Rep. Bob Good is pressing forward on his demands for a recount in his primary race, as he trails his GOP opponent John McGuire by 370 votes.

The chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus confirmed his recount plans to POLITICO a week after the polls closed in his primary. McGuire prematurely claimed victory that night, before any election officials had declared a winner. The AP has not called the race because of the impeding recount — while the results are unlikely to shift enough for Good to overtake McGuire’s lead, the AP noted it could be possible.

Asked in the Capitol hallways if he plans to seek a recount, Good (R-Va.) replied: “Yes.” He had an equally brief answer when asked if he had the money to pay for it: “Yes.”

While Good is within the threshold needed to request a recount, he is just shy of the 0.5 percentage-point-or-less requirement that would force a government-funded recount. Instead, he has to pay for it using his own campaign money.

Good signaled he would be willing to respect the results of the recount, though he’s cast doubt about the integrity of the race in interviews. Election officials have firmly dismissed those claims.

“We just want an accurate reflection of the intent of the voters who legitimately, and legally, participated. Everybody should want that,” Good told reporters. “We intend to pursue that. And we’ll respect that when that does happen.”

Many national Republicans have been trying to reassure voters that they’re not working to curb reproductive rights, especially when it comes to in vitro fertilization. Rep. Matt Rosendale is complicating that in the House.

The Montana Republican has proposed an amendment to a measure funding the Pentagon that describes IVF as “morally wrong.”

“While I feel for couples that are unable to have children, the practice of IVF is morally wrong, and I refuse to support any legislation that condones its use,” Rosendale said in a statement. “If you are opposed to abortion, you should be opposed to the practice of IVF.”

The House Rules Committee is currently mulling which amendments to consider as part of floor debate on the defense spending bill, so the amendment from the retiring Montana conservative may never get a vote. He’s floated similar amendments on other bills without securing floor action.

However, Rosendale’s effort is a stark break from most elected Republicans. All Senate Republicans issued a rare joint statement voicing support for IVF access — though they later opposed advancing a Democratic measure to enshrine that into law. Former President Donald Trump has also said he “strongly support[s] the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.”

Generally, Republicans have struggled to iterate a straightforward policy position on the practice, which presents moral, medical and legal quandaries. Many conservatives are torn between their desire to help parents deal with infertility and their belief in fetal personhood, and have struggled to articulate exactly which laws and policies should govern that area of health care.

Alice Miranda Ollstein contributed to this report.

House Republicans are bypassing a major tool they said they could use to target former President Donald Trump’s prosecutors — at least for now.

Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday morning rolled out a large funding package that includes Justice Department spending for the next fiscal year. But the 158-page bill doesn’t include language targeting a special counsel’s ability to investigate a current or former president, or DOJ’s ability to appoint them.

In addition to not explicitly targeting special counsel Jack Smith, the bill also doesn’t delve into the state-level cases against Trump or go after grant funding to those offices, such as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Speaker Mike Johnson had specifically pointed to the funding bills as one of three ways that Republicans could hit back after Trump’s felony conviction last month and “rein in” Smith specifically. Hardliners had proposed ideas like using the government funding bill to defund special counsels, as well as targeting grant money that could go to state-level prosecutors.

But while Republicans cut the DOJ’s overall funding and some grants that could be used for investigations, a person familiar with the bill text said, the legislation is not far off from what they did last year.

That doesn’t mean the GOP’s push to punish Trump’s prosecutors is over. The bill is all but guaranteed to attract a litany of hot-button amendments, including a revived fight over Trump’s legal battles, once it gets to the House floor. That vote is currently expected the week of July 22.

However, Republicans did manage to include a proposal that hits one of their favorite government punching bags: The new FBI headquarters. The Justice Department funding bill released on Tuesday includes language preventing the DOJ from using the money to carry out a relocation to a long-planned new FBI building.

Republicans greenlit several amendment votes targeting the Justice Department’s operations on the same funding bill last year. Those included reducing Smith’s salary to $1 and doing the same to special counsel David Weiss, who is leading the yearslong Hunter Biden investigation, and Attorney General Merrick Garland. House Republicans also included restrictions on a new FBI headquarters in their initial government funding bills last year.

But last year’s Justice Department funding bill ultimately derailed because of GOP infighting, and the House never approved it. An eventual spending deal worked out with the Democratic-led Senate did not include those so-called poison pill riders.

Caitlin Emma contributed to this report.

The road to the floor runs through the House Rules Committee on Tuesday for three GOP spending bills leadership looks to tackle this week: Defense, State-Foreign Operations and Homeland Security

The security spending trio is on the move as part of Speaker Mike Johnson’s ambitious effort to pass all 12 spending bills on the floor before the start of the August recess.

Sorting out amendments: The Rules panel on Tuesday will hash out which of the more than 800 amendments proposed for the bills may get a floor vote. They range from a proposal slashing Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s annual salary from $221,000 to just $1, to another that would mandate that carmakers keep AM radio available in new vehicles.

Democrats opposed the GOP-led bills in committee, and they are sure to face opposition in the Democratic Senate if they clear the House. But in a divided Congress, these spending bills provide the opportunity for House Republicans to lay out policy and spending priorities, even if they have little chance of becoming law.

The most contentious Defense bill provisions, on topics such as LGBTQ troops, abortion, climate change, and diversity and inclusion, are likely to be dropped before a compromise version comes together later this year. That’s expected for the other bills as well.

The White House warned Monday that President Joe Biden would veto all three House GOP spending bills on deck this week if they reached his desk.

Starter dough: The House GOP bills will set starting points for negotiations on stopgap funding legislation closer to the Sept. 30 deadline. A final bipartisan compromise on fiscal 2025 funding isn’t expected until after the November election.

President Joe Biden would veto House Republicans’ Pentagon spending legislation loaded with conservative policy provisions if it reached his desk, the White House warned on Monday.

GOP leaders are pushing to pass the annual defense appropriations bill this week, and will not be able to count on Democratic support due to provisions targeting policies on abortion, climate change, LGBTQ troops and diversity and inclusion. In a statement outlining its objections, the White House mirrored those concerns along with a slew of changes House Republicans made to the Pentagon budget request.

The administration also ripped House leaders for dropping bipartisan side deals to last year’s debt limit agreement, which add funding to non-defense programs over the law’s spending caps, a move they argue would exact billions in cuts to domestic priorities while preserving defense spending.

“Rather than respecting their agreement and taking the opportunity to engage in a productive, bipartisan appropriations process to build on last year’s bills, House Republicans are again wasting time with partisan bills that would result in deep cuts to law enforcement, education, housing, healthcare, consumer safety, energy programs that lower utility bills and combat climate change, and essential nutrition services,” the White House argued in a statement of administration policy on the bill.

Outlook: The threat isn’t surprising, and Biden will likely never need to wield his veto pen.

Even if Republicans can secure the votes to pass the bill this week, the most contentious provisions stand no chance of clearing the Democratic Senate and will likely be dropped from any spending deal that becomes law.

Personnel issues: The administration slammed a slate of provisions that block certain personnel policies, arguing that doing so would have “devastating consequences for the readiness and wellbeing of America’s military and their families.”

Chief among White House objections is a provision that blocks funding for the Pentagon’s policy to reimburse troops who travel to seek abortions or other reproductive care. The administration also opposes Republican-backed language limiting money for gender-affirming care for transgender troops and gutting diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the Pentagon.

Ukraine: The Biden team also chided GOP appropriators for not including any of its $300 million budget request for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, a longstanding program to train and equip Kyiv’s troops.

Republicans have said the money isn’t needed after Congress approved more than $60 billion in aid to Ukraine in an emergency package this spring. But leaving the money out also could help GOP leaders lock down votes for hardliners who would otherwise oppose the Pentagon bill if it did include the money.

Democrats have knocked Republican leaders for sending mixed messages with the move, though. And the White House argued it plays into Russia’s hands.

“Eliminating all USAI funding would undermine U.S. national security, undercut Ukraine’s ability to fight Russian aggression, and could cause Russia and other would-be aggressors around the world to question America’s commitment to a critical partner on the frontline of aggression,” the White House said.

Gaza pier: The administration also said it opposes language added to the bill that would defund a humanitarian pier installed by the U.S. military to bring aid into Gaza. Though the beleaguered pier has been criticized as an ineffective method for delivering aid, the White House called it “a valuable tool” and argued nixing funding “would remove a vital link in the humanitarian assistance chain.”

Troop pay: The White House also expressed opposition to an effort by House appropriators to hike junior enlisted troops’ basic pay by 15 percent, on top of a 4.5 percent raise for the entire force. Officials pointed to a Pentagon military compensation review that will assess the issue, and argued the major boost would cost $3.3 billion in fiscal 2025 alone. Incurring the major cost, the administration argued, would force cuts in other parts of the defense budget.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) condemned the Biden administration for tapping a top State Department aide — whose nomination for another posting had been stalled by Republicans — for a top job in the defense secretary’s office.

Derek Chollet, the State Department counselor, will replace Kelly Magsamen as the new chief of staff to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the Pentagon chief announced on Monday.

“He is absolutely unqualified for this position,” said McCaul, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement to POLITICO, calling it an “ill-advised decision.”

“With the many national security threats this country is facing, we need real leadership at the Defense Department — and Derek Chollet is not that,” McCaul added. “I strongly urge the secretary to reconsider this move.”

McCaul, whose panel is leading an investigation into the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, had argued against his earlier nomination to lead the Pentagon’s policy office.

McCaul, in a February letter urging the Senate to reject Chollet, argued that the nominee “feigned forgetfulness” when questioned for the probe — a charge the State Department denied.

“His lack of candor in my committee’s transcribed interview together with his flippant public remarks about his work at the State Department make it clear he is neither a serious person nor is he trustworthy,” McCaul said in his statement Monday.

Chollet was President Joe Biden’s pick for the Pentagon’s top policy job but his confirmation was stalled in the Senate for months amid Republican backlash.

Chollet faced a bruising Senate confirmation hearing in September. In the nine months since, the Armed Services Committee hasn’t voted to advance Chollet, indicating he likely doesn’t have enough support to be confirmed by the full Senate. And the Senate is in session only a matter of weeks before the election, making it unlikely Democratic leaders would push to confirm him now.

Pentagon officials who defended Chollet cited his extensive Middle East policy experience, a quality that should be useful to Austin amid Israel’s war in Gaza. Chollet served as the Pentagon’s assistant secretary for international security affairs from 2012 to 2015 in the Obama administration.

Nominees for the Pentagon’s policy chief — a top role in DOD’s civilian leadership — typically receive broad bipartisan support, though that’s not been the case in recent years.

Interparty scrapping tied up the last Senate-confirmed undersecretary for policy, Colin Kahl, and then-President Donald Trump withdrew his late-term pick for the job, Anthony Tata, amid a partisan split.

The Pentagon’s chief of staff serves as an adviser to the defense secretary on issues ranging from the U.S. military force abroad to how the Pentagon can be prepared technologically for the future. The position, unlike the top policy job for which Chollet was nominated, does not require confirmation from Congress.

Chollet’s appointment was first reported by The Washington Post.

The House’s nonpartisan ethics watchdog found “substantial reason to believe” that Texas Republican Reps. Ronny Jackson and Wesley Hunt used campaign money for personal or non-political purposes — on social club dues — according to reports released Monday.

Campaign finance laws prohibit lawmakers from spending campaign funds on dues that provide unlimited access at social or country clubs but allow campaign spending on political events at such clubs.

The outside Office of Congressional Ethics had previously probed $11,928.27 in payments from Jackson’s campaign to the Amarillo Club in his home state between October 2020 and January 2024. It’s not the first time the ethics watchdog investigated his campaign’s monthly payments there.

Following the investigation last Congress, Jackson’s campaign continued making monthly payments to the club but changed the category of spending from “Registration Fees” to other designations like “Membership Fees,” “Food/Beverage,” or “Membership for Exclusive Campaign Purposes,” the office said.

Neither Jackson nor the club cooperated with the investigation, according to the office. A Jackson spokesperson denounced the continued investigation as “baseless” and said it “raises no new information.”

Hunt had been investigated for a similar violation at the Oak Room, a social club in Houston. The office’s report noted that Hunt’s campaign had listed “Membership” at the club in its FEC filings, paying $5,412.50 to the club in dues and fees since April 2022. The OCE also highlighted a $43,626.52 payment to the club in November 2022 for “Facility Rental/Catering” and another $4,132.44 payment shortly after for “Catering.”

Hunt also didn’t cooperate with the probe, according to the report. His attorneys Chris K. Gober, Eric Wang and Anna Mackin denied any wrongdoing in a letter to the House Ethics Committee that was released along with the reports.

“All of the Hunt for Congress payments to the Post Oak Hotel, including for membership in the Post Oak Club, were exclusively for campaign-related purposes and not for any personal purposes,” they wrote. The large payments highlighted by the outside ethics office had covered Hunt’s election night party in 2022, they said.

The office has referred the cases to the House Ethics Committee for the evenly divided panel to review the matter. The Ethics Committee said in statements it would review the referrals and refrain from further comment until those reviews were complete.

This House GOP is about to add another item to their long list of abnormal events: voting to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in “inherent contempt.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said she will force a vote this week on the rarely used tool, which would direct the House sergeant at arms to take Garland into custody.

House Republicans have already voted to hold Garland in contempt of Congress — a still-uncommon but more frequently used weapon in the chamber’s arsenal — over his refusal to hand over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur. But the Justice Department quickly disclosed that, in line with long-standing policy, it won’t prosecute Garland for refusing to turn over records that fall under executive privilege.

Luna’s resolution is expected to come up under House rules that allow her to force a vote without GOP leadership’s approval. But it faces roadblocks to actually passing: Democrats, or even Luna’s own GOP colleagues, will likely move to table it or send it to committee. Either step would effectively block it.

Leadership has its own plans for what’s next on Garland; Speaker Mike Johnson said the House will instead take the fight over the Hur-Biden audio recordings to court. But that legal battle, Luna has lamented, would likely drag on for months and is unlikely to wrap before the November election.

“It is imperative that Congress uses its inherent contempt powers and instructs the Sergeant at Arms to bring Attorney General Garland to the House for questioning and compel him to produce the requested evidence,” Luna wrote to her colleagues in a letter on Monday.

“This power is not a mere formality, but a vital tool for us to carry out our legislative responsibilities. It is not enough to issue a subpoena; we must also have the power to enforce it,” she added in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

Here’s a few things to know about inherent contempt ahead of that vote:

UNUSED FOR ALMOST 90 YEARS

It would be the first time since 1935 that Congress has used the now archaic tool, though House Democrats mulled reviving it during the Trump administration to levy fines against individuals who didn’t comply with subpoenas. Then-Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) also introduced a resolution in 2014 that would have allowed the House sergeant at arms to take former IRS official Lois Lerner into custody but the proposal was never taken up.

Underscoring how atypical the move is in modern history, none of the roughly 20 House Republicans surveyed by POLITICO, including members of the two committees who spearheaded the Garland contempt effort and vulnerable front-liners, knew how inherent contempt worked or what it is.

While Garland made calls to members ahead of the previous contempt vote, he has not called lawmakers on inherent contempt, one person familiar with the outreach told POLITICO.

VOTE LIKELY TO FAIL

Luna would need near unanimity within her conference to actually adopt the resolution, given what is expected to be unanimous Democratic opposition. That’s an uphill battle.

One Republican, Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), already opposed holding Garland in contempt, and with leadership leaning into the lawsuit route, Luna is likely to face broader skepticism within the conference.

But that tough whip operation doesn’t seem to be deterring her. In the Florida Republican’s Monday pitch to her colleagues, she said that the “urgency of this situation cannot be overstated” and that she looks forward to “each of you voting in favor of it.”

WHERE GARLAND COULD BE HELD

Luna’s resolution requires that Garland be brought “before the bar of the House of Representatives” to answer questions and that he be kept “in custody to await the further order of the House of Representatives.” One GOP lawmaker questioned, under the scenario, where the House would hold Garland and if there was actually a much-rumored Capitol jail.

There isn’t, to be clear. But the Capitol Police have holding facilities at their headquarters — and Luna noted in her letter they could also hold him in the Capitol building itself.

ANOTHER DRAGGED-OUT PROCESS

While Luna has argued that this would be a more efficient process than a court case, experts stress that the inherent contempt process could take months.

Experts on House process and procedure warn that an inherent contempt vote could trigger months and months of deliberations, from hashing out separation of powers authorities governing the initial arrest to a makeshift trial on the House floor. Adding in another curveball, Garland has a security detail due to his attorney general title, and it’s unclear how bringing a sitting Cabinet official into custody would play out, particularly given Biden’s assertion of executive privilege.

“Inherent contempt has been described as ‘unseemly,’ cumbersome, time-consuming, and relatively ineffective, especially for a modern Congress with a heavy legislative workload that would be interrupted by a trial at the bar,” according to a report on the process and history by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Senate Democrats’ campaign arm will launch a series of ads in women-focused media outlets marking the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ads will run on websites including Cosmopolitan, Harper’s Bazaar, Well Plated and more, and will be directed toward readers in Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Viewers who click through the ads will be directed to a new DSCC-backed website that targets individual GOP Senate candidates’ positions on abortion and other reproductive-health issues.

“The Republican overturn of Roe v. Wade and the escalating attacks it has triggered on women’s right to make their own medical decisions has ensured reproductive freedom will be a defining issue of the 2024 Senate elections,” DSCC Chair Gary Peters (D-Mich.) told POLITICO in a statement. “Voters will reject GOP candidates and protect Democrats’ Senate majority in November.”

The ad blitz comes as Senate Democratic leadership has been forcing votes on reproductive rights on the floor, including votes on access to contraception and in vitro fertilization. Republicans have consistently blocked the legislation from advancing, at times offering their own competing versions.

Reproductive rights have proven a fruitful issue for Democrats in elections since the Supreme Court overruled Roe on June 24, 2022. Outcomes of ballot referendums on abortion at the state level have consistently trended toward protecting access — and outrage over the downfall of Roe is still seen as a leading cause for Republicans failing to mount a red wave in the last midterms.

“The anniversary of the Republican Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade underscores the stakes of this year’s Senate elections and the importance of protecting Democrats’ Senate majority with the power to confirm or deny Supreme Court justices,” DSCC spokesperson Annie Lentz said in a statement.