House Votes 426–0 to Repeal 'Arctic Frost' Provision Allowing Senators to Sue Over Seized Phone Records

The House of Representatives unanimously voted to remove a controversial provision—nicknamed "Arctic Frost"—that would have allowed senators whose phone records were seized during Special Counsel Jack Smith’s probe to sue the federal government for damages.

The provision had been inserted into the funding bill that ended a 43-day government shutdown and was signed into law by President Donald Trump. Lawmakers on both sides objected to the last-minute addition, arguing it created institutional friction and risked exposing taxpayers to new liabilities.

The repeal passed by a 426–0 margin, with 210 Democrats and 216 Republicans recorded in favor of stripping the clause from the law.

What the provision would have done

Legislative text described as "Requiring Senate Notification for Senate Data" would have permitted senators specifically targeted in the Arctic Frost investigation to seek up to $500,000 in damages from the United States if portions of their phone records were obtained during the probe.

How it got into the bill

Members of the House said the language was added in the Senate late in negotiations without prior notice to House leaders. Senate Majority Leader John Thune placed the measure in the bill with approval from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. The insertion was reportedly requested by several Senate Republicans, including Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz.

"It had been added in the Senate without our knowledge," said House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.), calling the move a breach of trust and warning it could have jeopardized the vote to reopen the government.

House reaction and intra-party divisions

Lawmakers across parties criticized the surprise addition. Some Republicans supported the principle of holding the Justice Department accountable, but many objected to a mechanism that would rely on taxpayer funds and that was narrowly tailored to benefit only sitting senators.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he was unaware the provision would be included and called it "untimely and inappropriate," urging Senate leaders to repeal it. Representatives including Chip Roy (R-Texas), Austin Scott (R-Ga.) and Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) expressed frustration but agreed not to let the measure block passage of the funding bill.

Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) said senators had been wronged but criticized the clause for excluding other potential plaintiffs — including private citizens or the president — while exposing taxpayers to costs.

Senators' responses

Reactions among senators were mixed. Senator Lindsey Graham said he planned to pursue litigation and suggested seeking substantial damages; Senator Ted Cruz opposed the repeal. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) defended the provision as a necessary safeguard if the Justice Department overstepped.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the seizure of phone records "demands some accountability" and described the measure as protection for the institutional integrity of Congress.

With the House repeal, the specific taxpayer-backed remedy created by that clause has been removed from the funding law. The episode, however, highlighted continuing tensions between the chambers and within parties about how to respond to investigative actions viewed by some members as intrusive or politically motivated.