An independent watchdog focused on civil liberties called on the federal government on Friday to tighten its use of a terrorism watch list, which can restrict people from traveling or entering the country and subject them to greater scrutiny at airports.
The call, made in a report by the bipartisan Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, came at a precarious time for the agency. Days ago, in a move that could kneecap the agency, the Trump administration instructed its three Democratic-selected members to submit resignation letters by the close of business on Jan. 23, threatening termination if they failed to comply.
As of midafternoon on Friday, when the agency issued its report, all three Democratic board members remained in their seats, according to an agency spokesman. The White House had not further contacted the agency about their fate, people familiar with the matter said.
Removing the three would leave only one board member at the agency who was selected by a Republican; the White House did not ask that member, Beth Williams, to resign; a fifth seat is vacant. The purge would paralyze the agency, which needs at least three members to take official actions like starting an investigative project or issuing a report with a policy recommendation.
The move would also have significant implications for trans-Atlantic business because the agency plays a key role in an agreement concerning data privacy. Under the deal, companies can send personal information about Europeans to the United States despite stricter laws in the European Union protecting consumer privacy.
The report was the culmination of a multiyear effort to scrutinize a clearinghouse of information maintained by the F.B.I. about people who have been deemed known or suspected terrorists. At present, the watch list contains records about roughly 1.1 million people, most of whom are foreigners; about 6,000 of them are Americans, the report said.
The report, which called the database an “important tool” for preventing terrorist attacks, investigated how it works. Agencies across the government can nominate people to be added to it, and a subset are put on a “No-Fly” list, which bars them from being aboard a plane in American airspace, or a “selectee” list, which allows people to fly but subjects them to additional screening at airport security.
It also made recommendations for improving the process, including ensuring that records about Americans in particular are accurate and current, and improving a Department of Homeland Security program that is supposed to handle inquiries by people who believe they are on the list and provide redress to any who were put on it based on erroneous information.
Such complaints can be complicated by the fact that classified information is often the basis for putting people on the list, so the government is reluctant to tell them about it.
But after a federal judge in Oregon ruled in 2014 that redress procedures were inadequate, the government, among other changes, began telling Americans whether they were on the No-Fly list if they filed complaints.
The report and six of the board’s seven recommendations were unanimous. But the board disagreed about one recommendation concerning the redress program: that Americans should also be told if they are on the “selectee” list if they file a complaint after having been repeatedly sent to secondary screening at airports.
Ms. Williams disagreed with that board recommendation, arguing that it would be “dangerous,” because it could tip off terrorists about what the government knows. But another member, Travis LeBlanc, agreed with it but thought it did not go far enough and that citizens of certain allied countries should be entitled to such notice about being on the selectee list, too.
Congress established the board after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to investigate security activities that can intrude on individual rights. While it was initially part of the White House, Congress made it an independent part of the executive branch in 2007 so that its findings and recommendations would have greater credibility.
Ambiguously, however, while declaring it to be an “independent” agency by law, Congress did not enact a provision restricting presidents from removing its board members at will and without a good cause, like misconduct. That is the normal mechanism by which Congress renders executive branch agencies independent of the White House.
The agency has subpoena power and security clearances, and its five members are appointed by presidents and subject to Senate confirmation. No more than three are supposed to be from the president’s party, leaving congressional leaders of the other party to select the other two.
Of the three Democratic-appointed members, the board’s chairwoman, Sharon Bradford Franklin, was set to depart next week regardless. But the remaining two, Edward W. Felten and Mr. LeBlanc, would normally stay on until as late as January 2026 and January 2029.
