Government funding talks devolved into public finger pointing Sunday evening, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer accused House Republicans of needing to “sort themselves out” and Speaker Mike Johnson cited “new Democrat demands” for snagging endgame negotiations.

Top lawmakers and appropriators had hoped to unveil the text of a small spending package over the weekend, possibly alongside another short-term funding patch to buy more time for talks on fiscal 2024 bills, beyond the March 1 and March 8 shutdown deadlines. But any hope of reaching an agreement is now slipping into the week, risking a funding lapse at midnight on Friday for the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Transportation and others.

Schumer and Johnson, along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, are expected to meet Tuesday with President Joe Biden to discuss government funding and stalled emergency money for Ukraine, Israel and other issues.

Schumer wrote in a letter to colleagues on Sunday that it is his “sincere hope” that Johnson “will step up to once again buck the extremists in his caucus and do the right thing.”

“While we had hoped to have legislation ready this weekend that would give ample time for members to review the text, it is clear now that House Republicans need more time to sort themselves out,” he said. “With the uncertainty of how the House will pass the appropriations bills and avoid a shutdown this week, I ask all Senators to keep their schedules flexible, so we can work to ensure a pointless and harmful lapse in funding doesn’t occur.”

Johnson called Schumer’s letter “counterproductive rhetoric,” insisting that House Republicans continue to “work in good faith” and “hope to reach an outcome as soon as possible.”

Many of the remaining sticking points “come from new Democrat demands that were not previously included in the Senate bills,” Johnson said in a statement. “At a time of divided government, Senate Democrats are attempting at this late stage to spend on priorities that are farther left than what their chamber agreed upon.”

In the run-up to the shutdown cliff, appropriations staff has been working around the clock in hopes of clinching a deal on some or all of the first four bills set to expire, including the Agriculture-FDA, Energy-Water, Military Construction-VA and Transportation-HUD measures.

Johnson is facing tremendous pressure from his right flank to secure policy wins across the bills on topics ranging from abortion to guns. During a conference call with Republicans on Friday night, he said he couldn’t rule out the possibility of a partial government shutdown at week’s end.

Negotiators in recent days have sparred over cuts to agriculture programs and limits on how USDA spends money, for example. Both sides have also warred over a policy rider that would ban mail delivery of abortion pills, a heated impasse over nutrition funding for low-income mothers and babies, as well as a pilot program proposed by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) that would restrict SNAP food aid purchases.

The timeline for any legislative action is exceedingly tight. The House, which has been expected to move first on any bills, won’t be in session until Wednesday. The Senate, set to deal with impeachment articles against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, returns from recess on Monday.

Aside from funding regular government operations, congressional leaders continue to spar over foreign military aid. On the heels of his trip with several other Senate Democrats to Ukraine, Schumer challenged Johnson to visit the country “and witness what we witnessed, because I believe it is virtually impossible for anyone with decency and goodwill to turn their back on Ukraine if they saw the horrors of that war with their own eyes.”

The Senate’s national security supplemental, which would deliver tens of billions of dollars in emergency aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, would pass the House if Johnson allowed a vote, Schumer wrote. “Now is the time for action. Speaker Johnson cannot let politics or blind obeisance to Donald Trump get in the way.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

FLEMINGTON, New Jersey — Rep. Andy Kim won his third straight county convention on Sunday, beating his top rival, first lady Tammy Murphy, in his bid for the Democratic nomination for the Senate.

But Kim’s victory came after the Hunterdon County convention was briefly thrown into disarray when the county chair — a Murphy ally — proposed changing the endorsement rules. It would have allowed candidates with 30 percent of the vote to share the so-called county line, the valuable primary ballot positioning that party-endorsed candidates receive.

The proposal was met with cursing and screams from the convention delegates and beaten down in a hand vote. But if the rule change went through, it would have meant that Kim would have had to share the line with Murphy in the county — likely putting them on equal footing, visually, with primary voters.

Kim’s victory here means he wins the county line, placing him in the same ballot column as other party-endorsed candidates — a unique and hugely important feature of New Jersey’s primary system. Each county party in the state differs in how the line is awarded — some have conventions where local Democrats like precinct leaders vote on who they want to support. In other large Democratic strongholds, the support of a local party boss is enough to get the valuable ballot positioning — in those parts of the state, Murphy enjoys a strong advantage over Kim.

Kim won the Hunterdon contest 120 votes to Murphy’s 64, or 62 percent to 33 percent. He and Murphy are the frontrunners in the race to replace indicted Sen. Bob Menendez, who has not said whether he is seeking reelection.

Hunterdon County is New Jersey’s fourth smallest county by population, and Democrats have not held a single countywide elected office here since 1982. But it is the third consecutive Democratic county convention win for Kim. And unlike the state’s first two Democratic conventions in Burlington and Monmouth, both of which Kim won handily, Hunterdon has a unique qualifier: It is the first county that neither Kim nor Murphy have any natural political roots. In that way, Hunterdon may offer a preview at how Democratic voters who don’t have a clear connection to Kim or Murphy may react to their candidacies.

Kim represents most of Burlington County, where he grew up, and around a third of Monmouth County. Murphy has lived in Monmouth County for well over two decades.

When asked if Kim had momentum in the race, Murphy said: “No, he does not. … he oversees 35 percent of Monmouth County [in Congress], that makes sense. Burlington, that’s his county.” She declined to address Hunterdon.

Hunterdon Democratic County Chair Arlene Quiñones Perez told convention delegates that she wanted to make the balloting changes Sunday because of a letter sent by Kim and two other Senate candidates, Patricia Campos-Medina and Lawrence Hamm, calling for an “office block” primary setup in all 19 of New Jersey’s 21 counties that do not currently use it.

Kim, however, was not in favor of the change on Sunday. And surrendering the line in Hunterdon County would have put him at a statewide disadvantage since Murphy would presumably still have the prominent ballot positioning in other key Democratic strongholds in the state where she has support.

Murphy told reporters that she was unaware of the convention proposal until Perez announced it from the convention floor.

“I thought it actually might have made sense, but I had no vote in it,” Murphy told reporters. She did not directly answer whether she would support a similar measure in counties that she is expected to win, such as Middlesex.

“I’m not going to dictate how different county parties function — I think that’s not right. But again, if there are good ideas … then I’m all in,” she said.

Kim also heavily criticized the manner by which the rule change was proposed by county leaders.

“They decided that it’s good to have something sprung upon a convention at the last possible second without any ability to discuss or deliberate,” Kim said. “You saw the reaction from people. They don’t like that.”

He added that, though he would have supported a shared line system had it been in place in all 19 counties, “I made it very clear what I want, which is every single county to be able to do the office block.”

Hunterdon County does not represent a large prize in the broader Democratic primary contest: There are just over 30,000 registered Democrats here, representing 1.2 percent of all Democrats in the state. By comparison, Burlington and Monmouth counties each represent about 5.6 percent of all Democrats in the state.

Sue Altman, who is running unopposed for the Democratic ticket in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, also received the county endorsement unanimously by voice vote. She is running to unseat Rep. Tom Kean, Jr., who flipped the district red in 2022 in a narrow win over Democrat Tom Malinowski. The race is considered among the most competitive in 2024.

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.”

Biden touts new Russia sanctions, slams House for Ukraine inaction

lead image

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.

John Avlon on Congress run: ‘This seat is winnable’

lead image