In a surprising turn of events, the House passed a two-year extension of a warrantless surveillance law that was set to expire, without the previously proposed warrant requirement. The legislation, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), had faced opposition earlier in the week, but was ultimately approved on Friday. This development came after former President Donald J. Trump had urged lawmakers to “kill” the bill, causing a dramatic shift in the political landscape.

The bill’s passage was a result of Speaker Mike Johnson’s efforts to rally support from hard-right Republicans who had initially blocked the measure. The final vote, with a split between both parties, reflected the contentious nature of the issue. Despite the narrow victory in the House, the legislation still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by President Biden to become law.

The debate in the House centered around a proposed amendment to require warrants for searches of Americans’ messages collected under the program. While this amendment was narrowly defeated, it highlighted the widespread skepticism surrounding the surveillance law. Civil liberties advocates had pushed for the warrant requirement to protect individuals’ privacy rights, but national security officials argued that it would hinder their ability to gather crucial intelligence.

Despite the disappointment expressed by privacy advocates over the lack of a warrant requirement, the House did make some significant modifications to the bill. These changes included expanding the program’s scope to gather intelligence on foreign narcotics trafficking organizations and enhancing oversight mechanisms for congressional leaders.

The political drama surrounding the bill was fueled by Mr. Trump’s recent social media post urging lawmakers to “KILL FISA,” citing alleged misuse of the surveillance program. However, it’s important to note that the type of surveillance authorized under Section 702 is distinct from the FISA wiretapping used in the investigation of his campaign’s ties to Russia.

The bill’s reduction to a two-year extension was seen as a compromise to win over hard-line Republicans aligned with Mr. Trump, paving the way for its passage in the House. The Senate will now have to take up the legislation before the current authorization expires, though there is some flexibility due to existing court orders allowing the program to continue until 2025.

While the bill may not include the warrant requirement desired by privacy advocates, it does impose new restrictions on how the F.B.I. can search for Americans’ information obtained through the program. The bureau has faced criticism for past violations of these restrictions, but the bill aims to address those issues with tighter controls and reporting requirements.

Overall, the passage of the two-year extension of the surveillance law without a warrant requirement reflects the complex balancing act between national security concerns and individual privacy rights. The ongoing debate highlights the challenges of balancing security and civil liberties in an increasingly digital world.

Kayla Guo contributed reporting.