Senators Slip In $500,000 ‘Spy Clause’ to Protect Themselves—But Not the Americans Targeted by Their Own Government
In a stunning act of self-preservation, Senate Republicans quietly inserted a provision that allows each senator to sue the federal government for up to $500,000, if their private data or communications are seized by law enforcement without notice. The clause, designed to shield senators from the same FBI and Special Counsel Jack Smith investigations that swept up Trump allies and staff, gives them a pathway to free cash, but not ordinary Americans.
It’s obscene. Senators managed to create a taxpayer-funded mechanism to protect themselves from unlawful government surveillance, while the same body has done virtually nothing to protect the American people. Particularly those who were spied upon, prosecuted, and imprisoned after January 6 for what amounted to pretend political crimes.
Evidently, Senate Republicans can move mountains when the boot of government lands on their necks … but not yours.
A Hidden Clause with a Heavy Price Tag
According to Fox News and Politico, the Senate’s new protection scheme was tucked into the legislative branch appropriations section of the 1200 page resolution. The original CR was just 25 pages. So another question is, who came up with the 1175 new pages? Regardless, the new text empowers any Senator to sue the United States if any federal agency accesses or subpoenas their records without prior notice. Each senator can recover a minimum of $500,000 per violation, plus attorney fees, paid directly from taxpayer funds. Wouldn’t it be nice if an American Taxpayer could sue the Government when they are wrongfully targeted?
The provision, reportedly crafted under the direction of Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), requires federal agencies and communication providers to notify the senator’s office when a warrant or subpoena is issued. If the senator is under active criminal investigation, the notice may be delayed up to 60 days, otherwise, the agency must inform them immediately. Again, why is there no law that requires citizens to be notified when the Government snoops into their phone records?
The measure stems from revelations that Jack Smith’s office had secretly obtained communications records of several Republican senators during the post–January 6 investigations, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). Both men were outraged when they discovered that their private data had been accessed without their knowledge.
The Speed of Self-Protection
The speed with which Congress acted to protect its own members is breathtaking. When senators felt the sting of unlawful surveillance, they mobilized almost overnight. A complex funding bill became the vehicle for a self-defense clause, guaranteeing cash settlements for those who dwell in the marble halls of the Capitol.
Meanwhile, ordinary Americans targeted by the government all the time. The January 6 defendants, parents labeled “domestic extremists” by the FBI, pro-life activists raided at dawn by armed agents, all remain without any recourse. Their bank accounts have been frozen, their communications monitored, their reputations destroyed, and their livelihoods ruined.
No senator has slipped in a provision to reimburse them for wrongful seizures, lost wages, or reputational harm. There is no taxpayer-funded clause for Americans falsely accused of “insurrection” for walking through open Capitol doors.
When the government spies on the powerful, Congress writes a law.
When it spies on the powerless, Congress writes a press release.
The Hypocrisy Exposed
This “spy clause,” as some insiders are calling it, exposes an old truth about Washington: accountability is only a crisis when the wrong people are targeted. Senators who had their communications quietly accessed were outraged at what they called “weaponization of law enforcement.” Yet those same senators have watched in silence as ordinary citizens—some elderly veterans, others young mothers—were prosecuted and imprisoned for little more than political expression.
The hypocrisy is galling.
Sen. Cruz, for instance, was reportedly incensed that Smith’s team might have viewed his phone records. Yet where was the outrage when the same Department of Justice placed January 6 protesters in solitary confinement for months before trial? Where was the clause protecting them from prosecutorial overreach, data seizures, and surveillance without notice?
If lawmakers can slip in a half-million-dollar self-compensation fund in a 1,200-page spending bill, why can’t they slip in something meaningful for the American people—like, a permanent codification of President Trump’s executive orders that defended free speech, restrained federal power, and protected law enforcement officers from political purges?
January 6 patriots, most of whom were peaceful protesters caught in an entrapment scheme, have been stripped of due process, spied upon through geofencing and mass-data dragnets, and punished under laws written for foreign terrorists. When senators were spied upon, they get compensated.
The lesson is unmistakable. Washington will protect itself … and doesn’t give a damn about you.
A Final Thought
The Senate’s “spy clause” is more than a budget gimmick; it’s a kickback. It reflects a Congress that moves swiftly to guard its own interests but drags its feet when Americans cry out for justice. It proves, once again, that in Washington, the rules change depending on who’s being targeted. Senators get settlements; citizens get sentences.
If Republicans can carve out a taxpayer-funded legal remedy for themselves, they can also carve out one for the people who sent them there.
Or will Washington keep proving that the swamp always looks after its own?
Sources:
- Politico, “Thune Secures Provision Allowing Senators to Sue Over Jack Smith Subpoenas” (Nov. 10, 2025)
- MSN, “Shutdown deal lets senators sue for $500K over data seizures in Jan. 6 probe” (Nov. 11, 2025)
- The Daily Beast, “House Republicans Claim They Were Blindsided by MAGA Senators’ Cash Grab” (Nov. 11, 2025)
How Fate registered a developer’s project domain after seeing it in official plans, then fought to keep that fact hidden
FATE, TX – Cities are expected to regulate development, not steal its name.
Records obtained by Pipkins Reports show the City of Fate registered the domain name of a private development, lafayettecrossing.com, while actively working with the developer who had already claimed that name in official plans. The move, made quietly during a heated approval process, raises serious questions about whether Fate’s city government crossed from partner to predator, taking digital ownership of a project it was supposed to oversee with neutrality and good faith… and depriving the developer of their rights to domain ownership.
What followed, attempts to conceal the purchase, shifting explanations from city officials, and a documented pattern of advocacy on behalf of the developer, suggests the domain registration was not an accident, but part of a broader effort to control the narrative around one of the most divisive projects in the city’s history.
A site plan submitted by the developer, D-F Funds GP, LLC, led by Robert Yu, shows the project title “Lafayette Crossing” clearly identified in the title block on December 20, 2023. The document was part of the city’s official development review for the controversial project at the corner of I-30 and Highway 551.
Less than two months later, on February 7, 2024, the City of Fate registered the domain lafayettecrossing.com, Invoice #116953461, for $12.
Domain records confirm the registration date, with the domain set to expire on February 7, 2027. By that point, Lafayette Crossing was already the established name of the project, used by the developer and embedded in official plans circulating within City Hall.
This was not a coincidence. The city had the plans from the developer. Their were extensive talks regarding the project. Then the city registered the domain without the knowledge of the developer. This is known in the industry as, “Cybersquatting.”
The development, originally referred to as the “Yu Tract,” became known as Lafayette Crossing as it moved through the approval process. The project ignited intense public opposition over density, traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and the long-term direction of Fate’s growth. Despite sustained resistance and packed council chambers, the city council approved the project.
The political fallout was severe. In the elections that followed, four council members and the mayor were replaced, an extraordinary level of turnover that reflected deep voter dissatisfaction. Two members from that Council, Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, remain, but are up for reelection this May.
That context matters, because the domain registration did not occur in isolation. It occurred amid a broader, documented pattern of city officials actively working to shape public perception in favor of the developer.
In February 2024, Pipkins Reports, then operating as the Fate Tribune, published an exposé based on internal city emails showing City Manager Michael Kovacs discussing strategies to “educate” the public about Lafayette Crossing. In those emails, Kovacs suggested deploying what he referred to as “Fire Support,” a term used to describe both paid and unpaid advocates brought forward to counter citizen opposition and astroturf public support for the project.
That reporting revealed a city government not merely responding to public concerns, but actively attempting to manage and counter them.
In a later publication, Pipkins Reports (Fate Tribune) documented the City of Fate’s hiring of Ryan Breckenridge of BRK Partners, engaging in what records showed to be a coordinated public relations effort aimed at improving the project’s image and swaying public sentiment. The campaign was presented as informational, but residents viewed it as advocacy on behalf of the developer, funded with public resources.
It was within this environment, where city staff had already aligned themselves publicly and privately with the developer’s interests, that the city registered the lafayettecrossing.com domain. Yet that fact remained hidden until PipkinsReports.com submitted an Open Records Request on September 30, 2025, seeking a list of all domains owned by the city.
Rather than comply, the City of Fate objected. On October 14, 2025, officials asked the Texas Attorney General’s Office for permission to withhold the records, citing “cybersecurity” concerns.
On January 6, 2026, the Attorney General rejected that claim and ordered the information released. The city complied on January 20, 2026.
In addition to the lafayettecrossing.com domain, the records revealed the city owns numerous domains tied to redevelopment and branding initiatives, including:
- FateTX.gov
- DowntownFate.com
- FateFoodHaul.com
- FateMainStreet.com
- FateStationHub.com
- FateStationMarket.com
- FateStationPark.com
- FateStationSpur.com
- OldTownFate.com
- TheHubAtFateStation.com
- TheSpurAtFateStation.com
- ForwardFate.com
Most clearly relate to city-led initiatives. LafayetteCrossing.com stands apart because it mirrors the established name of a private development already proposed, named, and publicly debated.
When questioned via email, Assistant City Manager Steven Downs initially suggested the domain purchase occurred long before his involvement and downplayed any potential issues. When we revealed documents to show Downs was actively engaged with the project at the same time the Lafayette Crossing name entered the city’s official workflow, his story changed.
In follow-up correspondence, Downs acknowledged he was aware of the project name, while placing responsibility for the domain purchase on former Assistant City Manager Justin Weiss. Downs stated he did not know whether the developer was aware of the purchase and said he was not concerned about potential liability.
What remains unexplained is why the city registered the domain at all, knowing it belonged to a private project, and why it attempted to keep that information from the public.
Opinion
Viewed in isolation, a $12 domain purchase might seem trivial. Viewed in context, it is not.
When a city that has already worked to astroturf support, hire public relations firms, and counter citizen opposition also quietly registers a developer’s project domain, then attempts to conceal that information from the public, the line between regulator and advocate disappears.
The question is no longer whether the city knew the name. The record shows it did.
The question is why a city government so deeply invested in selling a controversial project to its residents felt the need to take ownership of the project’s digital identity as well.
Control of messaging, control of perception, and control of narrative are powerful tools. Sometimes it is equally as important to control what is not said.
Texas Senate Primaries Show Early Leads for Crockett and Paxton
AUSTIN, Texas – A new poll released by The Texas Tribune indicates that Jasmine Crockett and Ken Paxton are leading their respective primary races for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. The survey, published on February 9, 2026, highlights the early momentum for both candidates as they vie for their party nominations in a closely watched election cycle. The results point to strong voter recognition and support for Crockett in the Democratic primary and Paxton in the Republican primary.
The poll, conducted among likely primary voters across the state, shows Crockett holding a significant lead over her Democratic challenger James Talarico, while Paxton maintains a commanding position among Republican contenders John Cornyn & Wesley Hunt.
According to the poll, Ken Paxton leads with 38 percent of likely GOP primary voters, pulling ahead of incumbent John Cornyn, who trails at 31 percent, while Wesley Hunt remains a distant third at 17 percent. The survey indicates Paxton would hold a commanding advantage in a runoff scenario and currently outperforms Cornyn across nearly every key Republican demographic group, with Latino voters the lone exception, where Cornyn maintains a seven-point edge.
Among Democrats, the poll shows Jasmine Crockett opening a notable lead, capturing 47 percent of likely primary voters compared to 39 percent for James Talarico—a meaningful shift from earlier polling that had Talarico in the lead. While still early, the numbers suggest momentum is consolidating ahead of primaries that will determine the general election matchups.
Jasmine Crockett, a sitting U.S. Representative whose district lines were redrawn out from under her, has responded to political extinction with a desperate lurch toward the U.S. Senate. Her campaign, widely criticized as race-baiting and grievance-driven, has leaned heavily on inflaming urban Democratic turnout while cloaking thin policy substance in fashionable slogans about healthcare and “equity.”
By contrast, Ken Paxton enters the race with a long, battle-tested record as Texas Attorney General, earning fierce loyalty from conservatives for his aggressive defense of state sovereignty, constitutional limits, and successful legal challenges to federal overreach. Though relentlessly targeted by opponents, Paxton’s tenure reflects durability, clarity of purpose, and an unapologetic alignment with the voters he represents—qualities that define his standing in the contest.
The Texas U.S. Senate race draws national attention, as the state remains a critical battleground in determining the balance of power in Congress. With incumbent dynamics and shifting voter demographics at play, the primary outcomes will set the stage for a potentially contentious general election. The Texas Tribune poll serves as an initial benchmark, though voter sentiment could evolve as campaigns intensify and debates unfold in the coming weeks.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem joined national security leaders in a dual-state event to commemorate a historic decline in border crossings, according to an official release from the Department of Homeland Security. The event spanned two locations, Arizona and North Dakota, in a single day, highlighting coordinated efforts to strengthen border security. Noem, alongside other officials, marked the achievement as a significant milestone in national security policy.
The Department of Homeland Security reported a measurable drop in unauthorized border crossings, attributing the success to enhanced enforcement measures and inter-agency collaboration. Specific data on the decline was not detailed in the initial announcement, though officials emphasized the impact of recent policy implementations. The two-state commemoration underscored the geographic breadth of the issue, addressing both southern and northern border concerns.
In Arizona, Noem and security leaders reviewed operations along the southern border, a longstanding focal point for immigration enforcement. Later in the day, the group traveled to North Dakota to assess northern border security, an area often overlooked in national discussions but critical to comprehensive policy. The dual focus aimed to demonstrate a unified approach to protecting all U.S. borders, per the department’s statement.
The official release from Homeland Security included remarks from Noem, who praised the dedication of personnel involved in the effort. “This decline in crossings is a testament to the hard work of our agents and the effectiveness of our strategies,” she said. Her comments were echoed by other leaders present, though no additional direct quotations were provided in the initial report.
Background on the border security initiatives reveals a multi-year push to address vulnerabilities at both entry points. Southern border challenges, particularly in Arizona, have long dominated policy debates due to high volumes of crossings and complex terrain. Meanwhile, northern border issues in states like North Dakota often involve different dynamics, including trade security and seasonal migration patterns. The Department of Homeland Security has prioritized resources for both regions, though specific funding allocations remain undisclosed in the latest update.
The cause of the reported decline ties directly to recent enforcement actions, though exact mechanisms were not specified in the announcement. Officials pointed to improved technology, increased staffing, and stronger partnerships with local and state authorities as contributing factors. Further details on these efforts are expected in forthcoming reports from the department, which has committed to transparency on border metrics.
Opinion
The recognition of a decline in border crossings signals a potential turning point in how the nation secures its frontiers. Celebrating this achievement in two distinct regions reinforces the importance of a comprehensive strategy that does not neglect less-discussed areas like the northern border.
Events like these also serve as a reminder that security is not a partisan issue but a fundamental duty of government. Prioritizing resources and personnel to protect sovereignty while maintaining lawful entry processes should remain a core focus, ensuring that progress is sustained through consistent policy and accountability.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login