The House is moving to repeal a provision that would let senators sue for $500,000 if their Senate phone records or other data were seized without notice. The clause, retroactive to 2022, was tacked onto a year-long funding bill and could have applied to at least eight senators subpoenaed during special counsel Jack Smith's investigation. Supporters call it a safeguard against Justice Department "weaponization," while critics say its last-minute insertion was inappropriate. The repeal is expected to pass the House, but the Senate response is unclear.
House Poised to Repeal Law Letting Senators Seek $500,000 Over Seized Records
The House is moving to repeal a provision that would let senators sue for $500,000 if their Senate phone records or other data were seized without notice. The clause, retroactive to 2022, was tacked onto a year-long funding bill and could have applied to at least eight senators subpoenaed during special counsel Jack Smith's investigation. Supporters call it a safeguard against Justice Department "weaponization," while critics say its last-minute insertion was inappropriate. The repeal is expected to pass the House, but the Senate response is unclear.
10:26 PM, 11/19/2025Politics
Washington — The House is preparing to vote to repeal a contested provision that gives U.S. senators the right to sue the government for $500,000 each time their congressional phone records or other Senate data are seized without notification. The repeal vote is expected to proceed under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority, on Wednesday evening.
The provision was inserted into a year-long legislative-branch funding bill that helped end a recent government shutdown. It is retroactive to 2022 and could have allowed at least eight senators to file claims tied to subpoenas obtained during special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
What the law says
The new statute requires service providers to notify senators when their phone records or other Senate data are seized or subpoenaed. A court may not delay that notification unless the senator is the specific target of a criminal investigation.
"Any senator whose Senate data, or the Senate data of whose Senate office, has been acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed, or disclosed in violation of this section may bring a civil action against the United States if the violation was committed by an officer, employee, or agent of the United States or of any federal department or agency."
The law awards $500,000 per violation and limits how the government may rebut such claims. Because it is retroactive to 2022, at least eight Republican senators whose records were subpoenaed during Smith's probe could have been eligible to sue.
Reactions and fallout
Senate Majority Leader John Thune defended the provision as a check on what he described as the Justice Department's "weaponization" against a co-equal branch of government, saying the measure addresses an apparent statutory violation and provides a private right of action for harmed senators.
Other Republican leaders criticized the way the provision was added. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he discussed the matter with Senator Thune, who "regretted the way it was done," and called the Senate's move "way out of line." Several Republicans, including Reps. Austin Scott and Chip Roy, called the insertion last-minute and self-serving; Rep. Greg Steube said it prompted him to withhold his vote on the funding package.
Most of the eight senators whose records were subpoenaed — Marsha Blackburn, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, Dan Sullivan and Tommy Tuberville — have said they do not plan to pursue damages under the law. Graham has signaled he may take action, arguing that strong consequences are needed to deter future conduct.
What happens next
The House repeal is widely expected to pass under suspension of the rules. The Senate's response remains uncertain; lawmakers on both sides have debated the substance and the process by which the provision was enacted. Supporters framed the rule as accountability for alleged overreach, while critics condemned its late insertion into critical funding legislation.