A top aide to Rep. Jerry Nadler reminded fellow Democratic staffers to let each other know when their bosses sign on to bills after several lawmakers removed themselves as cosponsors from Rep. Shri Thanedar’s impeachment resolution targeting President Donald Trump.

“Members can walk away with different impressions of a conversation, and a quick check-in with staff can go a long way in avoiding confusion,” the aide, Andrew Heineman, wrote in an Thursday email to all Democratic legislative directors obtained by POLITICO. “I don’t think any of us want to learn that their boss was added to a bill that’s been introduced from a Google Alert.”

Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced a resolution Monday to impeach Trump with four Democrats listed as cosponsors: Nadler of New York, plus Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Robin Kelly of Illinois and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland. All four have since withdrawn as cosponsors and implied that they were mistakenly added to the legislation after conversations with Thanedar.

Thanedar’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“The Congresswoman was under the impression that the resolution was drafted and reviewed by experts from the House Judiciary Committee,” Kelly’s spokesperson said.

A Mfume spokesperson said he removed himself “because he was made aware it was not cleared by Democratic leadership and not fully vetted legally — and he preferred to err on the side of caution.”

Congressional Republicans are rushing to advance the crown jewel of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda — a sweeping tax, energy and border package that they hope will be a boon to businesses and offset the tariff-induced economic turmoil of recent weeks.

But financial firms are watching warily as they lobby lawmakers not to turn Wall Street into a pay-for in the reconciliation package.

A variety of proposals that could eliminate tax breaks used by financial institutions are on the table as Republicans look to pay for tax cuts that Trump has promised. The coming weeks are poised to test GOP lawmakers’ willingness to defy some of their traditional allies in the business world to deliver the “one big, beautiful bill” Trump wants.

The House Financial Services Committee — which oversees Wall Street and its regulators — voted along party lines late Wednesday to approve its portion of the reconciliation package after a nine-hour markup. The legislation, which will be wrapped into the broader reconciliation package, would slash the amount of funding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can get by almost 60 percent and fold the U.S.’s top audit watchdog, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, into the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Democrats on the panel threw up procedural hurdles to slow the meeting down and offered dozens of amendments that Republicans voted down.

Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) said he expects the savings produced by the legislation to exceed the $1 billion in cuts that the panel was required to produce by a budget resolution adopted by both chambers of Congress. But those savings remain a small fraction of what Republicans need to produce to pay for the Trump tax cuts. All eyes are on Congress’ tax-writing committees — House Ways and Means and Senate Finance — which are considering an array of more controversial savings proposals.

Several targets that could touch financial services firms are on the table. Tax writers are expected to release an initial proposal in the coming weeks, but the dynamics could change as the reconciliation bill moves forward and lawmakers look for additional savings.

Most controversially, the Ways and Means panel is weighing whether to close the so-called carried interest loophole, a controversial tax break that gives favorable treatment to the profits earned by private equity firms, hedge funds and venture capital investors. The latest signals suggest Hill Republicans may be souring on the idea, but conversations among tax writers are ongoing. Any effort to kill the tax break would be met with opposition from more business-friendly members, including on Financial Services. Hill told MM last week that the policy “is a major source of economic growth, jobs, that impacts every community in the country — it’s not a loophole.”

Hill and other Financial Services Republicans are also pushing tax writers not to strip municipal bonds of their tax-exempt status. They wrote in a letter to Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith last month that the exemption is “a critical tool that has underpinned American infrastructure and community development for over a century.”

Finally, the U.S.’s credit union lobby is playing defense as lawmakers face calls to strip the institutions of their tax-exempt status — a major lobbying push for community banks. Jim Nussle, the president of America’s Credit Unions and a former Republican lawmaker who chaired the House Budget Committee in the early 2000s, said the industry is “in a strong position going into this.”

But some credit union advocates — like lobbyists representing other segments of the financial services industry — worry that a last-minute deal could put them on the chopping block.

“We take nothing for granted,” Nussle said.

Make no mistake: Medicaid is at the center of the GOP’s challenges as they try to assemble their “big, beautiful” bill. And the problems start at the very top.

President Donald Trump is deeply skeptical of the emerging House Republican plan to make deep cuts to Medicaid to pay for the GOP’s megabill. And Speaker Mike Johnson is running out of time to convince him.

Senior House Republicans are expected in the coming days to present Trump with a menu of potential Medicaid changes, along with estimates of the savings they will generate and the impacts on beneficiaries.

Among the options the White House has agreed to consider is “per capita caps” — a controversial proposal that would limit the federal allotment to states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

The Trump administration has other ideas that have nothing to do with Medicaid: White House officials have requested proposals to instead find savings by pursuing a “most favored nation” drug-purchasing policy linking certain government payments for pharmaceuticals to the lower prices paid abroad, reviving a failed push from his first term.

Johnson has been scrambling to secure Trump’s support, shuttling up and down Pennsylvania Avenue and calling him multiple times a day to ensure they remain in lockstep and avoid a repeat of the GOP divisions that doomed the president’s 2017 push to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

But divisions abound: While moderates continue raising concerns about rolling back Medicaid expansion, fiscal hawks have been angling for even steeper cuts to the program. House Freedom Caucus members, including Reps. Chip Roy, Andrew Clyde and chair Andy Harris, met with Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie late into Wednesday night — without reaching an agreement on how to proceed.

GOP senators, meanwhile, were briefed Wednesday on polling and options for Medicaid changes, including new work requirements, during their closed-door lunch by Foundation for Government Accountability’s Tarren Bragdon. Sen. Josh Hawley issued a warning afterward, saying benefit cuts would be “catastrophically unwise.”

Elsewhere, House Republicans are being hammered on multiple other fronts as their megabill dreams come crashing into political reality. Johnson failed Wednesday to resolve his standoff with vulnerable Republicans over raising the cap on state and local tax deductions, even as he expects Ways and Means to take up its draft of the GOP tax plan next week.

Key GOP lawmakers also yanked controversial provisions around car fees and antitrust enforcement from their Wednesday markups. And GOP Rep. Mike Turner is warning that a provision cutting federal government pensions that Oversight Republicans advanced Wednesday won’t pass the full House in its current form.

What else we’re watching:

– Thune’s Ed Martin problem: Senate Majority Leader John Thune has churned through the most controversial of Trump’s nominees, but he’s facing early warning signs over another: Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney for D.C. Sen. Thom Tillis, whose Judiciary committee vote could be pivotal, says he plans to meet with Martin as controversy swirls over his past comments about Jan. 6.

– “Skinny budget” incoming?: White House budget director Russ Vought will meet this morning with House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole and his dozen subcommittee chairs. The appropriators are clamoring for Vought to send a “skinny budget” this week, followed quickly by a full budget request, so they can start cranking out their dozen fiscal 2026 funding bills.

– Raining on REINS: Senate Republicans are already casting doubts that the version of the REINS Act that their House counterparts advanced Wednesday as part of Judiciary’s megabill markup can pass muster with their chamber’s parliamentarian. And that’s after House Judiciary Republicans stripped a different provision, on consolidating antitrust oversight, for a similar reason. “They always think they know what the Byrd rule is, and they have no clue what the Byrd rule is,” Sen. Rand Paul said.

Rachael Bade, Adam Cancryn, Jordain Carney, Brian Faler, Meredith Lee Hill and Myah Ward contributed to this report.

House Financial Services Republicans approved legislation Wednesday that would slash funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board into the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the party-line, GOP megabill that is central to President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The panel voted along party lines, 30-22, to advance its portion of the GOP package, which is expected to include sweeping tax, energy and border policy changes. Financial Services Republicans say their section of the bill will produce more than the $1 billion in savings it was instructed to find.

The measure would slash the amount of funding the CFPB has access to by almost 60 percent. The bureau’s funding, which is derived from the Federal Reserve, would be capped at 5 percent of the central bank’s operating expenses under the proposal — down from the current limit of 12 percent.

The legislation would also dissolve the U.S.’s top audit regulator, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and fold it into the SEC.

Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) said at the markup that his committee “will do its part to reduce the deficit and decrease direct spending so that Congress can enact pro-growth tax policies.”

Democrats offered more than three dozen amendments that were shot down by Republicans throughout the nine-hour markup. They also put up procedural hurdles that slowed down the start of the meeting.

Financial Services ranking member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said Republicans on the committee were “co-signing” the Trump administration’s “destruction” by “helping Trump and co-president Elon Musk dismantle the agencies responsible for helping bring down costs,” including the CFPB.

Democrats offered an array of amendments aimed at bolstering the CFPB, which has been a longtime GOP target. They also offered provisions aimed at boosting the supply of affordable housing, protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve and targeting the Trump family’s crypto businesses.

“We are here because Donald Trump feels that he and Elon Musk are not rich enough, and we need to $4.5 trillion of tax cuts,” said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). “They’ve realized politically that they can’t do that by cutting social security and defense, and all that’s left is massive cuts to everything else. And so … the dutiful soldiers are marching forward to cut the things that are subject to the jurisdiction of this committee.”

Republicans shot down every amendment along party lines, often saying they were not germane to the underlying bill. In order for this bill to be able to pass the Senate without Democratic votes through the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process, only policies that change spending or revenues can be included.

“The amendments are seeking to make policy changes that we simply cannot address today in this markup for reconciliation,” said Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.). “Everything that we’re discussing and proposing in this bill has budgetary impacts, not policy impacts, and these budgetary impacts and savings are means to get our country back on track.”

A Democratic effort to rebuff President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs failed Wednesday, thanks to two absent senators.

Senators voted 49-49 to reject the national emergency Trump used to impose tariffs of between 10 and 50 percent on many of the United States’ largest trading partners. It came on the same day the Commerce Department revealed that the economy shrank in the year’s first quarter, largely due to Trump’s trade policies.

Three Republicans joined Democrats in rejecting the tariffs: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Paul was a cosponsor of the resolution with Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat.

Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were missing from the vote, leaving supporters of the resolution short of a majority. Whitehouse was absent because he was returning from the Republic of Korea, where he represented the U.S. at a conference on protecting the ocean from threats like climate change, pollution and overfishing.

McConnell, the former Republican leader, missed several votes Wednesday.

“The Senator has been consistent in opposing tariffs and that a trade war is not in the best interest of American households and businesses,” said David Popp, a spokesperson for McConnell. “He believes that tariffs are a tax increase on everybody.”

The vote was largely symbolic: The House has approved a rule to block a vote on the resolution and Trump has threatened to veto such a measure if it makes it to his desk. Still, the resolution’s failure hands Trump a victory as his administration tries to maintain support for the aggressive tariff platform among increasingly nervous Republicans.

Paul said he felt the vote was more about the debate than the result, because he knew it wasn’t likely to clear Congress.

“Most Republicans are just going along with it, but many of them are quietly still on the other side of this,” Paul said. “They just aren’t willing to say anything yet. But I think if we went through another quarter of negative growth and or another scare in the marketplace, I think there will be more visible voices against the tariffs.”

Yet even lawmakers who defended Trump’s tariffs acknowledged the uncertainty that has come with Trump’s attempts to upend the global trading order, an effort that has tanked consumer sentiment in the U.S. and spooked many businesses and investors.

“I appreciate that many of us in this chamber have heard from constituents concerned about the economic impact of the tariffs,” said Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who chairs the Senate Finance Committee that oversees trade policy. “All of us are watching this issue closely and working with the administration to find ways to minimize its impact on Americans. We should also be working with the administration to address a shared objective: more opportunities for Americans in foreign markets and an end to discriminatory actions in foreign markets.”

Lisa Kashinsky and Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

After a meeting Wednesday afternoon with vulnerable House Republicans wary of Medicaid cuts, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) acknowledged there are still obstacles to enacting major changes to the safety net program as part of the GOP’s massive megabill.

Lawmakers have been weighing a new plan to place so-called per capita caps on Medicaid funding to certain beneficiaries in states that have expanded the program under the Affordable Care Act. Guthrie told reporters Wednesday all options remain on the table at this point, but said there are still some opponents with whom he has not yet spoken.

“We’ve had a couple of comments from some people saying that seems to be too far for them to go,” Guthrie told reporters, adding that the sheer scale of work being done by Republicans as they try to extend Trump’s tax cuts and beef up border enforcement can add to confusion for lawmakers.

“The issue with everything that’s going on here is that the Ways and Means, Agriculture committees and others are all doing things and a lot of people aren’t exposed to it and they hear things,” Guthrie said. “I sit down and walk through some policy options and I think I made people feel more comfortable with where we are. We’re not going to do anything that’s drastic.”

The Energy and Commerce Committee has been tasked with finding $880 billion in cuts, meaning they will likely have to lean heavily on Medicaid to achieve those savings.

In the closed-door meeting, Guthrie ticked through current options Republicans were considering, but only verbally, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. Earlier in the week, Energy and Commerce Republicans were treated to a formal slide deck laying out different policy options. Lawmakers at the meeting Wednesday asked for a list of the proposals but still have yet to receive anything.

Asked if his committee is still on track to mark up its portion of the bill next week as planned, Guthrie said, “we’re working.”

Guthrie also said he hasn’t spoken with Trump yet, but he’s looking to arrange that.

Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), who met with Guthrie Wednesday, said in an interview that the plans for the markup are still “fluid.” He said lawmakers are considering at least two types of work requirements, one optional and the other mandatory for states to adopt.

“There are a lot of different proposals flying around, a lot of evolution to this,” Bresnahan said. “We just need to get a handle on what it actually means and boiling it back down to my district.”

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said Wednesday that Republicans could hit $370 billion in savings from work requirements, kicking noncitizens off rolls and more frequent eligibility checks.

Guthrie is planning to meet with House Freedom Caucus members later Wednesday evening, as the hard-liners push for steep spending cuts across the program.

Robert King contributed to this report.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Wednesday she is considering a run for House Democrats’ top position on the Oversight Committee.

“It’s something that I’m weighing, but the seat is not yet vacated, and I think that’s a bridge we can cross when we get to it,” she told reporters.

A star of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, Ocasio-Cortez has recently co-led a series of national rallies with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that has stoked speculation about her future as Democrats debate the best way to counter President Donald Trump. It’s unclear how a high-profile House leadership position might figure into her political ambitions.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who beat Ocasio-Cortez in the race for Oversight Committee ranking member last year, announced earlier this week he would step aside from the position amid a battle with cancer. He appointed Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, a veteran Democratic lawmaker, to serve as an interim head in his absence. Lynch has indicated he would run to succeed Connolly.

Younger members of the caucus have chafed at the party’s previous deference to seniority in choosing leaders, though Ocasio-Cortez, 35, has recently spoken carefully on the subject.

“The party has its views known on seniority and its values on seniority, and I respect that,” she said Wednesday. “That’s the position of the caucus. So that’s something to be part of a larger conversation.”

If Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t run, a number of young, ambitious members could mount bids including Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Ro Khanna of California, Maxwell Frost of Florida and Robert Garcia of California.

House and Senate Republicans are sending more signals they doubt their ability to pass a new, bipartisan farm bill this year.

Their latest suggestion of looming defeat: Lawmakers are currently weighing whether to put Biden-era conservation programs into their party-line megabill that might have otherwise been included in their separate reauthorization of federal farm programs, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

One of the people said it’s “likely” that Republicans will pull unspent conservation program dollars from the Democrats’ 2022 climate law into their party-line megabill to continue funding those popular programs. But Republicans will also likely push to remove climate-related guardrails on those climate law initiatives as they have during previous negotiations.

GOP lawmakers previously rejected a similar push from Democrats to add conservation money to the farm bill; now, they are open to adding certain programs to the other pending piece of legislation as U.S. producers grapple with economic headwinds and an outdated farm safety net.

Republicans are also considering including two key farm bill provisions — increased reference prices and updated crop insurance for farmers — into the legislation that would enact broad swaths of President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda, one of those people said.

The House Agriculture Committee is due next week to mark up its component of the major package of tax cuts and extensions, border security investments, energy policy and more. The biggest fight is set to be over the level of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is worrying to many Republicans who don’t want their constituents to lose food aid benefits.

But conservatives outside the committee who typically vote against major agricultural subsidies could eventually shoot down the inclusion of any farm provisions, making this gambit a risky move for when the full party-line package comes to the House floor and GOP leaders can only afford to lose a handful of votes.

Rep. Elise Stefanik and Speaker Mike Johnson met Wednesday afternoon after tensions between the two boiled over this week.

The relationship between the two senior Republicans has deteriorated after President Donald Trump pulled Stefanik’s nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations — a move Stefanik allies blame on Johnson after Trump cited the slim House GOP majority. Two people with direct knowledge of the meeting described it as a step to possibly settle the situation.

Their flare-up spilled further into public view this week after Johnson suggested he had talked with Stefanik about her possible bid for New York governor, prompting her to post on X that it was not true. A New York Times story published Wednesday further explored the tensions, quoting Stefanik telling Johnson she was the “angriest member” he’d have to deal with.

After Wednesday’s meeting, Johnson downplayed any tensions: “She’s a close friend, trusted friend,” he said.

Asked if he had reached a detente with Stefanik, Johnson laughed. “No, no,” he said. “This is a totally friendly, collegial thing. She’s a close friend and ally.”

One flashpoint has been Johnson’s announced plan to put Stefanik back on the House Intelligence Committee — something that has yet to happen. Johnson said Wednesday he intended to follow through “as soon as possible.”

House Judiciary Committee Republicans backtracked on a plan Wednesday to centralize all antitrust activities within the Justice Department as they debate their portion of the party-line megabill.

“The amendment also removes the section that would consolidate antitrust enforcement authorities and resources in the DOJ antitrust division,” House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said at the markup, as he announced his amended version of the package.

This is a significant reversal after the GOP majority sought to yank antitrust responsibilities from the Federal Trade Commission, a move long sought by conservatives. The attempt to enact the change via the megabill was one of the most promising chances for Republicans to deliver on President Donald Trump’s agenda this Congress.

Democrats and some conservative antitrust proponents criticized the proposed consolidation of antitrust powers.

No reason for the reversal was immediately available. Jordan’s office did not immediately respond to questions.

The markup of the Judiciary Committee’s section of the megabill is ongoing, and committees of jurisdiction will continue to mark up their portions of the package over the coming weeks.