44 UNITED STATES V. MOHAMUD Ct. 1958, 1970 (2013). In deciding reasonableness, we examine the totality of the circumstances and weigh “‘the promotion of legitimate governmental interests’ against ‘the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual’s privacy.’” Id. (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999)). We agree with the district court that under these circumstances, the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. i. Government Interest “[T]he Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010). Neither Mohamud nor Amici challenge this. Instead, they argue that (1) the statutory definition of “foreign intelligence information” in § 702 is overbroad because it is not confined to national security information but also includes “the conduct of [] foreign affairs”27; and (2) even if national security justifies the initial acquisition, it is unreasonable to then retain and later search U.S. persons’ § 702-acquired communications without a warrant. The declassified facts foreclose both arguments. First, as the district court observed, “the discovery in this case all concerned protecting the country from a terrorist threat and did not stray into the broader category of the conduct of foreign affairs.” Thus, we need not determine whether the collection of foreign affairs communications is reasonable. Similarly, the second argument is also outside the scope of our review, as no such retention and querying is at issue in this case. 27 See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801(e)(2)(b), 1881(a).