Economy January 30, 2026

Senator Graham Blocks Funding Vote, Pushes to Restore Right to Sue Over Jan. 6 Records

Lawmakers stall a stopgap spending deal as Graham demands a damages provision and local cooperation on immigration enforcement

By Caleb Monroe
Senator Graham Blocks Funding Vote, Pushes to Restore Right to Sue Over Jan. 6 Records

Senator Lindsey Graham prevented immediate Senate action on a bipartisan stopgap funding package as he pressed to reinstate a controversial provision that would permit lawmakers and others whose phone records were seized during the January 6, 2021 investigation to sue the Justice Department for damages. The measure, originally placed in a sprawling spending bill last fall, drew bipartisan criticism and was removed in the House. Graham also sought to expand the provision to outside groups and pressed for a vote on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, leaving the timing of a final funding vote uncertain.

Key Points

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham blocked Senate consideration of a bipartisan stopgap spending bill unless the Senate also voted to restore a provision allowing lawmakers and others whose phone records were seized during the January 6 investigation to sue the Justice Department for damages - sectors affected include federal agencies such as the Pentagon and the Department of Labor.
  • The damages provision had been inserted into a massive spending bill last fall and was widely criticized by both parties as potentially enriching public officials; the House removed it and included repeal language in the spending package now before the Senate - impacting legislative and appropriations processes.
  • Graham said he would expand the provision to let outside groups targeted by the January 6 probe sue as well and also demanded a vote on requiring local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement - these demands introduce further policy contention into the funding negotiations.

Senator Lindsey Graham on Friday moved to block Senate consideration of a bipartisan funding agreement intended to avert a government shutdown, insisting the chamber also vote on a provision that would allow certain individuals to sue the federal government for damages. The hold put immediate action on the stopgap spending measure on pause as lawmakers debated whether to accede to his demands.

The funding deal under consideration would keep federal agencies such as the Pentagon and the Department of Labor operating beyond the current funding expiration at midnight. Several senators objected to bringing the measure to a vote, but Graham was the most visible lawmaker pressing the issue on the Senate floor.

Graham said he would prevent the Senate from voting unless lawmakers also took up language that would let him and other members of Congress sue the Justice Department for damages. The proposed change targets officials whose phone records were seized during the Justice Department's probe of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The provision had been inserted into a large spending bill last fall and drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats at the time, with opponents arguing the language amounted to an enrichment mechanism for public officials. Under current federal law, private individuals generally cannot sue the government for damages except in narrowly defined situations - for example, where a person was harmed by a federal employee or where the government takes private land for public use.

House Speaker Mike Johnson publicly said he was "shocked and angered" by the provision. The House included repeal language in the sweeping spending package that the Senate is now considering, a change that prompted frustration from Graham. On the Senate floor he said: "You jammed me. Speaker Johnson, I won’t forget this."

Graham previously vowed to sue for "millions of dollars," although Republican leaders have said any recovery under such a cause of action would be returned to the government rather than be kept personally by lawmakers. On Friday he said he planned to broaden the measure to allow outside groups that were targeted in the January 6 inquiry to pursue damage claims as well.

In addition to the lawsuit language, Graham said he was insisting on a commitment to bring to a vote a separate policy that would require local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. His dual demands - restoration and expansion of the damages provision and a commitment on immigration cooperation - complicated efforts to advance the stopgap spending bill.

It remained unclear how long Graham's objections would delay Senate action, and some colleagues predicted his push to restore the damages provision would ultimately fail. Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina told reporters that voters "may remember that more than a failed procedural vote," signaling potential political fallout from the move.

Separately, President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury seeking $10 billion in damages over the disclosure of his tax returns to the media in 2019 and 2020.


Context and implications

The dispute illustrates the tension between passing short-term funding to keep federal operations running and resolving partisan and policy fights embedded in larger appropriations packages. Graham's effort ties legislative action on urgent funding to demands that reach beyond the immediate mechanics of keeping agencies functional.

Risks

  • Uncertainty over the timing of final funding action - short-term funding for federal agencies including defense and labor could be at risk if the impasse persists, with potential operational impacts.
  • Political fallout and voter reaction - lawmakers' procedural battles could influence public perception ahead of elections, creating political risk for incumbents; this may affect market sentiment in sectors sensitive to policy uncertainty.
  • The effort to restore the damages provision may fail - if the provision is not reinstated, proponents who sought the change may face a legislative setback, prolonging contention in appropriations negotiations.

More from Economy

Economists Say Warsh Nomination Unlikely to Shift Fed Policy This Year Feb 2, 2026 Pound Holds Near $1.37 Ahead of Bank of England Decision Feb 2, 2026 UK Manufacturing PMI Climbs to Highest Level Since August 2024 as New Orders Accelerate Feb 2, 2026 German Retail Sales Seen Rising 2% in 2026, Real Growth Near-Stagnant Feb 2, 2026 Warsh Signals Desire to Shrink Fed Balance Sheet — Practical Limits Make Rapid Change Unlikely Feb 2, 2026