The House passed its final government funding bills Thursday with a strategic punch aimed squarely at the Senate: accept the repeal of a controversial lawsuit provision or risk shutting down the government.
The chamber approved H.R. 7148, a $1.2 trillion consolidated appropriations package funding Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, and Transportation-HUD, by a vote of 341-88. Minutes later, it passed H.R. 7147, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, 220-207. Both measures now move to the Senate with a January 30 deadline looming.
But the House attached a unanimous amendment to the package repealing a Senate provision that allows eight Republican senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 per violation if their phone records are obtained without notice. The move reverses the Senate’s power play from November, when Senate leadership slipped the lawsuit language into the shutdown-ending bill and jammed the House into accepting it.
Speaker Mike Johnson, who called the Senate provision “way out of line” in November, promised House Republicans he would kill it. Thursday’s vote delivered. The House left Washington for a weeklong recess immediately after passage, forcing the Senate into an uncomfortable choice: swallow the repeal or face shutdown blame.
The lawsuit provision emerged after Senate Republicans revealed FBI documents showing special counsel Jack Smith’s “Arctic Frost” investigation obtained phone records from eight senators and one House member in 2023 as part of the probe into 2020 election interference and January 6. The targeted lawmakers—Senators Marsha Blackburn, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, Dan Sullivan, and Tommy Tuberville—accused the Biden Justice Department of weaponizing law enforcement against Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune defends the provision as an “important defense of separation of powers” but insists it was “never meant to enrich senators.” He promises a resolution preventing members from keeping damages. That distinction satisfies almost no one. Most targeted senators say they won’t seek damages. Graham plans the opposite—he’ll “sue the living hell out of every Biden official involved” for “far more than $500,000.”
The House unanimously rejected the provision in November with a 426-0 vote, but Thune refused to bring the standalone repeal to the Senate floor. House leadership waited, then embedded the repeal in must-pass legislation. The procedural jiu-jitsu puts Senate Republicans in the bind they created.
The DHS funding bill faced its own turbulence. House Democratic leadership—Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and top deputies Katherine Clark and Pete Aguilar—announced opposition hours before the vote, citing ICE’s January 7 shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis. The 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three was killed during what DHS called its largest immigration enforcement operation in history. Federal officials and President Trump defended the shooting as self-defense, claiming Good tried to run over an agent. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey called that claim “bullshit” after reviewing video footage.
Jeffries accused ICE of operating “in a lawless fashion” and killing Good “in cold blood.” He argued Democrats failed to secure basic restrictions—judicial warrant requirements before seizing American citizens, body camera mandates, limits on detaining U.S. citizens. The bill includes $20 million for ICE body cameras but no meaningful accountability measures Democrats demanded.
Seven Democrats broke with leadership to vote yes: Representatives Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Don Davis of North Carolina, Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi of New York. All represent swing districts or border regions. One Republican, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, voted no.
Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator who negotiated the broader funding deal, also voted against the DHS bill—an unusual move signaling the depth of Democratic anger over ICE enforcement tactics. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, nearly 100 members, formally opposed any immigration enforcement funding without reforms.
The consolidated package funds the government through September 30, completing all twelve FY2026 appropriations bills. Chairman Tom Cole called it proof that “Congress can make tough decisions” and praised the return to “regular order” after years of bloated omnibus packages. The package includes a 3.8% military pay raise, defense investments in shipbuilding and nuclear deterrence, and what Republicans describe as DOGE-backed reforms eliminating government waste.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins and Ranking Member Patty Murray signed off on the funding levels in December. Senate passage of the broader package appears certain given overwhelming bipartisan House support. The DHS bill faces tougher scrutiny but likely passes as Democrats prioritize avoiding another shutdown after the record 43-day closure that ended in November.
The lawsuit provision presents the real test. Senate Republicans control the chamber but need Democratic votes on most legislation. Some GOP senators whose records were seized oppose the provision—Hawley called it a “bad idea,” and Rick Scott said he has “no idea how it got in” the bill. That opposition gives Democrats leverage.
The House structured the engrossment to combine six previously passed bills with the new measures into a single package, making it procedurally difficult to separate the lawsuit repeal from the broader funding. Senate leadership must either accept the entire package or negotiate changes that could threaten the January 30 deadline.
Cole and Collins worked for weeks on the funding allocations, crafting a deal that keeps total FY2026 spending below continuing resolution levels. That fiscal restraint gives Republicans cover to claim victory even if they lose the lawsuit fight. But Thune’s defense of the provision and Graham’s public vow to sue suggest Senate Republicans may dig in.
The Senate returns Monday to a package designed to corner them. The House already left town.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 