U.S. Courts to Publish Counts of Court-Ordered Spyware in Annual Wiretap Reports
Beginning with the 2029 Wiretap Report, U.S. courts will disclose how frequently judges authorize court-ordered spyware, boosting transparency and oversight.
Federal judicial authorities will begin publicly reporting how often judges authorize court-ordered spyware in annual wiretap statistics, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has told lawmakers. The new disclosure will appear in the 2028 reporting year’s Wiretap Report, which is scheduled for publication in 2029, marking the first time network-based interception via hacking tools is tracked in that dataset. The change is intended to shed light on the previously opaque use of spyware and other network investigating techniques by law enforcement.
Judiciary will add spyware counts to wiretap reports
The Administrative Office said reporting forms and procedures must be revised before the new category can appear in the annual compilation of wiretap data. The Wiretap Report has historically broken down authorizations by judge type, state, and investigated offense, and the office will expand that framework to include a “spyware/hacking” category. Officials indicated the adjustment is administrative: data collection mechanisms will be updated so courts nationwide can submit standardized counts.
How current wiretap reporting is structured
For nearly two decades the Wiretap Report has cataloged audio, oral and electronic interceptions authorized by courts, detailing the number of orders and the nature of targeted communications. Audio wiretaps capture real-time voice calls, oral taps rely on in-person microphones and eavesdropping, and electronic taps intercept messages and data moving through a provider’s network. Those reports have been used by researchers and policymakers to assess the scope and trends of court-ordered surveillance.
Definition and scope of the new spyware category
The statistic will capture instances where judges authorize live interception of communications using spyware or network-investigating tools that enable real-time access to calls and messages. This category covers tools that intercept communications as they traverse networks or are communicated in real time, including encrypted messaging services when compromised by such techniques. It does not, however, encompass all forms of government hacking; the new count is limited to interceptions that function as wiretaps under existing law.
What the new statistic will not reveal
The forthcoming figure will not include searches that extract data stored on a device, such as photos, files, or location histories obtained through forensic tools or remote device extraction. Those operations are treated as searches under separate legal processes and are not classified as wiretaps for reporting purposes. As a result, the disclosed number will reflect only one dimension of government hacking activity and will not offer a full inventory of all incident-level forensic access to devices.
Lawmakers and privacy groups welcome the change
Senator Ron Wyden, who has pressed for greater transparency around court-ordered hacking for years, hailed the decision as a step toward public accountability. Privacy and civil liberties organizations also described the update as an important tool for oversight, saying that a reliable count will allow researchers and the public to evaluate claims about the surgical or limited use of spyware. Advocates argued that publicly available numbers will make it harder for officials to understate the prevalence of these intrusive techniques.
Experts say transparency could drive policy shifts
Cybersecurity specialists at advocacy organizations noted that an empirical baseline is essential to inform reforms and litigation strategies. Public counts will permit comparisons over time and help identify whether deployment is concentrated in particular jurisdictions or tied to specific investigative priorities. Observers pointed out that other countries publish detailed spyware usage figures, enabling public debate and legal scrutiny that could influence U.S. policymaking.
The decision to track court-ordered spyware in the Wiretap Report responds to longstanding demands for clearer public data on how often judges permit live, network-based interception of communications. While the new statistic will not capture device extraction or all forms of government hacking, it will provide a first public measure of a surveillance method that has grown more technically sophisticated and controversial. The change positions the judiciary to supply researchers, lawmakers and the public with a quantifiable starting point for oversight and potential legislative action.
