Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg signaled Friday that he is willing to testify about his prosecution of former President Donald Trump — but not next week as House Republicans proposed.

Leslie Dubeck, Bragg’s general counsel, sent a letter on Friday to House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, saying that the DA’s office is “committed to voluntary cooperation” after the Ohio Republican requested Bragg testify on June 13. Jordan wants Bragg to appear in front of his subcommittee investigating GOP claims of “weaponization” against conservatives within the government.

“That cooperation includes making the District Attorney available to provide testimony on behalf of the Office at an agreed-upon date,” Dubeck wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

But Dubeck rebuffed Jordan’s request for Bragg to testify on June 13, saying that there are “various scheduling conflicts” and that the trial court proceedings are currently scheduled to continue through July 11, when Trump is scheduled to be sentenced. Testifying publicly next week, she added, “would be potentially detrimental” to a “fair administration of justice” in the case. Trump has also vowed to appeal his conviction on 34 felonies in the hush money case.

Jordan had said before Friday’s letter that he was willing to subpoena Bragg if he refused to testify. He also, in a brief interview earlier this week, questioned why Bragg would need to wait until after Trump’s sentencing to testify.

The testimony request for Bragg and Matthew Colangelo, who helped prosecute Trump, is the latest step in a months-long House GOP investigation into Bragg’s office. It’s also one prong of a larger effort by Republicans to use their thin majority to look into Trump’s prosecutors.

Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Jordan, said on Friday that when it comes to what’s next “everything is on the table.”

Bragg’s office is requesting that House Judiciary staff work with them to figure out a new hearing date and provide more clarity on “the scope and purpose of the proposed hearing.” Jordan, in his letters inviting Bragg and Colangelo to testify, wrote that the hearing would “examine actions by state and local prosecutors to engage in politically motivated prosecutions of federal officials,” including Trump’s prosecution in New York.

House Republican leaders are privately gauging support for legislation that would let both current and former presidents move a state case to federal courts, four Republicans familiar with the effort confirmed to POLITICO. It already seems dead in the water.

Republicans have vowed to use their slim majority to avenge former President Donald Trump after he was convicted on 34 felony counts in a Manhattan hush money trial last week. Since that was a conviction on state charges, Trump could not pardon himself even if he’s elected president. But Trump is also facing charges in Georgia, which the legislation would allow him to move to federal court.

But it’s not clear if the bill — spearheaded by Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) — has the votes needed to clear the House, according to three of the people, who all spoke on condition of anonymity. And even if it could pass that chamber, it’s almost certainly dead in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

“I’ve heard a lot of folks are reaching out to leadership and saying they will vote no,” said one battleground Republican, granted anonymity to discuss the internal conversations. “I don’t believe they have the votes to pass it.”

As another centrist Republican viewed it: “I think there’s a lack of support for it” and that they are making sure leadership is aware. “I heard a bunch of folks have said they’re reluctant.”

If leaders do feel it has enough support in their two-seat margin — a big if, at this point — it could come to the House floor as soon as next week. A schedule for next week, released by Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) office, didn’t mention the bill, though it noted that other legislative items are possible.

Fry’s bill gives a current or former president or vice president the ability to move civil or criminal state cases to a federal court. It passed the Judiciary Committee last year but has stalled since then. Conservatives, however, started building public pressure on leaders after Trump’s conviction to move toward a floor vote.

Axios first reported the ongoing whip effort.

During a closed-door GOP conference meeting earlier this week, Johnson laid out a three-pronged plan for how Republicans would use their majority to go after Trump’s prosecutors, including Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the hush money case against Trump.

In addition to legislation like Fry’s, Republicans are also expected to use an upcoming government funding fight and ongoing investigations to target Trump’s prosecutors.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address Congress on July 24, a person familiar with the plans, granted anonymity to discuss the matter, confirmed to POLITICO.

The speech comes after the four top congressional leaders — Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) — formally issued the long-awaited invite late last month.

Locking down the July 24 date caps off weeks of behind-the-scenes talks on Capitol Hill, where the exact date had remained in flux even after leadership formally issued the invitation to Netanyahu last week. They initially looked at June 13 but that conflicted with a Jewish holiday and Johnson’s office stressed at the time that the date was not finalized and still being negotiated.

Netanyahu’s speech on July 24 comes as a growing number of congressional Democrats and the Biden administration have become increasingly critical of Israel’s handling of the war against Hamas — namely the high toll of civilian deaths.

Progressives have also publicly called on President Joe Biden to take a firmer stance. Some in Congress, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have said they will skip Netanyahu’s speech next month, while other top Democrats have suggested they wouldn’t have issued the invitation.

More than two dozen Republican leaders in Virginia’s 5th Congressional District are publicly urging former President Donald Trump to reconsider his endorsement of Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good’s primary opponent.

Rick Buchanan — chair of the 5th District Republican Congressional Committee and a Good supporter — spearheaded the open letter, which was signed by 24 other Republican leaders in the district, to “strongly urge” Trump to reconsider his endorsement of state Sen. John McGuire.

“We hope President Trump reconsiders his ill-advised endorsement and stands with the Grassroots America First supporters of Congressman Bob Good,” the Republicans wrote.

The primary in the deeply red district will take place June 18. It’s grown increasingly contentious, with some polls suggesting Good could be in trouble.

And while Good has been campaigning in the district with members of the Freedom Caucus and other allies, he also has House GOP colleagues from multiple corners from the conference campaigning against him.

Trump endorsed McGuire late last month and has continued to take swipes at Good, releasing a new video this week in which he called the Virginia Republican “someone who will stab you in the back like he did me.” Good and Trump’s camps also got into a recent back-and-forth over the former using yard signs that invoke the latter’s name.

Good first supported Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s presidential bid in the GOP primary. He subsequently endorsed Trump after DeSantis, a former House Freedom Caucus member, ended his presidential bid.

But the 25 Republicans also wrote that the former president’s endorsement of McGuire “may, in fact, hurt the strong support of conservatives for President Trump in the Fighting 5th that he will need in November.”

House Republicans on Wednesday sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for Hunter and Jim Biden — a high-profile step that spins out of their largely stalled Joe Biden impeachment effort.

Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and special counsel David Weiss alleging that the president’s son and brother made false statements to Congress and recommending the DOJ bring charges. They also specifically accused Hunter Biden of committing perjury.

“Hunter Biden and James Biden made provably false statements to the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee about key aspects of the impeachment inquiry,” the three Republicans wrote in the letter.

Paul Fishman, Jim Biden’s attorney, called the criminal referrals a “baseless partisan action” and a “transparent and cynical attempt to distract from and retaliate for Donald Trump’s recent criminal conviction.”

Jim Biden “testified earlier this year and has always maintained that Joe Biden never had any involvement in his business dealings,” he added. Hunter Biden’s legal team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Speaker Mike Johnson called for quick action on the referrals, saying in a statement Wednesday: “If the Attorney General wishes to demonstrate he is not running a two-tiered system of justice and targeting the President’s political opponents, he will open criminal investigations into James and Hunter Biden … and he will announce it immediately.”

Johnson’s decision to single out Garland comes as House Republicans are gearing up to hold a vote next week on holding the attorney general in contempt for refusing to hand over recordings of former special counsel Robert Hur’s interview with Joe Biden. It’s not yet clear that they have the votes locked down, with several members publicly on the fence or hoping the two sides can cut a deal and de-escalate the standoff.

Wednesday’s criminal referrals to the Justice Department are non-binding, meaning the DOJ doesn’t have to do anything with them, despite Johnson’s overture for quick action. But House Republicans have increasingly touted those types of efforts as a landing spot for their months-long inquiry, which has largely focused on the business deals of Joe Biden’s family members.

Though Republicans unanimously formalized the inquiry late last year, actually impeaching Joe Biden has long seemed out of reach because even some House Republicans say they haven’t found clear evidence that the president committed a crime or an impeachable offense.

And while GOP lawmakers have openly acknowledged it’s unlikely the criminal referrals will gain traction with the DOJ this year, they view them as an investigative trail that former President Donald Trump’s Justice Department could pick up if he wins in November.

Republicans, as part of the allegations included in their criminal referral, are accusing Hunter Biden of lying to Congress when he said during a closed-door interview that an infamous WhatsApp message Republicans highlighted was actually sent to the wrong person. Hunter Biden said it was an “indication of how out of my mind I was at this moment in time.”

House GOP investigators said Hunter Biden was lying about accidentally sending a message meant for Raymond Zhao to an unrelated Henry Zhao, according to documents obtained by the Ways and Means Committee. Hunter Biden had sent it to Raymond Zhao, a Chinese business partner, and invoked his father’s presence with him as he wrote the messages, Republicans allege in the criminal referral letter. (An IRS whistleblower also characterized the message as going to Henry Zhao.)

In addition to telling House investigators earlier this year that he sent it to the wrong person, Hunter Biden also said that he was not sitting next to his father, despite the contents of the message saying otherwise, and that his father had no knowledge of the message.

Republicans, in their letter to the Justice Department, also said Jim Biden gave false testimony about not being at a “meeting” in 2017 with Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Tony Bobulinski, a former Hunter Biden associate who has been critical of the Bidens for years and attended a 2020 presidential debate as a guest of Trump’s campaign.

Hunter Biden separately told the committee that he and Jim Biden were at a hotel bar with Bobulinski, where he met Joe Biden. Hunter Biden said the two talked about an ill family member of Bobulinski’s, but denied that they had a “meeting.”

Republicans in Congress raged against Attorney General Merrick Garland for hours on Tuesday, but after a heated day-long inquisition they extracted no narrative-shifting information to use against him.

Republicans spent hours sparring with Garland over former special counsel Robert Hur, special counsel Jack Smith and the state-level prosecutions of Trump — but got little new information out of the attorney general on any of those fronts. Republicans, on multiple occasions, accused him of either refusing to answer, not knowing the answer and, in one instance, whining a lot.

Garland, for his part, delivered an uncharacteristically pointed defense of the Justice Department’s independence and accused Republicans of trying to hold him in contempt for political purposes.

“These repeated attacks on the Justice Department are unprecedented and unfounded,” Garland told lawmakers. “I view contempt as a serious matter. But I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations. I will not be intimidated.”

The hearing marked the latest episode in Republicans’ escalating vows to go after the DOJ and state-level prosecutors for investigating Trump, particularly after his 34-count conviction. Earlier that morning, Speaker Mike Johnson touted his “three-pronged” plan to rein in the DOJ, touching on spending bills, separate legislation and oversight work.

Yet all three of those fronts come with nearly insurmountable obstacles. Republicans’ single-digit control of the chamber remains an inconvenient reality, and the House GOP has already repeatedly failed in its attempts to make sweeping changes to the justice system this term using Johnson’s three prongs: going after DOJ funding, spotlighting oversight hearings and long-running pursuit of President Joe Biden’s impeachment that has delved into the DOJ but flatlined.

Even if the House could pass spending bills to rein in the DOJ, they’re unlikely to go anywhere with the Democratic-controlled Senate. This week’s Delaware trial of Hunter Biden poses its own separate problem for the party’s argument, forcing Johnson to publicly swat down a question Tuesday about whether that prosecution refutes his and Trump’s claim that the courts are targeting Republicans.

Despite the low chances of tangible success, the speaker is pushing ahead anyway — even as some Republicans have acknowledged that their best shot is hoping Trump wins in November. According to three Republicans in Tuesday morning’s private GOP conference meeting, Johnson talked up Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) proposals to use the power of the federal purse to rein in Trump’s prosecutors at both the federal and state levels. Conservatives pushed similar ideas in the last spending cycle, but the House GOP’s DOJ funding bill unraveled amid party infighting.

Johnson’s own members acknowledge they’re not sure whether anything can get enough GOP votes to pass the House this time around, either: “That’s going to be always a challenge in the moment,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), who leads the conference’s largest internal caucus.

Even as Garland clashed with Johnson’s members over their push to obtain audio of former special counsel Robert Hur’s interview with Biden, it’s not clear when House GOP leadership will be able to call a floor vote on holding the attorney general in contempt for refusing to release that audio.

Asked about the Garland contempt vote on Tuesday, Johnson told POLITICO that “a decision hasn’t been set.”

Garland also rebuffed pro-Trump Republicans’ questions about the state-level prosecution of the former president in New York. He called false claims that the DOJ controlled that investigation a “conspiracy theory” and an “attack on the judicial process itself.”

Johnson signaled on Tuesday that he’s becoming more open to using the government funding bills to go after the DOJ, but it still won’t be enough for many conservatives. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said she asked Johnson during Tuesday’s closed-door meeting if he would be willing to shut down the government to strip out that DOJ funding.

“I don’t know if he’s willing to do that. So it’s just more talk,” she said after the gathering concluded. “Unless he’s willing to go and fight for legislative action that we actually take and pass in the House, then it means nothing. And that’s how the people see it.”

Greene is also threatening to trigger a vote as soon as this week on impeaching Biden. Republicans are far short of the votes to actually recommend booting the president, and it’s possible that leadership would table her maneuver or send it to committee — but a failure to move forward would likely still irk an already frustrated pro-Trump base.

Greene isn’t the only one skeptical that Republicans’ DOJ funding dreams will turn into a reality. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said he would “love to see” funding bills that defund Trump’s prosecutors, but he laughed when asked if he thought it would actually happen.

“I don’t know. I have no idea. I think a better question is, what are the odds we’re actually going to get approps bills,” Biggs said.

GOP leadership has an ambitious — and unrealistic, some Republicans say privately — plan to pass all 12 government funding bills on the House floor by the end of July. Last year, they managed to pass only seven before punting the rest because of GOP infighting.

And while lawmakers float dozens, if not hundreds, of policy ideas to attach to funding bills, very few of them actually make it into the final product.

“People have been wanting to use the appropriations process for policy things for a long time. … We’ll see. It’s a long process,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chair of the powerful appropriations subpanel that funds the Pentagon.

Republicans have already taken one stab at FBI-related spending: Cutting off federal funds for a new FBI headquarters. The GOP’s first draft of a fiscal year 2025 financial services funding bill, spearheaded by Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), rejects a $3.5 billion proposal to build a new FBI headquarters.

It also withholds prior funding until lawmakers receive a plan to “continue operation of the current headquarters or to identify another existing, federally-owned DC building to serve as the headquarters.”

Still, conservatives pushed that same goal last year before it was ultimately stripped out of Congress’ final spending bills. Even if they managed to pass that provision again this time, FBI changes won’t meet the high bar that conservatives have set for more sweeping DOJ cuts.

Asked more broadly about using the appropriations bills to target funding for Trump’s prosecutors, Joyce pushed back: “I’ve never been a fan of those types of things. We fund operations. Just because you don’t like the operation doesn’t mean you don’t fund it.”

Some centrist Republicans would rather keep focusing elsewhere. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), a Biden-district Republican, argued that instead of the fight with the DOJ the election will be decided by issues like the border and Biden’s foreign policy decisions.

“The speaker obviously is putting forth a plan with respect to looking at oversight of how the Department of Justice and our justice system has been used for political purposes. We’ll see what comes of that,” he added.

Caitlin Emma contributed reporting.

President Joe Biden hasn’t yet unveiled his planned executive order on border security, but the reviews from his party are already in on Capitol Hill: Democrats are painfully divided between frustrated progressives and party leaders on the defensive.

Many Congressional Hispanic Caucus members have criticized the Biden administration’s decision to strengthen restrictions for those seeking asylum restrictions, openly chiding him for failing to pair it with any policy that could offer certain undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship.

“I’m disappointed that this is a direction that the President has decided to take. We think it needs to be paired with positive actions and protections for undocumented folks that have been here for a long time,” Hispanic Caucus Chair Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday morning.

Progressives are also openly dissatisfied with Biden’s embrace of a core provision of the bipartisan border deal that former President Donald Trump encouraged Republicans to kill earlier this year.

“It’s disappointing and I’ve made that clear to the White House as well. It does not solve the problem at the border,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Monday night.

“It makes it so that we have bought into sort of this idea that you can fix the border without fixing the legal immigration system. What you need is more resources, more legal pathways, modernization of the system — none of those things are happening with this,” Jayapal added.

Congressional Democratic leaders on both sides of the Capitol were left to defend the administration’s move as the only step left open to the president given lawmakers’ inability to act on a Senate bill that many in the GOP effectively abandoned after one of their own helped to negotiate it.

“The president is left with little choice but to act on his own,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a Tuesday floor speech. “Republican intransigence forced the president’s hand.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters Tuesday morning: “It’s important that President Biden is planning to take decisive action given the fact that extreme MAGA Republicans have decided to try to weaponize the issue of the challenges at the border as opposed to solving the issue legislatively.”

Other Hispanic Caucus members withheld immediate criticism of the order before its release.

“I would hate to see folks who are seeking refuge, including in our state, uniting with other family members, be prohibited from doing so,” said Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.). “I’ll be analyzing it, but I have concerns right now.”

Biden did get some lukewarm backup from centrists for his attempt to address spiking migration at the southern border.

“I’m just thankful that something has happened,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) on Monday. “Anything is an improvement to what we have.”

And a group of centrists known as the New Democrats praised the order as reducing “the burden on Customs and Border Protection, immigration courts and the immigration system, and the communities we represent.” They added, however, that it was still up to Congress to pass border and immigration legislation.

Republicans gave Biden no credit for taking the steps, as expected, arguing that the order is coming months too late.

“Why did you wait until now if you were serious about [the border]?” asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a contender to be the next Senate GOP leader. “The simple answer is, he’s not serious about securing the border.”

“Too little, too late,” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) warned Biden, calling the order a “superficial gesture” that is “not going to save your political life.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he spoke to Trump ahead of Biden’s announcement and indicated that the former president told him of the executive order: “This is a scam, and people will see through it.”

The FBI has reinstated the security clearance — and authorized 27 months of back pay — for an official once suspected of misconduct related to investigations of Jan. 6 defendants.

Marcus Allen drew scrutiny within the bureau for allegations he withheld “relevant information” related to an investigation of Jan. 6 defendants. Then, shortly before Allen testified to a House GOP committee investigating the Justice Department’s probes, the bureau indicated it had revoked Allen’s clearance altogether.

“My decision to reinstate your security clearance is based upon a determination that the original security concerns have been investigated and have been sufficiently mitigated,” FBI Executive Assistant Director Timothy Dunham wrote in a May 31 letter reviewed by POLITICO.

Allen, who joined a panel of FBI agents last year who described themselves as “whistleblowers,” protested the FBI’s decision to revoke his clearance and sought a review from Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The IG recently raised concerns about the way officials handle security clearance suspensions, particularly for officials who claim “retaliation” from their superiors.

“This is total vindication for Marcus,” said Tristan Leavitt, president of Empower Oversight, which represented Allen and others who have claimed whistleblower status to testify to Congress. “The FBI has completely backed down and provided everything that we had asked for on behalf of Marcus. It’s clear from the evidence and the FBI’s capitulation there was absolutely no truth to their accusations.”

The FBI acknowledged the settlement in a statement but said it couldn’t comment on the specifics of the agreement.

“[B]oth parties agreed to resolve this matter without either admitting wrongdoing,” the bureau said in a statement. “Any allegation that the Director lied to Congress is false. The FBI takes seriously its responsibility to FBI employees who make protected disclosures under whistleblower regulations, and we are committed to ensuring they are protected from retaliation.”

CLARIFICATION: This post has been updated to specify Allen’s role at the FBI. He was an operations specialist.

Democrats are using a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Merrick Garland to try and defang GOP talking points about Donald Trump.

New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the panel, asked Garland in the Tuesday hearing about the former president’s accusations that a use-of-force authorization during the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago was actually an attempt to “take me out with deadly force.”

“I’m just saying that the allegation is not true. This is our standard use-of-force policy, which limits the use of force that agents can use. It is used as a routine matter in searches,” Garland said.

He added that the standard limit on the use of force “was part of the package for the search of President Biden’s home as well.”