Outside groups are urging House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner to step down from the high-profile role over his vague public warning about a national security threat — or urging Speaker Mike Johnson to replace him.

Four organizations sent Turner a letter Friday demanding his resignation, arguing his actions “undermined your credibility, your committee, and national security.” If Turner doesn’t voluntarily cede the Intelligence chairmanship — something he’s given no indication he’s considering — they are urging Johnson to remove him from the spot.

“The near-panic you caused by exploiting this potential future threat for immediate political gain is beneath a Member of Congress, and in particular the committee you currently lead, which was formed to rein in — not be a mouthpiece for — warrantless domestic spying. This week is the culmination of months of bad-faith tactics that collectively demonstrate you should not continue as Chairman,” the groups added.

The letter, obtained by POLITICO ahead of its release, is the latest fallout after Turner released a cryptic public statement Wednesday about “a serious” threat, requesting that the White House declassify all information relating to it. The intelligence was later confirmed to be about Russia’s nuclear capabilities in space.

Adam Brandon, the president of FreedomWorks, Jason Pye, the director for rule of law initiatives at the Due Process Institute, Sean Vitka, the policy director for Demand Progress, and Alex Marthews, the national chair for Restore the Fourth, signed the letter.

Several of Turner’s Intelligence colleagues, plus the Wall Street Journal editorial board, have defended his strategy. Johnson and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, held a joint press conference with Turner on Thursday, underscoring the bipartisan support for addressing the threat.

But a coalition combining privacy hawks, members of the House Freedom Caucus and libertarian-leaning Republicans have criticized Turner’s move. They argue it was meant to influence this week’s debate on reauthorizing Section 702, a spying authority that is meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under criticism for its ability to sweep in Americans.

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) called for an investigation, while Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) called for Turner to lose his chairmanship. Like Biggs, each of the four groups represented in Friday’s letter are pushing for sweeping changes to the program that are opposed by Turner, other Intelligence Committee members and the administration.

One person familiar with the underlying intelligence told POLITICO earlier this week that at least some of the information was gathered using 702. Turner also recently traveled to Ukraine and is publicly pushing for Johnson to take up additional aid.

Turner, in a statement this week, defended his strategy, which also involved privately alerting members of Congress that the Intelligence Committee had voted to share information with their colleagues about the national security threat.

“The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence worked in consultation with the Biden Administration to notify Congress of this national security threat,” he said. “In addition, language in the bipartisan notification issued by the Chair and Ranking Member to all Members of the House was cleared by the Administration prior to its release.”

The move by Turner roiled Washington, sparking public questions about what the threat was. John Kirby, President Joe Biden’s top national security spokesperson, told reporters that the administration had not given a greenlight for the public statement.

But several members of the Intelligence Committee defended Turner’s decision, including Democrats on the panel. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a member of the panel, called the timing a “coincidence” and that Ogles should “fucking check himself.” Meanwhile, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said that “anybody who’s familiar with what is the situation here, they should be thanking and hugging Mike Turner. Trust me.”

Himes, meanwhile, told POLITICO that he had privately urged Turner not to release the public statement, saying it was a bad idea. But he also defended the Ohio Republican’s motivations.

“I really don’t think it was three-dimensional chess,” Himes added about the theories that Turner was trying to impact the 702 or Ukraine debates. “I would have handled this differently. But he is a very serious professional when it comes to U.S. national security. So that’s another reason why I don’t think he was playing games.”

Lawmakers are nearing a major deal that could unlock a key piece of the funding logjam on Capitol Hill ahead of the looming partial shutdown March 2.

Negotiators are considering a deal to approve a pilot program restricting some choices for SNAP beneficiaries in exchange for a boost in funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and several other nutrition programs as they try to hammer out a spending deal.

According to three people familiar with the talks, the possible deal involves adding what’s known as the SNAP-choice pilot program, backed by Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.), to the Ag-FDA spending bill, as well as an undisclosed amount of extra funding for WIC, the nutrition program that helps feed millions of low-income mothers and babies, which is facing a funding cliff.

The extra funding is expected to be enough for Democrats to say they were able to keep recipients from being put on waitlists.

The framework for the deal has been pushed up to congressional leaders, and an internal decision could come as soon as Friday, according to two of the people familiar with the matter, who were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Some key House Democrats, however, have already pushed back on the SNAP-choice pilot program and tried to delink Harris’ demands from WIC funding that’s traditionally been a bipartisan effort on Capitol Hill.

Long-running battle: Anti-hunger advocates and conservatives have long debated the SNAP-choice concept, which would restrict which foods low-income families can buy with their SNAP benefits. Harris’ voluntary five-state pilot program would allow the SNAP benefits to be used to purchase only “nutrient dense” foods aligned with the dietary guidelines, ruling out items like soda, candy and most ultra-processed foods. Some states are already testing pieces of such a program.

GOP win: Harris and House Republicans are likely to get “very few policy wins” out of the funding talks, according to one of the people familiar with the plan, and this is one way the GOP can claim a victory on instituting more rigor in the SNAP program. Harris has dug in on the the issue, according to the people.

Dem wins: In exchange for including Harris’ pilot program, Democrats would be able to keep WIC afloat as it rapidly approaches a funding cliff in the coming months. Democrats and anti-hunger groups have warned states will be forced to put recipients on waitlists if Congress doesn’t approve $1 billion in additional funding.

Increases to funding for several other nutrition programs are also likely to be included in the deal, such as the Child and Adult Care Food Program and The Emergency Food Assistance Program.

The White House requested an additional $1 billion for WIC funding this year, but GOP negotiators have rebuffed Democrats’ efforts to add the extra WIC money to several other funding stopgaps in recent months.

Impending backlash: The SNAP-choice pilot is extremely controversial among nutrition advocates, however, since it restricts what families can buy with their benefits. The possible deal has also sparked panic among the food industry over concerns about Harris’ definition of what qualifies as “nutrient dense” and which foods will be left off the list.

According to the current dietary guidelines, “nutrient-dense foods and beverages provide vitamins, minerals, and other health-promoting components and have little added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium.”

“Vegetables, fruits, whole grains, seafood, eggs, beans, peas, and lentils, unsalted nuts and seeds, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and lean meats and poultry —when prepared with no or little added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium — are nutrient-dense food,” according to the guidelines.

The pilot could also come under legal scrutiny, from a variety of groups who could argue the regulators are too burdensome for the program.

“I guarantee there will be legal challenges, from the recipients, the advocates, the retailers,” said a fourth person familiar with the talks.

House Democratic leadership is checking the pulse of lawmakers to see if they’d still back forcing a vote on the Senate-passed national security bill through a discharge petition amid ongoing gridlock, according to two people familiar with the matter.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has vowed to use “all options” to break the logjam, including a discharge petition, which would require a majority of House members to sign on. Every House Democrat had signed onto a shell petition last year as part of a last-ditch effort to force floor action on a debt limit bill.

But progressive lawmakers in recent days have raised concerns about supporting the legislation if it granted aid to Israel without conditions, meaning more Republican support would be needed to make up for defections among liberal lawmakers.

That’s prompted leading Democrats to now do the rounds to ask where lawmakers stand on the discharge petition, according to the two people familiar, granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal caucus dynamics.

With no Republican support yet for their longshot procedural move, Democrats have largely been focused on pressuring Speaker Mike Johnson to bring the legislation to the House floor on his own. Johnson has quashed a vote on the Senate package, arguing border security provisions should be reattached to the deal.

“Right now, it’s whether or not Mike Johnson can govern and do something,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), though he and other liberal lawmakers have previously argued for conditions on aid to Israel.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) was blunter: “I’m not voting for it. And I’m not signing onto the discharge petition.”

She estimated enough progressives would abandon the petition so that “it wouldn’t work.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said she’d “likely not” support the Senate package but demurred on removing her name from the discharge petition, saying: “I think we’re all on the same page here collaborating as a caucus.”

The chair of the Progressive Caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), downplayed the divisions, arguing Dems won’t “move a discharge petition on something that we don’t agree on.”

“Everyone signed a discharge petition with a very clear commitment from leadership that it wouldn’t be used for things that we wouldn’t agree on,” Jayapal said. “That’s not an issue. People aren’t taking their names off of it or anything.”

The Senate cleared its $95 billion emergency funding bill this week that includes aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan with bipartisan support.

Democrats have rallied around previous Ukraine aid packages, but they’re split on support for Israel over its conduct of the war in Gaza. House Republicans, conversely, have sidestepped President Joe Biden’s request for more Ukraine aid, but have held two votes on bills that carve out aid just for Israel.

Those dynamics could make getting 218 signatures for a discharge petition, a move which rarely succeeds, an uphill battle for aid to all three U.S. partners.

“That is certainly a challenge,” said Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, referring to members of his party backing off a discharge effort. “And the timing. I mean, we’re running out of time.”

Democrats have instead pointed to Johnson, arguing it’s the embattled speaker’s job to act after a big bipartisan vote in the Senate.

“The best path forward is for them to give us a vote on that. If they want to put up an alternative, offer an amendment, you know, there’s different ways to do it,” Smith said. “But the best path forward is to give us a vote on the bipartisan agreement that was negotiated over months that addressed every issue they said needed to be addressed.”

“I think most Democrats are unified around getting aid to Ukraine, and the issue is really the Republicans not bringing it forward,” added Rep. Ro Khanna, a progressive California Democrat. “I first want to see if we have any commitments of Republicans to sign it, which it seems to me unlikely.”

Some progressives may sign onto the discharge petition to get the bill onto the floor, while keeping their options open when it comes time to pass it. That’s what Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said he plans to do.

“I think you’re going to see possible unanimity on our side because [passing the bill is] a separate vote, and people can make that decision later,” Grijalva told POLITICO. “I’m going to bite that bullet when it’s on the floor.”

The House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee’s top Democrat, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), said progressives may put aside their objections to the Israel aid because the bill also contains humanitarian aid to Gaza.

“We really want aid to go to Gaza, where people need it so desperately,” McCollum told POLITICO.

Potentially recruiting Republicans to get to the needed 218 signatures for the petition could be tough for Democrats, though some are optimistic about their chances given the GOP’s own internal discord.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a former president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, argued that while signing a discharge petition means defying Johnson, his right flank defies him regularly, therefore making it less of a taboo.

“It’s certainly not an unthinkable act,” Connolly told POLITICO. “Are you willing to make your [party] leadership a little unhappy for the sake of reasserting American leadership and helping the Ukrainian people? I think that’s the choice people really have to wrestle with.”

Special counsel Robert Hur will testify before the House Judiciary Committee on March 12 about his investigation into President Joe Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, a person familiar told POLITICO.

The public hearing comes after the Justice Department released Hur’s report earlier this month that concluded that criminal charges against Biden wouldn’t be warranted — even if the Justice Department lacked an internal policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Hur’s investigation found evidence that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency” but that it didn’t “establish Mr. Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The charging decision might be less interesting to House Republicans, however, than another part of the report. Hur described that Biden would be perceived in any court proceedings as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”

Republicans have made Biden’s mishandling of classified documents part of their sweeping impeachment inquiry into the president, which has largely focused on the business dealings of his family members.

In addition to public testimony from Hur, Republicans sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting the transcript of Hur’s interview with Biden, as well as classified documents referenced in the report.

Wisconsin Republican Eric Hovde is expected to launch his Senate campaign next week, according to two Republicans familiar with his plans, as the GOP tries to avoid a damaging battleground state primary.

The wealthy GOP banker is expected to garner support from key Republican outside groups, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Ben Voelkel, a spokesman for Hovde, confirmed his plans to launch.

Simultaneously, Republicans are hoping Scott Mayer, another Badger State businessman, won’t run against Hovde in the primary to take on Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke had also made some noise about running, but has been quiet in recent weeks.

Mayer is also considering a Senate run, but sent confusing messages this week in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in which he said he had hired staff for a potential Senate bid. He later clarified to the paper that he had staff lined up for the race but is not paying them because he has not announced his campaign.

National Republicans do not want a primary battle in Wisconsin, where Baldwin has won two terms and will be tough to beat no matter who they nominate. A damaging primary contest between two wealthy businessmen would not help the GOP’s chances in November.

Citing Mayer’s comments to the Milwaukee paper this week and some of his opaque political positions, “it’s safe to say people are concerned he would not be a strong candidate,” said one of the Republicans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss party strategy.

When reached for comment Thursday morning, Mayer said “we’ll see what happens” but declined to expand further.

Hovde ran for the GOP nomination to take on Baldwin in 2012 but narrowly lost the primary to former Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson. Thompson lost the race to Baldwin and Republicans struggled to mount a credible campaign against her in 2018, when she won by more than 10 points.

Andrew Mamo, a spokesperson for Baldwin’s campaign, said “Mitch McConnell can try to bring a mega millionaire California bank owner to Wisconsin to buy this Senate seat, but voters in this state know who will really fight for them.”

Republicans hope landing Hovde could further expand the Senate battleground map for the GOP, which landed former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan last week.

Democrats currently have a 51-seat majority. But with the retirement of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) at the end of the year and tough pick-up opportunities in Florida and Texas, they may need to hold all of their incumbents and the presidency to retain the Senate majority next year.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers plans to roll out their alternative proposal to send military aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan and secure the border on Thursday, one of the Republican organizers said.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told POLITICO a compromise Ukraine-border funding bill would be unveiled Thursday — the last day before the House leaves D.C. for a week-plus recess — with a group of four bipartisan co-sponsors. The centrist lawmaker acknowledged they don’t have wide GOP buy-in on the package yet.

“We’ve just got to find a way to get more Republicans on board,” Bacon said.

The bipartisan group — including Bacon, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and two Democrats that Bacon declined to name — is focusing their proposal on military assistance, trimming billions in humanitarian and economic aid from the $95 billion package passed by the Senate this week. Those lawmakers also plan to include a form of the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while awaiting a hearing with U.S. immigration judges.

Bacon predicted trimming non-military aid approved by the Senate could reduce the price tag of his counterproposal into the low $60 billion range.

“If we could focus on military aid and do a clear pro-border security element like ‘Remain in Mexico,’ that secures a lot of Republican votes,” Bacon said. “And there’s enough Democrats who agree. So we’re gonna try it.”

The Nebraska Republican indicated he was having dinner with Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday to discuss the proposal.

Fitzpatrick, a co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, first indicated official plans to file an alternative Ukraine and border security proposal on Wednesday. Johnson has effectively killed the Senate-passed proposal in its current form, arguing it fails to address border security. A previous bipartisan bill that tied stricter border policies with foreign aid tanked in the Senate amid GOP opposition, after Johnson said it was dead on arrival in the House.

Johnson has said the House will “work its will” on its own proposal. The Fitzpatrick-led framework could offer Johnson a chance to do so. It’s unclear what other proposals could come forward, particularly ones that have any chance at passing the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“You can’t please everybody, and I know he’s got a great heart. He’s trying to get broad consensus,” Bacon said of Johnson. “If you think you’re gonna pass something with 218 Republican votes [and] that’s what you’ve got to have, you’re not gonna get a lot done.”

Even if the consensus package can make it through the conservative firebrands in the House, passage in the Senate is far from guaranteed. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democratic leaders have repeatedly pushed Johnson to take up the upper chamber’s bill, which 22 GOP senators backed.

“My friends on the other side are responsible for basically setting the world on fire right now,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said on the floor this week after Johnson indicated he wouldn’t support the Senate measure.

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukraine Caucus with Fitzpatrick, said in a brief interview that any foreign aid supplemental bill must be bipartisan to pass the narrowly divided House. Some House Democrats are expected to reject any bill that includes Israel aid, due to its military response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks.

“There’s many options and the only thing we know for sure it’s going to have to be bipartisan,” Quigley said in a brief interview. “It’s just the math. It’s not just the narrow numbers, it’s a division on both sides.”

It’s unclear how lead House Democrats will react to the bill. House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) threw cold water on the emerging bill on Thursday, saying that Johnson should bring the bipartisan Senate-passed supplemental to the House floor immediately. Asked about the Fitzpatrick-led efforts, she said: “Wrong question.”

“I told you what I’m open to. Bring the damn thing up and let’s vote on it,” she told reporters.

Speaker Mike Johnson is punting a controversial spy powers bill as GOP infighting threatens to derail his plans once again.

The House was expected to hold a floor vote on legislation to reauthorize Section 702 on Thursday. The authority is meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under scrutiny for its ability to sweep in Americans’ information.

But GOP leadership knew they would have a hard time pushing the bill through, at best. Republican security hawks on the Intelligence Committee were threatening to prevent the bill from even coming up for debate — a detail first reported by POLITICO — while privacy advocates on the Judiciary Committee were vowing to oppose it unless they got amendment votes to further protect Americans’ information.

“In order to allow Congress more time to reach consensus on how best to reform FISA and Section 702 while maintaining the integrity of our critical national security programs, the House will consider the reform and reauthorization bill at a later date,” Raj Shah, a spokesperson for Johnson, wrote on X.

The legislation that was pulled included narrower changes to Section 702 than those preferred by the Judiciary Committee, notably forgoing strict warrant requirements related to American communications.

It’s the second punt on Section 702 from Johnson, who first wanted to bring competing bills on the surveillance authority to the floor and have members vote directly on which version they preferred. Then he had to scrap his plan after members started publicly complaining that it was Johnson’s job to make a decision.

Congress has until mid-April to figure out a path forward on Section 702. But GOP leadership had pushed their ranks to move quickly this week as they prepare to head out of town until Feb. 28. Once the House returns, the agenda will be dominated by back-to-back government funding deadlines and the very real threat of a shutdown amid a fight over the border and spending levels.

The decision appeared to catch members involved in the negotiations over the spy powers bill off guard. The announcement from the speaker’s office came during a Rules Committee meeting meant to tee up the bill, and potential amendments, for a floor vote on Thursday.

“That’s disappointing because, you know, you saw how good this meeting went,” Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters.

Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.

The White House has denied multiple requests from Speaker Mike Johnson to meet with President Joe Biden over border security, according to a person familiar with the requests.

Johnson’s team has issued “multiple” requests to the White House for a one-on-one meeting between the two leaders, according to the person, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly about a sensitive situation.

But Biden and White House officials have repeatedly said they believe the House should take up the Senate-passed national security supplemental instead of meeting and renegotiating a new package, after months of bipartisan Senate talks on the border ended in a bill that failed to even pass the upper chamber. Johnson had declared that legislation dead on arrival in the House, arguing it didn’t go far enough to tighten border security, and did not directly engage in those discussions beforehand.

“What is there to negotiate? Really, truly, what is the one-on-one negotiation about when he’s been presented with exactly what he’s asked for?” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. “He’s negotiating with himself.”

Johnson said Wednesday that he will “continue to insist” on a meeting with Biden, as House Republicans try to draft their own solution on the border.

“If the speaker of the House can’t meet with the president of the United States, that’s a problem,” Johnson said. “I don’t know why they’re uncomfortable having the president sit across the table from me, but I will go in good faith.”

The two leaders spoke via phone on Jan. 10 and met in person with several other congressional leaders on Jan. 17.

Johnson’s team requested a meeting on Jan. 22 and made “multiple subsequent requests,” according to the person. They have all been denied.

“Members of Speaker Johnson’s own conference have stated that if these urgent national security priorities were put up for a clean vote, the legislation would pass the House with overwhelming bipartisan support – as it did in the Senate,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said. “Given that reality, combined with the fact that congressional Republicans were just dealt a major defeat for siding with fentanyl traffickers, smugglers, Donald Trump, and their personal politics over the Border Patrol Union, it makes sense the Speaker would be feeling heat and grasping for an escape hatch.”

A strong push by Republicans from New York, New Jersey and California to expand the federal deduction for state and local taxes died with a whimper in a procedural vote on Wednesday afternoon, depriving the lawmakers of a much-needed win as they head into the November elections.

The rejection of the rule — by 195-225 — to consider legislation that would provide the SALT relief was the latest setback for lawmakers from high-tax states who have tried repeatedly to relax or eliminate a $10,000 cap on the deduction imposed by Republicans’ 2017 tax law.

Their frustration was evident even before the vote.

“This House Republican majority was built by the contributions of New Yorkers, and this legislation would help those same New Yorkers see immediate tax relief,” said Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), the chief sponsor of the bill, during the debate leading up to the vote. “And I encourage my Democratic colleagues to support it as well. They talked a good game but when they had complete control in the prior Congress, they failed to provide a fix.”

Lawler’s bill would remove what some lawmakers call a “marriage penalty” in the SALT deduction by doubling the amount married couples could write off to $20,000 for the 2023 tax year. The change would be limited to taxpayers making less than $500,000.

The lawmakers demanding that relief represent critical swing districts that have oversized national political implications because they can hand either party the majority in the House.

It was a prominent issue in Tuesday’s special election to fill George Santos’s former House seat on Long Island, which was won by Democrat Tom Suozzi.

In his race against GOP candidate Mazi Melesa Pilip, Suozzi knocked New York Republicans for failing to lift the cap this Congress.

But the issue transcends party lines. Democrats from high-tax states have also pushed legislation that would expand the SALT deduction, but indicated before Wednesday’s vote they considered Lawler’s plan a half-baked response to the problem.

“This badly flawed measure is a far cry for the middle-class tax relief, and is really the bare minimum we could do,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), who counts himself as a colleague of Lawler in the bipartisan coalition, known as the SALT Caucus. “What we have before us is a fig leaf to paper over that Republicans opposed middle-class tax relief.”

Two other SALT Caucus Democrats — Reps. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) — told POLITICO Tuesday night they weren’t sure yet whether they would ultimately vote for the Republican rule to allow for House consideration of Lawler’s bill. In the end, they didn’t.

Republicans who support the deduction cap argue that it serves as a disincentive to state and local government spending fueled by taxes that could be written off at the federal level.

Before the cap was implemented in 2017 taxpayers could deduct all of what they owed in state and local tax from their federal taxes. It’s a change that has hit New York, New Jersey and California homeowners particularly hard, since high-income couples can easily pay property taxes in the tens of thousands of dollars every year in those states.

Lawler’s legislation would cost the government around $11.7 billion, according to an analysis by the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. The vast majority of the benefit — 77 percent — would go to higher earners, making above $200,000 a year, the analysis said.

The SALT Caucus has been a thorn in the side for both parties’ leadership.

Last summer, a coalition of Republicans from high-tax states blocked a sweeping GOP tax package reported from the House Ways and Means committee because it didn’t also include an increase in the deduction. And last month, four New York Republicans threatened to tank bipartisan tax legislation over similar concerns.

The latter conflict was resolved when the band of rabble rousers came to an accord with Speaker Mike Johnson’s office that Lawler’s bill would get a fair shake by the GOP conference.

In 2021, Democrats struggled to build a coalition around their sweeping climate, tax and healthcare agenda because a handful of their members demanded larger SALT deductions — which have otherwise been considered a tax break for the wealthy and unpalatable to a wide swath of the Democratic caucus. That effort failed too.

Despite the crash of Lawler’s bill, New Jersey, California and New York Republicans are eyeing another big push for SALT tax breaks in 2025 — when most of the 2017 tax cuts, including the $10,000 SALT cap, are set to expire.

“2025 is the year for SALT,” said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) on CNN Tuesday night. “I think that’s where the New York members are going to have their most leverage.”