Senators mostly agree the process for confirming a president’s nominees is broken. They also know it could easily get worse.

This week’s “nuclear” rules change by Senate Republicans — allowing most of President Donald Trump’s nominees to be confirmed in groups — is only the latest hammer lawmakers have taken to the once collegial nominations process.

The rancor could be turned up even higher, however, in a scenario the Senate hasn’t faced since it first changed the confirmation rules along party lines more than a decade ago: a newly elected president facing a majority of a different party.

Split government colliding with the first year of a president’s tenure has been rare in recent history. It hasn’t happened since 2001, when George W. Bush faced an ultra-tight Senate margin that flipped the majority back and forth between parties. And in the two decades since, the nominations process in the Senate has grown consistently more partisan, with more hurdles and longer wait times for confirmations.

The Senate saw a hint of how the chamber’s recent nominations warfare could play out in such a scenario in 2015 and 2016, when Republicans held the majority during the final two years of former President Barack Obama’s term. His second attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch, waited five months to be confirmed. And that standoff was only a precursor for a cataclysmic battle that still hangs over the chamber today: then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to hold a Supreme Court seat open for more than a year.

But the stakes would be exponentially higher after a presidential election where every Cabinet position, not to mention hundreds of lower and mid-level executive branch nominees, plus any judicial vacancies, would need to be filled.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) put McConnell’s move after Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2016 death in a category of its own, arguing that it was the pinnacle of the Senate’s recent confirmation fights. But he acknowledged a new president would need to “work with” an opposing majority if he or she wanted nominees confirmed.

Presidents, he said, would need to be “thoughtful” about nominees who are “confirmable.”

Yet bipartisan support for nominees has waned over the years, which has been reflected in the rising number of nominees who have had to overcome once rare procedural hurdles.

During the first 200 days of his second administration, Trump’s nominees faced the longest delay in recent administrations between nomination and confirmation, according to data from the Partnership for Public Service. And Democrats have forced nearly twice as many nominees to overcome procedural hurdles before a final vote compared to what Joe Biden faced from Senate Republicans by this same point.

Max Stier — president and CEO of the partnership, which runs an initiative focused on presidential transitions — said that Senate majorities have always had the ability to block nominations. But with the current rules change, he added, “the system that envisioned separation of powers is now seeing separation by party.”

“This is a significant ramping-up of that phenomenon,” he said. “The question is, are we watching our government being fully eaten up by the competition between teams?”

Gridlock from the minority party is what then-Majority Leader Harry Reid cited when Democrats first deployed the “nuclear option” in 2013 to lower the confirmation threshold for executive branch nominees and most judicial picks from 60 to 51. Republicans under McConnell took the same step in 2017 for Supreme Court picks and then sped up the debate time for most other nominees two years later.

“I don’t think the Democrats have ever voted for a Trump judicial [nominee] and I don’t want our side to become like that,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), predicting that “some Republicans, maybe not a majority,” would vote for a Democratic president’s nominees in the split scenario.

Some senators have recognized the pitfalls of the current partisan gridlock. Last week, a handful of lawmakers launched a last-minute effort to avert a party-line rules change, and those involved in the deal believed they were close to an agreement that would have allowed for the simultaneous confirmation of up to 15 nominees — an idea they believed could get supermajority support.

But they couldn’t get consent from all 100 senators to move forward, and Republicans — not convinced that Democrats would actually cut a deal — pulled the plug and moved forward with the party-line approach which allows for unlimited simultaneous confirmations. That brief glimmer of bipartisanship quickly gave way to recriminations about the calcifying fault lines in the chamber’s nominations fights.

“The nominations process is broken and in desperate need of an overhauling,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who accused Republicans of watering down the Senate’s “advise and consent” role.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) added that he worried “to some degree” about the possibility that a Republican Senate would stall Democratic nominees. But he also offered a warning: “I think they ought to be worried about a Dem president and a Dem Senate just putting people together in blocks.”

Democrats openly warned Republicans they were setting a precedent that could be used against them when they are out of power. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said it “won’t take very long for Republicans to wish they had not pushed the chamber further down this awful road.”

While Republican senators defended their decision to go nuclear — claiming some Democrats privately agreed the Senate was spending too much time processing nominations — they also acknowledged the threat of a larger war looms.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the possibility of interbranch gridlock amounted to “another problem” the Senate would eventually have to deal with.

“Nothing’s easy,” he added.

A group of GOP senators are working on legislation to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies — but with policy changes to win over conservatives, according to four people, granted anonymity to disclose private discussions.

This group, two of the people added, has gotten “technical assistance” from the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the subsidies.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican running for governor, said in an interview Monday he was “part of that group that’s working on the wording to make sure we do it right.”

An expiration of the credits, he said, “would hurt my state, Alabama.”

The development comes as Democrats are mounting a huge push to make an extension of the enhanced tax credits — which expire at the end of the year — necessary for them to support a bill that funds the government beyond Sept. 30. It also comes as a growing number of Republicans say failure to act on such an extension would be a political mistake heading into the midterms.

Congressional budget scorers estimate that millions of people would be forced to drop their health insurance plans as a result of higher premiums that could kick in as a result of the letting the subsidies sunset.

House Republicans have already joined with some Democrats on a bill that would extend the credits for one year but not impose any new restrictions on who can take advantage of the subsidies. In contrast, the Senate bill, which is not being driven by leadership, appears to be in its early stages, according to two of the people aware of the effort.

It also remains unclear which GOP senator is spearheading this effort, and which Republicans other than Tuberville are at the table. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), in an interview Monday, wouldn’t say whether she was involved but said, “we’ve got to get some level of consensus.”

“I don’t think we’re going to be able to get a permanent extension; I don’t think that’s wise,” she said. “I’m looking to perhaps do some some reforms to it, but I think it is something that we are going to be forced to deal with, to reckon with, in my state.”

Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) also acknowledged in an interview that Republicans will likely need to address the issue: “I believe at some point we’re going to need to deal with it.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who authored the legislation that first boosted the credits in 2021, has been talking to Republican colleagues about where their party might be able to land on the issue, according to a person granted anonymity to share confidential conversations between lawmakers. She’s also encouraging Republicans to work behind-the-scenes to build support inside their conference.

“There are still many questions still left to sort out,” the person added.

If the proposal comes to fruition, it could emerge as a consensus measure for Republicans: Conservatives are broadly in favor of tying some reforms to the subsidies they claim are currently wasteful, expensive and overwhelmingly benefit higher-earners.

Among the floated ideas include putting a new income cap on who can claim the bigger subsidies, while some outside groups are expected to push for language that would prohibit the tax credits from helping offset cost of insurance plans that cover abortions.

It’s not clear Democrats would accept terms and conditions for extending the tax credits, but Shaheen, in a statement, said any discussions across the aisle were a positive development.

“I’m glad that some of my Republican colleagues recognize the need to get something done to avoid the largest health insurance premium price increases in 15 years — which would boot more than four million Americans from their health care and make costs skyrocket for millions more,” she said. “If Senate Republicans fail to come to the table in a meaningful way, they’ll have to explain to their constituents why they took away a tool to make health care affordable for working families at a time when too many are struggling to make ends meet.”

She added, “The only way we will avoid this bad outcome is if Republicans will come to the table in good faith so we can find a path forward.”

Among all the troublemaking members House Republican leaders have to deal with, Rep. Jen Kiggans isn’t on their list of problem children. That might be changing.

A former Navy helicopter pilot, nurse practitioner and mother of four, the 54-year-old Virginian is seen in the Republican Conference as something of a model member, hailing from one of the toughest swing districts in the country. She is viewed by her peers as personable and a team player. Of all the places Mike Johnson might have gone on the eve of the 2024 elections, the speaker chose to spend time with Kiggans — a strong show of leadership support for a freshman.

But Kiggans, now in her second term, has decided to stick her neck out on what’s shaping up to be one of the most politically explosive policy fights of the fall: the battle over extending boosted Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies that are due to expire on Dec. 31. Congressional budget forecasters are predicting major premium hikes if the subsidies sunset, which would force millions of people to drop health insurance coverage.

Twelve Republicans and seven Democrats are backing legislation that would enact a one-year extension of the subsidies, which are implemented in the form of enhanced tax credits. Kiggans is the lead sponsor and the GOP face of the effort.

In an interview, she called an extension good politics — and good for her constituents.

“In six weeks or so, people will get a notice that their health care premiums are going to go up by thousands of dollars,” said Kiggans. “And at the end of the year … for people that either have this type of insurance and work in small businesses, are self-employed, you know, I worry about their access to health care.”

The latest Capitol Hill clash over preserving health care policies enacted by Democrats, however, is shaping up to be a central battle in government funding negotiations ahead of a Sept. 30 shutdown deadline — and driving a rift inside the GOP in ways that echo party infighting over scaling back Medicaid in President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” The dispute is also now pitting centrists like Kiggans against conservatives who have fought for years to undo the Affordable Care Act. And it carries major political stakes for Republicans as they gear up for their fight to keep control of the House next year.

The Democrats’ 2010 health law first provided for tax credits to help make premiums more affordable under the new insurance plans. But the 2021 Covid relief package supercharged those credits, making them more generous for people with lower incomes but also accessible to individuals making up to $600,000 a year. It’s that “enhanced” version of the credits that will expire at the end of the 2025 without congressional action.

One senior House Republican, granted anonymity to share their private view of Kiggans’ support for the subsidies, suggested she’ll be given latitude by her colleagues and leadership to follow her instincts on the credits’ fate: “Kiggans does her homework, and she understands her base or constituency and what needs to be done.”

Still, she’s finding herself caught in the middle of warring factions that could test the positive relationships she’s built during her short time in office, while also putting her political future at risk.

She’s going up against a swath of hard-liners who in the coming days plan to ramp up their coordinated campaign against any extension, in part by arguing that the subsidies are used to cover abortions. Conservatives also say the tax credits are too expensive, and they are generally loath to support any policy tied to the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview Thursday it would be “awful” if Johnson capitulates to demands from moderates like Kiggans to extend the enhanced ACA credits. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the hard-line contingent, called the subsidies “free giveaways to insurance companies.”

Mindful of the intraparty fissures around this issue, Johnson has so far been careful not to say whether he endorses an extension, and certainly isn’t tying it to a government funding package needed to avert a shutdown before Oct. 1. Republicans who support Kiggans’ crusade privately believe their best bet for victory is securing the extension in a second funding measure at the end of the year, but Democrats are making this linkage a condition of their support for the immediate stopgap spending measure.

“There’s a range of opinion on it,” Johnson said in a brief interview earlier this month. “It doesn’t expire until the end of the year, so we have time to figure it out.”

Kiggans has a track record of breaking with her party on some big issues but not tanking legislation to gain leverage. For instance, she was among the most vocal critics of the GOP megabill’s targeting of clean energy tax credits that are benefitting her district, but she still voted for the new law. She said this past week she didn’t plan to shut down the government to get her way on the ACA tax credits, either.

“I represent a big military district,” she explained, “and people who rely on those federal paychecks.”

But Democrats, who see Kiggans’ seat as a prime pick-up opportunity in 2026, accuse her of being duplicitous.

“Jen Kiggans cast a decisive vote to rip away health care from 350,000 Virginians, and just this week three health care clinics in the Commonwealth were forced to shutter as a direct result of her vote,” said Eli Cousin, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in a statement that referred to Kiggans’ vote for the GOP megabill.

“Kiggans wants to trick voters before she is up for reelection, then sell them out right after,” Cousin added. “She is everything wrong with Washington politicians.”

Kiggans is working to thread the needle. She said she agrees with fellow Republicans that the credits are expensive and need to expire eventually. But she also made the case that her party needs to create “a longer runway” to discuss how to soften the blow of phasing out the enhanced credits completely.

“It’s time to end these tax credits, but when it comes to health care, it’s not quite as easy as letting them expire, especially when it’s something at the end of the calendar year,” Kiggans said. “And I’m not alone. There’s people on both sides of the aisle that feel the same way. And these are common-sense members of Congress that care about health care.”

Democratic co-sponsors of her bill include Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, the co-chairs of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. Among the Republican supporters are Reps. David Valadao of California, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona and Mike Lawler of New York — some of the most endangered incumbents of the election cycle.

But senior House Republicans have questioned the strategy Kiggans and her group is pursuing, according to three people granted anonymity to speak candidly about private conversations. These Republicans are, in particular, critical of the rollout of her bill, which did not include any of the reforms Kiggans acknowledged are needed to the larger program.

This “clean” extension, many in the GOP feel, could put Republicans in a tough spot, including Kiggans’ fellow frontliners who have not signed onto her effort.

“Full credits with high wage earners is too far for most Republicans,” said one of the senior House GOP Republicans, referring to how Kiggans’ bill would fully extend the premium tax credit for one year rather than to put new income limits on an extension, as some Republicans have suggested doing.

Some vulnerable GOP incumbents who haven’t yet signed onto Kiggans’ bill also acknowledged an income cap and other reforms will likely be part of any compromise.

“We want to make sure that affordability is maintained as best as possible for people,” Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) said in an interview, while adding, “I know there are some concerns that some have expressed about high-income individuals being eligible.”

Kiggans said the value of her one-year extension bill is that it would, indeed, force a discussion about how to either continue the subsidies responsibly or wind them down in a thoughtful way. She advocated for a scenario where members could come to the table and hash out a long-term solution, recalling the consensus-building exercise that took place around making changes to Medicaid as part of the megabill.

“That took a lot of meetings, a lot of late nights, a lot of discussions with people who happen to have skin in the game,” said Kiggans.

There are plenty of Republicans who believe Kiggans should stay the course and leadership should follow, warning an expiration of the premium tax credits could cost the GOP dearly in the midterms.

A July poll by veteran GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio found that Republicans have an “opportunity to overcome a current generic ballot deficit” in 2026 if they allow an extension. Letting them expire, according to that same survey, would cause an expected three-point deficit for a generic Republican to plunge to 15.

Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that “everybody’s voice is being heard” on whether to extend the ACA subsidies.

“I think we’re having internal discussions now about, kind of, where we are as a conference and what’s feasible and what’s not feasible,” Hudson said in a brief interview last week. “I’ll wait and see how that develops before I say anything publicly.”

Kiggans insisted her party can’t afford to wait.

“Republicans need to lead on this issue,” she said. “And we can.”

Cassandra Dumay and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Saying he was seeking “a new challenge,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said Sunday he won’t run for reelection in 2026.

Speaking on ABC’s “This Week,” McCaul told host Martha Raddatz: “I’m going to serve the remainder of my term. But I’m looking for a new challenge in the same space that would be national security, foreign policy, but just in a different realm. “

McCaul, the former chair of the Homeland Security and Foreign Relations Committee, added: “I want to continue to serve the people of this country in national security and foreign policy and do what I’ve done the last two decades — make America stronger and the world safer.”

Raddatz responded: “Well, that’s a good plan. They’ll miss you on the Hill. You got a ways to go. Thanks for joining us this morning.”

McCaul subsequently posted the clip on X and added: “It has been the honor of a lifetime to represent the people of central Texas and to chair the prestigious Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs Committees. My father’s service in World War II inspired me to pursue a life of public service, with a focus on defending our great nation against global threats, and I have been proud to carry out that mission in Congress for more than two decades. I am ready for a new challenge in 2027 and look forward to continuing to serve my country in the national security and foreign policy realm.”

McCaul, age 63, was first elected in 2004. He drew 63.6 percent of the vote in his last reelection race in 2024.

Most of McCaul’s ABC appearance was spent discussing foreign policy and current international crises. He said, for instance, that he was worried that the deployment of Russian drones over Poland’s airspace last week represented an “escalation” of tensions in Europe.

“We’ve never seen anything like this in recent times,” he said. “And so, what I’m concerned about is that the escalation here and the temperature rising, we got to be very careful not to be on the precipice of a World War III.”

McCaul also said he expects Russian President Vladimir Putin to continue to cause trouble, at least to a point.

“I think he’ll continue to be provocative and saber-rattle. I don’t think he would use nuclear weapons. I think China put a red line,” McCaul told Raddatz.