House GOP leaders are vowing that they won’t hold a floor vote on a controversial online privacy bill, clashing with a powerful committee head who views the legislation as a legacy moment.

During a retreat for top Republican staffers last week, multiple chiefs of staff confronted Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s top aide Brett Horton about the bill, according to three people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to speak about private conversations. Horton responded that the legislation would not come to the floor in its current form, according to three of those people, even if it passed out of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee led by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.).

And that’s not guaranteed to happen, either. Some members of the panel have expressed confusion about why McMorris Rodgers is moving forward on the bill given fierce pushback, according to six Republicans familiar with the matter.

Generally, the legislation seeks to create federal guardrails on companies collecting the data of consumers online — an issue that many lawmakers in both parties agree they need to address. But how to do so has become a thorny political issue.

GOP members are particularly concerned about the breadth of the bill, including how it would cut across almost all industries rather than approaching it on a sector-by-sector basis, according to one senior Republican aide. Others worry that small- and mid-sized businesses would be more impacted by the text than the big tech companies, which can afford to pay hordes of lawyers.

There are also potential issues for law enforcement officers, such as restrictions on their ability to access information they need to conduct their jobs. Additionally, some worry about how it will impact data collection, particularly as it pertains to artificial intelligence. And one clause that calls for a “private right of action” has raised red flags, since it gives individuals the power to sue for damages.

As that senior Republican aide put it: “There’s no real conservative wins. And the private right of action is absolutely horrible for mainstream businesses.”

There is a new version of the bill that is expected to be released later Thursday, utilizing some of the feedback the panel has received, according to two of the people familiar with the matter. And it is expected to receive a markup next week, which one of these people predicted would happen on Thursday.

But critics of the bill are skeptical that the new version will assuage all of their concerns. Some predicted that Republican support might decrease, given that McMorris Rodgers worked closely with the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) on the new version.

A spokesperson for the panel defended the bill in a statement to POLITICO, arguing that it will provide the people with more privacy protections.

“E&C members have long worked to make online privacy a right for Americans and put them in control over their personal information. It’s a choice between individual liberty or continuing the massive commercial data surveillance happening on Americans every day. We look forward to continuing to move this bill through our regular order process,” the statement reads.

McMorris Rodgers announced in January that she would be retiring from Congress, shocking many who expected her to serve another term as the panel’s top Republican. And some believe she is aggressively pushing this bill as her own personal legacy.

Some critics of the legislation say they have faced threats for pushing back, including that McMorris Rodgers would bench the legislative priorities of those on the panel who have raised concerns, according to two senior Republican aides.

A committee spokesperson denied those allegations.

Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

George Norcross’ corruption charges have top Democrats in New Jersey rushing to distance themselves from the scandal-ridden power broker. His money trail through the federal campaigns machine is more murky, however.

Norcross has not directly donated to any candidates in Congress in recent years besides his brother, Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), according to FEC records.

So while indictments of prominent officials usually prompt one party to prod the opposition’s lawmakers to return donations, Republicans will have a harder time yoking any Democratic members of Congress to Norcross.

Instead, his more direct efforts have largely focused on New Jersey politics, with some attention to neighboring Pennsylvania. There is a network of groups, including super PACs, that are aligned with Norcross and his allies and support his favored candidates at state and local levels, though largely they are not formally associated with him.

He’s given millions of dollars over the years to Democratic campaigns, state and local parties, and other committees. And allied groups such as General Majority PAC and the super PAC American Representative Majority have taken in tens of millions of dollars that they spend boosting allied candidates at the state and local levels. General Majority PAC sent $200,000 to House Democrats’ super PAC, House Majority PAC, in the 2018 cycle.

Norcross was an active figure in the Democratic Party for decades. But after losing a grip on state politics in recent years, told POLITICO he’d step back from the spotlight. Norcross’ spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Although he’d reportedly attended a fundraiser for his brother Donald Norcross with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi as recently as 2020, a Pelosi spokesperson said he never gave directly to her.

But he’s already becoming a flashpoint among the Democrats jockeying for power. Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, who’s running for governor next year, posted Monday afternoon on X: “Bueller…. Bueller…. I know Monday can be a slow day in Congress but weird only two comments in the entire state??” He tagged New Jersey Democratic Reps. Mikie Sherrill and Josh Gottheimer.

Gottheimer responded: “Jersey Values is straight talking, not flip-flopping.” Both Sherrill and Gottheimer are expected to mount gubernatorial bids next year.

Meanwhile, Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who’s running to replace indicted Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), took an optimistic line on X: “As you read about scandals/corruption, don’t disengage. Let’s step up.”

And Kim’s ally, Sue Altman, who’s running to flip a GOP-held seat (and has called for a criminal investigation into Norcross), also hailed the news: “It is a new day for New Jersey politics. We are replacing our culture of corruption, misuse of public funds, and self-dealing government with a new one — one that prioritizes public service, the greater good, and functional government where BOTH parties are held accountable.”

Congress’ nonpartisan budget scorekeeper on Tuesday significantly increased its estimate of the U.S. budget gap, predicting that the nation will run a $2 trillion deficit this year.

The latest forecast from the Congressional Budget Office is up from its estimate of $1.6 trillion earlier this year. Four main things are driving that $400 billion increase, CBO said — citing President Joe Biden’s student loan relief policies as the No. 1 cause of the bigger gap between the amount of money flowing into federal coffers and cash going out this year.

New student loan policies will cost about $145 billion during the current fiscal year, which runs through September, CBO predicted. That includes higher subsidies for student loans and the Biden administration’s plan to reduce balances for many borrowers.

The budget office also increased its longer-term deficit forecast, predicting that the budget gap will be $24 trillion over the next decade. That’s an increase of $2.1 trillion from its estimate earlier this year. Bills enacted in recent months — including the $95 billion foreign aid package Congress cleared in April for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan — are the single largest driver of that multi-year growth in the budget gap, adding $1.6 trillion in projected deficits.

Interest payments on the nation’s nearly $35 trillion debt, as well as the deficit, are both “large by historical standards,” CBO Director Phillip Swagel said.

Among other drivers of the bigger projected deficit, spending is also projected to be about $50 billion higher during the current fiscal year because Medicaid payments are exceeding earlier estimates. Another $70 billion of the increased deficit projection for this year is attributed to delays following recent bank failures, since the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation isn’t recovering payments as quickly as expected.

But that bank-related money will flow in later, “almost entirely” making up for the growth in this year’s deficit, CBO said.

In addition, the budget office hiked its projections for the national debt over the next decade, estimating that debt held by the public would rise to 122 percent of GDP by 2034 — the highest level ever recorded.

CBO predicted that economic growth would slow from 3.1 percent in 2023 to 2 percent this year amid higher unemployment and lower inflation. Short-term interest rates will change little this year, CBO forecast.

The Senate is moving ahead on annual spending bills despite lacking a bipartisan agreement on funding totals — starting markups next month, Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray said Tuesday.

The committee will hold its first fiscal 2025 markup when the upper chamber returns from the July Fourth recess, she said in a floor speech.

The Washington Democrat added that she hopes both sides will resolve their weekslong impasse over funding totals, which has affected all 12 spending bills for next fiscal year. Democrats and Republicans have been feuding over whether defense and domestic programs should receive equal budget boosts.

And with federal cash set to expire on Oct. 1 and a presidential election approaching, Congress will almost certainly have to pass a so-called continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown later this fall. That would punt current funding levels and buy more time for bipartisan, bicameral government funding talks after Nov. 5.

“Last year, we were able to produce strong, bipartisan bills in committee, and I am hopeful we will be able to do the same again this year,” Murray said, according to prepared remarks.

The parity problem: Democrats and Republicans have been at a stalemate over whether lawmakers should blow through funding caps established by last summer’s debt deal in order to provide equal funding increases for the Pentagon and domestic programs, allowing agencies to keep pace with inflation.

The budget deal struck by President Joe Biden and former Speaker Kevin McCarthy last summer allows for a 1 percent budget hike for both defense and non-defense programs. Republicans argue that’s woefully inadequate for the military, while Democrats have been firm that any significant funding increase for defense above the caps must be met with an equal increase for non-defense programs.

“Now, I am glad so many of my Republican colleagues are in strong agreement — at least when it comes to defense,” Murray said. “But every senator calling to boost defense spending alone is seriously missing the point, and any senator who thinks I will let us leave non-defense spending behind is seriously misreading the situation.”

Consequences of the caps: Murray stressed that a mere 1 percent increase for domestic programs means families on federal food assistance will suffer, rural families could lose their homes, federal law enforcement agencies will slash positions, federal firefighters will see a pay cut, and more.

“I can’t emphasize enough that, under the caps for non-defense, everything struggles to keep up with rising costs,” Murray said. “Programs our kids, the future of our country, depend on — public schools, public health and nutrition assistance to name a few — can’t get by on 1 percent.”

Key context: Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, has already proposed tweaking annual defense policy legislation to reflect a $55 billion boost for the military next fiscal year. But any extra money will ultimately be delivered through the Pentagon’s annual spending bill.

Last year, Senate appropriators approved their funding totals for a dozen spending bills along party lines before passing all of their bills in committee, with mostly bipartisan support, for the first time in five years.

The upper chamber could still manage to reach an agreement that allows the committee to mark up and pass bipartisan bills in the coming weeks. But time is running short before August recess.

The House Ethics Committee on Tuesday provided new details on its ongoing investigation into Rep. Matt Gaetz — a day after the Florida Republican publicly lashed out at the secretive panel.

The bipartisan committee, in a statement, defended its long-running probe — saying it was “confident in the integrity of the process” — and disclosed that it had conducted more than a dozen interviews, issued 25 subpoenas and received thousands of pages of documents as part of the investigation.

“Based on its review to date, the Committee has determined that certain of the allegations merit continued review. During the course of its investigation, the Committee has also identified additional allegations that merit review,” the committee said.

The committee said it is reviewing a long list of allegations against the Florida Republican, including sexual misconduct, illicit drug use, accepting improper gifts and obstructing investigations into his conduct. And it added that it’s not taking further actions “at this time” on some allegations, including that Gaetz shared inappropriate images on the House floor and accepted a bribe or “improper gratuity.”

It’s the most comprehensive accounting to date on what the notoriously private panel, which is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, has been doing behind the scenes on Gaetz. Typically, the committee gives only sparse details on its investigations until after they have concluded. But Gaetz had lashed out at the panel publicly the day before in a social media post, saying that it had opened “new frivolous investigations” into him.

The Ethics Committee declined to comment on the timing of the statement, including whether it was drafted specifically as a response to Gaetz or had already been in the works. Asked about the Ethics Committee statement, a spokesperson for Gaetz referred back to the Monday post on X, noting that it “speaks for itself.”

Gaetz has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Instead, he has characterized the House panel’s investigation as an attempt by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his allies to get back at him for leading the California Republican’s ouster. Some of McCarthy’s allies have privately suggested trying to expel Gaetz from the House, depending on the panel’s ultimate findings.

The House Ethics Committee opened its investigation into Gaetz in 2021. It restarted its probe in May 2023 after the Justice Department concluded its own investigation into the Florida Republican without bringing charges.

Since then, there have been signs of momentum behind the scenes. POLITICO first reported in May that the committee had subpoenaed the Justice Department for documents and records.

One Nation, a top conservative group, is pushing a new ad against Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) as it gears up for a campaign running through Labor Day against the Democratic incumbent.

The advertisement, part of a nearly $6 million buy, implores Rosen to “vote against reckless spending and for struggling Nevada families,” citing her votes for the infrastructure law and the Democratic social spending package.

Rosen faces GOP nominee — and Army veteran — Sam Brown in a competitive reelection bid in her swing state. Brown won his bid to take on the incumbent a week ago.

Outside money is flowing into the Silver State. Senate Majority PAC, Democrats’ largest outside group, placed $36 million in ad buys earlier this year to support Rosen.

The incumbent, a first-term senator from the Las Vegas suburb of Henderson, reported having more than $10 million in campaign cash on hand as of late May, compared with $2.5 million for Brown.

The bruising primary for Virginia’s 5th Congressional District is finally coming to an end on Tuesday.

But one month before that, House Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) and his GOP rival John McGuire found themselves face-to-face in New York with the former president himself.

Both men had traveled to the Big Apple on May 16 to support Trump in his criminal trial. Once they were close to Trump, they used their access to try to curry favor with the presumptive presidential nominee — who at that point had yet to endorse in the primary.

Here’s how it went down, according to five people present in the room, including some who spoke on condition of anonymity: When Trump mentioned a debate with Joe Biden, Good seized an opportunity to needle McGuire for declining to debate him. Good told Trump that he knows the feeling of an opponent who would not debate.

“It kind of sucked all the air out of the room, because McGuire was on the other side of the table and it was just super-awkward,” recalled Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), a Freedom Caucus member who is backing Good.

Crane, who called McGuire “weak” for not debating, also remembered the Virginia state senator shooting back in front of Trump that Good would “rig it.” Good quickly asked how one would rig a debate.

McGuire then openly questioned why he should debate Good when his internal polling shows him up 14 points over the incumbent. Good shot back that his internal survey showed him up 25 points, according to two of the five people present in the room. Others in the room more generally recalled a back-and-forth about polling, including the two men talking over one another.

Trump cut through the lingering tension, according to two people in the room, where he spent most of his time complaining that his criminal trial was unfair and rigged.

Here’s where Trump telegraphed the McGuire endorsement he later offered. Trump ribbed Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Good, the two people in the room who initially endorsed his primary challengers in the 2024 presidential race.

As four people in the room recalled, Trump asked about Norman’s endorsement of Nikki Haley, South Carolina’s former governor. Some Republican lawmakers present responded: “Nikki who?” Norman said he acknowledged to Trump that she’d lost in the race.

Then Trump turned to Good, as confirmed by Crane and Norman, and asked how his endorsement of “Ron DeSanctimonious” (read: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis) was working out.

Crucially, Norman painted the entire exchange as more lighthearted than the Good-McGuire animosity might suggest.

“Everything was pretty quick. And it was really — Trump was laughing about it,” Norman said, adding: “The back and forth with Good really just wasn’t that much.”

Trump endorsed McGuire less than two weeks later. The Trump campaign did not immediately return a request for comment on the May 16 back-and-forth.