A March 25 story in the New York Times revealed that the New York City Police Department (NYPD) conducted a covert surveillance program in 14 states, Canada and Europe that collected information on groups planning lawful protests or events at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The information became public as a result of two lawsuits brought against the city by seven of the 1,806 people arrested during the convention. However, the city has asked a federal court to keep detailed records of this surveillance secret, fearing they will be "misinterpreted." The vast scope of the surveillance has become public knowledge at the same time that Congress is investigating Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) abuse of Patriot Act powers to collect information.

In a plea agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on March 14 Chiquita Brands International agreed to pay a $25 million fine after admitting it paid terrorists for protection in a dangerous region of Colombia. The payments, made between 1997 and 2004, continued despite the company's knowledge that they were illegal. The company was allowed to continue profitable production during the investigation. The U.S. government's action is inconsistent with standards and procedure used against charities, which have had their assets seized and frozen while investigations are pending.

In the context of the ongoing controversy surrounding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on March 29 that explored the oversight powers of Congress. "Ensuring Executive Branch Accountability" included testimony from several experts on executive privilege and congressional oversight powers.

On April 2, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finalized interim chemical security regulations. The final regulations are an improvement over the proposed regulations issued in December 2006, but many weaknesses remain. In particular, DHS modified its broad interpretation of a provision regarding state preemption but did not adequately establish that states can develop rules stronger than the federal ones. The final rules do little to allay concerns regarding the lack of public accountability and access to information or the failure to require consideration of inherently safer technologies by facilities reporting to DHS.