Wyoming’s Lummis and Barrasso were central to the debate as a 426–0 House vote wiped out the controversial lawsuit provision.
If you thought the Arctic Frost surveillance saga couldn’t get any stranger, buckle up. On Wednesday, the U.S. House voted 426–0, yes, zero opposition, to repeal a short-lived provision that would have allowed certain victims of government spying to sue the federal government. Instead of expanding justice, Congress just slammed that door shut.
And at the center of this storm? Wyoming Senators Cynthia Lummis and John Barrasso, whose phone records were among those collected during the Arctic Frost investigation. The repeal essentially eliminates their previously carved-out path to seek damages, taking everyone else down with it.
This latest twist follows months of scrutiny over the investigation, the metadata collection, and the political fallout that ensued. And it comes straight on the heels of our earlier coverage.
What Congress Just Did & Why It Matters
The provision originally tucked into a funding bill would have allowed the eight senators swept into the Arctic Frost probe, including Lummis and Barrasso, to sue the government for at least $500,000 per surveillance incident. It was a rare mechanism for lawmakers to seek accountability over being spied on by their own government.
But on Wednesday, House members from both parties torched the clause, arguing it unfairly singled out senators for special compensation while leaving regular citizens, who are equally vulnerable to government overreach, with no such recourse.
Rep. Bryan Steil summed up the sentiment in one sentence: “Congress serves the American people, not the other way around.”
Translation: You can’t write a law that pays senators for being spied on while giving everyone else a pat on the head and a brochure on civic engagement.
Where This Leaves Lummis, Barrasso, and Everyone Else
Lummis has insisted she didn’t write the damages language, but she did defend it as a necessary way to hold the Arctic Frost investigators accountable, a roundabout way of saying: If the FBI spies on Congress, there should be consequences.
Barrasso, ever the quiet cowboy in this chapter, has stayed mostly silent since the repeal passed.
But here’s what matters for Wyoming and beyond:
- The senators no longer have a special legal path to sue.
- Neither does anyone else who may have been swept up in Arctic Frost.
- The government surveillance questions remain entirely unresolved.
Congress didn’t fix the problem. They just removed the only (imperfect) tool available.
What Happens Next?
The repeal now heads to the Senate, yes, to the very people it affects. Will they restore the lawsuit outlet? Replace it with something broader and more equitable? Or quietly let it die?
Meanwhile, the core issue remains unchanged:
Suppose the federal government can secretly scoop up metadata from U.S. senators. In that case, there’s little reason to believe that everyday citizens couldn’t be treated the same, with zero legal pathway to fight back.
As we noted in our previous coverage, surveillance accountability is not a Wyoming issue or a D.C. issue. It’s an everyone issue.
And after the 426–0 rebuke, it’s clear that the Arctic Frost fight is far from over.
AntlersArch founder and the voice behind Teton Tattle.
