The Senate is once again finding a moment of bipartisan unity in its fury over a recently passed law that would allow lawmakers to sue the federal government and reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money as a reward.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to grapple with the inclusion of a provision in a package designed to reopen the government that would allow only senators directly targeted by the Biden-led Department of Justice (DOJ) and former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000.
Both Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ ire at the provision is multipronged. Some are angry it was tucked away into the legislative branch spending bill without a heads-up. Others see it as nothing more than a quick payday for the relatively small group of senators targeted in Smith’s probe.
Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., called the provision ‘outrageous,’ accusing it of being a ‘cash grab’ that diverts taxpayer money from its intended use. ‘It’s absolutely outrageous and needs to be taken out,’ Peters told Fox News Digital.
Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and others who were subjected to phone record subpoenas during the Arctic Frost probe were taken aback by the abrupt inclusion of the provision, as many were caught off guard by its sudden introduction into the bill. Hawley, in particular, argued that the $500,000 payout is unnecessary and should instead be replaced by a legal mechanism allowing for declaratory judgments. ‘Why should taxpayers pay for this?’ Hawley asked. ‘The people who need to be held accountable are the ones who made these decisions, not the senators.’
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., acknowledged the criticism about the process but defended the provision’s substance, stating that Congress needs to be held accountable by the DOJ. ‘You need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government,’ Thune said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., while not fully endorsing the provision, acknowledged that it was a necessary safeguard for Democratic senators from potential future investigations by the DOJ, including under a new administration or leadership. ‘We wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from [Attorney General Pam] Bondi and others who might go after them,’ Schumer said. However, he added, ‘I’d be for repealing all the provision, all of it.’
The House is expected to vote on legislation to repeal the provision, and many in the Senate are hoping the measure will be revoked if it passes the lower chamber. Whether Thune will bring it to the floor, however, remains unclear.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has taken a more nuanced stance, arguing that the provision is not inherently self-dealing but serves as a deterrent against future government overreach. He has called for its expansion, suggesting it should apply to non-senators and even to former lawmakers, stating, ‘Is it wrong for any American to sue the government if they violated your rights, including me?’ Graham also hinted at broader implications, including the possibility of a legal action against Verizon, his phone carrier, for cooperating in the investigation.
Meanwhile, Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has made it clear that he will not support the repeal of the provision, reflecting a deepening split among the Republican Senate bloc. The controversy has sparked not just ideological divisions but also a broader debate about how the government should balance accountability with the rights of individuals and institutions.
The provision’s retroactive date of 2022 has also drawn criticism from some senators, including James Lankford, R-Okla., who argued that the initial intent of the provision was to prevent future abuse, not to reward past actions. ‘The best way to be able to handle it is to be able to fix it, take away the retroactivity in it,’ Lankford said, emphasizing the need for reform rather than the current structure of the provision.