Senator Lindsey Graham’s announcement this week that he intends to sue the Department of Justice (DOJ) for $500,000 has thrown fresh fuel onto an already smoldering controversy over congressional data privacy, government transparency, and the political fallout from the January 6 investigations. The legal action, which Graham says he’ll pursue after learning that investigators obtained his phone records during special counsel Jack Smith’s probe into former President Trump’s alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election, is only the latest twist in a drama that has captivated and divided Washington.
According to The Post and Courier and The Hill, Graham declared, “It bothers the hell out of me and I’m going to sue, and I’m going to create opportunities for others to sue that weren’t in the Senate.” His anger is shared by a number of his Senate colleagues whose phone records were also swept up in the investigation, as revealed in a Senate Judiciary Committee document dated September 27, 2023. The document detailed that FBI agents conducted a “preliminary toll analysis” on the phone records of Graham and several other Republican senators—Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Dan Sullivan, Tommy Tuberville, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, and Marsha Blackburn—covering the critical period from January 4 to January 7, 2021, just before, during, and after the Capitol riot.
The FBI analysis collected information on whom the lawmakers spoke to, how long the calls lasted, and the general locations of the parties involved. Importantly, it did not include the content of the conversations themselves. Still, the revelation has left many lawmakers fuming, especially since some, like Representative Mike Kelly, whose records were also examined, are ineligible to sue under the new law because it applies only to senators.
The legal avenue for Graham and others to sue was created by a provision quietly inserted into the government funding bill that ended the 43-day government shutdown. The measure, retroactive to 2022, allows senators to sue for $500,000 if their data was obtained without notification. Once President Trump signed the bill on November 13, 2025, the provision became law. The inclusion of this clause has sparked outrage and accusations of political self-dealing, particularly from the House of Representatives, where both Democrats and Republicans have voiced strong objections.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, a Republican from Oklahoma, told Fox News, “It had been done without our knowledge. I mean, it had been added in the Senate without our knowledge. It was a real trust factor … I mean, all of a sudden, this pops up in the bill, and we’re confronted with either leave this in here, or we pull it out, we have to go to conference, and the government doesn’t get reopened.” The urgency to end the historic shutdown, which had already led to delayed benefits and grounded flights, meant that the House ultimately passed the bill, vowing to address the controversial provision later.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer both approved the provision, while Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz reportedly requested its inclusion, according to a Fox News Digital source. The move has created a rare moment of unity among House lawmakers, who, regardless of party, have criticized the measure’s fairness and the manner in which it was added. Representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, didn’t mince words, calling the provision “one of the most blatantly corrupt provisions for political self-dealing and the plunder of public resources ever proposed in Congress.”
On the Republican side, Representative Greg Steube of Florida, the only House Republican to vote against the funding bill, said he “could not in good conscience support a resolution that creates a self-indulgent legal provision for certain senators to enrich themselves by suing the Justice Department using taxpayer dollars.” The sentiment was echoed by other House Republicans, including Chip Roy of Texas, Austin Scott of Georgia, and Morgan Griffith of Virginia, who all expressed frustration with the measure but ultimately did not block the bill to avoid prolonging the shutdown. Roy, speaking to the press, remarked, “I mean, you know, the lords don’t like to be told by mere commoners what to do. But we’re going to have to take a pretty strong stand on this one.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson joined the chorus of critics, stating on November 15, 2025, “I was just as surprised by the inclusion of that language as anyone. I had no prior notice of it at all. I was frustrated, as my colleagues are over here, and I thought it was untimely and inappropriate. So we’ll be requesting, strongly urging, our Senate colleagues to repeal that.” Johnson announced that the House will vote on a standalone bill next week to repeal the litigation measure, setting the stage for a potential showdown between the chambers.
The provision’s origins and implications have become a flashpoint in the broader debate over congressional privilege, transparency, and accountability. Critics argue that it creates a double standard, shielding senators from investigative scrutiny while offering them a financial windfall at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile, supporters, particularly those targeted by the DOJ investigation, frame the provision as a necessary protection against government overreach and a means to uphold the privacy and independence of the legislative branch.
Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who revealed in October that he was also targeted by the investigation, has not yet indicated whether he will pursue legal action. The controversy has also reignited discussions about surveillance and privacy more broadly, with some noting the irony that Graham, while in the House, voted for the 2001 Patriot Act, which expanded the government’s surveillance powers, and later defended the NSA’s mass collection of Americans’ phone records in 2013.
Every Republican senator except Rand Paul joined eight Democrats in passing the funding measure, underscoring the bipartisan urgency to end the shutdown, even at the cost of swallowing a bitter legislative pill. Yet, the backlash from House lawmakers and the public debate over the provision’s fairness suggest that the issue is far from settled. As the House prepares to vote on repealing the measure, all eyes are on whether the Senate will stand firm or yield to mounting pressure.
For now, the controversy over senators’ right to sue the DOJ for data collection—born out of the tumultuous aftermath of the 2020 election and the January 6 riot—remains a vivid illustration of the complex interplay between law, politics, and the public trust. The coming weeks will reveal whether Congress can find a path forward that balances privacy, accountability, and the interests of the American people.
