The House voted 426-0 to repeal a provision that would have let senators — but not House members — seek $500,000 if their phone records were obtained without notice. The clause, quietly added to a government-reopening bill, drew bipartisan ire after Sen. Chuck Grassley said the "Arctic Frost" probe sought records from 10 Republican senators and one House member. Speaker Mike Johnson and other House Republicans called the insertion improper; Senate leaders defended it as protecting Senate prerogatives. Rep. John Rose introduced a resolution authorizing a court challenge if the Senate doesn’t act.
House Unanimously Repeals Controversial Senate Phone-Records Lawsuit Provision, 426-0
The House voted 426-0 to repeal a provision that would have let senators — but not House members — seek $500,000 if their phone records were obtained without notice. The clause, quietly added to a government-reopening bill, drew bipartisan ire after Sen. Chuck Grassley said the "Arctic Frost" probe sought records from 10 Republican senators and one House member. Speaker Mike Johnson and other House Republicans called the insertion improper; Senate leaders defended it as protecting Senate prerogatives. Rep. John Rose introduced a resolution authorizing a court challenge if the Senate doesn’t act.
02:47 PM, 11/20/2025Politics
The House on Wednesday voted 426-0 to repeal a recently enacted provision that would have allowed senators — but not members of the House — to seek $500,000 in damages if law enforcement obtained their phone records without prior notice.
The clause had been inserted at the last minute into a Senate-crafted bill to reopen the federal government, prompting bipartisan outrage among House lawmakers who called the addition improper and self-serving. The measure drew attention after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) revealed that former special counsel Jack Smith’s “Arctic Frost” probe had sought phone records from 10 Republican senators and at least one House member, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.).
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) described the provision as “way out of line” and said House leaders had been unaware it was included. Many Republicans said they voted to pass the broader spending bill rather than remove the provision, which would have forced another round of negotiations with the Senate and further delayed reopening the government.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) defended the original action, arguing at a press conference that the statute addressed a Senate-only concern and was intended to protect senators from federal agencies collecting their private information. “The statute that was violated applied only to the Senate, which is why we addressed it the way that we did,” Thune said.
Most senators who stood to benefit have distanced themselves from the measure, but Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he intends to sue and told reporters he would keep part of any award if successful. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has said she could sue under the law but would not pursue monetary damages.
On the House side, Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.), a vocal opponent of the provision, introduced an alternate resolution authorizing Speaker Johnson to bring the matter to court and challenge the law as unconstitutional if the Senate does not act. Rose is campaigning for governor against Sen. Marsha Blackburn.
Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) criticized House leadership during floor debate, saying extended recesses left the House sidelined during negotiations and contributed to the surprise insertion. “For six straight weeks, House leadership decided to cancel our sessions,” Kiley said, arguing that the absences made the chamber “irrelevant in any deal to re-open the government.”
The repeal vote highlights ongoing tensions between the chambers over procedure and oversight, and it sets up potential legal battles if the question of unequal protections between senators and representatives is pursued in court.