Senators from both parties criticized a late-added provision in a legislative spending bill that would let senators targeted by the DOJ's Arctic Frost probe sue the government for up to $500,000, with the change made retroactive to 2022. Lawmakers objected to the process, the narrow Senate-only scope, and taxpayer-funded payouts, while supporters said the measure deters politicized investigations. The House is preparing a repeal vote, and senators remain divided over repeal, revision or retention of the clause.
Senators Denounce ‘Cash Grab’ Lawsuit Clause Allowing $500K Payouts as House Prepares Repeal Vote
Senators from both parties criticized a late-added provision in a legislative spending bill that would let senators targeted by the DOJ's Arctic Frost probe sue the government for up to $500,000, with the change made retroactive to 2022. Lawmakers objected to the process, the narrow Senate-only scope, and taxpayer-funded payouts, while supporters said the measure deters politicized investigations. The House is preparing a repeal vote, and senators remain divided over repeal, revision or retention of the clause.
10:23 AM, 11/20/2025Politics
Senators from both parties voiced sharp criticism after a narrowly written provision was added to a legislative-branch spending package that would allow certain senators to sue the federal government for up to $500,000. The language — retroactive to 2022 — was inserted to address subpoenas and other investigative tactics used in the Justice Department's "Arctic Frost" inquiry and was added at the request of GOP lawmakers and approved by Senate leadership.
Why the provision drew bipartisan ire
Critics objected on several fronts: the way the clause was added late in the process, its limited scope that covers only senators, and the fact that awards would be paid from taxpayer funds. Many lawmakers said they learned of the change only when the full bill was released about a day before the vote.
"It's outrageous. It's basically just a cash grab for senators to take money away from taxpayers," said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.).
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has defended the substance of the measure as a check against potential weaponization of investigative powers against a co-equal branch of government, while acknowledging that adding the language at the last minute was a legitimate procedural criticism.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said leadership approved the change in part to extend protections to Democratic senators as well, and described the provision as prospective as well as retroactive. Still, Schumer indicated he would support repealing the language.
Key objections and proposed fixes
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), one of eight senators whose records were sought during the inquiry, said he was not consulted and questioned why taxpayers should underwrite monetary awards. He and others suggested a non-monetary remedy — such as a declaratory judgment from a court that government actions were unlawful — could be a less controversial alternative.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) urged changes to remove retroactivity while preserving safeguards to prevent future misuse of investigative power. Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) called the provision a "total mess" that generated bipartisan concern.
Support for the provision
Not all senators want the language removed. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he plans to sue the Justice Department and his phone carrier over records requests and defended the provision as a needed deterrent. Graham also expressed interest in broadening eligibility so others affected by similar investigations could seek remedies.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said he opposed repealing the provision.
What happens next
The House is preparing legislation to repeal the clause. If the repeal passes that chamber, senators say they want the opportunity to consider erasing or revising the provision should it reach the Senate floor. Whether Senate leadership will bring the matter up for a floor vote remains unclear.