Chuck Schumer’s second attempt to advance a sweeping border package failed by a wider margin than the first time, with increased opposition among both Republicans and Democrats.

Senate campaign arms have already been hitting the other side on the predictable outcome, hoping to blame problems at the border on the opposing party. Biden administration officials have telegraphed that the president will soon take executive action to address border issues ahead of the November election.

The border policy package was the product of bipartisan negotiations between Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) last winter. It was originally tied to aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, but foreign aid passed independent of border provisions after the first vote on the deal failed. Murphy reintroduced the border package as a standalone bill this month.

Several senators flipped to vote against the legislation this time around, including Sinema, Lankford and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.).

If enacted, the legislation would have heightened the standards for individuals seeking asylum and sped up processing times for claims. It also would have imposed an automatic shutdown authority at the southern border if daily crossings crossed certain thresholds. The closure powers, specifically, are expected to be a part of the president’s coming executive actions.

But even Republicans who supported the deal last time around — including Lankford — lambasted Senate Democrats for putting the bill on the floor. They dubbed it a blatant campaign messaging tactic and have called on Biden to use his executive powers, while Schumer called it a bipartisan solution to an issue both parties have expressed concern over.

“To my Republican colleagues, you wanted this border bill. … It’s time to show you’re serious about solving the problem,” the majority leader said ahead of the vote on Thursday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell originally backed the border policy negotiations before coming out against the bill. He blasted the gambit from Senate Democrats on Thursday, as did many other Republicans.

“The solution is a president who’s willing to exercise the authority, to use the tools he already has,” McConnell said. “If Senate Democrats wanted to start fixing the crisis tomorrow, they would be urging the president to do exactly that.”

Rick Scott’s entry into the battle for GOP leader has scrambled the generally sleepy race, testing his rivals’ ties to Mitch McConnell and putting a heavier Trump focus on the November contest.

Scott’s bid is not a surprise, especially given his previous challenge to McConnell in 2022, and he’s an underdog to both Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in a rare open leadership race. But his uncompromising campaign platform may once again attract conservative support, potentially locking up a crucial bloc of votes that could ultimately help determine who becomes leader.

“He’d be a favorite of the president’s; of course, he likes the other guys too. I know [Trump] likes Rick, Rick’s spent a lot of time down in Florida and knows him quite well,” said Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who is neutral but praised Scott’s conservative leadership platform. “I’m glad he’s in. We get away from the John syndrome.”

The Florida Republican creates a starker contrast in the race, which has been low drama so far. Thune and Cornyn have both served on McConnell’s leadership team and are obvious heirs to the Kentuckian, whereas Scott has had an incredibly public rivalry with the current Senate minority leader and hasn’t shied from embracing more controversial policies. And while the McConnell allies have broken with Donald Trump in the past, rhetorically or otherwise, Scott has tightly aligned himself with the former president.

Scott spoke to Trump directly on Wednesday as he rolled out his leadership campaign, according to a person familiar with the conversation, putting a spotlight on the X factor that the former president could play in the race.

Asked about Scott’s bid, both Thune and Cornyn refrained from taking a shot at him. But Thune emphasized that “any change is going to be a significant change” from McConnell. Cornyn said he’s had his own conversations with Trump — and added that the fact that the election is held via secret ballot will help shield the vote from outside influences, including the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

“I don’t know whether President Trump’s going to get involved or not. I’ve had personal conversations and meetings with President Trump about this topic. But my experience is this is the ultimate insider race,” Cornyn said.

McConnell declined to comment on Scott, who he has broken with repeatedly over strategy. As National Republican Senatorial Committee chair during the 2022 cycle, Scott released his own agenda with more conservative political policies, a move McConnell criticized as giving Democrats a free shot ahead of the midterm election. Republicans failed to regain the Senate that year, and Scott’s subsequent challenge to McConnell’s leadership failed by a wide margin.

Scott’s announced second try prompted some head-scratching among the rank-and-file GOP. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said he was surprised Scott, who is seeking reelection, launched his bid now: “He’s on the ballot. You do have to win first. It’s hard to commit to somebody who has to win an election.”

“The two Johns are vying for other ones. And Rick starts with the ones we all know, probably 10,” Cramer added, assessing Scott’s prospects. That’s the number of Republicans who supported Scott in 2022 over McConnell.

Several conservative Republicans, like Tuberville and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), sounded warm on Scott’s bid but didn’t fully endorse it yet. Lee said Scott’s platform is a “game-changer” because it could induce Cornyn and Thune to more fully explain their own visions. Scott detailed his positions in a letter to colleagues Wednesday, which included vows to prioritize GOP demands over bipartisan deals, increased transparency and more amendment consideration.

Most of those promises are generally popular among Republicans — but they’re easier to say than they are to execute. And other parts of Scott’s letter, including his critique that the GOP has been too compromising with Democrats, seemed like an indirect criticism of Thune and Cornyn, who have voted for more of those compromises than Scott.

“There’s many times you shouldn’t, and you ought to just stop bad ideas, but occasionally there’s sometimes things where interests align,” Cornyn said.

If Scott locks up 10 votes, it’s certainly not enough to win a leadership race. But it’s enough to have an impact. If there are more than two candidates, there will be multiple rounds of ballots — and there are scenarios where 10 is enough to advance to the next round and eliminate a candidate, especially if more candidates jump into the race, as several senators suspect.

“I suppose everybody has a chance. I’m not going to handicap his chances,” Thune said of Scott. “If there’s more than one ballot, you have to think about second ballot votes. And, you know, clearly, you want to get through the first round of voting. And so it’s a dynamic that you just have to adjust for.”

More wild-card candidates could prompt further adjustments. Trump has encouraged Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), the current NRSC chair, to launch his own bid, though Daines won’t make any moves until after the election.

And Daines gave Scott credit on Thursday, saying the Florida Republican has done enough work in his home state to allow him to run a race back home and in Washington simultaneously: “He’s running like he’s five points behind when he’s 10 points ahead.”

Of course, Scott has ground to make up in more ways than one. Thune and Cornyn have been discussing their bids with colleagues for months now — and assisting GOP Senate candidates who could vote in the leadership elections this fall and play pivotal roles.

Still, there are plenty of senators who won’t make their minds up soon no matter how many candidates get in.

“I know some have made their commitments early. I want to see what happens in early November, after the election. I’m going to wait until then,” said Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.).

Ursula Perano contributed to this report.

The cryptocurrency industry capped a notable month on Capitol Hill, as 71 House Democrats joined most Republicans to pass sweeping legislation aimed at establishing rules of the road for the fast-moving industry.

Backers of the legislation, which passed 279-136, included prominent senior Democrats like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Ted Lieu (D-Calf.) and DCCC Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.).

The White House opposed the measure, which critics say could put consumers and even the larger financial system at risk, but did not threaten to veto it

In a statement explaining her vote, Pelosi said that while the bill “must be improved by working with the Senate and the Administration,” the industry “needs clearer rules of the road and the federal government needs stronger enforcement authority.”

It’s a powerful show of force for the crypto industry among Capitol Hill backers from both parties in a time of fierce divisions.

“Having a robust regulatory climate that protects investors and protects people is something we think through, even when there are different ideas on how we get there,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), chair of the House Democratic Caucus, who said leadership did not whip the vote and supported it.

A number of prominent Democrats did oppose the bill, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Financial Services Committee ranking member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Ways and Means Committee ranking member Richard Neal (D-Mass.).

Just three Republicans opposed the measure — Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Nick LaLota (N.Y.) and Matt Rosendale (Mont.).

Movement on the sweeping bill comes just days after 11 Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, joined with Republicans to ax SEC guidance on cryptocurrency accounting, shortly after the House passed the same measure (though Biden plans to veto it).

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

Republicans are openly trying to convince Rep. Garret Graves not to challenge his Louisiana GOP colleagues, fearing another ugly member-on-member fight in a state packed with House leaders.

Graves has kept his options open, and he’s facing a difficult choice. He can either 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.

The most likely match up is Graves challenging Rep. Julia Letlow (R-La.), a contest that could get personally nasty, since Graves has had a close working relationship with Letlow.

His colleagues argue he still has a chance to win in his current district, and are openly hoping Graves doesn’t cause trouble by crashing another seat — particularly not in a state that counts Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise in the delegation. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) said “of course” GOP leadership is nervous about another member-on-member primary race.

“I am prayerful that Garret, my friend, will decide to continue serving Congress as he is now – as a congressman of the sixth district. And if he runs in that district — in his own district — he’ll find a tremendous amount of help from me and from other Republicans in the state,” Higgins said in a brief interview. “The party apparatus will rally around him and support him. Whereas if he determines to run against a colleague, and I could be one of those, he’ll find that to be a very rocky path.”

Higgins acknowledged Graves’ “difficult position” but argued that it is “very intellectually unsound to just presume that Garret Graves as the incumbent would not win in his own district just because it’s been technically drawn to be a Black-majority district.” The Louisiana Legislature redrew the state’s lines last year, after a federal court ruled the old lines violated the Voting Rights Act.

If Graves did run in his own district, his likely Democratic opponent would be Cleo Fields, a Black state senator and former House member. Higgins said the matchup could play to Graves’ advantage, since he can lean on the power of incumbency, including name recognition and cash reserves. He argued Fields could have trouble, despite the high Democratic favorability, since he’s been out of the House campaign game since the 1990s.

In reality, it would be a tough slog for Graves. To that end, he still isn’t tipping his hand on his decision. When asked about the timeline for his decision, Graves only replied: “soon.” Louisiana candidates have to file by July 19.

“I’m not going to talk about that yet,” Graves said on Tuesday.

Graves, who has represented his seat since 2015, again vowed in a Friday statement to run “in a district anchored in the Capital Region” of Baton Rouge. He added that he was looking for the best fit to “represent the interests and priorities of the people of Louisiana for the next two years until a reasonable map is restored.”

Meanwhile, the House GOP’s top four leaders have made their feelings about a potential Graves-Letlow matchup clear. They all endorsed Letlow this week, and former President Donald Trump did earlier this year. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R), who’s long had a tense relationship with Graves, also endorsed Letlow for reelection this week.

Some of those same leaders have also endorsed Graves, but in his current district.

Letlow declined to comment on Graves’ decision.

Senior Louisiana Republicans lamented Graves’ position after the Supreme Court allowed a redrawn map to stand last week, all but ceding his old seat to a Democrat. But they were wary of offering the long-time ally of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and once-rumored gubernatorial candidate advice on how to address his current plight.

“Believe me, Garret’s capable of making his own decisions,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who once represented Graves’ district. “I don’t have advice to give. Somebody was gonna end up perceiving themselves as receiving a raw deal, right?”

“Garret doesn’t need my advice,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. “That’s a personal decision he’s got to make himself.”

Graves does have another option, if he’s open to a district that’s adjacent to the Baton Rouge area: He could opt to run against Scalise. The two have long had a frosty relationship.

Florida GOP Sen. Rick Scott launched a bid Wednesday afternoon to succeed Mitch McConnell as the next Republican leader, telling colleagues he wants to make “dramatic change” in the way the conference operates.

The first-term senator will face an uphill battle against Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former whip himself. Scott lost a race to McConnell in 2022, but he won the backing of the conference’s most conservative members. He’s likely to have the support of some of those members again this time around.

Scott predicted in his letter to fellow senators that the GOP will take the Senate back, build a larger majority in the House and elect former President Donald Trump “with a mandate for dramatic change.” He said he’ll aim to increase transparency, abide by a six-year leadership term limit and will not “pressure” colleagues to vote against their states’ wishes.

He also made clear that he will not sign off on deals that unite Democrats and divide Republicans — which would include major recent legislation on raising the debt ceiling, government funding, firearm regulation, infrastructure and microchip manufacturing.

“Republicans all across America want the Republicans they elected to the U.S. Senate to stop caving in to Democrat demands. This is not an unreasonable request or expectation,” Scott wrote in the letter.

Scott also cast himself as the most Trump-friendly candidate, harkening back to a relationship that existed before either man ran for office. Both Thune and Cornyn have at times diverged from Trump, either tactically, legislatively or rhetorically.

Scott said “to turn this country around we will need to work closely with President Trump.” Realistically, his best chance against his two seasoned competitors is for Trump to win the presidential race and strongly back his bid. Trump has also encouraged National Republican Senatorial Committee Steve Daines (R-Mont.) to get in the race.

Interestingly, the Florida Republican has to win another election first to qualify for the leadership election: He’s running for another six-year term this November, in a race he’s currently favored to win. And his announcement jolts what had been a two-man race between Thune and Cornyn, both of whom have helped run the Senate floor under the tutelage of McConnell.

Scott has been toying with the bid for months now, since McConnell announced his plans to step down at the end of the year. The Floridian said in an interview on Tuesday he was “still considering” what to do.

But big changes were clearly on his mind.

“There ought to be a different way to run the conference. I read the Constitution, we’re supposed to represent our states, it’s been very difficult to do that. We don’t get amendment votes, bills don’t go through committee. There’s a lot of problems here,” Scott said. “And we need to start operating as a Republican conference to give people the opportunity to represent their states.”

Senior leaders in both parties are working to finalize an invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress — but it may not happen as soon as Speaker Mike Johnson would prefer.

“The four leaders are working it out,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told POLITICO on Wednesday, referring to himself, Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Schumer’s office said earlier this month that the New York Democrat, who sparked GOP criticism by calling for new elections in Israel and directly criticizing Netanyahu in March, would sign onto a bicameral invitation for the prime minister that Johnson is spearheading. But there’s been little public movement since then.

Johnson, speaking to reporters on Wednesday, said that he hadn’t spoken with Schumer directly about the invitation but that their aides are in touch. He also warned that time to issue the request was running short.

“It seems as though he wants to sign on. So I welcome that,” Johnson said of Schumer, adding that he expects the invitation to get signed “today or as quickly as possible, because we have to get the letter sent out.”

A person with direct knowledge of the discussions told POLITICO on Wednesday that congressional leadership is still hashing out logistics for the address. A spokesperson for Jeffries didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The negotiations over inviting Netanyahu come as congressional Democrats, particularly on the left, and the Biden administration remain critical of Israel’s handling of its war in Gaza, including the growing toll of civilian deaths. Progressives on and off the Hill have publicly urged Biden to do more to push back against Israel.

But Schumer reiterated during a press conference on Tuesday that he supports inviting Netanyahu despite any current disagreements with the prime minister’s conservative government.

“As I’ve always said, our relationship with Israel is ironclad and transcends any one prime minister or president,” he said.

Daniella Diaz and Nicholas Wu contributed.

House Republicans got into a protracted floor fight with Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, who refused to take back comments he made about former President Donald Trump’s ongoing criminal trial in New York.

“Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he’s not a king,” McGovern, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, said on the floor. “We have a presumptive nominee for president facing 88 felony counts, and we’re being prevented from even acknowledging it. … And yet, in this Republican-controlled House, it’s OK to talk about the trial, but you have to call it a sham.”

That prompted Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) to demand that McGovern’s words be “taken down,” which means they would be effectively stricken from the record. McGovern declined to withdraw them, prompting an extended face-off on the House floor Wednesday afternoon.

After nearly an hour of delay, Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.) — who was presiding over the floor at the time — ruled the words were “a breach of order” by referring to the presumptive GOP nominee in “personally offensive” terms. He ordered them stricken from the record.

McGovern did not object, so the chamber moved on to its regularly scheduled debate.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday advanced a bill that would let Congress force the Biden administration to transfer stalled arms to Israel.

The new bill, which is a narrower rebuke of President Joe Biden than the bill that the House passed last week, won a handful of Democratic votes. Though it’s unlikely to receive consideration in the Democratic-led Senate, it represents another vehicle for the House GOP to pressure Biden and split Democrats.

The final tally was 33-13.

Background: It follows the White House’s decision to pause shipments of 2,000- and 500-pound unguided bombs out of fear that they could be used in an Israeli invasion in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians were sheltering.

Republicans argue the administration is thwarting the will of Congress after lawmakers passed more than $14 billion in funding to help Israel in its fight against Hamas. The bombs Biden paused were funded prior to the recent spending bill, however.

Partisan clash: After the White House threatened to veto the earlier House-passed bill and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he has no plans to take it up, Foreign Affairs Chair Mike McCaul (R-Texas) has said he hoped this new bill would have a better shot.

“This bill is intended to … restore the trust and transparency that has historically existed between our coequal branches of government when it comes to Israel,” McCaul said during a committee markup.

But ranking member Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), opposed the bill, saying it mischaracterizes the administration’s position and “continues the GOP’s unfortunate politicization of the United States-Israel relationship.”

Comparing the bills: The earlier House-passed bill would slash budgets for the offices of the defense secretary, secretary of state and National Security Council if Biden doesn’t deliver the stalled heavy bombs. McCaul’s new bill would give lawmakers a new tool to override such delays.

Before pausing an arms sale to Israel that was approved and paid for by Congress, a president would have to give 15 days’ notice to lawmakers, and also describe the equipment on hold, explain why and what it would take to lift the hold, and detail the hold’s effect on Israel’s qualitative military edge. Lawmakers would be able to bring up a joint resolution of disapproval to override the hold.

The panel agreed Wednesday to an amendment from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) that softened the new McCaul bill’s language about Biden’s actions and listed cases of past presidents pausing security assistance to other allies.

GOP blasts Biden: During the markup, McCaul and other panel Republicans cast Biden’s decision to withhold the heavy bombs as wavering in his support for a close ally and upending Congress’ intent.

“This decision was made without consulting Congress. We had to learn about it from the media,” McCaul said.

Meeks pushes back: Most panel Democrats voted against the bill after Republicans, in a party-line vote, defeated an amendment from Meeks that would have broadened the scope of the bill to apply to any allies or presidential administration.

Meeks pointed to former President Donald Trump’s freeze on military aid to Ukraine while asking Ukrainians to find scandal fodder about his enemies. Meeks argued that Congress should have a tool to avert a repeat.

“Y’all know this is not a hypothetical. We’ve had a former president by the name of Trump take such actions,” he said.

Democrats split: Among Democrats who voted for the McCaul bill on Wednesday, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said he was doing so to register disagreement with the administration’s pause on the heavy bombs and to keep pressure on Hamas for a cease-fire and the release of Hamas’ hostages. Moskowitz also voted for the House-passed bill last week.

“For me, I think the way the pause on the specific weapon was announced became a message to the world that there was now daylight [between the U.S. and Israel], releasing pressure on Hamas,” Moskowitz said in a brief interview.

Sen. Joe Manchin demurred when asked about a new report that he’s being encouraged to run for governor — but didn’t rule it out.

West Virginia MetroNews reported on Monday that some Republicans are encouraging Manchin (D-W.Va.) to run for governor, his old job, against Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who Manchin defeated in a 2018 Senate race. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams is the Democratic nominee in the state’s gubernatorial election.

“I heard that this morning, the rumors. I’ve supported my friend Steve Williams, we’ve known each other for 40 years … he’s a good person. I don’t know what’s going on. So basically I’ll just wait until I go home,” Manchin said on Monday evening.

Manchin has often flirted with running for governor — or other offices — only to eventually reject the possibility.

When reporters pressed him to rule it out, he gave a typically noncommittal answer and suggested he’s eager to get away from Washington. “I’m not involved in anything right now except for running for the border of West Virginia so I can enjoy my life,” he quipped.

Senate Democrats are united in condemning the upside-down U.S. flag flown at Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s home. They’re split, though, on where to go from there.

Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who could greatly influence those next steps by Democrats, said his panel wasn’t prepared to hold a hearing on the matter, after the justice told The New York Times his wife briefly flew the flag amid a dispute with neighbors without his knowledge.

But Durbin and his Democratic colleagues were unequivocal that the episode — involving a symbol used by supporters of former President Donald Trump in making false claims about the 2020 election won by President Joe Biden — underscored the need for Supreme Court ethics reform and the need for Alito to recuse himself.

“I don’t think there’s much to be gained with a hearing at this point,” Durbin, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, said Monday. “I think he should recuse himself from cases involving Trump and his administration.”

Not all Democrats feel that way about a hearing, though. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of Durbin’s committee, said he would like to see an investigation into Alito’s conduct.

“There’s no way he was unaware,” Padilla said, referring to Alito’s statement to The New York Times that the flag was briefly displayed by his wife without his knowledge.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a senior member of the panel, agreed in a statement to POLITICO. “Supplying strange excuses to Fox News is not a substitute for a real investigation into whether Justice Alito needs to recuse from insurrection cases.”

Whitehouse said the episode underscored the need to pass his legislation overhauling ethics and transparency requirements for the Supreme Court, which passed the committee in July 2023 on a party-line vote despite fierce GOP opposition.

A group of 45 House Democrats also urged Alito to recuse himself from all Jan. 6 and 2020 election-related cases in a Tuesday letter led by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.).

One point of Democratic agreement: Alito’s explanation for the flag flap was unconvincing.

“I don’t think [Alito] has a thing for gold bars,” said Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), referring to the ongoing corruption case of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who has also cast blame on his wife for some of the alleged conduct. “But I don’t ever think throwing your wife under the bus is ever going to be a great strategy for anything.”

Durbin agreed: “I’ve been in this business for a few years and I want to tell you: Pointing to your wife is never a good defense.”

But for Judiciary member Sen. Peter Welch, (D-Vt.), the Alito flag episode was just another moment from a justice who has become a top foil for Democrats, particularly after authoring the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

“This is so incidental to all the bad stuff he’s done,” said Welch. “This is terrible. Was it him? Was it his spouse? Who knows? Does it really make a difference? Not to me. What makes a difference to me is his terrible decisions and shooting off his mouth. He’s just a terrible justice.”