Tag

Featured

Browsing

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, fired away at the committee’s top Republican during a speech at Conservative Political Action Conference Friday.

“Word is, I now have problems with the Ethics Committee,” the Florida Republican and close ally of former President Donald Trump said. “Which seems really odd to me because I’m the one screaming loudest for actual ethics reforms.”

The House Ethics Committee is reportedly investigating Gaetz for alleged sex crimes. Its probe comes after the Justice Department last year closed its investigation into the Florida representative without filing charges. The DOJ was examining whether Gaetz paid women for sex and traveled overseas to parties attended by underage teens.

Gaetz maintained that he did nothing wrong and has characterized the Ethics Committee probe as payback for leading the effort to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

During his CPAC session entitled “Burning Down the House,” Gaetz directed attacks at House Ethics chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) over stock trading, which Guest has reported on his financial disclosures. Gaetz said Guest has “become a brilliant stock trader while in office.”

“For the same reason you don’t let the umpire bet on the game, members of Congress should not be allowed to trade individual stocks,” Gaetz said. “How about the Ethics Committee take up those reforms?”

Guest’s team did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In 2021, Guest alerted the Ethics Committee, which he served on at the time, of a family stock he failed to disclose, according to Business Insider. Guest paid a $200 fine for disclosing the stock eight months late. However, Gaetz did not reference the past issue and only his recent stock trading.

“When I offer these critiques that include the conduct of some fellow Republicans I catch a lot of heat,” Gaetz said. “Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer to just fight the Democrats but if the Republicans are going to dress up like Democrats in drag then I will lead the fight against them too.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is in Ukraine with plans to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as the nation marks the two-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion.

The Democratic CODEL, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Jack Reed (R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Michael Bennet (Colo.) and Maggie Hassan (N.H.), hopes to reassure Ukrainians of continued U.S. support, despite a bitter Capitol Hill fight over further aid to the war-torn nation.

Schumer said in a Friday morning statement that he hoped to put pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson to take up and pass the national security supplemental spending package the Senate passed last week. It includes $60 billion in both military and economic assistance for Kyiv.

“We are here to show the Ukrainian people that America stands with them and will continuing fighting to get the funding they so desperately need and deserve. We will not stop fighting until we gain the aid,” Schumer said. “We believe we are at an inflection point in history and we must make it clear to our friends and allies around the globe that the US does not back away from our responsibilities and allies.”

Seventy senators voted to pass the Senate’s supplemental spending bill, including 22 Republicans, in a dramatic, predawn vote on Feb. 13. Former President Donald Trump opposed the aid package and urged Republicans to vote against it.

“When we return to Washington, we will make clear to Speaker Johnson — and others in Congress who are obstructing military and economic support — exactly what is at stake here in Ukraine and for the rest of Europe and the free world,” Schumer said. “We will keep working to ensure Congress steps up, does the right thing, and delivers help for our friends and allies.”

Johnson has not been enthusiastic about the Senate’s proposal after major policy changes for the U.S.-Mexico border were stripped from the package. There is a bipartisan House proposal to send $66 billion abroad, with $47 billion for Ukraine, while also reinstituting the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers at the southern border.

Lawmakers from both parties have traveled to Europe in recent weeks to promise that the United States will not desert Ukraine and other European allies.

A group of House conservatives are calling for an update on the status of nearly two dozen possible policy riders that could be included in a deal to fund the federal government — and floating a yearlong stopgap measure.

“If we are not going to secure significant policy changes or even keep spending below the caps adopted by bipartisan majorities less than one year ago, why would we proceed when we could instead pass a year-long funding resolution that would save Americans $100 billion in year one?” the letter, led by House Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), reads.

More than two dozen House conservatives signed onto the letter while expressing fears of a comprehensive governmental funding bill “released at the latest moment before being rushed to the floor for a vote.”

Democrats have already seized on the Republican inability to reach consensus on funding the government as fodder for their candidates in swing seats.

Portions of the government are due to shut down on March 1, while other agencies have funding until March 8.

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

The Biden administration is considering a string of new executive actions and federal regulations in an effort to curb migration at the U.S. southern border, according to three people familiar with the plans.

The proposals under consideration would represent a sweeping new approach to an issue that has stymied the White House since its first days in office and could potentially place the president at odds with key constituencies.

Among the ideas under discussion include using a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar migrants from seeking asylum in between U.S. ports of entry. The administration is also discussing tying that directive to a trigger — meaning that it would only come into effect after a certain number of illegal crossings took place, said the three people, who were granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

A trigger mechanism was part of a bipartisan Senate border deal that never reached the floor earlier this month. During the deal’s construction, President Joe Biden repeatedly said it would have given him the authority to “shut down” the border.

The administration is also discussing ways to make it harder for migrants to pass the initial screening for asylum seekers, essentially raising the “credible fear standard,” as well as ways to quickly deport others who don’t meet those elevated asylum standards. Two of the people said the policy announcements could come as soon as next week ahead of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech on March 7.

The slate of policies could allow the administration officials to fill some of the void left after congressional Republicans killed a bipartisan border deal in the Senate. But it would also open up the administration to criticism that it always had the tools at its disposal to more fully address the migrant crisis but waited to use them.

No final decisions have been made about what executive actions, if any, could be taken, an administration official said, speaking about internal deliberations only on condition of anonymity. Administrations often explore a number of options, the official said, though it doesn’t necessarily mean the policies will come to fruition.

The consideration of new executive action comes as the White House tries to turn the border deal failure into a political advantage for the president. It also comes amid growing concern among Democrats that the southern border presents a profound election liability for the party. Officials hope that policy announcements will drive down numbers of migrants coming to the border and demonstrate to voters that they’re exhausting all options to try to solve the problem as peak migration season quickly approaches.

“The Administration spent months negotiating in good faith to deliver the toughest and fairest bipartisan border security bill in decades because we need Congress to make significant policy reforms and to provide additional funding to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system,” said White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández.

“No executive action, no matter how aggressive, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional resources Congress can provide and that Republicans rejected,” he continued.

The three people familiar with the planning cautioned that the details of proposed actions remain murky and that the impact of the policies — particularly the asylum ban — is also dependent on the specific language of the federal regulation, they said. For example, the Senate bill included exceptions for unaccompanied minors and people who meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention Against Torture rules.

There are other complications as well. The implementation of any action from the White House would come without the funding and resources that could make implementation easier, though the administration is looking into ways to unlock additional funding. The actions would likely face legal challenges as well.

The Trump administration repeatedly used Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to aggressively shape the immigration system. In late 2018, President Donald Trump signed a policy that temporarily barred migrants who tried to illegally cross into the U.S. outside of official ports of entry. It was quickly blocked by a federal judge in California. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the decision, which was then upheld by the Supreme Court.

The policies, once announced, will likely be met with steep backlash from immigration advocates who will claim the president is once again walking back on his campaign promises to rebuild a humane immigration system and protect the right to asylum.

James Biden told House GOP investigators on Wednesday that his brother, President Joe Biden, wasn’t involved in any of his financial deals.

In a 10-page opening statement obtained by POLITICO, James Biden kicked off what is expected to be an hours-long closed-door interview with lawmakers by trying to draw a hard line between his brother and his decades-long business arrangements. House Republicans had asked the president’s brother to testify as part of their sweeping impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, which has largely focused on deals cut by his brother and son Hunter Biden.

“I have had a 50-year career in a variety of business ventures. Joe Biden has never had any involvement or any direct or indirect financial interest in those activities. None. I never asked my brother to take any official action on behalf of me, my business associates, or anyone else,” James Biden told lawmakers and staff from the Oversight and Judiciary Committees.

However, James Biden didn’t directly rebut a growing blitz of public reporting in recent years that have increased scrutiny over his business ventures. That included a recent POLITICO report that James Biden emphasized his ties to his brother as part of his pitch to work at Americore, with one former Americore executive saying James Biden spoke about giving his brother equity in the company.

Instead, James Biden tried to distance himself from those claims broadly, telling investigators in his opening statement that in every business venture “I have relied on my own talent, judgment, skill, and personal relationships — and never my status as Joe Biden’s brother.”

“Those who have said or thought otherwise were either mistaken, ill informed, or flat-out lying,” he said.

He added about his work at Americore specifically: Joe Biden “played no role, was not involved with, and received no benefits from my work with Americore.”

Republicans are now expected to spend hours trying to poke holes in his claims, as they hunt for clear evidence that would link official actions taken by Joe Biden as president or vice president to his family’s business deals.

“I think there’s an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence that shows that Hunter and Joe were selling the brand and Joe Biden was profiting from it, financially. So we’re going to find out if that’s true. That’s why we’re here,” Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.) told reporters on Wednesday during a break in the interview.

So far, Republicans haven’t been able to establish irrefutable evidence Biden committed a crime — a criticism lobbed at the investigation even from some GOP lawmakers. A faction of Republicans believe the investigation has uncovered damaging information, particularly about Biden family members, but not an impeachable offense.

Asked if they were concerned about reports that James Biden name dropped his brother as part of his business deals, Democrats on the committee argued that was a separate issue than the center of Republicans’ impeachment inquiry — which centers on a theory that Joe Biden was involved in and benefited from his family’s financial arrangements.

“I think it’s time for Chairman Comer and the Republicans to fold up the circus tent,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told reporters.

A bipartisan pair of senators is pressing the Biden administration to quickly finalize plans to distribute $1 billion in food aid that was announced last fall, amid spiraling hunger crises around the world that lawmakers fear could trigger new political instability and migration flows.

Lawmakers have been privately raising alarms about the delay since last October, when the Biden administration announced that the U.S. would deliver $1 billion worth of U.S. farm commodities to countries facing food insecurity, noting the “dire” spike in global hunger since the pandemic.

New pressure: Now, Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and John Boozman (Ark.), the top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, are pressing USAID Administrator Samantha Power and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to finalize the plans for the aid “as quickly as possible” in order to start shipping it from the U.S. and stave off the worst of the growing crisis, according to a new letter obtained by POLITICO.

“There is no shortage of need and the urgency cannot be overstated,” Booker and Boozman write in their letter, which is dated Feb. 20.

Delays: USDA and USAID have hammered out most of the details for the aid distribution, which are awaiting White House approval, according to two people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to discuss internal plans. The type of non-traditional farm commodities that USDA selected as part of the aid disbursement appears to be part of the reason for the slowdown, along with the legal authority the department initially used to tap its internal funds for the move, according to a congressional aide familiar with the matter.

Vilsack recently told POLITICO that his department was working with USAID “to figure out exactly where that resource goes and how it gets distributed.”

“They’re the ones who basically call the shots on that,” Vilsack said when asked about the delay in delivering the food aid. “We basically provide the money; they basically direct where it goes.”

USDA spokesperson Allan Rodriguez confirmed the department is still working “expeditiously” with USAID on the matter.

More food aid stuck in Congress: Booker and Boozman’s push comes as a separate pot of more than $10 billion in humanitarian and emergency global food aid funding is stuck in Congress, part of the stalled Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel foreign aid package.

Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to allow a House vote on the package. Some House lawmakers are now working on a new, alternative proposal that would strip out the humanitarian and emergency food aid funding entirely, which many Democrats strongly oppose.

Gaza aid: The battle in Washington over global food aid funding has only intensified since Israel launched its war in Gaza in response to the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks.

The foreign aid package currently stuck in Congress includes money to supply food and water for civilians in Gaza and Palestinians fleeing the war there. Sending any U.S. aid to Gaza and Palestinian refugees in the region is now an especially fraught topic on Capitol Hill.

“There’s hungry people in Ukraine, about 11 million. But in Gaza, it’s 2.2 million people there, [and] 2.2 million people are starving,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a recent interview after meeting with World Food Program Chief Cindy McCain.

DeLauro also knocked the speaker for putting a standalone Israel aid bill on the floor that did not include any humanitarian aid funding. That legislation was voted down, in part due to opposition from Democrats who wanted to include humanitarian assistance for Gaza.

The U.S. has suspended support to the main United Nations aid agency in Gaza, amid an internal investigation over allegations that some employees participated in Hamas’ October assault on Israel. The WFP alone would likely receive the bulk of any U.S. aid resources to distribute in Gaza and nearby regions. But immense challenges remain in getting that aid into Gaza and other regions reeling from famine conditions.

What’s next: Unless a bipartisan group of House lawmakers can end-run Johnson and force a vote on the Senate-approved foreign aid package in the coming weeks, few lawmakers believe the $10 billion in humanitarian aid will pass Congress this year. That’s only increased congressional pressure on the Biden administration to send out its promised $1 billion in food aid as quickly as possible.

Caitlin Emma contributed to this report. 

Speaker Mike Johnson delivered a presentation at a weekend GOP retreat that — although it was billed as a map to keeping the House majority — took on a surprisingly religious tone, according to two people in the room.

Johnson’s private remarks to a small group of Republican lawmakers at Miami’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel over the weekend alarmed both people, who addressed the speech on condition of anonymity. Rather than outlining a specific plan to hold and grow the majority, these people said, Johnson effectively delivered a sermon.

The Louisiana Republican showed slides to the members of his Elected Leadership Committee (ELC) team in a bid to tout the party’s prospects of hanging onto its two-seat majority in November. Johnson, a devout Christian, attempted to rally the group by discussing moral decline in America — focusing on declining church membership and the nation’s shrinking religious identity, according to both people in the room.

The speaker contended that when one doesn’t have God in their life, the government or “state” will become their guide, referring back to Bible verses, both people said. They added that the approach fell flat among some in the room.

“I’m not at church,” one of the people said, describing Johnson’s presentation as “horrible.”

“I think what he was trying to do, but failed on the execution of it, was try to bring us together,” that person said. “The sermon was so long he couldn’t bring it back to make the point.”

A third person in the room who is close to Johnson said that the speaker dipped into historical and religious points for perhaps a third of his presentation, arguing that the party needed to save the country. That person, who spoke on condition of anonymity about the private gathering, said Johnson also talked about polling on the border, how President Joe Biden compares to Donald Trump on various issues and the House GOP’s core message.

The weekend retreat also featured notable tension between GOP conference leaders and Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good (R-Va.), who argued in Miami that Johnson needs to lead Republicans in the direction that is favored by conservatives.

Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) pushed back, questioning if Good — who had voted to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy — would let Johnson lead or if he would block him whenever he disagreed with the GOP leader’s approach, according to all three people who addressed the speaker’s presentation. Conservatives have blocked legislation from being considered on the floor several times this term.

Johnson’s office declined to comment.

The White House ratcheted up its onslaught on House Republican leadership, criticizing them for going on “vacation” without approving funding for Ukraine.

“The damage House Republicans are actively causing to American national security mounts every day that they insist on continuing their two-week vacation,” spokesperson Andrew Bates wrote in a memo to be released Wednesday and first obtained by POLITICO.

The memo includes a “vacation reading packet” of potential threats if the funding is not approved, including Russia advancing on the Ukrainian battle line and a decline in American defense manufacturing.

Since the Senate approved a $95 billion national defense supplemental, the White House has been hammering House Republicans to simply take up the bill and approve it. But Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team called the bill “dead on arrival” in their chamber and said they wouldn’t bring it to a vote.

“No amount of memos from the White House can change the fact that House Republicans were clear from the very beginning: any national security supplemental should start at our own border,” Johnson spokesperson Taylor Haulsee said Wednesday. “Stunningly, after four months of negotiations which the House was not party to, the White House-Senate bill is entirely silent on the border — the top issue for most Americans.”

The House, he added, “will work its own will on the matter.”

The House left Thursday and is due to return in a week.

Shortly after the chamber recessed without taking up the supplemental bill, news broke about the death of Russian dissident Alexei Navalny. Democrats argue his death in a Russian prison increases the urgency on Republicans to pass funding to help Ukraine continue to fend off Russia.

Johnson has repeatedly asked President Joe Biden for a meeting, but those requests have gone unheeded.

That leaves the White House with few options besides building political pressure on Republicans to take up the bill.

“Speaker Johnson has shown no signs of cancelling Republicans’ vacation as he puts his own internal politics over the safety of the American people,” Bates continued, adding that the refusal to take up the bill undermines Ukraine’s defenses, endangers NATO and denies military assistance to Israel.

It’s not unusual for politicians to get criticized for going on “vacation” when they’re away from Washington. The Biden administration’s critique is not without risks; Republicans have frequently gone after Biden for his frequent weekend visits to his Delaware beach home and vacations.