Before Republican lawmakers passed their funding bill to reopen the government last week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) slipped in a provision that paved the way for senators — and only senators — targeted by the Biden FBI’s Arctic Frost operation to squeeze the government for taxpayer cash.

Lawmakers in the House, some of whom were also victims of the previous administration’s lawfare, unanimously rejected the provision, taking steps to repeal it earlier this week.

‘What did I do wrong?’

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), among the senators eligible to sue for a payday of at least $500,000, stopped the repeal in its tracks on Thursday, prompting chatter about personal enrichment among some of his colleagues.

The provision

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) published damning documents last month revealing that in its years-long campaign to find “anything they could to hook on Trump, put Trump in prison,” the Biden FBI not only subpoenaed records for over 400 Republican individuals and entities but secretly obtained the private phone records of numerous Republican lawmakers.

Thune introduced a provision into the continuing resolution that reopened the government to enable senators whose phone records were “acquired, subpoenaed, searched, accessed or disclosed” without his or her knowledge to file a civil lawsuit against the government inside the next five years for at least $500,000 plus legal fees for each instance of a violation.

Senators would be able to take legal action if at the time their records were seized, they were a target of a criminal investigation; a federal judge issued an order authorizing a delay of notice to the senator in question; the government complied with the judge’s order; and the subpoena was faithfully executed.

The backlash

The provision caused bipartisan outrage in the House.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he was “very angry” about the provision, stressing that it had been slipped in at the last minute without his knowledge.

RELATED: A payout scheme for senators deepens the gap between DC and the rest of us

Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images

“We’re striking the provision as fast as we can, and we expect the Senate to move it,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told CNN. “We believe there’s a fairly sizeable growing majority over there that believes that they should strike it.”

Democrat Rep. Joe Morelle (N.Y.) said that this kind of “one-sided get-rich scheme at the expense of taxpayers is why Americans are so disgusted with this Congress.”

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), who indicated that the provision was “probably the most self-centered, self-serving piece of language” he had ever seen, introduced a resolution to appeal the provision on Nov. 12.

“Nobody in the House supported this language,” Scott said on Wednesday ahead of the vote on his resolution. “This language did not go through any committee in the Senate, did not go through any committee in the House, and could never be passed and signed into law if it was discussed openly.”

“For the people who are saying it’s $500,000, I want the American citizens to know this: It’s not $500,000. It’s $500,000 per account per occurrence,” continued Scott. “We have one senator — one — who maintains that this provision is good and is currently saying that he is going to sue for tens of millions of dollars.”

Scott appears to have been referring to Sen. Graham, who said in a recent Fox News interview that he would sue “the hell out of these people” for “tens of millions of dollars.”

Scott added that it was right to open up the government but wrong to put “language in the bill that would make themselves individually wealthy.”

The House passed the Georgia Republican’s resolution in a unanimous 426-0 vote.

Graham’s blockage

U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) requested unanimous consent on Thursday for the Senate to follow suit, claiming the provision was “unprecedented in American history.”

Others across the aisle were reportedly warming to the idea of killing the legislation, including Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley — among those whose communications were targeted by the Biden FBI — who stated, “I had my phone tapped, so I’m all for accountability, don’t get me wrong, but I just, I think taking taxpayer money is not the way to do it. The way to do it is tough oversight.”

Desperate to protect the provision, Graham blocked the motion.

“What did I do wrong?” said Graham, who argued that the surveillance of his communications was unlawful and that he deserved a right to have his day in court. “What did I do to allow the government to seize my personal phone and my official phone when I was Senate Judiciary chairman?”

According to reports, federal investigators accessed Graham’s phone records. No allegations to date indicate that investigators appropriated Graham’s phones.

While Democrat senators attempted to paint the taxpayer-funded payback as unsanctioned by their leadership, Graham reportedly extracted from Thune an admission that the provision had been discussed with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“So this wasn’t Republicans doing this,” said Graham. “This was people in the Senate believing what happened to the Senate need never happen again.”

In hopes of alleviating concerns about self-enrichment, Thune proposed on Thursday changing the provision such that any damages awarded under the law would be forfeited to the U.S. Treasury. His corresponding resolution was blocked by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

Graham underscored on Thursday, “I’m going to sue.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Lindsey graham, Graham, Senate, Thune, Heinrich, Mike johnson, Austin scott, Payout, Payday, Arctic frost, Fbi, Politics 

A female accused of tossing a cup of hot coffee on the manager of a Michigan McDonald’s earlier this month finally gave herself up and appeared before a judge.

Casharra T. Brown, 48, of Saginaw surrendered to police last Friday on an outstanding warrant authorities had issued for her nine days earlier, MLive.com reported.

‘F**k you, b***h! Catch that hot-a** coffee!’

That same Friday, Brown appeared before Saginaw County District Judge M. Randall Jurrens for arraignment on one count of assault and battery, the outlet noted.

The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in jail and a $500 fine, MLive reported. The outlet previously reported that police submitted paperwork to the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office requesting a felonious assault charge against the suspect.

Jurrens freed Brown on a $5,000 personal recognizance bond, the outlet said; one bond condition is that she’s barred from entering McDonald’s restaurants.

On the morning of Nov. 4 at the McDonald’s at 3700 Dixie Highway in Buena Vista Township, Brown wanted a refund for two sandwiches after placing an online order, Buena Vista Township Police Detective Russ Pahssen told MLive.

The outlet said the McDonald’s manager gave Brown a coffee and tried to de-escalate the situation while Brown claimed she had been there for more than an hour. The interaction reached an impasse, MLive said, and the manager told Brown to have a great day as she turned and walked away from the counter.

The female customer removed the lid from the coffee cup, threw the contents at the manager, and yelled, “F**k you, b***h! Catch that hot-a** coffee!” as she exited the restaurant, according to video of the encounter without redacted audio. The manager can be heard screaming after the hot coffee struck her body.

The following video report aired before Brown surrendered to authorities.

RELATED: Woman allegedly tossed coffee at mom and her infant over dog leash dispute — and is now facing deportation

Pahssen shared video of the assault on Facebook to gain the public’s help in identifying the assailant, MLive said, adding that the detective said Brown was identified as the culprit within minutes.

While Pahssen at the time told MLive that the manager suffered minor burns, the outlet said Pahssen later indicated that the McDonald’s manager was wearing enough layers to prevent her skin from being burned.

MLive said it contacted defense attorney Paul M. Purcell about the case, but he declined to comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Mcdonald’s, Michigan, Buena vista township, Hot coffee, Arraignment, Misdemeanor, Assault and battery charge, Freed, Viral video, Crime 

Did Donald Trump secretly plan this fight over the Jeffrey Epstein files to lure Democrats into another political trap? No. I don’t believe he did. I know people close to the president who were frustrated over the summer when he abruptly shifted from promising the files’ release to calling it a “distraction” and a “hoax.” I said at the time on my show that the switch was the first major misstep of Trump 2.0.

But I understand why the 4D-chess theory is so tempting now. It looks like a setup. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) spent months attacking Trump over Epstein. Then we learned that Jeffries may have accepted donor requests from Epstein after Epstein’s first sex-offense conviction. And a Democrat from the Virgin Islands — Epstein’s district — was literally taking dictation from Epstein on what questions to ask in a congressional hearing.

The 2026 midterms are coming fast. If the GOP wants to avoid another preventable disaster, it had better stop rehearsing the same script.

Those are facts, not theories.

The deeper truth, though, has nothing to do with strategy. American politics follows two patterns, and both showed up again this week.

First, Republicans pre-emptively surrender. Always.

Watch Democrats tell soldiers to ignore orders while Trump follows every instruction a federal judge hands him. His restraint isn’t Romney-level, but the Republicans around him shrink the space for any real fight. That’s why Attorney General Pam Bondi is developing a well-deserved reputation for overpromising and under-delivering.

RELATED: The right message: Justice. The wrong messenger: Pam Bondi.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Second, Democrats always overreach when Republicans fold.

We saw it in 2018 when Republicans gave up on repealing Obamacare and lost 40 House seats for their cowardice. The pattern continued in 2020, as Democrats pushed their false god evangelism into insane absolutism — on “fortifying” elections, on arresting Trump, on forcing people into taking the poisonous jab, on transitioning kids. It was mark of the beast stuff, and voters wanted no part of it.

The latest example came this week, when Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) answered a question from a friendly reporter about why Democrats never pursued the Epstein files when they had the chance by snapping, “What is [Trump] hiding?” The Senate had just voted almost unanimously to release those files, and instead of revealing Trump, former Bill Clinton hack Lawrence Summers stood exposed for his ties to the sex offender, seeking his counsel as “wingman” in an effort to seduce the daughter of a high Chinese Communist Party official.

RELATED: ‘Swamp protects itself’: Republicans shield Epstein-texting Democrat — allegedly to save Cory Mills’ hide

Anna Rose Layden/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Both parties cling to their worst instincts. Republicans surrender too easily. Democrats push too far. And no politician in modern history has been buoyed more by his opponents’ excesses than Donald Trump.

So once again, Republicans hold the advantage on the Epstein files — at least for the moment. But early signs suggest they may squander it. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Pam Bondi appear ready to narrow or redact the release into something the base will see as betrayal. If that happens, Democrats won’t need to win the argument. Republicans will beat themselves.

The 2026 midterms are coming fast. If the GOP wants to avoid another preventable disaster, it had better stop rehearsing the same script.

A little discipline — and a little courage — would go a long way.

​Opinion & analysis, Jeffrey epstein, Epstein files, Congress, Republicans, Democrats, 2026 midterms, Donald trump, Pam bondi, Chuck schumer, Hakeem jeffries, Stacey plaskett, Lawrence summers, Mike johnson, Courage, Justice department, Transparency 

The search for truth has always required something very much in short supply these days: honesty. Not performative questions, not scripted outrage, not whatever happens to be trending on TikTok, but real curiosity.

Some issues, often focused on foreign aid, AIPAC, or Israel, have become hotbeds of debate and disagreement. Before we jump into those debates, however, we must return to a simpler, more important issue: honest questioning. Without it, nothing in these debates matters.

Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

The phrase “just asking questions” has re-entered the zeitgeist, and that’s fine. We should always question power. But too many of those questions feel preloaded with someone else’s answer. If the goal is truth, then the questions should come from a sincere desire to understand, not from a hunt for a villain.

Honest desire for truth is the only foundation that can support a real conversation about these issues.

Truth-seeking is real work

Right now, plenty of people are not seeking the truth at all. They are repeating something they heard from a politician on cable news or from a stranger on TikTok who has never opened a history book. That is not a search for answers. That is simply outsourcing your own thought.

If you want the truth, you need to work for it. You cannot treat the world like a Marvel movie where the good guy appears in a cape and the villain hisses on command. Real life does not give you a neat script with the moral wrapped up in two hours.

But that is how people are approaching politics now. They want the oppressed and the oppressor, the heroic underdog and the cartoon villain. They embrace this fantastical framing because it is easier than wrestling with reality.

This framing took root in the 1960s when the left rebuilt its worldview around colonizers and the colonized. Overnight, Zionism was recast as imperialism. Suddenly, every conflict had to fit the same script. Today’s young activists are just recycling the same narrative with updated graphics. Everything becomes a morality play. No nuance, no context, just the comforting clarity of heroes and villains.

Bad-faith questions

This same mindset is fueling the sudden obsession with Israel, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in particular. You hear it from members of Congress and activists alike: AIPAC pulls the strings, AIPAC controls the government, AIPAC should register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The questions are dramatic, but are they being asked in good faith?

FARA is clear. The standard is whether an individual or group acts under the direction or control of a foreign government. AIPAC simply does not qualify.

Here is a detail conveniently left out of these arguments: Dozens of domestic organizations — Armenian, Cuban, Irish, Turkish — lobby Congress on behalf of other countries. None of them registers under FARA because — like AIPAC — they are independent, domestic organizations.

If someone has a sincere problem with the structure of foreign lobbying, fair enough. Let us have that conversation. But singling out AIPAC alone is not a search for truth. It is bias dressed up as bravery.

RELATED: Antifa burns, the media spin, and truth takes the hits

Photo by Philip Pacheco/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

If someone wants to question foreign aid to Israel, fine. Let’s have that debate. But let’s ask the right questions. The issue is not the size of the package but whether the aid advances our interests. What does the United States gain? Does the investment strengthen our position in the region? How does it compare to what we give other nations? And do we examine those countries with the same intensity?

The real target

These questions reflect good-faith scrutiny. But narrowing the entire argument to one country or one dollar amount misses the larger problem. If someone objects to the way America handles foreign aid, the target is not Israel. The target is the system itself — an entrenched bureaucracy, poor transparency, and decades-old commitments that have never been re-examined. Those problems run through programs around the world.

If you want answers, you need to broaden the lens. You have to be willing to put aside the movie script and confront reality. You have to hold yourself to a simple rule: Ask questions because you want the truth, not because you want a target.

That is the only way this country ever gets clarity on foreign aid, influence, alliances, and our place in the world. Questioning is not just allowed. It is essential. But only if it is honest.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

​Aipac, Israel, Foreign aid, Truth seeking, Debate, Opinion & analysis, American israel public affairs committee, Truth, Good faith, Bad faith