This is a bit outside of my domain of expertise from my previous life, but I’ll do my best to answer... There isn’t really an end run around they can use. The

This is a bit outside of my domain of expertise from my previous life, but I’ll do my best to answer... There isn’t really an end run around they can use. The definitions may be a little loose, but when it concerns a United States person, the requirements in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act come in to play. There is typically a presumption that anyone in the United States is a US person, unless evidence exists otherwise, so the protestors in your scenario would almost certainly be presumed US persons. As a result, a warrant would have to be obtained via the FISA court in order to conduct the unconsented physical search[1]. EO 12333 isn’t saying the FBI has carte Blanche to conduct those activities (even if the AG tries to say so). It is saying that IF someone is going to conduct those activities in the United States/domestically, the FBI will be the only ones to do so. It doesn’t preclude them from still having to abide by FISA though. There is a lot more flexibility for anywhere/anyone outside of the US though. Hypothetically, could a coordinated modification be made to the EO and/or the agency’s attorney general guidelines? Possibly, but probably not for anything that is consequential. Like I mentioned, there are a lot of other factors that limit the AG’s flexibility. That’s why when you kind of have to look at things like EO 12333 in context of a bunch of other policies and established precedents. It’s really only part of the story within a very complicated legal framework. Sorry, it is late at night and my brain isn’t working as well at this point. I appreciate the discussion and if I can think of anything else tomorrow I’ll try to respond a little further. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1822 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1822