A text quietly inserted into a major budget bill that would have allowed the reopening of American government promises has caused an uproar in Washington. This would pave the way for unprecedented lawsuits: any senator whose phone data was examined by federal investigators without prior notice could sue for up to $500,000 in damages.
The measure, integrated into the legislature’s funding, would be retroactive to 2022, allowing eight Republican elected officials to take action against the federal state. These lawmakers – including Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley and Ron Johnson – have seen their phone records requested by investigators from Jack Smith, the former special prosecutor in charge of investigating Donald Trump’s efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election. At that time, they only learned of the data seizure earlier this year.
The text, written in technical language, would make it an offense not to notify senators whose data was obtained by authorities through telephone operators or other service providers. But there remains an exception: the notification period is up to sixty days if the parliamentarian himself is the subject of the investigation. The bill also removes legal protections the government normally has, including sovereign immunity, which would make prosecution simpler.
Democrats cried foul
The political significance of this provision is clear: it could be detrimental to the federal state and offer a symbolic victory to the senators concerned after months of denouncing what they see as an abuse of power. Senator Charles Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, specifically criticized what he described as “unlawful surveillance” of Congress.
Facing them, the Democratic Party cried scandal. Senator Ron Wyden, elected from Oregon, believes this clause amounts to “offering millions of dollars in public funds to several Republican senators who are helping Trump try to overthrow the government.” He acknowledged that citizens should be informed if they are subject to surveillance, but he considered such a principle unacceptable if used to compensate elected officials involved in contesting the 2020 election.
Meanwhile, Jack Smith assured the American press through his lawyers that the collection of telephone records was within the legal framework of his investigation and was aimed at understanding Trump camp interactions, not to spy on lawmakers. These records, the lawyers say, do not contain the content of the conversations: they are limited to connection data, “metadata,” which shows who called, when, and for how long.
The debate, which combines legal, budgetary and political issues, adds to the explosive climate that has shrouded negotiations to reopen the government for weeks. If the bill is adopted as is, it would provide an opportunity for some Republican senators to turn their long-standing grievances into a highly profitable legal battle, and at the same time enshrine in the bill a new area of parliamentary protection.
