Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s joint address is nearly six weeks away, but a broad array of congressional Democrats are already signaling they have no intentions of showing up for the speech.

What they haven’t quite agreed on is what, if anything, they will be doing instead.

An incipient effort to organize a semi-official alternative to Netanyahu’s visit has been slow in coming together, lawmakers said, in the latest sign of the continued divide with the Democratic Party on how to handle the politics surrounding Israel’s war with Hamas.

“Those of us that don’t want to be a prop for Benjamin Netanyahu have consensus — we agree that this is political, it’s inappropriate, and we want this war to end and we’re not sure that Netanyahu does,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who’s skipping the speech. “Beyond that you start to get into some disagreements. So the counterprogramming gets into some of those fault lines.”

Meetings but no plan: Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the former Democratic whip, told our friends at the Playbook Deep Dive podcast that he’s planning to skip the July 24 address and that he was having discussions this week about some potential “alternative meetings.”

“This guy’s getting away with some horrible stuff … and it doesn’t make sense to me” to attend, said Clyburn, who also skipped Netanyahu’s 2015 joint address. “There may be other folks who may want to have some alternative meetings on this. Irrespective of that, if I’m the only one, I won’t be attending.”

Prominent progressives said there’s not yet consensus on what those alternatives might be.

“We’re still figuring out our approach to it,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.) in a brief interview. “I’m certainly going to be part of the contingent of members that will either be boycotting or responding in some way. I think that, frankly, his presence and his potential address in Congress at this time is one of the darkest days that I’ve seen here.”

Added Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), “I’m not solid on what I’m going to do. … I just don’t want to see him here. So, like, I haven’t even moved past that.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), another progressive planning to skip, said not to read too much into the lack of planning: “Things around here usually get planned a little bit closer to the actual date.”

Big names aren’t sure: Boycotts of a controversial joint address are nothing new, with some progressives opting out of speeches by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Israeli President Isaac Herzog last year (not to mention the scores of Dems who passed on attending Netanyahu’s 2015 speech). What would be more novel is organizing an event or series of events specifically designed to draw attention away from the main attraction in the House chamber.

While those discussions continue, some prominent Democrats yet aren’t saying whether they plan to go. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told us this week that he hasn’t made up his mind yet on whether he will attend. Asked what factors he’s considering, Durbin replied, “The totality of circumstances.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was also noncommittal Thursday on whether she’d attend. She quipped in response, “Do you think he’ll be the prime minister? We’ll see.”

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) will skip, per their spokespeople, joining Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has loudly denounced the visit. Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), also critical of Netanyahu’s approach to the Gaza war, are still making up their minds, aides said.

There appears to be no formal encouragement for members to attend from the two top Democratic leaders, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who signed the letter inviting Netanyahu to speak.

Said Jeffries Friday, “As is the case with respect to any joint address to Congress, every individual member will make a decision as to whether they will participate or not participate.”

Rep. Garret Graves said Friday he will not run for reelection — ending months of questions about his political future after redistricting scrambled Louisiana’s congressional map.

Graves (R-La.), in a statement, said that “it is clear that running for Congress this year does not make sense.”

The decision comes as Graves, a close ally of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, was staring down two difficult choices: He could either have run in his radically redrawn district, which now favors President Joe Biden by 20 points, or run against one of his fellow incumbent House Republicans in a state whose delegation is stacked with members of leadership.

“It is evident that a run in any temporary district will cause actual permanent damage to Louisiana’s great representation in Congress. Campaigning in any of these districts now is not fair to any of the Louisianians who will inevitably be tossed into yet another district next year,” he added.

The most likely intraparty challenge Republicans feared was a run against Rep. Julia Letlow (R-La.), even though the two have a close working relationship.

In May, the Supreme Court put the effort to redraw Louisiana’s congressional districts for a second time since the last election on ice, clearing the way for a map that includes two majority-Black districts.

Congressional Republicans, including fellow Louisianan Speaker Mike Johnson, had nudged him against challenging a fellow Republican and instead urged him to run for the Sixth District, even though its new makeup would give him an uphill battle. Graves had indicated he intended to run for Congress again but wasn’t sure in which district.

“I have encouraged Garret to think hard about running in that newly drawn district. … I think Garret could win it, and I’m really hopeful he’ll run in that district,” Johnson said in a recent Louisiana radio interview.

The Justice Department won’t prosecute Attorney General Merrick Garland after House Republicans held him in contempt for refusing to hand over audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur.

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte wrote in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday that the department determined that Garland’s responses to the two subpoenas seeking the audio “did not constitute a crime.”

“Accordingly the Department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General,” he added in the letter.

The DOJ’s decision is a predictable response to the fight between the administration and GOP investigators, who subpoenaed the audio as part of a sweeping impeachment inquiry into Biden.

Garland was widely not expected to face charges, particularly after Biden asserted executive privilege over the audio. The Justice Department, which did hand over the transcript, also argued releasing the audio would negatively impact cooperation in future investigations.

Spokespeople for Johnson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The House voted 216-207 on Wednesday to hold Garland in contempt with only one Republican — Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) — voting against it.

But House Republicans have hinted they will sue for the audio, meaning the fight could be temporarily paused rather than actually over. The Justice Department is already in the middle of court fights with outside conservative groups and media organizations who are seeking the audio.

The Justice Department, in its letter, noted that it had a “longstanding position” to “not prosecute an official for contempt of Congress for declining to provide subpoenaed information” that fell under an assertion of executive privilege. Among the examples Uriarte pointed to was the DOJ’s refusal to prosecute then-Attorney General Bill Barr or then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross after the House held them in contempt.

But Republicans argued that when the Justice Department handed over the transcript, they also waived executive privilege over the audio — something the DOJ has contested. Republicans have folded Hur’s investigation into Biden’s mishandling of classified documents into their own sweeping impeachment inquiry, which has largely focused on the business deals of Biden’s family members.

Republicans have focused, in particular, on Hur’s assertion that Biden would be viewed by a jury in a trial as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday revealed new trips and flights that Justice Clarence Thomas took on Republican billionaire Harlan Crow’s dime — including some that Thomas has not previously disclosed.

The documentation is the result of a November subpoena issued to Crow by the panel’s Democrats and includes three private jet trips that Crow provided for Thomas.

The most recent unreported private jet travel was in June 2021 when Crow flew Thomas between Washington D.C. and San Jose, Calif. Other private jet trips occurred in May 2017 between St. Louis, Mo., Kalispell, Mont. and Dallas Texas and March 2019 flights between Washington D.C. and Savannah, Ga.

The documentation also includes travel that Thomas disclosed in records that were made public last week, including private jet and yacht travel for a July 2019 trip to Indonesia.

“As a result of our investigation and subpoena authorization, we are providing the American public greater clarity on the extent of ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices and the need for ethics reform,” said Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in a statement.

Crow said Thursday that he reached a deal with the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Democrats on the committee agreeing to close the case against him if Crow provided seven years worth of information related to his connections to Supreme Court justices. Thomas justice has faced criticism for accepting lavish trips from Crow without proper disclosures. Thomas has referred to Crow as a longtime close personal friend.

“Despite his serious and continued concerns about the legality and necessity of the inquiry, Mr. Crow engaged in good faith negotiations with the Committee from the beginning to resolve the matter. As a condition of this agreement, the Committee agreed to end its probe with respect to Mr. Crow,” Crow’s office said in a statement.

The deal follows two years of intense scrutiny of both Crow specifically and the Supreme Court’s ethics practices generally. Democrats in Congress, ethics experts and court reform advocates have cited reporting on Crow as they put a spotlight on the financial and personal ties of Thomas and other the justices. They have also heavily scrutinized Justice Samuel Alito and the controversy surrounding an upside-down flag flown at one of his residences.

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a bill to protect access to in vitro fertilization, the latest in a series of votes Democrats are holding to box in the GOP ahead of the election.

Half a dozen Senate Democrats said it won’t be the end of the story, vowing additional votes in the reproductive rights space ahead of a November election where Democrats see the issue as a key wedge against Donald Trump and other Republicans.

“There’s going to be at least one more vote,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who’s up for reelection, told POLITICO. “It’ll deal with Dobbs and Roe but exactly the format, I don’t think the leadership has decided yet.”

Echoing last week’s showdown on contraception, only a couple of Republicans — Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — broke with the GOP to vote with Democrats. But that was still short of the necessary 60 votes to advance the legislation.

Most Republicans said they opposed Democrats’ legislation either because it threatened religious liberty and states rights or because they felt it was unnecessary.

And several GOP senators instead offered a separate bill, which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tried to bring up under unanimous consent on Wednesday. Democrats blocked that effort, saying it amounted to mostly symbolic protections.

It further signals that Republicans know they can’t cede the narrative to Democrats on IVF, as President Joe Biden’s party seeks to portray the GOP as wanting to limit reproductive rights at every turn. Democratic campaigns and progressive groups have already teed up ads to hit vulnerable GOP lawmakers on their votes.

The same pattern will likely play out several more times in the coming months as Democratic leaders work to highlight what they see as Republicans’ greatest weakness in the leadup to the November election.

“I’m not rooting for failed votes, but sometimes you need to take votes that don’t pass in order to eventually get something done,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told POLITICO. “That was our strategy on guns.”

Democrats this week insisted these are not “show votes,” but rather attempts to educate voters on where members stand on key issues as the parties fight for control of Congress. They did not involve GOP senators in drafting their IVF bill, and Collins, a long-time supporter of reproductive rights protections who supported the legislation, said she received no outreach from Democrats ahead of the floor vote.

“America, this is not a show vote — it is a ‘show us who you are’ vote,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the floor Thursday.

The full GOP conference released a statement on Wednesday stating they “strongly support continued nationwide access to IVF.” Yet there are real divisions among conservatives about the practice.

On Wednesday, the nation’s biggest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution opposing IVF because it facilitates “the destruction of embryonic human life.” The resolution called on the nearly 13 million Southern Baptists across 45,000 churches to “only utilize reproductive technologies” that affirm “the unconditional value and right to life of every human being,” or consider adoption as an alternative.

Some anti-abortion activists are also lobbying for restrictions on IVF and attacking members of both parties who vote to protect it. They’ve even run ads in Alabama accusing Republicans of giving doctors a “license to kill” after they voted to give IVF clinic staff civil and criminal immunity.

Conservatives have expressed disappointment in their party for rushing to support IVF after an Alabama Supreme Court ruling earlier this year granted legal personhood to frozen embryos — prompting several providers in the state to suspend services. Influential groups, including the Heritage Foundation, Live Action and Family Research Council, say lawmakers are missing an opportunity to impose restrictions on IVF, but expressed confidence that they can chip away at the issue over time, as they did with abortion access.

Many elected Republicans, meanwhile, have been wary of the issue or eager to declare their support, as IVF is politically popular and widely used.

Cruz, one of several Southern Baptists in Congress, attempted to call up a bill Wednesday that he and Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) drafted as an alternative. Their legislation would strip federal Medicaid funding from states that ban IVF services but allow restrictions on how embryos are stored, implanted and disposed. When Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) objected, scuttling the vote, Cruz accused Democrats of preferring to “play politics” rather than pass meaningful protections.

“It is ridiculous to claim this bill protects IVF when it does nothing of the sort,” Murray retorted. “Under this bill, there are a million ways Republican-led states can enact burdensome and unnecessary requirements and create the kind of legal uncertainty to force clinics to close their doors.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the lead sponsor of the bill who herself had two children through IVF, said her party is “going to keep working on protecting IVF because American families need it.”

House Democrats are attempting to force their own vote on IVF, using a mechanism called a discharge petition that can sidestep GOP leadership’s control of the floor if it gets 218 signatures. But it would need some GOP support to move forward in the narrowly divided chamber.

So far, four Republicans running for reelection in districts that voted for Biden in 2020 have signed onto the effort: Reps. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.).

In a press conference Thursday morning, House Democrats said Republicans who claim to support IVF need to “put their money where their mouth is.”

“It’s time for Americans to see where all members of the House of Representatives stand,” said Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), the lead sponsor of the House bill. “Americans need action, not empty promises.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and former President Donald Trump set aside their years-long cold war during a private meeting with Republicans Thursday, a gathering McConnell described as “really positive.”

The Kentucky Republican, who had not spoken directly with Trump since December 2020, is trying to win back the Senate majority for his successor while also working with a presidential nominee who he strongly criticized after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.

“We had a really positive meeting, he and I got a chance to talk a little bit, we shook hands a few times, he got a lot of standing ovations, it was an entirely positive meeting. Mitt Romney was there, as well, and I can’t think of anything to tell you about it that was negative,” McConnell said.

Trump praised McConnell for counting votes and said the party needs to be unified and not trashing each other to win in November, according to one attendee, granted anonymity to speak candidly. Trump was also asked if he would help beat incumbent Democrats, and he responded that he would help defeat Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), criticizing them for opposing his agenda when he was president.

The confab at the National Republican Senatorial Committee on Capitol Hill was both a legislative and political strategy session aimed at uniting the GOP ahead of the convention this summer. Even several senators who do not yet support Trump opted to attend.

And Trump told the Senate GOP, relegated to the minority for four years, that he is optimistic about retaking the majority this fall, according to another attendee. Trump campaign adviser Susie Wiles also got a round of applause for running the campaign.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a McConnell critic, said the Senate GOP leader and Trump shook hands and Trump spoke to McConnell. Hawley said Trump acknowledged that Republicans have had differences in the past, but the Missourian added the meeting was “gracious and warm.” It did not include the kind of fireworks that Trump sometimes set off in past meetings over his intra-party critics, Hawley added.

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), one of those frequent Trump critics, declined to say anything after the meeting. And Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he’s still not quite committed to endorsing Trump; he’s said positive things about candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in addition to Trump. But Paul did seem to have a positive view of the meeting.

“There was a lot of unity. A lot of people think we’re going in the wrong direction now,” Paul said, adding the discussion was “mostly policy.”

Trump took several policy questions on defense, inflation and energy, according to Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who Trump has criticized previously. Trump also praised Israel’s Iron Dome system, suggesting a similar system could protect America, and advocated removing taxes from tipped wages, saying he got the idea from an overtaxed waitress, one of the attendees said. Republicans also discussed leaving abortion policy to the states, a point Trump had made in his previous meeting with the House GOP, according to several attendees.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said Trump’s message was “all positive” when talking to the conference and centered on keeping Republicans unified headed into the fall elections. Tuberville sat next to Trump antagonist Romney (R-Utah) but said the former president didn’t take aim at the senators who have not endorsed him — nor did they criticize him.

“I haven’t seen that Republican group as strongly united on all of those policy issues in a long, long time,” Rounds said.

Frustration is boiling over among rank-and-file House Republicans with leaders’ practice of trying to mollify critics by bestowing plum posts and other perks.

The latest example: Speaker Mike Johnson’s appointment of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to the prestigious House Intelligence Committee. Given the former Freedom Caucus chair’s tendency to cross his own party leaders – not to mention his role in a federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election – his rise to the panel infuriated colleagues who see it as a sign that the party’s incentive structure is broken.

Many Republicans, including those on the Intelligence panel, had viewed Perry as ineligible before Johnson’s announcement in light of his polarizing history. But when the speaker blindsided the panel’s chair and GOP members with the appointment, shock quickly gave way to rage.

“It upends the meritocracy that has long been the defining practice on Intel,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said in an interview.

He followed with a warning other Republicans have echoed more privately: that rewarding behavior like Perry’s will only encourage more antics among hardliners, like tanking procedural votes, blocking bills or even future moves to oust a speaker.

Crenshaw, a member of the Intelligence panel, added: “The speaker needs to remember that there isn’t only one group that can threaten them. … Just do not teach the lesson that the only way for us to be effective here is threatening, because I’ll take the lesson and I’ll do it.”

Johnson handed the committee spot to Perry, a retired Army National Guard brigadier general with nearly 40 years of service, after heavy lobbying from the House Freedom Caucus. Some in the conference have speculated that the GOP leader capitulated to threats from the right-leaning group that it would cause further trouble if he did not agree.

The announcement, however, was happily received by Perry and his allies, some of whom have tried for years to get Perry on the panel that often deals with highly sensitive national security-related materials.

More broadly, some argued that the Intelligence panel, which tries to rise above partisan infighting, didn’t have full representation across the GOP’s ideological spectrum. (Notably, Democrats have not named more pugnacious progressives to the panel, either.)

Perry responded in a statement: “My 40 years of experience and service to our Nation speaks for itself.”

Beyond Crenshaw, a person familiar with the sitdowns said two separate groups of Republicans met with Johnson this week to share their frustrations about Perry’s appointment. That includes members of the Intelligence Committee who plan to meet with him on Thursday.

One Republican, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said no previous committee assignment has sparked as much internal anger as Johnson’s decision about Perry.

Another GOP member added that Perry’s appointment “was the talk for a day or two” among Republicans during their recent trip to France because of how “angry” lawmakers are.

“There’s a lot of pissed people. A lot of angry people. …It’s a coveted spot, and a lot of people who have worked hard to be good team players feel like they are getting passed over,” the second GOP member said, adding that Republicans feel like Johnson is “rewarding bad behavior.”

It’s also a matter of the Republicans whom Johnson passed over along the way.

Reps. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) and Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) were both viewed as in the running for the Intelligence Committee spot — both viewed within the conference as “team players” but now leapfrogged over. Reps. Blake Moore (R-Utah) and Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), who was promoted to rank of Air Force colonel this week, were also passed over.

Republicans are further fuming over Johnson’s failure to notify Intelligence Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) as well as other GOP members about his decision to appoint Perry.

The second GOP member called the move “not acceptable.” A third GOP lawmaker, also granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that Turner privately indicated he wasn’t consulted on Perry’s appointment.

Johnson’s office has also defended Perry, arguing that he will serve the panel well.

Another senior Republican member expressed surprise about the decision to put Perry on the Intelligence Committee but added that the Pennsylvania Republican had been “pretty helpful” at navigating divisions within the GOP conference at key moments.

“Perry’s got a good background for the committee,” this member added.

Donald Trump made a small peace offering Thursday to the remaining House Republicans who voted to impeach him after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, according to three members in the room.

“He referenced that there was one person left in the room that had voted for impeachment and that he is staying and that’s good. We need a bigger Republican majority,” said Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), describing Trump’s comments in a wider speech to the conference Thursday morning.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) agreed that the comments were “forward thinking” and “about winning the election.”

It’s a flip from Trump’s previous behavior. Since that second impeachment vote in early 2021, Trump had habitually attacked the 10 House Republicans who supported it, including backing some of their primary challengers. There are two GOP members left in the chamber who voted for that impeachment: Reps. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) and David Valadao (R-Calif.). Trump seemed to be referring to Valadao, who had skipped the meeting.

Newhouse had attended, but dismissed Trump’s comments when reporters asked if he read them as a dig at him, saying “he didn’t mention me at all.”

Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.