Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Bryan Bedford announced Thursday that hundreds of air traffic controllers and technicians who worked during the government shutdown will receive bonus checks.

TheDepartment of Transportation (DOT) said in a statement that 776 air traffic controllers and technicians will be awarded $10,000 for their ‘patriotic work to ensure the safety of the skies during the Democrats’ 44-day government shutdown.’

‘These patriotic men and women never missed a beat and kept the flying public safe throughout the shutdown,’ Duffy said in a statement. ‘Democrats may not care about their financial well-being, but President Trump does.’

The secretary added, ‘This award is an acknowledgment of their dedication and a heartfelt appreciation for going above and beyond in service to the nation.’

DOT said checks would only be sent to workers who maintained perfect attendance during the recent shutdown and that the payments should arrive by Dec. 9, in time for the holidays.

‘I am profoundly proud and grateful for the air traffic personnel who worked during extraordinary operational challenges to keep the National Airspace System (NAS) running safely during the longest government shutdown,’ Bedford said in a statement. ‘Their dedication represents the highest levels of public service.’

The announcement came after President Donald Trump previously floated the idea of rewarding controllers who remained on the job, writing in a post on Truth Social last week, ‘For those Air Traffic Controllers who were GREAT PATRIOTS, and didn’t take ANY TIME OFF for the ‘Democrat Shutdown Hoax,’ I will be recommending a BONUS of $10,000 per person for distinguished service to our Country.’

‘For those that did nothing but complain, and took time off, even though everyone knew they would be paid, IN FULL, shortly into the future, I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU,’ Trump added.

On Nov. 13, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem handed out $10,000 bonus checks to Transportation Security Administration TSA agents at Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport who continued working during the shutdown.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

Congressional Republicans are sorting out what their plan to tackle expiring Obamacare subsidies will be, but they acknowledge that, ultimately, President Donald Trump will be the deciding factor. 

Senate Democrats turned the latest record-breaking shutdown into a push to extend the subsidies, which were enhanced during the pandemic under former President Joe Biden and are set to sunset by the end of this year. 

Many Republicans recognize that the subsidies must be dealt with as healthcare premiums begin to skyrocket, but most don’t want to extend them in their current form. 

And both chambers are eyeing different approaches, which could further complicate the path forward to reaching a deal by the end of the year.

In the upper chamber, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has guaranteed Senate Democrats a vote on a proposal of their choice. However, whatever kind of legislation they put on the floor has to be bipartisan, given the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold, in order to pass. 

Whether a plan can be bipartisan is still in the early stages, and a roadblock could be the GOP’s desire to include the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds from covering the costs of abortions.   

Thune said the major question was ‘will the Democrats accept applying Hyde to any changes or reforms that might be made?’

‘I mean, I think there’s an openness, because, you know, we’ve got members, and a lot of members, who are very interested in addressing the affordability of healthcare,’ he said. ‘The question is, what’s the best way to do it?’

Senate Republicans have floated proposals since before the shutdown ended, but there is some consensus growing behind taking subsidy money and putting it directly into healthcare savings accounts (HSAs) for Americans — something Trump has backed and was first floated by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. 

Scott and Republicans scoffed at Senate Democrats’ proposal to extend the subsidies for one year, and contended doing so would send billions directly to insurance companies. They also want reforms and guardrails like the Hyde Amendment language. 

‘They pay for abortions. Republicans are not going to vote to have taxpayers pay for abortions under their COVID-19 Biden subsidies,’ Scott told Fox News Digital.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., also has his own proposal that would similarly transfer funds directly to the consumer rather than to insurance companies.

Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, told Fox News Digital that whichever plan Republicans went with would originate in his committee and from the Senate Finance Committee, where he hoped that ‘we have something which is bipartisan.’ 

He also noted that the Hyde Amendment language is important to Republicans, but that in the end, all roads lead back to Trump. 

‘Anybody looking for something which actually can be signed into law has got to look at the kind of direction that President Trump has given,’ he said. 

In the House of Representatives, meanwhile, multiple top Republicans are eyeing a second ‘big, beautiful bill’ via the budget reconciliation process — this time focused mostly on healthcare.

‘We’ve got a variety of options for affordability, but most importantly, we want to make healthcare affordable,’ Republican Study Committee Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital of plans for a second reconciliation bill. ‘We want it to be transparent, we want it to be competitive. Not a single Republican voted for any of these provisions over the last 15 years, and yet prices have gone up, so it’s a shame.’

The reconciliation process allows the party in power to change federal budgetary law while completely sidelining the minority, by effectively allowing legislation to bypass the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold in favor of a simple majority.

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., told Fox News Digital a healthcare-focused reconciliation effort ‘may come to pass.’

‘It depends on whether the Democrats are serious about actually bringing down healthcare premiums for Americans. And I’m not talking about subsidized healthcare premiums, I’m talking about actual healthcare premiums,’ Harris said. ‘If they’re not serious, then it’s going to have to be done through reconciliation.’

Harris also backed the idea of an HSA, telling reporters, ‘It works with the functionality of a debit card. You can go to any provider, and that provider has to give you the most favorable rate.’

A senior House GOP lawmaker also told Fox News Digital that Republicans were in the process of working on legislation specifically aimed at reforming different sectors of the healthcare system.

Tentative plans include reforms on cost-sharing reductions, or CSRs, pharmaceutical reform, and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reforms, the lawmaker said.

CSRs are a discount facilitated by the federal government, written under Obamacare, which help lower how much people pay for deductibles and copayments.

PBMs, meanwhile, act as intermediaries between drug companies and insurers — a system critics have said chiefly serves to inflate the cost of prescription drugs for consumers.

But another House Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity was skeptical that the GOP could pass another reconciliation bill after the long and politically precarious process of Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’

‘I don’t even see close to the votes for another reconciliation,’ the second GOP lawmaker said. ‘I think some of us are a little snake-bit on where the money that was supposed to go places, isn’t going where it’s supposed to go.’

The conservative movement has found itself in a season of confusion in recent weeks. Former friends quarrel, familiar institutions are in turmoil, and some voices, both new and old, on the right have begun to wonder aloud whether the United States should still stand with Israel. 

That question deserves a resolute answer, and the answer is this: for our security, for democracy in the Middle East and for the very destiny of our nation, America must stand with Israel.

Americans should always be open to debate how we spend our money abroad and whether our foreign policy truly serves national interest. The rising generation in particular demands rigorous answers beyond empty platitudes.  

But lately, it seems that something deeper, something darker, has driven those questions. After decades of conflict in the Middle East, some are tempted to embrace isolationism, to treat moral clarity as naïveté, and to spurn our allies as unwanted burdens under the strain of massive national debt. For others, it is nothing more than antisemitism.  

The acceptance of antisemitic voices on the left and the right, from the halls of Congress to social media, represents a vile and dangerous trend in American politics, and it must be forcefully opposed wherever it appears. There is no place in the conservative movement for antisemitism.

For nearly 80 years, the bond between the United States and Israel has been more than a diplomatic arrangement. It has been a covenant of free peoples who share the same ideals: faith in God, belief in human dignity and gratitude for the blessings of liberty. Israel’s survival has never depended on our charity; it has depended on our partnership, and that partnership has made America safer and paid dividends. 

Centuries before the founding of modern Israel, our Founding Fathers championed the return of the Jewish people to Israel and made special provision for the Jewish faith in America. George Washington assured Jewish Americans that the fledgling United States ‘gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’ John Adams supported ‘the Jews again in Judea’ as ‘an independent nation.’ Elias Boudinot, the president of the American Revolution’s Congress, boldly suggested that ‘God has raised up these United States… for the very purpose of… bringing his beloved people to their own land.’ Even the famously thrifty Benjamin Franklin once opened his coffers to help a local Philadelphia synagogue weather financial difficulty.  

But the case for Israel is far more than historic.

Today, Israel stands as an oasis of democracy in a Middle East where dozens of its neighbors are Islamic states or still practice monarchy. It is a cruel irony that, in a world of 46 majority-Muslim nations, the presence of a single majority-Jewish nation is seen by many of Israel’s neighbors as one too many. Thirty-one countries still refuse to recognize Israel on their maps. Some of those would love nothing less than to see Israel wiped off the map altogether. And yet Israel persists.  

Thanks to Israel’s courage and the decisive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States, we no longer live under a nuclear sword of Damocles wielded by a regime that chants ‘Death to America.’ From the Stuxnet cyber operation that crippled Iran’s enrichment program, to Israel’s assistance with U.S. airstrikes, and to many heroic covert operations, Israel has repeatedly helped delay Tehran’s progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons. Those actions protected not only Jerusalem and Tel Aviv – they protected Washington, New York and every American city within reach of Iran’s hatred. 

That may not matter much to a segment of the New Right that confuses isolation for safety. But the rest of us know better. We understand what it would mean if the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism ever possessed nuclear weapons.  When Israel takes the fight to Iran’s terror network proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Revolutionary Guard, it is not merely doing our bidding; it is doing what conscience and common sense require. It stands between civilization and chaos. Israel’s cause is our cause.  

When Israel succeeds, as it did in 2024 by decapitating Hezbollah’s leadership in a precision pager-bombing campaign, America is safer. The practical case for our alliance is clear.

Centuries before the founding of modern Israel, our Founding Fathers championed the return of the Jewish people to Israel and made special provision for the Jewish faith in America.

But the heart of American support is still a matter of shared values and faith. We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny. Israel must be empowered to finish the fight against those who would harm her, terrorists who hide behind women, children, hospitals and holy places as they launch rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Peace and justice, within Gaza and without, require that Hamas be destroyed. 

In the end, Americans have always supported Israel because the very existence of this enduring nation bears witness to God’s faithfulness. And the support of millions of Americans throughout the generations has been built upon the ancient words recorded in Genesis where God promises to ‘bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse, and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.’

For 250 years, America has been blessed like no other country in history. As we prepare to celebrate our blessings as a nation, I believe we must never forsake that promise or our cherished ally. If the world knows nothing else, let the world know this: America stands with Israel. 

A bid by Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., to force a censure of her fellow House Republican and remove his committee assignments failed on Wednesday night.

Mace introduced a censure resolution against Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., earlier in the day, accusing him of stolen valor among other alleged improprieties.

Mills rose in his own defense on Wednesday night to call for a vote to refer the measure to the House Ethics Committee and deny her accusations.

His counter-effort succeeded, with the House voting 310-103 to send the matter to the ethics panel — effectively squashing Mace’s effort for an immediate punishment.

Seven House Republicans voted alongside Mace to move the censure vote forward. They are Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., Kat Cammack, R-Fla., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., and Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

The 310 lawmakers who voted against Mace’s move included both Democrats and Republicans.

Twelve lawmakers, including members of the House Ethics Committee, voted ‘present.’

Mace introduced the censure as a privileged resolution, a mechanism aimed at forcing House GOP leaders to reckon with a piece of legislation in the immediate future.

The resolution accused Mills of a wide variety of improprieties, including misrepresenting his military service and working as a private military contractor while serving as a member of Congress. 

She also cited several media reports alleging Mills assaulted past romantic partners while being accused of threatening another woman he was also reportedly involved with. Mills previously denied those allegations.

In addition to censuring him, Mace’s resolution would have also removed Mills from his roles on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Armed Services Committee if successful.

Hours before the vote, however, the House Ethics Committee announced it would open an investigation into Mills via a new subcommittee — a move Mace criticized as an effort to neuter her push.

‘This is a naked attempt to kill my resolution to censure Rep. Cory Mills. Common sense tells us we don’t need an investigative subcommittee to decide if Cory Mills, who a Court found to be an immediate and present danger of committing dating violence against a woman, should serve on committees related to national security. Or the testimony of soldiers and the stolen valor,’ Mace said.

Notably, however, the House Ethics Committee is the traditional first step when lawmakers are accused of impropriety.

It comes after House Democrats threatened to pursue a retaliatory censure against Mills Tuesday evening in response to Republicans trying to censure Del. Stacey Plaskett, D-V.I., the Virgin Islands’ nonvoting representative in the House, over her ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Plaskett censure failed after three House Republicans voted ‘no’ and three more voted ‘present,’ however, along with every Democrat rejecting the measure. Democrats did not appear to pursue the censure against Mills after that.

Mace had accused Mills of participating in a ‘backroom deal’ at the time to avoid a censure, adding, ‘I have the General who ‘recommended’ him for the Bronze Star on record saying he never wrote it, never read it and never personally signed it.’

Mills’ office told Fox News Digital there was never a deal, however, and had expected his censure to move forward on Tuesday night. He also voted in favor of censuring Plaskett.

Mace introduced her resolution after sending a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Wednesday accusing Mills of ‘credible accusations he misrepresented his military service’ and ‘credible accusations of having committed crimes against women.’

Mills has previously denied wrongdoing in reports of both sets of allegations.

He also criticized the move in a statement to Fox News Digital.

‘Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s latest stunt is a politically motivated attempt to grab headlines and settle personal scores. The American people deserve better than fabricated accusations and theatrics at a time when Republicans should be focused on governing,’ Mills said.

‘The claims on my valor that she’s pushing are baseless, recycled, and already publicly disproven. I fully deny them, just as I always have. This is not oversight, it’s attention-seeking dressed up as accountability.’

Republican legislation brewing in the House of Representatives aimed at addressing civil litigation transparency is sparking concern from some conservative organizations that fear it could chill donor participation and make it more difficult for Americans of modest means to hold ‘woke’ companies accountable. 

In a letter sent earlier this week, Tea Party Patriots Action urged the House Judiciary Committee to reject HR 1109, introduced by GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Scott Fitzgerald and Mike Collins, which is known as the Litigation Transparency Act of 2025.

It’s aimed at ensuring greater transparency in litigation, requiring parties receiving payment in lawsuits to disclose their identity. 

The letter warns that ‘sweeping disclosure mandates in this bill threaten our core American principles of personal privacy, confidentiality, and freedom of speech and association.’

‘This legislation would require litigants to preemptively disclose detailed information about private financial arrangements, such as litigation funding agreements, independent from the discovery process and without any finding of relevance by a judge,’ the letter, signed by over a dozen conservative groups, including America First Legal, Defending Education, Heartland Institute and the American Energy Institute, states.

‘The bill’s forced disclosure mandates would broadly apply to any number of political organizations, religious groups, law firms, or individual plaintiffs that rely on outside support to vindicate their rights.

‘If adopted, H.R. 1109 will have a chilling effect on free speech and association and directly threaten the privacy rights of Americans,’ the letter warns. ‘The end result will be fewer Americans having the resources or willingness to bring legitimate claims, which threatens to undermine future legal battles over issues critical to our movement.

‘The privacy interests at stake here are not abstract. We have seen how disclosure regimes can be easily weaponized by bad actors, particularly those seeking to attack and intimidate political opponents.’

Issa told Fox News Digital Wednesday afternoon there is ‘misinformation’ circulating about what the bill actually proposes to do, and there will be a ‘small update tomorrow to clarify one item.’

‘What’s actually happened is language has been put in to assure groups that we’re not looking to overturn NAACP v. Alabama or any of the other historical 501(c) privileges that you don’t turn over your donor list and so on,’ Issa said. ‘That was something that Obama and Biden tried to do a couple of times. We want nothing to do with that. We’re only asking that if there is a material funder slash partner in a lawsuit, that they be disclosed.

‘I fully respect and appreciate the concerns of people who want to make sure that this does not turn into a burdensome discovery of, for example, a nonprofit’s hundreds, thousands or millions of donors.

‘We share the concern of all these groups that we wanted to make sure we believed we were on solid ground as written, but in an abundance of caution, my staff and all the parties worked to try to come up with the most straightforward, effective way to say, of course, you don’t have to disclose your donors.’

Proponents of the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, call it a ‘vital step toward ensuring that our legal system remains a tool for justice rather than being a playground for hidden financial interests.’

In his press release announcing the legislation in February, Issa said, ‘Our legislation targets serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system that distort our system of justice by obscuring public detection and exploiting loopholes in the law for financial gain.

‘Our approach will achieve a far better standard of transparency in the courts that people deserve, and our standard of law requires. We fundamentally believe that if a third-party investor is financing a lawsuit in federal court, it should be disclosed rather than hidden from the world and left absent from the facts of a case.’  

The press release explained that hundreds of cases a year involve civil cases funded by undisclosed third-party interests as an investment for return from hedge funds, commercial lenders and sovereign wealth funds through shell companies and that there are often investor-backed entities who seek hefty settlements from American companies that end up ‘distorting the free market and stifling innovation.’

The conversation about the legislation reignites an ongoing showdown between insurers and large corporations that have made the case that third-party funding drives abusive suits and inflated settlements. Some argue there’s a need for more transparency about those who fund litigation and for limits to speculative investment in lawsuits against advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks. Those groups argue they are the only mechanism for those without deep pockets to take legal action against well-funded companies. 

Many advocacy-oriented nonprofits and legal networks simply don’t hand over charitable donations to a lawsuit. Instead, they use structured litigation vehicles, limited liability companies, donor-advised funds or legal defense trusts that front the costs of a case and are reimbursed, sometimes with interest, if the case wins or settles. The process is known as non-recourse or outcome-contingent funding, meaning the investor only gets money back if the case succeeds.

Nonprofits like Consumers’ Research have been using litigation finance in recent years to push back against ‘woke capitalism’ to counter ESG and DEI policies. And the group’s executive director, Will Hild, told Fox News Digital it has been ‘all too easy for major companies to use their outsized influence and powerful market shares to push an ideological agenda with little to no recourse.’

Hild told Fox News Digital he views the legislation as an ‘attack’ on one of the ‘few tools Americans have to hold powerful, woke corporations accountable.’

Hild added, ‘Even worse, it imposes dangerous disclosure mandates that would force plaintiffs to expose confidential litigation funding agreements. This bill blatantly tips the scales in favor of woke corporations and makes it far harder for victims to secure the resources they need to fight back.’

The letter from the conservative groups also expresses fear that ‘compelled disclosure of private financial arrangements would force litigants to unveil the identity of donors — violating donor privacy rights and exposing them to threats of harassment and retaliation.’

In a Tuesday op-ed in The Hill opposing the legislation, Alliance Defending Freedom founder Alan Sears pointed to Supreme Court decisions he says have ‘affirmed that forced disclosure of private association undermines fundamental freedoms.’

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Rep. Fitzgerald said, ‘As reiterated to these groups in multiple discussions, it remains Congress’ intent to protect the First Amendment rights of those who contribute to political groups and religious organizations, consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens’ United.’

Organizations that have endorsed the bill have pointed to concerns about foreign funding in courtrooms, specifically from China, including High Tech Investors Alliance, which said in a press release it commends the legislators who put it forward for ‘defending American businesses against the exploitation of our courts by foreign adversaries and unscrupulous hedge funds.’

‘For too long, a lack of transparency has allowed shell entities to manipulate the legal system to prey on American employers, concealing their predatory practices and identities of their financial backers,’ HTIA said. ‘As President Trump takes bold action against aggressive economic maneuvers by China and other countries, Congress must also act decisively to protect our judges and juries from becoming tools in the economic warfare waged by antagonists.’

Leonard Leo, who operates a vast network of conservative nonprofits and is linked to Consumers’ Research, told Politico earlier this year that ‘while there are areas, like mass tort, where litigation financing has been abused and could be reformed, it has always been a critical tool for the conservative movement to advance the public good by taking on the liberal woke agenda.’

The House Judiciary Committee did not mark the bill up Tuesday, and Fox News Digital is told it will be marked up on Thursday at 12 p.m. 

‘If someone is acting as a principal litigant, either directly or one step removed, then you have a right to face them. You have the right to cross-examine them. You have a right to know if they receive your trade secrets that were exposed and disclosed in litigation. These things are all important,’ Issa said.

He added the legislation does not require materials to be turned over to the defendant, and a judge can review them in private.

Issa continued, ‘We just want to make sure that the judge knows that just as the markman is a required part of determining what a patent means, that it’s a responsibility of the judge to determine who the litigants are and, as appropriate, disclosing them is required. And that last part has always been ignored a little bit. We’re only making sure that that discovery is asked for and evaluated at a minimum by the judge or magistrate overseeing the case.’

The Senate is once again finding a moment of bipartisan unity in its fury over a recently-passed law that would allow lawmakers to sue the federal government and reap hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money as a reward.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle continue to grapple with the inclusion of a provision in a package designed to reopen the government that would allow only senators directly targeted by the Biden-led Department of Justice (DOJ) and former special counsel Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost investigation to sue the U.S. government for up to $500,000.

Both Senate Republicans’ and Democrats’ ire at the provision is multi-pronged: some are angry that it was tucked away into the Legislative branch spending bill without a heads-up, others see it as nothing more than a quick pay day for the relatively small group of senators targeted in Smith’s probe.

‘I think it was outrageous that that was put in and air dropped in there,’ Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital. ‘It’s outrageous. It’s basically just a cash grab for senators to take money away from taxpayers. It’s absolutely outrageous, and needs to be taken out.’

The provision was included in the spending package by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on request from lawmakers in the GOP. And it was given the green light by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The provision is narrowly tailored to just include senators, and would require that they be notified if their information is requested by the DOJ, be it through the subpoena of phone records like in the Arctic Frost investigation or through other means. The idea is to prevent the abuse of the DOJ to go after sitting senators now and in the future.

Thune pushed back on the notion that lawmakers weren’t aware the provision was in the bill, given that the entire package was released roughly 24 hours before it was voted on, but acknowledged their frustration over how it was added was warranted.

‘I think I take that as a legitimate criticism in terms of the process, but I think on the substance, I believe that you need to have some sort of accountability and consequence for that kind of weaponization against a co-equal branch of the government,’ Thune said.

Schumer, when asked about the anger brewing on both sides of the aisle, heaped the blame on Thune, but noted that it was an opportunity to get protection for Democrats, too.

‘Look, the bottom line is Thune wanted the provision, and we wanted to make sure that at least Democratic senators were protected from [Attorney General Pam] Bondi and others who might go after them,’ Schumer said. ‘So we made it go prospective, not just retroactive, but I’d be for repealing all the provision, all of it. And I hope that happens.’

The House is expected to vote on legislation that would repeal the language, and many in the upper chamber want to get the chance to erase the provision should it pass through the House. Whether Thune will put it on the floor remains in the air though.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was one of the eight senators whose records were requested during Smith’s probe. He told Fox News Digital that he was neither asked about the provision, nor told about it, and like many other lawmakers, found out about it when he read the bill.

‘I just think that, you know, giving them money –- I mean making a taxpayer pay for it, I don’t understand why that’s accountability,’ he said. ‘I mean, the people who need to be held accountable are the people who made the decisions to do this, and, frankly, also the telecom companies. So I just, I don’t agree with that approach.’

He also took issue with the fact that the provision was narrowly tailored to only apply to the Senate, and argued that it could be reworked to only provide for declaratory judgement in court rather than a monetary one.

‘I could see the value of having a court say this was illegal and ruling against the government,’ Hawley said. ‘I think it’s the monetary provisions that most people, including me, really balk at. Like, why are the taxpayers on the hook for this, and why does it apply only to the Senate?’

The provision set a retroactive date of 2022 to allow for the group of senators targeted in Smith’s Arctic Frost probe to be able to sue. That element has also raised eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital that he supported repealing the provision, but wanted to fix it.

‘The best way to be able to handle it, I think, is to be able to fix it, take away the retroactivity in it,’ he said. ‘The initial target of this whole thing was to make sure this never happened again.’

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., told Fox News Digital that the provision was a ‘total mess,’ and raised concerns on a bipartisan basis.

Not every Senator was on board with ditching the provision, however.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., made clear that he intends to sue the DOJ and Verizon, his phone carrier, and argued that he didn’t believe that the provision was self-dealing but rather to deter future, similar actions. He also wants to take the provision, or the core idea of it, a step further.

Graham said that he wanted to open up the process to others, including dozens of groups, former lawmakers and others affected by the investigation.

‘Is it wrong for any American to sue the government if they violated your rights, including me? Is it wrong if a Post Office truck hits you, what do you do with the money? You do whatever you want to do with the money,’ Graham said.

‘If you’ve been wronged, this idea that our government can’t be sued is a dangerous idea,’ he continued. ‘The government needs to be held accountable when it violates people’s rights.’

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tx., was far more succinct. When asked if he would support a repeal of the provision, he told Fox News Digital, ‘No.’