Speaker Mike Johnson previewed a floor strategy Wednesday that would leave little room for Republican defections as he pushes to renew a powerful surveillance authority, with chamber leadership navigating a precarious path amid objections from GOP critics of the program.

The Trump administration wants to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for 18 months with no changes. Backers of the program say it provides critical intelligence because it allows the U.S. government to collect the digital communications of foreigners located outside of the country.

But privacy-minded lawmakers have advocated for adding a warrant requirement regarding the searching of communications of Americans swept up under the program.

House leaders are looking to pass a measure before the statutory authority expires April 20 — but lawmakers won’t aim for a floor vote until they get back from a two-week recess, about a week before the deadline.

Under the approach outlined by Johnson, lawmakers will have to adopt a rule, which sets up guidelines for floor debate, before they’re able to pass a reauthorization measure with a simple majority. Considering rule votes are typically party line, Johnson will likely have to whip his own ranks just to adopt the rule for the “clean“ extension.

But with such a slim majority, GOP privacy hawks who are critical of the authority could tank leadership efforts to even allow for floor consideration of a clean extension, if no Democrats vote with Johnson.

Meanwhile, some longstanding critics of the program, such as Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., have sounded off against a clean extension. “No FISA reauthorization without a warrant requirement for US citizens!” he said on social media Tuesday.

Massie attached screenshots of past posts from President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, warning of abuses of FISA authorities.

Johnson, when asked if he was open to a warrant amendment, argued that changes passed by Congress in the latest reauthorization cycle have worked.

“A warrant requirement is a very difficult thing because you have the probable cause standard, and when you’re talking about a 702 query . . . we don’t know if they’re a victim or a co-conspirator, so it’s very difficult to go into a court of law and prove this cause for criminal activity,” Johnson said.

Meanwhile, Trump on Wednesday offered his case for a clean extension of Section 702. He pointed to the war with Iran, cited changes made during the last reauthorization cycle and said his administration has worked hard to execute those reforms.

“The fact is, whether you like FISA or not, it is extremely important to our Military. I have spoken to many Generals about this, and they consider it vital,” Trump wrote in the social media post.

“Not one said, even tacitly, that they can do without it — especially right now with our brilliant Military Operation in Iran,” Trump said.

Progressive Democrats and staunch conservatives have often banded together to advocate for a warrant requirement for the communications of Americans, while national security-minded lawmakers have opposed those efforts.

In the last reauthorization cycle, the final measure made some changes aimed at making sure the government could not misuse the authority but did not include a warrant requirement regarding the searching of Americans’ information.

Intelligence-focused lawmakers have praised the changes, while privacy advocates say that reauthorization measure expanded the scope of Section 702.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said he would vote against a clean 18-month extension of the program, saying he did not think voters in his district wanted him to back things that have been “eroding away their constitutional rights.”

But Rep. Darin LaHood, R-Ill., a leading Section 702 supporter, said Trump does not want a warrant requirement and neither do key leaders in the U.S. national security apparatus, such as FBI Director Kash Patel and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

LaHood appeared baffled that lawmakers would oppose their request. “Vote at your own peril,” he said.