The House of Representatives unanimously voted 426-0 Wednesday night to repeal a controversial provision in the government funding bill, which could have awarded GOP senators hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for their phone records being obtained by former special counsel Jack Smith. The inclusion of this clause, quietly slipped into the shutdown-ending package by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, sparked bipartisan backlash, with even critics of Smith supporting the effort to remove the measure. House Administration Committee chair Bryan Steil, a staunch conservative, emphasized during the floor debate that no elected official should profit from the federal government’s wrongdoing, calling the provision ‘unacceptable.’
The provision, which would have allowed senators to sue the government for $500,000 or more if their electronic data was subpoenaed without proper notification, has raised concerns about its retroactivity. This would extend protections to at least eight Republican senators whose records were obtained as part of Smith’s probe into Trump’s 2020 election interference. However, the Senate has not yet passed the bill to repeal the language, with no guarantees it will receive a vote on the Senate floor.
Republican senators have been particularly incensed by the revelation that Smith’s probe obtained their private data, arguing it represented a politicization of the Justice Department. However, Smith’s subpoena was narrowly focused on data surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, and investigators did not access the contents of the calls. Despite this, several GOP lawmakers whose data was subpoenaed have distanced themselves from the provision, suggesting they may not seek financial compensation. Nonetheless, the damage has already been done, as Thune has not shown interest in bringing the bill to the Senate floor, even amid mounting pressure from his own members.
Thune, in a statement to reporters, indicated that further discussions are needed to reach a consensus on how to amend the provision. Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has previously indicated his intention to sue for substantial financial compensation, has proposed expanding the provision to include more individuals who could potentially seek damages under the legislative language. The situation remains highly contentious, with implications for both legal precedent and the integrity of the legislative process.