House Unanimously Repeals ‘Arctic Frost’ Payout Clause Amid GOP Rift

The House on Wednesday voted 426-0 to repeal a controversial provision in the recent government funding law that would have let senators sue the Justice Department for up to $500,000 if their phone records were obtained without notice. The swift, unanimous action highlights the political fallout from disclosures tied to an investigation code-named "Arctic Frost."

The provision had been inserted into an appropriations bill by Senate Majority Leader John Thune at the request of several Republican senators after FBI materials connected to an inquiry into the 2020 fake-elector scheme were released. That investigation examined efforts by Trump allies to collect alternate Electoral College certificates from states President Joe Biden carried in 2020.

Under the contested language, senators would have to be notified when federal investigators accessed their phone records, with certain exceptions; failure to notify would allow affected senators to seek damages up to $500,000 per violation.

The measure drew bipartisan alarm and exposed an uncommon public split among top Republicans. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was surprised by the insertion, while Leader Thune defended its inclusion as a response to reported investigative practices.

"We're striking the provision as fast as we can, and we expect the Senate to move it," Rep. Chip Roy (R‑Texas) said, adding he believes a growing Senate majority favors repeal.

Several senators whose records were subpoenaed in the Arctic Frost matter publicly distanced themselves from the payout language, saying they do not intend to pursue monetary claims. Sen. Josh Hawley (R‑Mo.) called the idea a "bad idea," supporting accountability but opposing taxpayer-funded payouts and urging stronger oversight instead. A spokesperson for Sen. Dan Sullivan (R‑Alaska) said he does not plan to sue and backs the House repeal effort.

By contrast, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R‑S.C.), one of the targeted lawmakers, announced he intends to sue the Justice Department and signaled he would seek damages "far more" than $500,000; he also advocated extending similar protections to private citizens. Sen. Mike Rounds (R‑S.D.) said the provision was meant to send a message to the administration after reporting about subpoenas, though he predicted many colleagues might reconsider depending on how the House proceeds.

Sen. Steve Daines (R‑Mont.), a Thune ally, defended the clause as appropriate pushback against what he described as an investigative "overreach" and expressed doubt the House repeal would pass the Senate intact.

With repeal now approved by the House, the immediate question is whether the Senate will follow suit. The episode has underscored tensions within the GOP over how to respond to the Arctic Frost disclosures and highlighted broader debates about the balance between investigative authority and privacy protections for lawmakers and, potentially, private citizens.