Republicans took a victory lap after the Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution over some actions he took as president, while Democrats bashed the decision as an outcome that would haunt the country.

GOP lawmakers are framing the court’s decision as a defense against what they say have been Democrats’ attempts to take down Trump and weaponize the legal system against him.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan pledged his panel will “continue to oversee dangerous lawfare tactics in our judicial system,” and said he hopes the decision will stop “attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement the decision “upholds the rule of law in our country and rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump.”

Democrats, meanwhile, voiced dismay that the conservative court has offered even partial protection to the former president, severely complicating efforts to put Trump on trial.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted the decision as a “sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy.”

“Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president,” he wrote in a post on social media network X.

“Shame on the six aiders and abettors of treason,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote on social media, referencing the six conservative justices on the court.

Virginia Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly, a member of the Oversight panel, noted the stakes of the decision and warned the “shameful” outcome “will haunt us for years to come.”

“American democracy is under homegrown attack,” he said.

Fellow Oversight member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) was even blunter: “The court can no longer be counted on to defend the constitution,”he wrote in a social media post.

Democrats are also hand-wringing over how much the decision leaves unresolved, leaving U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to decide which of the allegations which are deemed Trump’s official acts and which are private.

“The vagueness of the standard for immunity set in the ruling is concerning,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) wrote on social media. “It would be hard to argue that dispensing a mob to overturn the election is part of the president’s ‘official duties.'”

The White House asked Congress on Friday for $4 billion in emergency money to address the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, in addition to tornado, wildfire and hurricane recovery needs nationwide.

The emergency funding request, known as a supplemental, comes after lawmakers approved a long-stalled $95 billion foreign aid package in April, following months of partisan squabbling and Republican resistance to additional Ukraine aid. The $4 billion ask builds on President Joe Biden’s request last fall for $56 billion for child care, internet connectivity needs and more, a push which hasn’t garnered the same Hill momentum.

Issues like the Baltimore bridge collapse and disaster aid, however, have amassed clear bipartisan support. Without the extra cash, administration officials have warned the bridge collapse recovery will drain an emergency pot of federal transportation funding, while FEMA’s disaster relief program could run out of money at the height of hurricane season later this summer.

It’s unclear whether this new emergency funding request will eventually receive a standalone vote in Congress or get attached to a must-pass bill, like a stopgap spending measure that lawmakers will almost certainly have to pass in order to avoid a government shutdown Oct. 1, when federal cash expires.

Attaching the money to a stopgap bill is “probably the easiest way” to get the emergency funding across the finish line, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said Friday. But Cole noted some concern that FEMA’s disaster relief fund, for example, will dry up before Congress can pass that short-term funding bill, also known as a continuing resolution.

Specifically, the White House wants $3.1 billion for the Transportation Department’s emergency relief program to cover the Baltimore bridge and other needs, in addition to $700 million for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program for Maui wildfires and severe storms across the U.S., including tornado and hurricane recovery efforts.

The administration is also reupping its request last fall to replenish FEMA’s disaster relief fund, stabilize the child care industry, bolster border security, and address firefighter pay and internet connectivity needs.

Biden has requested that the federal government foot the entire bill for rebuilding the Baltimore bridge. But some Republicans have raised concerns about taxpayers shouldering so much of the cost, demanding offsets or rebuffing the administration’s push for a 100 percent federal cost-sharing approach.

“I’ve told the White House this — whatever we’re doing for one place, we’re doing for the other place,” Cole said, arguing that while Maryland needs the emergency money, the bridge shouldn’t receive preferential treatment over other disaster-affected areas.

“So if we’re suspending things and, you know, ratios and payments and whatever, I intend for it to be the same across the board. I’m not going to treat one part of the country one way and another part another way,” Cole said.

Speaker Mike Johnson said Friday that President Joe Biden’s Cabinet should discuss invoking the 25th Amendment in the wake of a politically disastrous debate that compounded age and acuity questions.

Johnson, asked about calls from within his own conference for the amendment to be invoked, said that “there’s a lot of people asking about” it, but that it was up to members of Biden’s Cabinet.

“I would ask the Cabinet members to search their hearts. … And we hope that they will do their duty, as we all seek to do our duty to do best by the American people. These are fateful moments,” Johnson told reporters.

Pressed if he was saying he believed the 25th Amendment should be invoked, he added: “If I were in the Cabinet … I would be having that discussion with my colleagues at the Cabinet level. I would. … We’ll see what action they take. It’s a serious situation.”

Johnson’s comments come after Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said on X that he would be introducing a resolution that calls on Vice President Kamala Harris to “immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene & mobilize the principal officers of the Cabinet to declare the [president] is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office.”

House Democrats, smarting from President Joe Biden’s stumbles on Tuesday night, are openly urging the president to avoid a second televised debate.

Biden’s widely panned performance during his first head-to-head with former President Donald Trump has raised real alarms among Democrats about their nominee’s viability on the ballot. On Friday morning, party lawmakers blamed Biden’s preparation for the 90-minute debate and advised him to pass on a scheduled rematch – at least if it’s one with the same format. The two have another debate scheduled for the fall hosted by ABC News.

“If it’s the same debate questions, and it’s the same process, I probably wouldn’t do it. I’m not his advisor, but I probably wouldn’t advise him to do it,” said Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio).

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) went further: “We didn’t even need this debate. Quite frankly, we know exactly who Trump is. And we know exactly who Joe Biden is. You have a debate so that you can learn about a candidate. There’s nothing else to know.”

Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.) said that “if there’s going to be a second debate, the terms and the rules of engagement have to be changed.” Biden’s team has indicated that it has no plans to change September’s scheduled debate with Trump.

Not every Democrat was nudging the president to reconsider those plans; Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), said Biden “certainly” should debate again.

Others laid the blame not at Biden’s feet but at those of his advisers, whom they said left the president seemingly unprepared for the fight with Trump.

Biden “looked like he hadn’t done any debate prep,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said. “If I was in his shoes, I’d be pretty furious at my political team this morning. He should have knocked that out of the park … He wasn’t prepared.”

Some Democrats have gone so far as to privately discuss replacing him on the ticket, though none have attached their names to the suggestion in public. One Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly told POLITICO on Friday that Biden should bow out of the race as soon as possible so another Democrat can win the nomination at the convention.

“It has to be Biden deciding to step down,” this Democratic member said. “But this is the time. He saved our country once. He has to save our country again.”

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who’d unsuccessfully challenged Biden for the Democratic nomination while raising concerns about the president’s age, tersely commented on X with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “Speak only if it improves upon the silence.”

Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) summed up his feelings about the debate: “Not good … There’s just a concern out there [with Biden] that has to be addressed.”

Among swing-district lawmakers, the disappointment with Biden was palpable.

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said that he still believes the election is largely a referendum on Trump, rather than Biden’s mental fitness, but acknowledged the uncertainty now facing the party at a crucial moment.

“I don’t know what happens next. I truly don’t. I think the president and his team are going to huddle up and have a conversation and we’ll see what happens,” Landsman said, asked if he was entertaining the idea of anyone besides Biden being the party’s nominee.

Purple-district Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) called it a “terrible debate. Joe Biden couldn’t communicate and Donald Trump lied every time he opened his mouth.”

Underscoring how sensitive the topic of Biden’s debate performance is for Democratic lawmakers, at least a dozen of them ignored reporters’ questions about it on Friday.

Normally chatty Democrats like Reps. Adam Schiff (Calif.), Dan Goldman (N.Y.) and Jared Moskowitz (Fla.) declined to talk about the debate. Some vulnerable incumbents, like Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), literally sprinted to the House chamber to avoid reporters.

Other imperiled incumbents, like Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), said that Biden “can make his own decisions” before pivoting to talk about local issues.

The House Democratic leader has not endorsed any efforts to remove Biden and on Friday reiterated his support for the president.

“I support the ticket. I support the Senate Democratic majority. We’re going to do everything possible to take back the House in November,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who served as a surrogate for Biden on the ground in Atlanta after the debate, acknowledged the president’s performance wasn’t his strongest but defended his record.

“Look, I get that President Biden had a sore throat, apparently was not feeling well. But at the end of the day, we’ve seen the President in action for years,” Garcia said. “I think 20 minutes of a debate, half an hour debate …. I don’t think it’s gonna matter at the end of the day.”

Other Biden allies played down any worries even while acknowledging his performance was lackluster.

“Joe Biden didn’t do well last night – that doesn’t mean that Donald Trump is the right man for the White House,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.).

Joe Gould, Jordain Carney, Katherine Tully-McManus, and Jennifer Haberkorn contributed to this report. 

House Republicans on Friday passed three more spending bills rife with budget cuts and divisive policies, grinding through their mission to clear a dozen of their own funding measures this summer.

With little support from Democrats, the House passed measures to fund the Pentagon, along with the departments of State and Homeland Security, after checking off their veterans’ affairs spending bill earlier this month. With that achieved, GOP lawmakers are leaving town for a weeklong recess touting their success in passing one-third of the 12 measures that Congress must clear each year to fund federal agencies.

But they also admit all that legislating is just the prelude to real bipartisan negotiations — which are still a long way off.

“I mean, these aren’t the final products. These are negotiating positions,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week.

Cross-party talks on government funding totals are not expected to begin until control of the White House and Congress are determined on Election Day; before that, lawmakers are widely anticipating a stopgap funding patch in September that would buy extra time beyond the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year. But House Republican leaders remain committed to laying down their own partisan markers on each of the 12 funding bills for fiscal 2025, an ambitious goal they failed to achieve last year.

This week, that meant more tough votes for swing-district Republicans who were asked to support controversial social policies and budget cuts for many non-defense programs, since House GOP leaders have decided to ignore tens of billions of dollars in spending that both parties agreed to under last year’s debt limit deal.

“Some think that what we adopt is the ceiling. I suggest that what we adopt is where we start, and then negotiate from there,” said Republican Rep. Marc Molinaro, who is running for reelection in a Democrat-leaning district in central New York.

The DHS funding bill passed 212-203. The State Department spending measure passed 212-200. And the Pentagon funding bill passed 217-198. Still, House GOP leaders don’t plan to bring the most controversial and austere of the dozen appropriations bills to the floor until late July.

Each of the measures House Republicans passed Friday contain anti-abortion policies, including language blocking foreign aid to international groups that perform abortions or offer abortion counseling. The defense funding bill would bar soldiers from getting paid leave or travel expenses covered for an abortion. And the DHS measure would prevent immigrants from getting abortions while detained.

Some swing-district House Republicans have warned GOP leaders that they would oppose other funding bills because of anti-abortion language. That includes last year’s FDA spending measure — which featured a provision that would block mail delivery of mifepristone abortion pills and an amendment that Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) also proposed this week to block access to fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization.

Molinaro argues that he and like-minded centrists see the abortion restrictions the House passed this week as an acceptable “continuation” of the longstanding Hyde amendment ban on using federal funding for the procedure.

“This concept that the federal government doesn’t put federal dollars toward abortion — that’s been the policy. I’ve had Democratic and Republican predecessors support that,” Molinaro said. “We’ve made clear that advancing the mifepristone prohibitions or outright prohibitions on access to IVF — these are things that we’re just not willing to support. And of course, more broadly, I don’t support any national ban or effort to ban abortion access nationally.”

Democrats counter that tens of thousands of soldiers are stationed in states where abortion is banned, so denying paid leave or travel is “a de facto national abortion ban for women who serve alongside and in the military,” as Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, the top Democrat on the defense spending panel, said on the floor.

“Women will exit the force because of this. Husbands and fathers will not want to serve in states where their families could be negatively impacted,” McCollum added, scolding GOP leaders for not allowing a vote on her amendment to strike that language.

While McCollum’s amendment and many others didn’t make the cut for a floor vote, the House debated more than 300 proposed tweaks to the three funding bills. Many of those amendments divided Republicans on polarizing policy issues.

Several amendments to the State Department funding bill put lawmakers on record against funding for international programs, including the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development. A bloc of 70 Republicans supported an amendment from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that would bar funding for Ukraine under the State Department spending measure. Each of those amendments was defeated.

“Just look what happened with the amendments — we won most of them,” said California Rep. Barbara Lee, the top Democrat in charge of the State Department funding bill. “The public knows. Let the people decide who’s with them and who’s against them.”

An amendment by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) forced lawmakers to vote on extinguishing President Joe Biden’s recent executive order that shields some undocumented spouses from deportation, along with children of U.S. citizens. Roy’s amendment failed, with 14 nays from his side of the aisle.

Several swing-district Republicans fighting for reelection in districts with large immigrant populations were among those voices of dissent on Roy’s plan, including Reps. Mike Lawler of New York and Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon, along with California Reps. David Valadeo, Michelle Steel and John Duarte.

The White House promptly issued veto threats for all three of the measures this week, accusing House Republicans of “again wasting time with partisan bills” that would slash border security agencies, foreign aid and civilian military personnel.

Few congressional Democrats could muster a defense of President Joe Biden’s halting debate performance Thursday, opting instead to criticize former President Donald Trump for his answers on how he would handle women’s reproductive health decisions and falsehoods about the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The vast majority of Democrats tried to redirect the conversation to Trump, rather than attempting to defending Biden’s raspy and sometimes unintelligible performance.

“Tonight [Trump] presented another pack of lies which along, with his candidacy, must be rejected,” wrote former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “How dare he place the blame for January 6th on anyone but himself, the inciter of an insurrection?”

A notable outlier: Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who faced his own cycle of questions about his viability after a poor debate performance against Mehmet Oz following a stroke in 2022.

“No one knows more than me that a rough debate is not the sum total of the person and their record,” Fetterman wrote in a post on social media platform X. “Chill the fuck out.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer didn’t address Biden’s performance, but wrote: “Tonight’s debate made the choice clear: Four more years of progress, or four more years of attacks on our fundamental rights and our democracy.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote simply, without mentioning Biden: “Freedom and Democracy are on the line. We will never surrender.”

Normally active Democratic social media posters in Congress were conspicuously silent during and after the debate, but others were not.

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who mounted a futile primary bid against Biden citing concerns over the president’s age, simply posted a Gandhi quote to social media Friday morning: “Speak only if it improves upon the silence.”

“Biden had a very low bar going into the debate and failed to clear even that bar,” wrote former Obama Cabinet official Julián Castro, whose brother Joaquin represents Texas in the House. “He seemed unprepared, lost, and not strong enough to parry effectively with Trump, who lies constantly.

Even those Republicans who’ve been critical of Trump couldn’t defend Biden’s performance.

“Former President Trump has understandably been characterized as a narcissist, however the greatest example of narcissism at this time in America politics is President Biden’s belief that he’s the only person who can defeat Mr. Trump,” posted former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.).

The White House plans to send Congress an emergency funding request to address the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore and other pressing needs as soon as Friday, according to three people who were granted anonymity to discuss the request ahead of the release.

The bridge’s collapse earlier this year severed a key East Coast transportation link and disrupted shipping into Baltimore Harbor. Administration officials have told lawmakers in recent months that the bridge and addressing other losses is expected to cost billions of dollars, likely enough to deplete an emergency relief fund through the Federal Highway Administration.

It’s unclear whether the administration’s emergency funding request — which is also expected to address disaster-related and internet connectivity needs — would get a standalone vote or if it could be attached to a must-pass bill, like a stopgap spending measure that Congress will almost certainly have to pass in order to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1, when federal cash expires.

The White House budget office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

House Republicans moved forward Thursday on their push to hold President Joe Biden’s ghostwriter in contempt of Congress — yet another escalation in their fight over former special counsel Robert Hur’s report.

The Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance a resolution to hold Mark Zwonitzer, who ghost wrote Biden’s memoirs, in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena for records related to his work with Biden.

“The committee needs the information we subpoenaed from Mr. Zwonitzer. No legal or constitutional privilege protects the subpoenaed information. … His willful refusal to comply with our subpoena constitutes contempt of Congress,” Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said.

Jordan subpoenaed Zwonitzer earlier this year demanding that he turn over a slew of records, including evidence of payments for his ghostwriting work, any recordings with Biden and communications with Biden or his staff.

Republicans noted, in their report, that Zwonitzer hadn’t turned over any of the requested records and that his attorney had indicated that they had concerns about the letter. Jordan noted on Thursday that they want more information from Zwonitzer to help determine whether Hur made the right decision in not charging Biden over his improper retention of classified documents.

It’s the second person Republicans have moved to hold in contempt due to subpoenas related to Hur’s report. GOP lawmakers voted earlier this month to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to hand over audio of Biden’s interview with Hur.

The Justice Department quickly informed Speaker Mike Johnson that Garland would not face charges for refusing to hand over the audio, which Biden asserted executive privilege over. Republicans are expected to file a lawsuit against the Justice Department next week and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) plans to force a vote Friday to allow the sergeant at arms to arrest Garland and bring him before the House. It’s unlikely that measure will pass.

Republicans are probing Hur’s investigation as part of their sweeping impeachment inquiry into Biden, which has largely focused on the business deals of his family members. Though Republicans have continued digging for information, GOP leaders don’t have the votes to impeach Biden. A swath of Republicans have repeatedly said that investigators haven’t shown clear evidence that Biden committed a crime or impeachable offense.

Democrats on the committee blasted Republicans for moving to hold Zwonitzer in contempt, arguing that Republicans were trying to help former President Donald Trump and “bullying and intimidating a private citizen.”

“This contempt resolution against Mr. Zwonitzer is an abuse of the committee’s oversight authority,” said New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

Nadler also noted that the committee received a letter earlier this week that the White House counsel sent to Zwonitzer’s attorney. That letter said that the majority of information that Biden gave to Zwonitzer is “private” and that he was “not authorized” to hand over Biden’s information until it had been reviewed for “executive branch confidentiality concerns” and a deal had been reached between the Judiciary Committee and the White House.

Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers abruptly canceled a markup of her bipartisan privacy bill five minutes before the panel was set to deliberate on the controversial legislation, according to four people familiar with the matter.

McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) has gotten heavy pushback from top GOP leadership over the bill, as POLITICO first reported. Members of her panel implored Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on a call Wednesday night to tell McMorris Rodgers to delay the markup until issues with the bill are ironed out, according to one lawmaker on the call.

Hours after the decision to pull the markup, McMorris Rodgers said the bill’s sponsors “needed to regroup” in the face of surging opposition from Republican leadership, the tech lobby and privacy advocates.

“This is not how the House is supposed to work,” she told reporters outside the House chamber. “But we’re gonna get this done.”

The E&C chair blamed “confusion and misrepresentation” for sinking the planned markup of both the American Privacy Rights Act and the Kids Online Safety Act at the last minute. The bills would impose new privacy obligations on companies that collect peoples’ online data and stop social media platforms from recommending potentially harmful content to minors, respectively.

McMorris Rodgers said GOP leadership voiced objections to both bills, suggesting those concerns ultimately led to some members abruptly pulling their support.

“I know at the beginning of the week, we had the votes,” she said.

In a statement, New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the committee’s top Democrat and a co-sponsor of the privacy bill, pledged to continue working with McMorris Rodgers on comprehensive privacy legislation. He was less circumspect in his criticism of GOP leaders, calling it “outrageous that Republican Leadership would interfere with the Committee’s bipartisan regular order process.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), another co-sponsor of the privacy bill and ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Innovation, Data and Commerce Subcommittee, was similarly incensed. “I’m beside myself, I really am,” she told reporters on Thursday. “I’m so furious. … We had an opportunity. I wanted to be there to pass the bill.”

House E&C member Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) told reporters on Thursday that while she supported the broad objectives of the privacy bill, she would have voted against it had the markup gone ahead as planned. “Law enforcement has concerns, industry has concerns, some liberty organizations have concerns,” she said.

“I think there’s still many things that need to be worked out,” Cammack added. “And it’s a process that is going to be complicated. It is a process that is going to be a very hard road.”

In the minutes after the markup’s cancellation, House Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X that he is “committed to working to build consensus in the House on a data privacy bill.”

McMorris Rodgers seized upon his message, saying it showed Johnson believes it is “urgent for Congress to act on a privacy standard for all Americans, especially our children.” She said her committee would aim to reschedule the markup soon.

An E&C aide, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said there was no timeline for a rescheduled markup and it was too early to know whether it can be done ahead of the August recess. It is notoriously difficult for Congress to pass anything in an election year, and particularly rare for major legislation to advance after the August recess.

Robert King contributed to this report.

Mark Rutte is grabbing the reins of NATO at a perilous time for the alliance — but he’ll be starting with effectively a blank slate among U.S. lawmakers.

House members, even those with extensive foreign policy portfolios, say they’ve yet to hear from the incoming secretary general of NATO and many lawmakers know next to nothing about him. That means Rutte, who the alliance formally selected as its next leader on Wednesday, will have significant work to do to establish and develop relationships with U.S. lawmakers tasked with doling out dollars and military assistance internationally.

Democrats who do know the incumbent Dutch prime minister had warm words about his capabilities even as they acknowledged potential friction — particularly if former President Donald Trump regains the White House. Current NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg still holds the post until Oct. 1, a possible reason U.S. lawmakers said they’d not yet had direct outreach from Rutte.

“Having had to navigate European politics, I would say he’s well-prepared to handle ours as well,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), president of the NATO parliamentary assembly, told POLITICO.

Connolly said he, along with a bipartisan U.S. delegation, met with Rutte last summer and found him to be “smart, accomplished, politically skilled, very affable, easy to relate to … I think our whole delegation liked him.”

Republicans were a bit more circumspect, signaling they were looking forward to working with Rutte but not praising him outright. While Rutte is generally known for a low-key and consensus-building leadership style, he has directly confronted Trump multiple times, particularly after the then-president threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO. Those threats could easily continue if Trump wins the White House, and NATO already has significant existing problems given the threat of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“NATO is in place because people like Putin exist,” said Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.), another member of the NATO parliamentary assembly. “You got to pull your own weight. Every country brings different capabilities to the table. All of our countries in NATO — whether it’s manpower, whether it’s technology — what they all need to bring to the table is commitment.”

The prime minister’s experience in assembling complex coalitions makes Rutte a “great choice” to take over the alliance, according to Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), as NATO tries to insulate itself from possible attacks by Trump should he regain the White House.

“He’s widely respected, has a lot of support within NATO, which of course gets him off on a good start,” Crow, another member of the parliamentary assembly, said in a brief interview. “Secretary General Stoltenberg did an incredible job. Mr. Rutte, he’s got big shoes to fill but I think he’s up to the task.”

House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio), who is also head of the U.S. delegation to the NATO parliamentary assembly, extended “sincere congratulations” to Rutte on Wednesday in a statement and said he looked forward to “strengthening the Alliance and bolstering our collective defense capabilities.”

Conservatives pronounced themselves agnostic about Rutte’s ascension, but indicated he should prepare himself for Trump to adopt a similar stance toward the alliance if Trump returns.

“I would anticipate if President Trump was reelected that he will continue to support NATO, but press Europe to do its fair share in NATO,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in a brief interview.

“I think President Trump also will be rightly reluctant to engage in foreign adventurism. I think one of the mistakes of the Biden administration is being far too eager to engage in foreign adventurism,” the Texas Republican added.

The offices of Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho), leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, didn’t respond to requests for comment on whether Rutte had reached out. The House Foreign Affairs Committee leaders, Reps. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), said they knew Rutte — but Meeks said he not heard from him since he won the nod to lead the alliance.

“The key is the dialogue and conversation between the NATO nations, to make sure everyone is doing their fair share and working together,” said Meeks. “And I think that if he does that [that] helps with every member — Democrat, Republican.”

Miles Herszenhorn contributed to this report.