The House voted to remove a late addition to a spending bill that allows senators to seek up to $500,000 each time their phone metadata was accessed without notice. The clause, added by Sen. John Thune after disclosures that the FBI reviewed records for as many as 10 senators in 2023, provoked bipartisan criticism in the House as self-serving. Some targeted senators, including Lindsey Graham and Tommy Tuberville, say they will use or consider using the provision, while others oppose payouts. The Senate is unlikely to approve a straight repeal without negotiations or modifications.
House Votes to Repeal Controversial Clause Letting Senators Sue Over Seized Phone Records
The House voted to remove a late addition to a spending bill that allows senators to seek up to $500,000 each time their phone metadata was accessed without notice. The clause, added by Sen. John Thune after disclosures that the FBI reviewed records for as many as 10 senators in 2023, provoked bipartisan criticism in the House as self-serving. Some targeted senators, including Lindsey Graham and Tommy Tuberville, say they will use or consider using the provision, while others oppose payouts. The Senate is unlikely to approve a straight repeal without negotiations or modifications.
04:06 AM, 11/20/2025Politics
The House voted Wednesday to strip a provision from a recent spending measure that lets senators seek large damages if their personal or office phone data were accessed without their knowledge. The clause — inserted late by Senate Majority Leader John Thune into the bill that ended the recent government shutdown — drew immediate bipartisan outrage in the House, which called it self-serving and unfair to taxpayers.
The language allows affected senators to sue for up to $500,000 for each instance in which phone metadata was obtained without notice. Lawmakers said the change was added in response to disclosures that the FBI reviewed phone records for as many as 10 senators in 2023 as part of the inquiry into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Officials say the records included call metadata — dates and times — not the content of calls.
House members from both parties criticized the provision. Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) called it "probably the most self-centered, self-serving piece of language that I have ever seen," while Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) labeled it a "self-serving, self-dealing, one-sided get rich scheme at the expense of taxpayers." Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries characterized the repeal vote as largely symbolic because Thune declined to take up the House bill in the Senate.
Senate Republicans — particularly senators whose records were reviewed — have defended the new right to sue. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he plans to use the provision to sue the Justice Department and Verizon and suggested he would back expanding protections to others. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) threatened legal action and attacked former special counsel Jack Smith on social media.
Division within the GOP and possible concessions
Not all targeted senators intend to seek damages. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said they would not pursue payouts; Scott also said he would support repeal if it reached the Senate. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who was not among those targeted, said he supports holding the government accountable but questioned retroactive application of the law and suggested Congress could negotiate changes as it works on future spending bills.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer acknowledged he agreed to the language before the Senate passed the spending package, even as he voted against the overall bill to end the shutdown. Schumer said Democrats accepted the provision to protect themselves but voiced openness to repealing it entirely.
With Thune unlikely to back a straightforward repeal, lawmakers say the dispute may move into negotiations: House leaders pressing for repeal, Senate Republicans seeking either to retain the provision for targeted senators or expand protections more broadly to other lawmakers or organizations. For now, the fate of the clause — and whether affected senators will press claims that the Justice Department overreached — remains uncertain.