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.”

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.”