Senate Majority Leader John Thune thought he was giving Republicans a gift when he secured a provision in the shutdown-ending government funding package that could award hundreds of thousands of dollars to senators subpoenaed as part of former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into President Donald Trump.

It turns out, several of them don’t want it.

Of the eight known Senate Republicans whose phone records were subpoenaed as part of Smith’s probe into Trump’s 2020 election interference, only one so far — Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — has announced definitive plans to take advantage of the new legislative language that would allow senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 or more if they discover their electronic records were seized without notification.

“Oh definitely,” Graham said at a news conference after the passage of the government funding bill. “And if you think I’m going to settle this thing for a million dollars — no. I want to make it so painful, no one ever does this again … I’m going to pursue through the court system — remedies.”

The others, however, were less enthusiastic or more opaque about their intentions. In public comments, social media posts or statements to Blue Light News over the past few days, the seven remaining Senate Republicans declined to publicly commit to seeking compensation for being singled out by Smith — as the Democrats pummel the GOP for endorsing a taxpayer-funded windfall and fellow Republicans in both chambers decry the provision as poorly conceived.

“I think the Senate provision is a bad idea,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in a statement. “There needs to be accountability for the Biden DOJ’s outrageous abuse of the separation of powers, but the right way to do that is through public hearings, tough oversight, including of the complicit telecomm companies, and prosecution where warranted.”

It could all soon be moot. Republicans in the House were enraged over the provision’s inclusion, and Speaker Mike Johnson responded by promising to hold a vote for a bill that would repeal the legislative language. The effort is expected to pass overwhelmingly with bipartisan support.

Johnson told reporters Wednesday that he had spoken with Thune about the issue earlier in the day, and that he communicated his disapproval of his Senate counterpart’s maneuvering.

It’s not clear what Thune plans to do with the bill, assuming it passes the House. A person familiar with the provision’s introduction into the funding bill, who was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, said that Senate Republicans requested that Thune include the language in the legislation.

The person cited a “strong appetite” among the GOP to pursue accountability for the so-called Arctic Frost investigation, a Biden-era probe that Republicans say constituted a weaponization of the Justice Department.

But as it turns out, the provision in the funding bill related to Smith’s probe is already creating political liability for Senate Republicans. Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.), who is running for governor of his state next year, quickly introduced legislation in the House that would reverse the provision. His challenger for the Republican nomination, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, later said she would vote for a bill to undo the language — but expressed a desire to take some legal recourse as a Smith target.

“Senator Blackburn’s plan has always been to seek a declaratory judgment — not monetary damages — to prevent leftists from violating the constitutional rights of conservatives,” a spokesperson for Blackburn said in a statement.

Even Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who is co-leading the investigation into Smith’s probe with Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said that while he stood by the provision he wouldn’t act on the cash opportunity.

“I have no plans at this time,” he said in a statement. “If I did sue, it would only be for the purpose of using the courts to expose the corrupt weaponization of federal law enforcement by the Biden and Obama administrations. With the full cooperation in our congressional investigations from the Trump DOJ and FBI, that shouldn’t be necessary.”

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said he would not seek damages nor did he want taxpayer money.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) tried to distance himself from the provision’s origin story, with a spokesperson saying he only learned about the payout language while reading the bill. He would support a House measure to repeal it, the spokesperson said.

A spokesperson for Sen. Cynthia Lummis also emphasized that the Wyoming Republican did not play a role in the provision’s formulation — but added that the lawmaker supported the language.

“We must not allow the politicization of federal agencies to become routine,” the spokesperson said. “Liquidated damages provisions are commonly used and this provision is the only way to hold Jack Smith and wrongdoers accountable.”

A spokesperson for Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), another gubernatorial aspirant, pointed to the lawmaker’s statement on social media, noting that he would “sue the living hell out of every Biden official involved” if Smith was not jailed and Judge James Boasberg — who approved the effort to prevent senators from being notified of the subpoena — was not impeached.

The spokesperson wasn’t clear on whether Tuberville intends to sue the federal government under the provision in the funding bill.

Graham, during his press conference this week, said he believed the language would benefit everyone.

“This wasn’t about investigating me or other Senators for a crime — it was a fishing expedition,” Graham said. “I’m going to push back really hard … that will protect the Senate in the future.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman was hospitalized Thursday morning after falling and hitting his face, sustaining “minor injuries,” his spokesperson said in a statement.

In a post to the Democrat’s account on X, a spokesperson said Fetterman fell to the ground after feeling lightheaded on an early morning walk near his home in Braddock, Pennsylvania. He was transported to a hospital in Pittsburgh “out of an abundance of caution,” where doctors determined the dizzy spell was caused by a “ventricular fibrillation flare-up,” a heartbeat irregularity.

“Senator Fetterman had this to say: ‘If you thought my face looked bad before, wait until you see it now!’” the spokesperson relayed in the post.

Fetterman — who returned to his Pennsylvania home after the Senate’s vote to reopen the government on Monday — chose to stay at the hospital so doctors could “fine-tune his medication regimen,” though his team said he’s “doing well” and receiving routine observation. The post did not specify how long the senator is expected to remain at the hospital.

The incident is the latest in a series of health challenges the Pennsylvania senator has faced since his campaign for the seat. He was hospitalized due to a stroke in 2022 just days before winning the state’s Democratic Senate primary. He also spent several nights in the hospital in 2023 for a similar lightheadedness spell, but testing showed no signs of stroke or seizure, his office said at the time.

The senator checked himself into a hospital days later to receive inpatient care for clinical depression — something he’s lived with throughout his life and has since been vocal about in public appearances.

“It’s a risk that I wanted to take because I wanted to help people and know that I don’t want them to suffer the way — or put any kinds of despair that I’ve been in. And if that conversation helps, then that’s — I’m going to continue to do that,” Fetterman told NBC’s Kristen Welker in 2023.

A federal judge on Thursday declined to toss federal assault charges against New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver.

The first-term Democrat was charged with assaulting law enforcement officers following a chaotic scrum outside an immigration detention facility in May.

McIver argued that the prosecution — led by Alina Habba, a former personal attorney to President Donald Trump whom he picked to be the state’s top federal prosecutor — was unfair and that she was shielded from the charges by the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which grants members of Congress a form of immunity that is mostly impenetrable in investigations relating to the official duties of lawmakers.

U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, disagreed and refused to toss two of the three counts, while reserving judgment on a third until he sees more evidence.

“Defendant’s active participation in the alleged conduct removes her acts from the safe harbor of mere oversight,” he said. “Lawfully or unlawfully, Defendant actively engaged in conduct unrelated to her oversight responsibilities and congressional duties.”

McIver is accused in a three-count indictment of slamming a federal agent with her forearm, “forcibly” grabbing him and using her forearms to strike another agent. Allegations of physical violence by a sitting member of Congress are rare.

The alleged assaults occurred during a 68-second span in the midst of a three-hour oversight visit to the Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey, when McIver and fellow Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez were part of a chaotic scene as immigration agents moved to arrest city Mayor Ras Baraka on a trespassing charge that was later dropped.

Semper seemed to draw a line between alleged contact inside a gated area at Delaney Hall, which the congressional Democrats were allowed to inspect, and actions outside, which is where agents moved to arrest Baraka and where prosecutors allege that McIver committed two crimes: assaulting an agent and impeding that arrest.

The count Semper did not fully rule on involves alleged contact between McIver and an agent inside the gated area after the scrum outside the gate.

The ruling — which is likely to be appealed — is a victory for Habba’s office. While she calls herself the “acting U.S. Attorney,” another judge in August ruled she was unlawfully serving in that role. An appeals court is now considering that ruling.

Semper also rejected a more long-shot attempt by McIver’s attorneys to dismiss the whole case based on selective prosecution. McIver’s team argued for that based on Trump pardoning hundreds of people who attacked police at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and the Justice Department dropping numerous additional assault cases at Trump’s direction, despite video evidence of the attacks.

“Irrespective of the pardon, the January 6 defendants are not similarly situated to Defendant because the facts and circumstances surrounding their criminal cases are unambiguously distinct,” Semper wrote.

While McIver quoted Trump and Habba’s rhetoric to claim vindictive prosecution — including Habba’s wish to “turn New Jersey red” — Semper ruled that McIver failed to demonstrate the case against her is “the result of personal animus harbored by the prosecution.”

Spokespeople for McIver and Habba did not immediately comment on the ruling.