Speaker Mike Johnson told GOP lawmakers that he’ll try to pass four measures this week to send aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan — each in separate bills, according to multiple Republicans in the private Monday meeting.

A fourth proposed bill, which is still being finalized, would include a package of related measures, including a lend-lease deal for military aid, a ban on TikTok in the U.S. and provisions to sell off assets seized from Russian oligarchs.

It’s far from certain that Johnson would have the votes to bring the bills to the floor, given the procedural hurdles of Republicans’ narrow majority that have vexed the speaker for months. Johnson would need near-unanimous support from his own conference to bring the whole package of bills up for passage, a procedure known as a rules vote, plus prior approval from a Rules Committee stacked with conservatives who may resist based on Ukraine aid.

Earlier Monday, hardliners in the House Freedom Caucus released a statement saying they opposed using necessary cash for Israel to “ram through Ukraine aid.” And several members of the group declined on Monday night as they left the closed-door meeting to say if they would support bringing the bills to the floor at this point.

“The American people have made it as clear as they possibly could … that we better secure our border before we spend more money in Ukraine. They are getting ready to fly off the cliff,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said. Conservative Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), Bob Good (R-Va.) and Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) each also declined to say if they would vote to bring the package to the floor.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), another Freedom Caucus member, said that he “likes that it’s separate bills.” But pressed if that meant he would help bring the package to the floor, he demurred: “We haven’t even seen the bills, I mean good grief.”

If even a handful of conservatives oppose the rule vote, then Johnson would need Democratic support to move forward — and it’s incredibly rare for the minority party to assist on those rules votes. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to comment Monday on whether he expected his caucus would support the package: “We’re not going to come to any conclusion about process until we understand the substance.”

Other GOP members are already drawing red lines that Johnson is unlikely to meet because they would threaten to sink Ukraine aid in the Senate. For example, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Republicans should incorporate language that mandates the Senate vote on a House-passed, conservative-favored border security bill before it can take up a Ukraine aid package.

“I think the Senate should have to take a vote on our border security legislation before we are just giving a blank check,” Gaetz told reporters, adding that his idea got a positive reaction within the meeting.

Plus, Johnson has a looming threat to his speakership, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) vowing to force a vote to oust him. She said Monday that she hadn’t made a decision on when to triggering that process, but that she’s “firmly against the plan as it stands right now.” She called it “another wrong direction for Speaker Johnson.”

“He’s definitely not going to be speaker next Congress,” Greene said, adding it was “to be determined” if he would even finish out this term. No GOP lawmakers have explicitly said they would join Greene in voting to boot Johnson.

Republicans are still waiting to see when Greene will follow through with her threat to fire Johnson, who brushed off the chance that the foreign aid strategy will lead to his potential ouster.

“I don’t spend my time worrying about motions to vacate. We’re having to govern here, and we’re gonna do our job. I’m not sure how that shakes out,” he said.

The speaker also told members that there would be amendment votes included in the package, though it’s unclear what those would be. Notably absent from his proposal: any measures to address border security, which Republicans have demanded for months. Conservatives said they would push for amendment votes on border security policies as part of the House’s debate.

“There’ll be a possibility for amendments. But the question is how many — they’ll have to be germane,” said Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.). “But let’s face it, he had to make the play call. And I think he’s made a very good play call, given the totality of the circumstances where the world is right now.”

The speaker said he’s committed to abiding by a House rule that gives lawmakers a full 72 hours to review the legislation, once it’s finalized. That would likely push passage votes to Friday evening.

If the House passed more than one of the four bills, it’s unclear if they would be packaged together before heading to the Senate. While GOP lawmakers said the upper chamber would have to take separate votes on each piece of legislation, Johnson told reporters after the meeting that he hadn’t yet decided whether to send whatever bills pass over as a comprehensive package.

It’s unclear if Johnson has Senate support for his proposal, given the upper chamber’s leaders are continuing to insist on their own bipartisan version of foreign aid legislation that combines cash for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

“We’re discussing whether they would be merged together in one package that’s sent to the Senate, or if it goes over as individual measures. My personal preference is to do it individually, but we’ll let the body decide. We’ll have further discussion on that in the morning,” Johnson said.

Katherine Tully-McManus, Nicholas Wu and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

A newly established outside group with ties to California Democrats is hitting Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) as not conservative enough, seeking to boost his GOP primary opponent for a Pennsylvania swing seat.

POLITICO obtained mailers sent by the group — True Patriots PA, established on April 5 — hitting the incumbent. One says ”We sent Brian Fitzpatrick to D.C. to represent our values — instead, he became best friends with Kamala Harris and the Democrats” and another says “MAGA is ready to bag the biggest RINO in Congress.”

The group’s treasurer, Meagan Olson, is listed as Sacramento, California-based and also separately as the treasurer for Rep. Eric Swalwell’s (D-Calif.) campaign. She did not immediately respond to request for comment. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee declined to comment.

Ben Trundy, a spokesperson for the Fitzpatrick campaign, said the move indicated the Democrats believe they have “no chance of beating Congressman Fitzpatrick” so they are boosting his primary opponent, Mark Houck.

“This lame attempt to prop up Mark Houck … shows just how desperate they are to force their extreme policies on Bucks and Montgomery County voters,” he added.

Houck is an anti-abortion activist who drew national attention for comments he made saying he “struggled” with pornography. His campaign did not immediately comment on whether he supported the outside group’s assistance.

Fitzpatrick — co-chair of the centrist Problem Solvers’ Caucus — twice did not support impeaching former President Donald Trump, and has won reelection in his district even as President Joe Biden carried it in 2020.

The Pennsylvania GOP primary is April 23.

All eyes this week will be on the House as they seek to pass aid for Israel — and maybe Ukraine — following strikes launched by Iran against Israel over the weekend.

Speaker Mike Johnson was not specific during a Sunday interview on what his chamber would move forward with this week. “The details of that package are being put together right now,” he said on Fox News. “We’re looking at the options and all these supplemental issues.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated congressional leaders were resolute in their support following a Sunday call between them and President Joe Biden: “There was a consensus on the phone among all the leaders that we had to help Israel and help Ukraine, and now hopefully we can work that out and get this done next week,” he said at a New York press conference.

Among the items listed for possible consideration is a resolution declaring the slogan ‘‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’’ is antisemitic and condemning its use. It’s listed for consideration under suspension of the rules, which would require a two-thirds vote for passage. It’s one of 17 legislative items listed for possible consideration by the chamber this week.

House Republicans are expected to meet in late Monday afternoon to discuss the attack and foreign aid supplemental package. More than 90 House members, including Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), urgedJohnson to take up the Senate-passed measure in a letter.

Over in the Senate, lawmakers must deal with a reauthorization of a controversial spy powers program, known formally as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before it expires April 19. It may not be easy, with opponents vowing to fight, though the Biden administration is rallying support for speedy passage.

“At a moment of increasing threats and instability abroad, the only way to ensure this critical intelligence tool does not expire on Friday is for the Senate to take up the House bill and pass it expeditiously,” said Matthew Olsen, assistant attorney general for national security.

The House passed a reauthorization on a bipartisan basis last Friday. As always, though, any one senator can slow consideration of legislation.

The articles of impeachment Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are expected to be walked over by the House managers on Tuesday, though we’ll see if the weekend attack further scrambles the timing there.

For today, though: Senators will be voting on reappointing a judge to the Northern Mariana Islands.

They turned the reversal of Roe v. Wade into campaign rocket fuel two years ago, denying the GOP its hopes for a “red wave.” Now House Democrats are preparing to try to again sink vulnerable Republicans on abortion.

Internal party polling data backs up their strategy. Democratic lawmakers viewed a recent survey from their campaign arm during a private meeting on Wednesday that pointed to abortion’s status as a “dealbreaker” for key constituencies ahead of November. The poll, described to POLITICO by a person in the room, found 43 percent of women and 31 percent of independents saying they could not vote for a candidate for Congress who disagreed with them on abortion.

The same polling showed 69 percent of respondents in battleground districts believing that GOP control of the House, Senate and White House would lead to significant restrictions on abortion. The result remained largely the same regardless of whether the respondent was in a state with restricted or accessible abortion. (Notably, the polling was conducted before former President Donald Trump said he’d punt the issue to the states.)

It may prove more challenging than Democrats expect to link swing-district Republicans to state-level abortion restrictions. Voters will also face a messaging bombardment about the economy, the border, crime and other issues that typically put Democrats on defense — though Alabama’s recent court ruling restricting in vitro fertilization yielded messaging that took advantage of GOP vulnerabilities.

Broadly speaking, Trump’s new abortion position is prompting many GOP lawmakers to distance themselves from any further congressional action to ban it. Battleground-seat Republicans have lined up to repudiate Arizona’s new abortion ban after a seismic court decision reinstated it.

“Just like Democrats, Republicans have different views on the issue,” said purple-district Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.), who has opposed a national abortion ban. “My view is very, very clear and very, very simple. I believe that we need to respect women and the choices that they have to make.”

But Democrats are still preparing to yoke their opponents to the restrictions anyway. If they succeed, they’ll be harmonizing with President Joe Biden’s reelection, which is putting abortion rights front and center.

“Some have tried to rhetorically separate themselves, but when it comes to actual work in terms of the bills they support, the votes they’ve taken, they’re not supporting reproductive freedom across this country,” said DCCC chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who was confident voters would still see abortion as a top issue. “The data hasn’t changed,” she added. “We’ve seen this consistently since the Dobbs decision [ending Roe].”

Lawmakers are anticipating a media barrage to make the case to voters on abortion. The message: If Republicans take back the Senate, keep the House and take the White House, they will pass a national abortion ban. (Trump has said he opposes a national abortion ban).

“It’s very important that we communicate that even in states where the right to abortion exists on the state level, [that] a national abortion ban, which [Republicans are seeking] and will seek, will overturn the right to abortion, even in states like New York and California,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “I think we really need to be very sharp about the stakes of this as something that we have to continue to emphasize.”

One Michigan Democrat pointed to voters approving an amendment to the state’s constitution in 2022 — after the Dobbs decision — guaranteeing the right to abortion and other reproductive health services as evidence of its down-ballot potency.

“This was clearly a question that was front of mind and it made a huge difference in the Michigan election, statewide and district by district, down to the legislative races,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). He acknowledged the difficulty of keeping the issue “in the political consciousness” but added that Republicans were “doing it for us. They cannot get out of their own way and they’re gonna pay a price for it, I believe.”

Not every lawmaker thinks abortion should be a central part of the party’s election year message. Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), who represents a purple district narrowly won by Biden in 2020, said “I don’t spend a lot of time talking about abortion in my race.” She said she didn’t last cycle, either.

“Quite frankly, I think the voters are aware of the national news. They’re aware enough that you don’t have to spend a whole lot of time talking about it,” she said.

An unusual coalition of Democrats and Republicans fell short of their push to add an amendment to a controversial surveillance bill that would require federal officials to get a warrant to see data from U.S. citizens in communication with foreign targets.

In a highly unusual outcome, the amendment from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) to the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act tied at 212 — thereby failing. More than 80 Democrats joined with 128 Republicans in backing the measure, while 86 Republicans and 126 Democrats opposed it.

“The intelligence community wants control,” Biggs said on the floor. “They want to continue to have control without any checks.”

Tie votes in the House are exceptionally rare, let alone with such a divided breakdown among the parties.

The White House strongly opposed the amendment in a statement of administration policy on Thursday.

“The amendment would prohibit U.S. officials from reviewing critical information that the Intelligence Community has already lawfully collected, with exceptions that are exceedingly narrow and unworkable in practice,” the Biden White House wrote.

The House on Friday passed legislation reauthorizing a controversial government surveillance power — capping off a months-long debate marked by acrimonious GOP infighting.

The 273-147 bipartisan vote is a win for embattled Speaker Mike Johnson, who has struggled publicly to bridge the deep divides within his conference. But it also puts him at odds with some of his biggest conservative critics, 88 of whom opposed the bill, as he faces the threat of an ouster vote.

The bill still needs to get through the Senate and to President Joe Biden’s desk by the April 19 deadline for reauthorizing the spy power.

Friday’s vote comes just two days after 19 Republicans prevented Johnson from even bringing a bill to the floor to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the intelligence community to collect the communications of foreign targets without a warrant.

Another dramatic turn came just ahead of the bill’s final passage, with a proposal to require warrants when searching foreign data collected by the surveillance program for information related to Americans failed on 212-212 tie. The Biden administration and members of the Intelligence Committee waged an intense lobbying effort ahead of the vote; Attorney General Merrick Garland was calling members on Friday to urge their support, according to a person familiar with the conversations who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

In a bid to get his holdouts on board, Johnson shortened the reauthorization period for the program from five years to two years — which caused heartburn in some corners of the Biden administration and would put the next wiretapping fight in a potential second Trump term, if the GOP’s standard-bearer wins in November.

Johnson will meet with Trump at Mar-A-Lago on Friday, with some GOP lawmakers expecting that he will formally bless the changes made to the bill.

The legislation, negotiated by leadership, makes changes to the Section 702 power as well as the broader surveillance law it is housed under in a bid to increase transparency and oversight.

But several conservatives opposed it in the end because of the warrant requirement’s failure on a dramatic 212-212 tie, as well as other amendments that broadened the program’s use.

Privacy advocates in both parties had long viewed the House’s debate as their best chance to get a warrant requirement added into the foreign wiretapping authority. Johnson sparked pierce backlash among some on his right after he came out against the warrant requirement — a position first reported by POLITICO.

Johnson, a former member of the Judiciary Committee, has defended his switch, saying he’s had access to more intelligence information since becoming speaker late last year.

But for his one-time allies on privacy matters felt like he stacked the deck against them.

“The Speaker of the House put his finger on the scale,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).

Trump also helped fuel the GOP backlash ahead of Wednesday’s failed vote to start debate by posting on social media that Republicans should “kill” the broader surveillance law.

Supporters of the surveillance law were quick to note that the former president conflated parts of the law in his post. In addition, Trump has flip-flopped in the past on surveillance fights, including backing a permanent reauthorization of Section 702 in 2018.

The spy fight is the first of two big policy tests Johnson is navigating this month — all with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) threat to his job hanging over his head. Republicans expected that he will try to pass long-stalled Ukraine aid next week, though Johnson hasn’t yet said what that plan will look like.

“How he handles the [surveillance bill] process and how handles funding Ukraine is going to tell our entire conference how to handle the” possibility of an ouster vote, Greene said.

The surveillance fight has dogged Johnson for months and driven increasingly public divisions between two factions of his conference. He sparked frustration from all corners when he tried to bring competing bills from the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to the floor in December — only to punt after his right flank threatened to upend the plan.

Then, in February he pulled legislation similar to what ultimately passed the House on Friday after members of the Intelligence Committee threatened to scuttle the bill because it would have teed up a vote on a proposal to prevent data brokers from selling consumer information to law enforcement. GOP leaders stripped language allowing that vote from the bill this month; instead they’re expected to give it a vote next week on the floor.

That separation is a win for members of the Intelligence Committee, who pushed for the data broker provision’s exclusion because it’s not related to the broader wiretapping program. Intelligence panel members also cited the likelihood that its addition could complicate an already messy path to get the surveillance bill through Congress.

“The speaker has a tough job, and now he’s going to have to find a way forward,” Intelligence Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said shortly after Wednesday’s failed vote.

One of George Santos’ biggest GOP critics is seeking to block expelled members like him from returning to the House floor and other Capitol hotspots open to former members.

Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) is slated to introduce a resolution Friday morning that would amend the rules to “deny certain privileges” to former members who have been expelled from the House, according to a copy of the resolution first provided to POLITICO.

Those moves would include banning ousted members from accessing the members’ gym, the exclusive members-only dining room in the Capitol and parking spaces around the complex, as well as blocking their access to materials in the Library of Congress or the House document room. The text also calls for expelled members to lose their member’s pin — an adornment that enables former members to waltz back onto the House floor, among other areas restricted to those who previously and currently serve in Congress.

D’Esposito was among those leading the charge against Santos while he was a serving member, which ultimately proved successful: In December, Santos was the first member to be expelled from the House without a conviction since the Civil War.

“Americans deserve lawmakers who exercise the highest degree of respect for the House of Representatives as a pillar of our democracy, and when House members are expelled for violating the public’s trust, they should no longer be able to access resources afforded to them as a lawmaker,” D’Esposito said in a statement.

“My resolution will establish new standards by which expelled frauds are barred from further staining this storied institution,” he added.

Progressive Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) also pushed a similar idea earlier this year — one that would only block expelled members like Santos from the House floor.

He announced his rule — which he called the “GEORGE” Rule, or the “Getting Expelled Officially Revokes Guaranteed Entry” Rule — the day after Santos made a surprise appearance at President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address. There, Santos also announced plans to challenge another critic, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.).