Florida man seeks to create a state counterintelligence unit and claim sweeping surveillance powers over people whose ‘views’ or ‘opinions’ he dislikes.” It’s not nearly as amusing as the usual “Florida man” headline, and it may lead to a blueprint for lawmakers far beyond Florida.

If Florida enacts House Bill 945, it will create a national first – CIA-style structure at the state level that blurs the traditional line between state law enforcement and intelligence work. It likely wouldn’t remain a local experiment. Red states often borrow aggressively from one another’s policy playbooks, on everything from gerrymandering to anti-abortion laws to transporting immigrants to Democratic-led states. A state-level intelligence office empowered to scrutinize residents based on ideology is precisely the kind of proposal likely to spread once normalized.

The bill’s language allows scrutiny based on “views” and “opinions”, a standard that echoes some of the darkest chapters of American surveillance history. In the 1960s and 70s, the FBI’s Cointelpro program infiltrated protest movements, monitored journalists, and targeted civil rights leaders – not for crimes, but beliefs.

Public outrage over those abuses led to the Church Committee investigation and new guardrails, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, to prevent domestic spying based on ideology.

Yet even federal agencies with decades of experience, extensive training and formal oversight have struggled to resist overreach. Edward Snowden’s 2013 disclosures revealed that Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) – designed to monitor foreigners abroad – swept up Americans’ communications and was repeatedly misused to query information about protesters, journalists, and lawmakers. Since then, efforts to enact meaningful reforms have stalled. Congress instead expanded Section 702 authority, for example with 2024’s “spy draft” amendment enabling the involuntary conscription of US businesses and individuals to spy on the government’s behalf.

The first amendment protects unpopular opinions, harsh criticism of government officials, and controversial ideologies precisely because political majorities change. But even if courts ultimately strike down laws that punish speech or association, litigation takes years, and the chilling effect begins immediately. The mere possibility that lawful political expression could land someone in an intelligence database can be enough to deter dissent.

If Florida succeeds, it may take 50 Church Committees and 50 separate reform packages to have any hope of beginning to clean up the decentralized mess.