Larry Hogan is taking to the airwaves in his latest attempt to neutralize Democratic attacks on his abortion-rights record.

The former Maryland governor had declined to fully elaborate exactly where he stood on the issue during his state’s Senate GOP primary. And in the week since Hogan won his party’s Senate primary, he’s repeatedly sought to clarify his stance, directly addressing abortion in his first major speech as the nominee, in interviews — and now on TV.

Hogan’s first general election ad is set to air Wednesday, and it’s entirely about abortion. In it, the former governor goes direct-to-camera as he endorses codifying the abortion protections the nation had under Roe v. Wade.

“With Roe overturned, many have asked what I’ll do in the United States Senate,” he says in the ad. “I’ll support legislation that makes Roe the law of the land in every state, so every woman can make her own choice.”

The 30-second spot, shared first with POLITICO, is part of a more than $1 million buy and will air on cable, broadcast and digital platforms in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C., media markets. It’s the latest move in a bid by Hogan to defang abortion-rights-centered attacks that Democrats have wielded against Republicans since the fall of Roe.

Hogan will face Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, who won a contentious Democratic primary. Alsobrooks and her allies have already begun attacking Hogan’s record on abortion, pointing toward his gubernatorial veto of a law that would have expanded access to the procedure in the state.

Their goal is to nationalize the race, reminding voters that Hogan would caucus with the GOP and vote to confirm judges who could determine the future of abortion.

Hogan faces the daunting task of winning the Senate seat while sharing a ballot with former President Donald Trump, in a state the former president lost handily in 2020 and is expected to lose again this year. To do so, Hogan will have to both distinguish himself from Trump and appeal to Maryland’s more liberal-leaning electorate.

Democrats have already excoriated him for what they describe as political expediency. In a video last week, Alsobrooks’ campaign cut tape of Hogan saying he would caucus with Republicans in the Senate and of him dodging questions on federal abortion policy.

Asked by Axios in March if he would be willing to codify Roe, Hogan promised he would “take a look at that as we move forward” — an answer that he himself described as not “a yes or no.”

With the primary behind him, Hogan is far more willing to specify his policy preferences and positions, and he’s focused on abortion.

“To the women of Maryland, you have my word — I will continue to protect your right to make your own reproductive health decisions,” he said in his primary victory speech.

Two days later, he outlined his new position in an interview with The New York Times, in which he also described himself as “pro-choice.” Hogan has said that his position evolved as the abortion landscape has changed.

In the spot airing Wednesday, he reminds voters that as governor he kept his word to “uphold Maryland law on abortion while providing over the counter birth control covered by insurance.”

GOP senators on Tuesday largely pleaded ignorance about a social media post from former President Donald Trump that invoked a potential “unified reich” if he wins a second term, though several condemned his team for using language that suggests empire-building and carries a connection to Adolf Hitler’s control of Nazi Germany.

“I don’t know why you would say such a thing,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a staunch Trump ally.

The Trump campaign has attributed to the post a staffer’s error, and Graham added that the aide who posted the image “should be dealt with.”

He wasn’t alone. “To use that term in this day and age is simply inappropriate, and it’s got to be corrected,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

Trump’s account shared the post referencing a “unified reich” on Monday as he stands trial in New York on criminal charges connected to alleged hush-money payments to porn actor Stormy Daniels. The term “reich” is broadly associated with empires but commonly known via the “Third Reich” regime of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler during World War II.

The former president ignored a question about the post outside a New York courtroom on Tuesday.

Beyond Graham and Rounds, a number of Republican senators returned to a familiar line from Trump’s first term in office — saying they simply hadn’t seen the divisive post when informed of its contents. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), when told POLITICO wished to ask a question involving Trump, replied simply: “No, thanks.” (He has made clear he won’t support Trump this fall.)

Others saying they weren’t aware of the post included Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), John Kennedy (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Dan Sullivan (Alaska).

“I don’t comment on stuff I don’t see and don’t know about,” Sullivan said.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) conceded that the invocation of the World War II-era “reich” term was problematic but said there were other contrasts between Trump and President Joe Biden to highlight.

“I just don’t know what to make of it, but there’s enough real to talk about,” he said in a brief interview.

The office of Speaker Mike Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Just add it to the list of reasons why I won’t vote for him,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a frequent Trump critic.

Burgess Everett and Daniella Diaz contributed to this report. 

Senior Senate Democrats are bracing for new defections from their side of the aisle in their latest push for another vote on February’s bipartisan border deal.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is planning a Thursday vote on a standalone version of the immigration proposal that Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) negotiated earlier this year. A previous version of the deal that was tied to aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan failed to advance by a 49-50 vote.

Five Senate Democrats voted against the bill back then. But now that foreign aid is no longer attached to it, Democrats expect their support could dwindle even further — even as they remain confident that the doomed-to-fail vote would help shore up their vulnerable incumbents’ standing ahead of the election and portray Republicans as obstructionist.

“I suspect there are a couple Democrats who voted yes on that bill because of the Ukraine money,” Murphy said. “My guess is there will be more Democrats voting against it.”

The existence of Democratic opposition, he argued, is “proof that it’s a bipartisan bill. If we had 51 votes for it, that would not suggest it’s a bipartisan compromise.”

And on the Republican side, Lankford himself has already said he will vote against the agreement he helped shape. Only four Republicans voted for the package last time — and the number could easily shrink to zero this time around.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said he is undecided but called the vote “an entirely political ploy.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said “it’s hard to determine whether this is a genuine attempt to deal with border security.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said plainly: “I think the whole thing is dumb.” All three previously supported the legislation.

“The other side is now going to use it in a way to perhaps make some of their troubled incumbents in a better place,” Murkowski said. “But they don’t really think that they can pass it. So it’s just messaging on their side.”

Still, she suggested that her support for the bill hasn’t wavered: “I thought it was good enough to vote for before. The policy hasn’t changed.”

The bill would impose an automatic shutdown of the border if crossings surpass certain thresholds and strengthen asylum standards. No one expects it to get 60 votes to open debate, and few are predicting it can get a majority. Republicans said they’ve given little consideration to advancing the bill and offering potential amendments.

Which leaves campaign-trail politics as the leading factor in the maneuver. Both parties are looking to weaponize border issues in Senate races in Montana, Ohio and elsewhere, and the Democratic and GOP campaign arms have already begun messaging on the upcoming vote.

Even if it somehow miraculously passed, the legislation has no chance at floor time in the Republican-controlled House.

Still, Senate leaders both made their case on the renewed border vote on Tuesday.

“Democrats are doing this because we believe in fixing the border,” Schumer said, adding that the border bill is the “only real bipartisan bill negotiated by both sides with a real chance of passing and being put on the president’s desk.”

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has lamented the way the bill fell apart over the winter. But on Tuesday he countered that Senate Democrats’ border effort is an “attempt to try and convince the American people that they’re concerned about this when they caused it.”

House lawmakers will tackle a bipartisan measure aimed at establishing comprehensive regulatory structures for the cryptocurrency industry Wednesday.

Votes on consideration of the bill, known as the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, are slated to begin at about 2 p.m. The final margin could offer a barometer of sorts for the industry’s current Capitol Hill support.

Another one to watch: The House Foreign Affairs Committee will mark up legislation expanding congressional oversight of any changes to weapons sales to Israel, which comes as the Biden administration held back on a delivery of heavy bombs.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken testifies before an Appropriations subcommittee at 10 a.m.

And: Kenyan President William Ruto will be on Capitol Hill on Wednesday afternoon, meeting separately with Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate leaders.

Over in the Senate, lawmakers will spend the day moving through several judicial nominees, as well as the nomination of Melissa Dalton to be undersecretary of the Air Force. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) holds an event at noon to mark the confirmation of President Joe Biden’s 200th judge since taking office.

House GOP leaders will begin whipping their Republican members on holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt this week, according to two Republicans familiar with the matter, amid some skepticism they can get the near-unanimity required to pass it on the floor.

With Republicans expecting no help from Democrats, Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) is expected to begin gauging if they can keep intra-party opposition to near zero, according to the two Republicans, who spoke on condition of anonymity. One of those Republicans said the whip effort could begin as early as Wednesday.

Two contempt resolutions against Garland passed out of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees on a partisan basis last week, leading to a highly contentious hearing in the latter panel last Thursday that involved name-calling and alleged drinking.

But the timing for the actual vote remains unclear. While the temperature check shows GOP leadership is moving quickly to determine internal standing on the matter, the second Republican said the vote is not expected this week. And the House is in recess next week for the Memorial Day holiday.

Republicans moved to hold Garland in contempt after the Justice Department declined to comply with GOP subpoenas that sought audio from former special counsel Robert Hur’s interviews with President Joe Biden. The DOJ previously turned over transcripts of the interview, but the Justice Department has pushed back against releasing the recordings, arguing that it risks deterring cooperation in future probes.

Even if the House manages to pass a contempt resolution against Garland, it’s unlikely he’ll face charges since Biden asserted executive privilege over the audio of the interview last week. Hur’s report piqued Republican interest due to his saying that jurors could see Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Republicans on both panels have also heavily hinted that they will sue for access to the tapes.

New comprehensive presidential ethics legislation in the House has an unlikely, bipartisan duo behind it: House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.).

Among other provisions, the legislation would require the president and vice president to disclose tax returns for two years preceding office, any foreign payments received, family members accompanying them on official travel and conflicts of interest.

Read the legislative text.

Those officials would also have to disclose gifts valued at more than $10,000 from or by immediate family members.

“By creating this bipartisan legislation to provide greater transparency to the financial interactions related to the office of the president and vice-president, we can ensure that moving forward American presidents, vice presidents, and their family members cannot profit from their proximity to power,” Comer said in a statement.

Comer and the committee he leads have investigated the foreign activities of Biden family members and loans repaid to the president.

And Democrats aggressively looked into foreign investments of Trump family members, as the former president additionally refused to release his tax returns. This isn’t Porter’s first foray this year into presidential matters, either: During her unsuccessful run for California Senate, she endorsed exploring age caps for all elected officials even as she praised President Joe Biden’s record.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) outlined an ambitious plan Wednesday to pass a dozen partisan funding bills before August, an arduous feat that will force swing-district Republicans to vote on budget cuts and touchy policy issues just months ahead of Election Day.

The tentative summer agenda, detailed during a House GOP closed-door meeting, endeavors to pass all 12 funding bills in June and July.

It illustrates a tricky balance Republican leaders have to navigate — government funding expires on Oct. 1, and they’re looking to report some progress before then despite the likelihood that spending levels will get punted past the election. But at least a handful of those measures could easily reignite intra-GOP tensions, as demonstrated by their failed attempt to pass five of the bills last year, potentially embarrassing party leadership just months ahead of November.

The tentative timeline, as outlined by Scalise:

Week of June 3: Military Construction-VA
Week of June 24: Homeland Security, Defense and State-Foreign Operations
Week of July 8: Legislative Branch
Week of July 22: Commerce-Justice-Science, Agriculture-FDA, Interior-Environment and Financial Services
Week of July 29: Energy-Water, Transportation-HUD and Labor-HHS-Education

Besides funding cuts for many non-defense agencies, controversial policy issues like banning mail delivery of abortion pills are likely to snag certain measures like the Agriculture-FDA funding bill. Sensitive policy language also vexes the packages that fund transportation, housing and health programs, as well as the Departments of Commerce, Treasury and Education.
House Republicans are using overall funding totals that would cut non-defense programs by about 6 percent, while boosting military spending by about 1 percent, for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1.

Even if House GOP leaders succeed in passing the full slate of 12 bills, final funding negotiations with Senate leaders and the White House are not expected to begin in earnest until post-election, when there’s more certainty about the next president and future makeup of Congress. Lawmakers are expected to clear a stopgap spending patch before government funding expires on Sept. 30.

The Senate will take up a bill to protect access to contraception in June, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Wednesday, shortly after a Donald Trump interview aired that indicated the presumptive GOP presidential nominee was considering restrictions.

There’s no indication Senate Republicans would support the legislation, led by Democratic Sens. Ed Markey (Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), which would need at least nine GOP votes to advance. But it could serve as a potent election-year vote as Democrats seek to highlight broad Republican divisions on reproductive rights. The bill would codify contraception as “a fundamental right” nationally.

“Now more than ever, contraception is a critical piece of protecting women’s reproductive freedoms,” Schumer said Wednesday on the floor.

Former President Donald Trump said in the interview with a Pittsburgh TV station that he was “looking at” new contraception restrictions. The interview aired Tuesday but it’s unclear when it was taped. Trump then quickly backtracked on social media later that day, saying he would “never, and will never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control or other contraceptives.”

Republicans are vowing retribution after the International Criminal Court said it would seek an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his handling of the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan filed applications for warrants against Netanyahu, as well as Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the commander of Hamas’ military wing, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Republicans on key foreign policy panels blasted the decision and warned that they would make good on threats from earlier this month to punish the international tribunal, of which neither the United States nor Israel are members, if it went after Israeli officials.

“Israel is fighting a just war for survival, and the ICC is attempting to equate Israeli officials to the evil terrorists who perpetrated the October 7th massacre,” Speaker Mike Johnson said in a Monday statement, adding: “In the absence of leadership from the White House, Congress is reviewing all options, including sanctions, to punish the ICC and ensure its leadership faces consequences if they proceed.”

Across the Capitol, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed to “feverishly work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both chambers to levy damning sanctions against the ICC.”

In a statement, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that “Khan’s kangaroo court has no jurisdiction in Israel to pursue these anti-Semitic and politically motivated ‘charges,’” adding that he looks “forward to making sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States.”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee blasted the action as “absurd” — saying in a statement the decision to simultaneously pursue arrest warrants against Hamas leadership and Israeli officials creates a “false moral equivalency” between the two groups’ actions.

House Republicans have introduced a number of measures taking action against the ICC, though Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately comment on whether the chamber would take any of them up.

The outrage was not isolated to Republicans. In a statement, President Joe Biden called the announcement “outrageous” and added that the move “does nothing to help, and could jeopardize, ongoing efforts to reach a cease-fire agreement that would get hostages out and surge humanitarian assistance in.”

“We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security,” Biden continued.

The White House has voiced its opposition to the ICC’s investigation into Israel, as Israel isn’t a member of the court. Earlier this month, the State Department also issued a report which didn’t find that Israel had violated international humanitarian law during its war in Gaza.

Democratic lawmakers representing large Jewish American communities also slammed the decision. In a post on X, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) slammed the warrants as “not justice but rather retribution against Israel for the original sin of existing as a Jewish State and the subsequent sin of defending itself amid the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.”

A number of progressives, however, celebrated the move. “If Netanyahu comes to address Congress, I would be more than glad to show the ICC the way to the House floor to issue that warrant. Ditto for Hamas leader,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a past head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, posted on X. A handful of progressive Democrats have previously indicated support for an arrest warrant.

An arrest warrant could be “highly problematic for the Biden administration, as it effectively puts not only Netanyahu, but also Gallant — who the Biden team has viewed as a potential moderate alternative to Netanyahu — in the same category as Vladimir Putin,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute think tank.

In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for the Kremlin leader over the forced transfer of children to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, limiting Putin’s international travels. And Johnson has said he plans to invite Netanyahu to address Congress, raising the question of whether the Biden administration would defy the ICC during such a visit.

But the arrest warrants over the Israel-Gaza conflict haven’t been issued yet, so there’s a chance the Biden administration won’t have to deal with the issue during the war. Negotiators have been trying for months to secure a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas, though talks have recently stalled.

After Khan’s filing, ICC judges will determine whether the evidence he provided is enough to formally issue the warrants. That process can take several months.

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

Republicans are vowing retribution after the International Criminal Court said it would seek an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his handling of the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan filed applications for warrants against Netanyahu, as well as Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the commander of Hamas’ military wing, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Republicans on key foreign policy panels blasted the decision and warned that they would make good on threats from earlier this month to punish the international tribunal, of which neither the United States nor Israel are members, if it went after Israeli officials.

“Israel is fighting a just war for survival, and the ICC is attempting to equate Israeli officials to the evil terrorists who perpetrated the October 7th massacre,” Speaker Mike Johnson said in a Monday statement, adding: “In the absence of leadership from the White House, Congress is reviewing all options, including sanctions, to punish the ICC and ensure its leadership faces consequences if they proceed.”

Across the Capitol, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed to “feverishly work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both chambers to levy damning sanctions against the ICC.”

In a statement, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that “Khan’s kangaroo court has no jurisdiction in Israel to pursue these anti-Semitic and politically motivated ‘charges,’” adding that he looks “forward to making sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States.”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee blasted the action as “absurd” — saying in a statement the decision to simultaneously pursue arrest warrants against Hamas leadership and Israeli officials creates a “false moral equivalency” between the two groups’ actions.

House Republicans have introduced a number of measures taking action against the ICC, though Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately comment on whether the chamber would take any of them up.

The outrage was not isolated to Republicans. In a statement, President Joe Biden called the announcement “outrageous” and added that the move “does nothing to help, and could jeopardize, ongoing efforts to reach a cease-fire agreement that would get hostages out and surge humanitarian assistance in.”

“We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security,” Biden continued.

The White House has voiced its opposition to the ICC’s investigation into Israel, as Israel isn’t a member of the court. Earlier this month, the State Department also issued a report which didn’t find that Israel had violated international humanitarian law during its war in Gaza.

Democratic lawmakers representing large Jewish American communities also slammed the decision. In a post on X, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) slammed the warrants as “not justice but rather retribution against Israel for the original sin of existing as a Jewish State and the subsequent sin of defending itself amid the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.”

A number of progressives, however, celebrated the move. “If Netanyahu comes to address Congress, I would be more than glad to show the ICC the way to the House floor to issue that warrant. Ditto for Hamas leader,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a past head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, posted on X. A handful of progressive Democrats have previously indicated support for an arrest warrant.

An arrest warrant could be “highly problematic for the Biden administration, as it effectively puts not only Netanyahu, but also Gallant — who the Biden team has viewed as a potential moderate alternative to Netanyahu — in the same category as Vladimir Putin,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute think tank.

In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for the Kremlin leader over the forced transfer of children to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, limiting Putin’s international travels. And Johnson has said he plans to invite Netanyahu to address Congress, raising the question of whether the Biden administration would defy the ICC during such a visit.

But the arrest warrants over the Israel-Gaza conflict haven’t been issued yet, so there’s a chance the Biden administration won’t have to deal with the issue during the war. Negotiators have been trying for months to secure a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas, though talks have recently stalled.

After Khan’s filing, ICC judges will determine whether the evidence he provided is enough to formally issue the warrants. That process can take several months.

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.