The House moved quickly and decisively to strip a last-minute Senate measure that would have let senators sue the federal government over seized phone records tied to the Jack Smith probe, exposing a raw split between urgent demands for accountability and worries about process, cost, and institutional overreach.
The disputed language, placed into the government-funding bill in the Senate, would have created a narrow, taxpayer-funded path for certain senators to seek up to $500,000 after having their communications seized. Supporters argued it was about protecting the legislative branch from an overreaching Department of Justice, while many in the House said the timing and scope were unacceptable.
The repeal sailed through the House on a unanimous 426 to 0 vote, a telling procedural rebuke even if the politics behind it were messy. That result reflects how House members, including Republicans, balked at an item dropped into a must-pass funding measure without warning or broader protections for others similarly harmed.
House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole described the shock the provision caused during final negotiations. “It had been added in the Senate without our knowledge,” Cole said. “It was a real trust factor … I mean, all of a sudden, this pops up in the bill, and we’re confronted with either: leave this in here, or we pull it out, we have to go to conference, and the government doesn’t get reopened.”
The provision had been advanced by Senate GOP leaders and supported publicly by senators who say their records were wrongfully taken. For defenders, the principle is simple: when a co-equal branch is targeted by executive-branch tactics, there must be remedies that protect members and the institution from future intrusion.
But House conservatives pushed back hard on two fronts: principle and pocketbook. They argued that accountability should be broader and not funded at taxpayer expense for a select group, and they objected to the last-minute legislative sleight that put lawmakers in an awkward position when the alternative was keeping the government closed.
“This provision does not allow other Americans to pursue a remedy. It does not even allow the President of the United States, who was equally wrongfully surveilled and pursued by the Justice Department — they didn’t even include President Trump in this,” Rep. John Rose warned, reflecting the concern that the carve-out was too narrow and politically selective.
Still, some senators are not backing down and describe personal injury that demands a tough response. “My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue,” Graham said on “Hannity” Tuesday night. He said he would be seeking “tens of millions of dollars.”
Sen. Pete Ricketts emphasized institutional defense in his remarks and urged stronger protections for the branch when the Justice Department oversteps. “I’d like for us to be able to defend our branch when DOJ gets out of control,” he said. That sentiment mirrors a broader GOP view that weaponized investigations threaten basic separation-of-powers safeguards.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune framed the dispute in stark terms about accountability and deterrence. “I would just say, I mean, you have an independent, co-equal branch of government whose members were, through illegal means, having their phone records acquired — spied on, if you will, through a weaponized Biden Justice Department,” Thune said. “That, to me, demands some accountability.”
At the same time, House leaders who wanted the shutdown ended made clear they did not want a fight over procedural surprises to obstruct reopening the government. “I had no prior notice of it at all,” Johnson told reporters last week. “I was frustrated, as my colleagues are over here, and I thought it was untimely and inappropriate. So we’ll be requesting, strongly urging, our Senate colleagues to repeal that.”
The clash leaves Republicans with a clear choice: press the moral and institutional case for accountability and craft a cleaner, broader fix, or risk alienating voters by appearing to demand special treatment funded by taxpayers. The unanimous House vote makes the next move obvious in practical terms, but it does not settle the deeper question about how and when Congress should be able to push back against aggressive executive-branch investigations.
https://x.com/meredithllee/status/1991186826757902409
