EXCLUSIVE: Ernst, Cruz Introduce Bill To Recover Billions From Biden Boondoggle
'Biden’s broadband boondoggle failed to connect a single person to the internet'
Lindsey Graham blocks House effort to scrap his $500,000+ Arctic Frost payday
Before Republican lawmakers passed their funding bill to reopen the government last week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) slipped in a provision that paved the way for senators — and only senators — targeted by the Biden FBI's Arctic Frost operation to squeeze the government for taxpayer cash.
Lawmakers in the House, some of whom were also victims of the previous administration's lawfare, unanimously rejected the provision, taking steps to repeal it earlier this week.
'What did I do wrong?'
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), among the senators eligible to sue for a payday of at least $500,000, stopped the repeal in its tracks on Thursday, prompting chatter about personal enrichment among some of his colleagues.
The provision
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published damning documents last month revealing that in its years-long campaign to find "anything they could to hook on Trump, put Trump in prison," the Biden FBI not only subpoenaed records for over 400 Republican individuals and entities but secretly obtained the private phone records of numerous Republican lawmakers.
Thune introduced a provision into the continuing resolution that reopened the government to enable senators whose phone records were "acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed or disclosed" without his or her knowledge to file a civil lawsuit against the government inside the next five years for at least $500,000 plus legal fees for each instance of a violation.
Senators would be able to take legal action if at the time their records were seized, they were a target of a criminal investigation; a federal judge issued an order authorizing a delay of notice to the senator in question; the government complied with the judge's order; and the subpoena was faithfully executed.
The backlash
The provision caused bipartisan outrage in the House.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he was "very angry" about the provision, stressing that it had been slipped in at the last minute without his knowledge.
RELATED: A payout scheme for senators deepens the gap between DC and the rest of us
"We’re striking the provision as fast as we can, and we expect the Senate to move it," Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told CNN. "We believe there’s a fairly sizeable growing majority over there that believes that they should strike it."
Democrat Rep. Joe Morelle (N.Y.) said that this kind of "one-sided get-rich scheme at the expense of taxpayers is why Americans are so disgusted with this Congress."
Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), who indicated that the provision was "probably the most self-centered, self-serving piece of language" he had ever seen, introduced a resolution to appeal the provision on Nov. 12.
"Nobody in the House supported this language," Scott said on Wednesday ahead of the vote on his resolution. "This language did not go through any committee in the Senate, did not go through any committee in the House, and could never be passed and signed into law if it was discussed openly."
"For the people who are saying it's $500,000, I want the American citizens to know this: It's not $500,000. It's $500,000 per account per occurrence," continued Scott. "We have one senator — one — who maintains that this provision is good and is currently saying that he is going to sue for tens of millions of dollars."
Scott appears to have been referring to Sen. Graham, who said in a recent Fox News interview that he would sue "the hell out of these people" for "tens of millions of dollars."
Scott added that it was right to open up the government but wrong to put "language in the bill that would make themselves individually wealthy."
The House passed the Georgia Republican's resolution in a unanimous 426-0 vote.
Graham's blockage
U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) requested unanimous consent on Thursday for the Senate to follow suit, claiming the provision was "unprecedented in American history."
Others across the aisle were reportedly warming to the idea of killing the legislation, including Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley — among those whose communications were targeted by the Biden FBI — who stated, "I had my phone tapped, so I'm all for accountability, don't get me wrong, but I just, I think taking taxpayer money is not the way to do it. The way to do it is tough oversight."
Desperate to protect the provision, Graham blocked the motion.
"What did I do wrong?" said Graham, who argued that the surveillance of his communications was unlawful and that he deserved a right to have his day in court. "What did I do to allow the government to seize my personal phone and my official phone when I was Senate Judiciary chairman?"
According to reports, federal investigators accessed Graham's phone records. No allegations to date indicate that investigators appropriated Graham's phones.
While Democrat senators attempted to paint the taxpayer-funded payback as unsanctioned by their leadership, Graham reportedly extracted from Thune an admission that the provision had been discussed with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
"So this wasn't Republicans doing this," said Graham. "This was people in the Senate believing what happened to the Senate need never happen again."
In hopes of alleviating concerns about self-enrichment, Thune proposed on Thursday changing the provision such that any damages awarded under the law would be forfeited to the U.S. Treasury. His corresponding resolution was blocked by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.).
Graham underscored on Thursday, "I'm going to sue."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A payout scheme for senators deepens the gap between DC and the rest of us
During the final hours of the shutdown fight earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) slipped a toxic provision into the continuing resolution that reopened the government. The clause created a special pathway for select senators to sue the federal government, bypass its usual legal defenses, and claim large payouts if their records were subpoenaed during the Arctic Frost investigation.
The result? About eight senators could demand $500,000 for every “instance” of seized data. Those instances could stack, pushing potential payouts into the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. That is not an exaggeration. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has all but celebrated the prospect.
Graham said he wanted ‘tens of millions of dollars’ for seized records while victims of weaponization still face shattered lives.
No one else would qualify for compensation. Only senators. Anyone who spent years helping victims of political weaponization — often pro bono, while prestige law firms chased billable hours — can see the corruption in plain view. The message this provision sends on the central Trump-era promise of accountability could not be weaker: screw the people, pay the pols.
The surveillance of senators was wrong. It should never have happened. But senators did not face what ordinary Americans endured. Senators maintain large campaign accounts to hire top lawyers. They operate out of official offices, armed with constitutional protections such as the Speech and Debate Clause. They do not lose their homes, jobs, savings, or businesses. Thousands of Americans did. Many still face legal bills, ruined livelihoods, and ongoing cases. They deserve restitution — not the politicians who failed them.
Graham helped push this provision forward. As public criticism grew, he defended it. On Sean Hannity’s show the other day, he said: “My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue.” Hannity asked how much. Graham replied: “Tens of millions of dollars.”
Democrats will replay that clip across every battleground in the country going into an uphill midterm battle in 2026.
Graham embodies the worst messenger for this fight. He helped fuel weaponization long before he claimed victimhood. He urged the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to pass the Steele dossier to the FBI. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did nothing to slow the Justice Department and FBI as they pursued political targets. He even supported many of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees who later embraced aggressive lawfare tactics. If anyone owed restitution to victims, Graham sits high on the list.
RELATED: Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine
Fortunately, enough Republicans recognize the political and moral disaster of funneling taxpayer funds to senators while real victims remain abandoned. The House advanced a measure today to repeal the provision. Led by Reps. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas), the House forced the Senate to address in public what it attempted to smuggle through in private.
Thune defended the measure in comments to Axios. He argued that only senators suffered statutory violations and said the provision was crafted to avoid covering House members. He did not explain why any House member who was illegally surveilled should receive no remedy.
The Senate leader also claimed the financial penalty would deter a future Justice Department from targeting lawmakers, citing the actions of special counsel Jack Smith. His emphasis on “future” misconduct glossed over a critical fact: The provision is retroactive and would cover past abuses.
That defense cannot survive daylight. Repeal requires 60 Senate votes, and not a single Democrat will fight to preserve a payout for Graham. Republicans should not try either. Efforts to strike the measure need to begin immediately. Senators — especially Thune — should commit to an up-or-down vote. If they want to send tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to Graham, they should do it in public, with the country watching.
Washington already reeks of grift and self-dealing this year. If senators protect this provision, that smell will spread nationwide.
With Trump's blessing, House approves resolution to release the Epstein files: 'We have nothing to hide'
After months of pushback, the House passed a resolution to release the highly anticipated Epstein files.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna of California co-authored the resolution to release the Epstein files and forced the House vote Tuesday using a discharge petition. Lawmakers forced the floor vote after the petition secured 218 signatories last week, including Republican Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, and Massie.
'Of course we're for maximum transparency.'
Republican Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana was the lone no vote.
Although only four Republicans signed onto the petition, initially bucking their party, President Donald Trump changed course and encouraged rank-and-file GOP members to vote in favor of the resolution. Republican leadership later followed suit, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) confirming Tuesday that he would vote in favor of the resolution.
RELATED: Mike Johnson changes course ahead of key Epstein vote
"As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat 'Shutdown,'" Trump said in a Truth Social Post Sunday.
Johnson echoed Trump's message for transparency but mentioned several "dangers" in the current resolution he hopes will be amended in the Senate, including concerns for victims' privacy and inadequate handling of child sexual abuse materials.
"There's a handful of Republicans, Judiciary Committee members, and a few others who are really struggling, as I have been, about whether or not they can even vote yes today because of this," Johnson said during a presser Tuesday. "Because we don't have an absolute guarantee that this will be fixed in the Senate."
RELATED: Democrat lawmaker faces censure for 'colluding' with Epstein during congressional hearing
Despite these concerns, Johnson urged the conference to "vote their conscience."
"Having now forced the vote, none of us want to go on record and in any way be accused of not being for maximum transparency," Johnson said. "So the only intellectually consistent position to have right now ... is to allow for everyone to vote their conscience and to go on record to say, 'Of course we're for maximum transparency.'"
The resolution is now headed to the Senate. If it passes, Trump confirmed that he would sign the resolution into law.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
On Obamacare, Are Democrats Trying To Make A Law Or Just A Political Point?
While Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promised Democrats a vote on a subsidy extension in the coming weeks, it remains unclear what legislation senators will vote on.Pro-Life Groups Announce $80 Million Campaign To ‘Fire Up Pro-Life Americans’ For 2026 Midterms
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is partnering with Women Speak Out PAC to chase votes for life in a high stakes, lower-turnout election.The early social media reviews of Cruz's 2028 POTUS trial balloon are in
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) dropped out of the 2016 presidential race after his crushing defeat in the Indiana Republican primary by then-candidate Donald Trump. It seems that Cruz did not, however, drop his aspirations of one day taking the White House.
Cruz kept his powder dry during the 2020 presidential election and, in 2024, successfully ran for a third term in the U.S. Senate. Now, the 54-year-old Calgary-born senator appears to be preparing for a 2028 presidential bid.
Unfortunately for Cruz, MAGA influencers do not appear too impressed by his recent attacks on Tucker Carlson, which some regard as proxy attacks on Vice President JD Vance, who is far and away the 2028 Republican front-runner, by even Secretary of State Marco Rubio's admission.
'Cruz is gonna have a tough time.'
On Monday, Axios highlighted a number of signs that Cruz is indeed "laying the groundwork" for a 2028 bid, such as hitting the speaker circuit, endorsing midterm candidates, and securing a date to host a big donor retreat next year.
The liberal publication suggested further that it's clear from his recent salvo against Tucker Carlson that Cruz is simultaneously courting powerful pro-Israel donors, some of whom aligned themselves with Nikki Haley in her humiliating 2024 GOP primary run against Trump; "staking out turf as a traditional, pro-interventionist Republican"; and setting the stage for a battle with Vance, who is not only a Carlson ally but unmistakably at odds with the tack taken by the George W. Bush-era GOP.
RELATED: Vance, Banks come out swinging against reporter attacking Tucker Carlson's son
Axios stated that "by poking at Carlson's isolationist foreign policy views, accusing him of anti-Semitism and more, Cruz is putting himself on a collision course with Vice President Vance."
Vance, like Carlson, has criticized the protraction of the war in Ukraine; cautioned against new regime-change wars; emphasized that the U.S. is "not at war with Iran"; and noted that American and Israeli foreign policy are not always aligned.
Cruz has indicated that similar foreign policy views expressed by Carlson are "bat-crap crazy" and "off the rails."
Cruz, who is reportedly set this week to address the Jewish Federations of North America's General Assembly, has also blasted Carlson for his October interview with Nick Fuentes, whom he labeled a "little goose-stepping Nazi," suggesting that Carlson was wrong and "complicit in evil," not for platforming Fuentes but for failing to adequately cross-examine him.
"We have a responsibility to speak out even when it's uncomfortable," Cruz said in a statement to Axios. "When voices in our own movement push dangerous and misguided ideas, we can't look the other way. I won't hesitate to call out those who peddle destructive, vile rhetoric and threaten our principles and our future. Silence in the face of recklessness is not an option."
While Vance — whom Fuentes routinely attacks for having a wife of Indian descent — has made expressly clear that he thinks Fuentes is a "total loser" who does not belong in the MAGA movement, others have attempted in recent days to smear Carlson and Vance with a single stroke.
Cruz's office did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.
A number of MAGA influencers criticized Cruz on Monday over the poor timing of the Axios piece and/or his apparent punches in Vance's direction.
Human Events senior editor Jack Posobiec highlighted that Cruz's latest dig at Carlson came just hours after President Donald Trump signaled continued support for Carlson, claiming reporters "can't tell him who to interview" and that "ultimately, people have to decide."
Political strategist and commentator Alex Lorusso wrote, "Right after President Trump says you can't tell Tucker Carlson who to interview, Ted Cruz says we have a 'responsibility' to speak out against him. He has a rude awakening coming if he wants to run for president in 2028 by positioning himself against DJT."
Normalcy advocate Robby Starbuck wrote, "Breaking: Ted Cruz will lose the 2028 primary. He has absolutely no chance against JD Vance."
"It's all about principle you see," tweeted BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre, "and that principle is power."
The popular X user Swig noted, "Ted Cruz’s bizarre attacks on Tucker Carlson are simply a proxy attack on JD Vance. Extremely transparent game he is engaging in."
"Judging by top MAGA influencers, Cruz is gonna have a tough time," concluded Axios' Marc Caputo.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com