’t want my characters to be yassified.”

Bates agrees, saying he doesn’t think every game needs to be photo real. And that sentiment is also echoed by game developer Sterling Reames, who has worked at Striking Distance Studios and Zynga. “People just want better games,” Reames wrote in a message to WIRED. “That’s as plainly as I can put it.

At GTC, Nvidia ran its demo on its most powerful consumer graphics cards, two GeForce RTX 5090s. Had Nvidia made its selling point for the tech that it saves resources, thus enabling older hardware to deliver more impressive graphics, there may have been something to that.

“What’s the point if you’re not going to do it on weaker hardware?” Izquierdo says. “If this were done on an [RTX 2080 graphics card], for instance, I think I would be thinking differently about it. OK, this is for the betterment of gamers’ experiences and everything, not just for selling graphic cards.”

Ultimately, Nvidia’s demo, and GTC writ large, was a flex of the company’s power in the AI space. The reaction, Bates posits, is more about humans dealing with not just crossing the uncanny valley, but what happens when we reach the other side.

“Right now it’s pretty clearly a thing they are forced to do to demonstrate their prowess as an AI company,” Bates says. “But the truth is, this is going to be the default in a few years, and nobody is even going to think twice about it. It’s Jensen’s world, we’re just living in it.”