A classified briefing on the national security supplemental package went south on Tuesday due to a fight over the border, prompting normally level-headed GOP lawmakers to storm out of the meeting on Ukraine and Israel early.

The Tuesday briefing, which featured Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, was meant to focus on Democrats’ pitch for $111 billion in aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and the southern border. But it hit a snag before it even got started when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was supposed to appear via teleconference in, pulled out.

About 40 minutes into the briefing, several Republicans left the classified session fuming. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) — a defense hawk and Ukraine aid supporter — complained to reporters that the administration was offering bland, repetitious answers on Ukraine and not answering Republican questions about the U.S.-Mexico border.

“Many of us just walked out, we’ve had it, we’ve had it,” Fischer, a senior Senate Armed Services Committee member, told reporters. “When you have Deb Fischer walking out, you have a problem.”

Senate Intelligence Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) conceded: “Feelings were running high.”

The fact that the frustrations extended beyond the usual critics of additional aid to Ukraine and Israel shows how poorly the classified briefing went down among Republicans, further endangering hopes of approving more international aid to those countries and Taiwan before the end of the year.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer argued that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “hijacked” the meeting by calling on Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), the lead GOP negotiator on border talks, to discuss the border.

“I understand our Republican colleagues are under tremendous pressure with the vote we’re going to have,” Schumer told reporters.

Schumer plans to hold an initial vote Wednesday on the supplemental, which Republicans are widely expected to block.

“They’re in a box. They don’t know what to do,” Schumer said. “Hopefully they’ll come to a conclusion that the best thing to do is for them to offer an amendment and try to get 11 Democratic votes, get 60.”

“We’ll see how it works out,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who chairs the Appropriations panel on defense. “I mean, hopefully, everybody will come together because the aid, particularly for Ukraine, is very, very time-sensitive. And if we screw up on this, there’ll be people’s lives at stake in Europe, I think, within a year or so.”

Fischer made clear Republicans would be galvanized around their border demands no matter what arguments the administration presented on Ukraine and Israel.

“When the border was brought up … there was spirited discussion, and I don’t think Democrats realized there will be no movement on a supplemental unless we have policy changes on the border, our own border,” Fischer said.

“We don’t know who’s coming into this country, and we’re supposed to tell Americans that the United States can’t balance being a leader in the world … and yet we’re not able to protect our own country at the southern border?” she said. “That is baloney.”

Added Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), the second-highest Republican in the chamber: “They didn’t have answers to some of the questions our members had, specifically about the broad national security crisis we face including at the border. They didn’t want to respond to that.”

Even some of the most ardent GOP backers of additional aid to Ukraine left the briefing upset.

“Their clear lack of preparedness to discuss and clear apprehension to utter a word as it pertains to border security policy was not just an oversight,” said Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a defense hawk. “It was intentional.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) called the briefing “ridiculous,” “unserious” and offering no new information to senators.

“Chuck Schumer is doing everything he can to flush this whole thing down the drain,” he said. “Keeping the southern border wide open is so important to him he’s willing to kill the supplemental to do it. And that’s exactly what he’s gonna do.”

McConnell didn’t respond to reporters’ questions following the briefing. It came mere hours after Schumer made his offer of a border security amendment to the supplemental package during a weekly press availability — albeit to a cool immediate reaction from Republicans.

Two Democratic lawmakers have been crafting a resolution condemning Hamas’ sexual violence against Israeli women, which at first glance seemed to be another intraparty headache for Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

The Washington progressive had faced some criticism for her comments on CNN over the weekend appeared to equivocate the militant group’s sexual violence with Israel’s actions against Palestinians.

But Jayapal and people familiar with the measure’s drafting insisted the timing was just a coincidence.

“It’s not in response to the controversy,” Jayapal said in a brief interview, adding that she’d talked to the two sponsors, Reps. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) and Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), about it. They told her: “They’ve been talking about doing this for some time. It’s in response to the UN finally having a hearing on this.”

A person familiar with Frankel’s thinking confirmed it had been a “longstanding priority” for the congresswoman, who’s been a staunch ally of Israel amid the escalating war in Gaza. The measure was not filed in response to any member’s comments, the person said, and was part of growing condemnation of sexual violence in war and a follow-up to a letter Frankel had signed onto last month.

Jayapal, for her part, “unequivocally” condemned Hamas’ use of rape and sexual violence against women.

“I think rape in any context is horrific. Sexual assault in any context is horrific. What Hamas has done with these rapes and sexual assault is horrific,” she said. Jayapal also suggested that anyone who suggested otherwise was distorting her views on the matter and singling her out for her stances on the war.

CNN earlier reported the measure’s drafting.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is accusing another Republican member of Congress of committing “assault” against her.

Though Greene declined to name the member, two people familiar with the matter say her allegation is directed at fellow Georgia Rep. Richard McCormick, over an incident on the House floor in early November.

In the lead-up to the encounter, McCormick and Greene had been at odds for days over competing resolutions to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) over her comments in the aftermath of Hamas’ attack on Israel.

On the day of the incident, McCormick was having what one of those people described as an unproductive conversation with another House Republican colleague about a vote to censure Tlaib.

When he turned around, McCormick saw Greene. He put his hands on her shoulders, shook her, and said he could at least have an honest conversation with her, according to the two people. They said McCormick was insinuating that he couldn’t have a straightforward conversation with the person he’d turned away from.

McCormick told POLITICO that he meant the interaction with Greene to be friendly – denying that it was a physical attack of any sort.

“I understand why there would be a lot of raw emotions following the censure vote, given that her censure was tabled and mine passed. My intention was to encourage her by making a friendly gesture,” McCormick said in a statement.

“I said to her, ‘at least we can have an honest discussion,’ to which she said she did not appreciate that. For that I immediately apologized and have not spoken to her since.”

Greene had previously told CNN in a story published Sunday that she wanted to speak to Speaker Mike Johnson about a “serious” incident with an undisclosed colleague, but that she didn’t get a phone call back.

When POLITICO asked Greene on Tuesday what she was referring to in that story, the lawmaker said “assault.” She did not elaborate, beyond saying a man should not put his hands on a woman.

It is unclear what, if any, action Greene will take against McCormick.

While Greene was first in pushing to censure Tlaib, her resolution failed after nearly two dozen Republicans joined all Democrats in sinking that measure, which compared a pro-Palestinian protest at the Capitol to an “insurrection.”

McCormick’s resolution passed a week later. It was a more targeted measure that formally reprimanded Tlaib for “promoting false narratives” about Hamas’ attack on Israel and for “calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.”

Chuck Schumer has a new proposal for Republicans to try to attach border security to a supplemental spending package that includes new funds for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. The Senate GOP is already panning the idea.

Calling it a “golden opportunity” for Republicans, Schumer said he’d allow them to offer a border security amendment of their choosing at a 60-vote threshold.

“I will not interfere with them drawing up an amendment, but it will need 60 votes like any amendment would,” he said at a weekly press conference. “If they vote no on the motion to proceed, it shows that [Republicans] are not serious about getting something done on border and on Ukraine.”

Schumer added: “We’re not throwing our hands up in the air. We’re going to keep pursuing this.”

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seemed to throw cold water on the idea, though, just as quickly as Schumer floated it.

“They don’t want to deal with border security in the context of the supplemental. We do because we know that will guarantee an outcome because the other parts of supplemental almost all of our members support,” he said at his own press conference. “We want it to actually happen.”

The Kentucky Republican nodded to President Joe Biden’s sagging poll numbers in urging him to embrace real policy reforms: “Honestly, if I were the president looking at my numbers on this, I’d want to do something about it. Might actually improve his position.”

The comments come as the chamber prepares for an initial vote Wednesday on the national security supplemental legislation, which Republicans are widely expected to block.

Tommy Tuberville announced Tuesday he’s dropping most of his months-long holds on military officer nominations in the Senate, backing down from his vow to block them until the Pentagon changes an internal abortion policy.

The Alabama Republican plans to continue his holds on 12 four-star general nominees, he told reporters, but will release the rest effective immediately.

“I have no control over anybody else putting a hold on somebody. But for myself, they are released as we speak,” Tuberville said.

Tuberville’s surprising white flag follows months of pressure and growing frustration from his GOP colleagues, as the amount of held military promotions ballooned over 400. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was also threatening to force a vote on a resolution that would allow military nominations to be confirmed en masse, which would have required Republican votes and hamstrung the Alabamian’s strategy.

Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday cast her 32nd tie-breaking vote in the Senate, surpassing a record previously held by John C. Calhoun.

To mark the occasion, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer presented her with a golden gavel. She previously tied Calhoun’s old mark during a vote in July of this year.

“The record Vice President Harris sets today is significant not just because of the number but of what she’s made possible,” Schumer said on the floor, pointing to her votes for two mammoth pieces of legislation, one Covid aid and another on health care, tax and climate policies, as well as judicial nominees.

Harris’ vice presidency has coincided with two Senate terms that saw incredibly thin majorities — split 50-50 last term and 51-49 this time. Additionally, close votes have become more of a norm on presidential nominees since former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster on most of those confirmations back in 2013.

“The Vice President’s tie-breaking votes have been consequential in moving the Biden-Harris agenda forward over the last three years. These tie-breaking votes have helped deliver for the American people by lowering costs for American families, creating good-paying jobs in local communities, and providing economic relief for small businesses across the country,” a White House official said in a statement.

The record-breaking vote was to advance the nomination of Loren AliKhan to be a judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) joined with all Republicans in opposing the pick.

Assuming full attendance continues, Harris will likely have to provide the tie-breaking vote to confirm AliKhan.

Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that his plans to release all security footage from the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol have been delayed because Republicans are blurring faces to protect participants.

“We have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day, because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and be charged by the DOJ,” Johnson told reporters Tuesday, adding that he still wants to release those tapes “as quickly as we can.”

More than 1,200 people have been charged in the attack and more than 700 of those have pleaded guilty.

Johnson said not blurring the faces of those who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 could cause them “other concerns and problems.” It is “a slow process,” he said, but additional staff have been hired to work on the alterations and ultimately release the 44,000 hours of footage.

“We want the American people to draw their own conclusions. I don’t think partisan elected officials in Washington should present a narrative and expect that it should be seen as the ultimate truth,” said Johnson.

Speaker Mike Johnson is threatening a House floor showdown over a controversial surveillance program as Congress remains divided on the path forward.

The move would once again force the party’s deep divisions into the public eye. Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) have negotiated behind the scenes for months but failed to unify behind one bill that would avoid a fight involving one of the House GOP’s most frequent targets: The FBI.

And lawmakers are running short on time. They have until the end of the year to reauthorize a surveillance program known as Section 702, which is meant to target foreigners but sometimes sweeps up the communications of Americans.

During a closed-door conference meeting on Tuesday, Johnson said that he could bring Jordan’s and Turner’s two competing bills up for a vote in a rare procedural gambit known as “King of the Hill” if there isn’t a consensus over Section 702, according to two Republicans in the room. Under that gambit, leadership can bring competing proposals to the floor as amendments, and whichever proposal is the last one that comes up for a vote and still gets a majority is the one that gets adopted. It allows leadership to try to influence the outcome by putting its preferred proposal last.

Johnson, according to the two Republicans, told his conference on Tuesday that Turner and Jordan remain at “loggerheads.” A spokesperson for the speaker declined to comment on any potential plans to bring both bills to the floor.

“We have a Turner version and a Jordan version. … He’s going to let them both win the conference over,” one of the Republicans in the room told POLITICO.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee spent months talking behind-the-scenes to try to iron out a path forward, with the two panels agreeing on several areas — including new reporting and auditing requirements, penalties for surveillance violations and changes to a shadowy surveillance court.

But the two remain divided over when a warrant requirement should be needed to search 702-collected data for Americans. The Judiciary Committee is proposing a broad warrant requirement that would cover most of those searches, while the Intelligence Committee is proposing mandating a warrant only for “evidence of a crime” searches, which don’t deal with foreign intelligence and are only a small subset of overall searches.

“There’s still conversations on different approaches and the reforms. I think if you look at both committees, there’s over 40 reforms that both committees agree on,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) when asked if Johnson played referee on which 702 bill to support. “It’s a few things and obviously the ones that are the final piece are trying to work through.”

The Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up its bill on Wednesday and the Intelligence Committee is expected to consider its bill Thursday morning. And Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), an Intelligence Committee member, added that which bill comes to the floor “is a decision the speaker is going to have to make.”

Even as the two Ohio Republicans work on their separate long-term reauthorizations, lawmakers are looking to buy themselves more time to work out their differences. Leadership is expected to attach a short-term extension to a sweeping defense bill, according to three people familiar with the matter, though they cautioned that there was an active effort to try to get it removed.

Some House Republicans said they feared the clash over the surveillance power could wreak further havoc on the passage of that annual defense package, the National Defense Authorization Act.

GOP leadership could try to sidestep that by bringing up the defense bill under suspension — which would require a higher threshold and a significant amount of Democratic support, but would also avoid a rule vote that conservatives could use to hijack the floor. If leaders can’t pass it under suspension, they’ll need near unity to get the defense bill to the floor on their own — something members and aides have predicted they won’t get if a surveillance extension is attached.

“FISA expires at the end of the year. There were promises that Mike [Johnson] made that he would not let FISA 702 lapse. But Judiciary and Intel can’t get to an agreement. There’s threats that if FISA gets put in NDAA, then they may not have the votes for the NDAA. If FISA doesn’t get reauthorized, then there was a threat” to vote against the rule by one House Republican, said one GOP lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“So we’re back to the circular firing squad,” this member added, referring to conservatives’ past strategy of tanking rules.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) won’t be seeking reelection, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The departure of the House Financial Services Committee chief, expected to become formal as early as Tuesday, is one of the most high-profile congressional GOP retirements this year. McHenry went from conservative rabble-rouser to a well-liked lieutenant of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy — and he later served as acting speaker during the frenetic three-week search for a replacement following McCarthy’s ouster.

McHenry is known on the Hill for his policy chops and his bow ties.