WHO would dare to kill off anything so obviously virtuous as the “Protect America Act”? Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, did just that last week. The result has been a fiery row over American surveillance policy—and a big political headache for Ms Pelosi's party.

The act, which was passed in August and expired on February 16th, authorised American intelligence officials to eavesdrop on foreigners without having to ask for warrants, even when the targets were communicating with American citizens. George Bush began doing this without congressional approval shortly after September 11th 2001; but after the New York Times exposed the programme, stoking much liberal outrage, Congress helpfully stepped in to give its permission.

The law, however, was only temporary. With the need for an extension drawing near, President Bush insisted the Democrats tack on retrospective immunity for the telecommunications companies that had earlier co-operated with his warrantless dragnet. (These firms now face lawsuits for having done so.) House Democratic leaders refused and left for a recess, leaving the law to expire.

Mr Bush pounced, claiming that America had been left “more in danger of an attack”. His intelligence chief claimed that America's information-gathering capabilities had begun to deteriorate as soon as the law expired. Robert Novak, a conservative commentator, accused Democrats of pandering to rich trial lawyers at the risk of American lives.

In reality, the statute's demise has done little practical harm. Existing wiretaps can continue. American spies can also tap away as long as they get permission from the attorney-general; warrants, which have to be signed by a judge, can be obtained subsequently. (Preparing warrant applications, even after the fact, is time-consuming, but that should not be an immediate problem.) And telecommunications firms worried about lawsuits are no worse off than they were before.

The political fallout, however, is much more significant. Polls show that Americans now trust the Democrats as much, if not more, than Republicans on national security and terrorism—a striking change from the position earlier in the decade. The Republicans are desperate to reverse that trend, not least because their presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, will doubtless have much to say about the war on terror. The Democrats' balkiness will only help Mr McCain's case. They will, of course, end up passing eavesdropping legislation much along existing lines; but every day of delay will hurt them.