Two of the GOP’s biggest personalities on the Hill are in a war of words over the $95 billion foreign aid bill that recently passed the Senate.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) blasted Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) as a “liar” on Wednesday for claiming that he’s talking to House Republicans about signing onto a Hail Mary strategy for forcing a vote on the foreign aid plan — a bill that Mullin voted against in the wee hours of Tuesday morning.

“.@MattGaetzis a liar,” Mullin wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Those of us who have worked with him already know that. He should focus on his own ethics issues instead of spreading false Hill rumors.”

Mullin’s use of the term “ethics issues” is almost certainly a subtle nod to the House’s ongoing internal inquiry into allegations of sexual encounters between Gaetz and teenage girls, the subject of a federal investigation that ended without charges about a year ago. The Oklahoman hit back after Gaetz referred to Mullin, a former House member who’s close to ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, as a “neoconservative” who “didn’t have the guts to vote for” the aid package.

Gaetz’s claim that Mullin is secretly working to pass a bill he voted against appears to stem from a report in The Washington Post where Mullin described “different scenarios” to pass the bill through the House. Some interpreted that comment to mean a Democratic-led discharge petition that would circumvent GOP leadership.

Mullin rebutted the idea he was supportive of a discharge petition on Tuesday as “fake news,” saying he’d instead “spoken to @SpeakerJohnson about ways to enact President Trump’s loan ideas for foreign aid.”

There’s no love lost between Mullin and Gaetz, to put it mildly. Mullin made a series of X-rated accusations to CNN about the Florida Republican after Gaetz helped spearhead the ouster of McCarthy in October.

The since-resigned McCarthy, in remarks to reporters on Tuesday on Capitol Hill, said Gaetz was “very concerned about” the Ethics Committee probe “and wanted me to do something about it. I wouldn’t. It’d be illegal.”

Olivia Beavers contributed.

Speaker Mike Johnson is experiencing some deja vu as he tries to revive a controversial spy fight — and the second attempt is running into the same buzzsaw as the first.

Two opposing factions of the House GOP are both threatening to tank the reauthorization of a critical intelligence surveillance tool as Republicans remain locked in a long-running standoff. One side of the debate views sweeping changes as vital to Americans’ privacy rights and the other warns new limits would critically undermine national security by effectively neutering the program.

The House clash — between Republican security hawks on the Intelligence Committee and GOP privacy advocates on the Judiciary Committee — is a particularly sore point for Johnson’s leadership. He’s facing criticism from every corner about how he’s handled the spy powers fight, with members predicting the bill would be blocked if Johnson tries to bring it up for a quick vote Thursday.

“There’s provisions in there that are just problematic. It hasn’t gone through regular order. It’s a whole mess,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a member of the Intelligence Committee. “That’s why we’ll probably just vote against the rule and take it down.”

The House Rules Committee plans to meet on Wednesday to tee up the bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Both sides of the debate want votes on significant changes if it goes to the floor on Thursday.

Section 702 revolves around an authority that is intended to target foreigners abroad but has become controversial because of its ability to sweep up Americans’ information. The legislation set for consideration includes narrower changes than those preferred by the Judiciary Committee, notably forgoing strict warrant requirements related to American communications.

Privacy hawks are trying to amend the bill on the floor and add language to address two issues: Requiring a warrant before searching for Americans’ information and placing limits on the ability for data brokers to sell consumer information to law enforcement. A provision related to the latter was already tucked into the bill that leadership rolled out on Monday — which in turn has rankled the security advocates on the Intelligence Committee.

Those members argue that change is unrelated to the surveillance authority up for renewal, and opens the door for privacy hawks to offer more sweeping changes this week.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), a close ally of House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), indicated he was aware of the counter threat to knock down the bill, but they would still push amendment votes.

“They are like: ‘We don’t really want to vote on these things,’” Davidson said about his Intelligence Committee colleagues. “I’m not asking for a guaranteed outcome on whether something is going to pass … but I am asking for a vote.”

Davidson is part of a coalition that spans Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus and their respective allies, who view getting votes on a warrant requirement and the data broker language as essential. Otherwise, they warn they would prevent the bill from even being brought up.

That could easily happen in the Rules Committee, if conservative Reps. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) vote against bringing the bill to the floor in the panel’s Wednesday meeting. Even if it gets approved there, at full attendance it only takes four Republicans joining with Democrats to block the bill from coming up for debate on the floor.

Jordan, when asked by POLITICO if he’d support the underlying bill if the warrant amendment fails, replied: “The warrant needs to be in there. Definitely needs to be in there.”

“We have to have these amendments. Like, there’s no way we’re not going to have them,” he said, noting that he told Johnson that the Judiciary Committee should have their privacy-minded bill on the floor and then there could be an amendment vote to strike the warrant language in their legislation.

But “the speaker does what he wants,” Jordan added.

Rather, House Intelligence Committee members believe that, behind closed doors, Johnson has indicated he’d support their security-favored efforts. But he has apparently not advertised that position to the conference broadly, prompting further frustration as members view him as indecisive on the issue.

Some Republicans have also complained that they went through a working group process at the behest of leadership, only for Johnson to reopen negotiations on things that were rejected by the group.

Johnson on Tuesday defended the process and noted that Republicans will get the chance to change the bill.

“We have a great base text that’s been filed,” Johnson told reporters during a press conference. “And there’s an amendment process that’s being worked through.”

Speaker Mike Johnson won’t take the Senate-passed national security supplemental as is, insisting House Republicans will write their own legislation. Democrats are trying to plot a path around him.

Johnson in a statement late Monday dismissed the $95 billion Senate bill with aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan because it failed to include provisions to tighten border security. He said in a statement: “In the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will on these important matters.”

Previously, the Louisiana Republican and other conservatives had worked to kill a bipartisan border-foreign aid deal because they said it didn’t go far enough to stem the flow of migrants across the border. That compromise failed in the Senate last week, after Johnson said it was dead on arrival in the House. And legislation that has stricter border policies — like the conservative-favored H.R. 2 — would almost certainly run into Democratic opposition in the upper chamber. It all indicates that the months-long fight over foreign aid and border security still has a ways to go.

Still, a Johnson aide, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO Tuesday that Johnson won’t be “boxed” into the Senate plan. Instead, House Republicans would find their own remedy to address the national security and border issues. Johnson is facing conservative pressure to oppose any Ukraine funding and fight for H.R. 2, a border bill the House passed last year on partisan lines, with some members hinting they would seek to oust him if the GOP leader put Ukraine aid legislation on the floor.

“He’s saying the current bill won’t be processed in the House and why,” the aide said.

Meanwhile, Democrats are hoping they can box Johnson in, pushing a procedural maneuver known as a discharge petition that would allow them to force a floor vote on the Senate-passed bill. Critically, though, Democrats need a majority of House members to sign on, including a handful of House Republicans. It’s unclear if they’ll get that backing.

Every House Democrat has signed onto a shell discharge petition that could be used to force a vote as soon as it has the necessary signatures. And some Republicans have held quiet conversations with Democrats about a path forward but, so far, no Republicans have joined.

Johnson has criticized that effort, saying Tuesday afternoon: “I certainly oppose it, and I hope that it would not be considered. The House has to work its will on this. There’s a deliberative process, and we’re engaged in that and we’ll see how it goes.”

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) told POLITICO last week that he was spearheading a bill with Democrats that would link foreign aid, including for Ukraine, to a border measure.

“I’m working with a few Democrats on it. It’s going to address the problem in a much more narrow fashion,” said the centrist Republican, who said they will “figure out a way” to get his measure to the floor.

Conservatives are supportive of Johnson’s moves to block the Senate-passed bill, even those who are typically critical of the GOP leader.

“The good news is that Johnson has publicly stated that we’ve got to do something on the border before we do anything like that,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said on “The John Fredericks Show” Tuesday morning.

But, the former Freedom Caucus chair was quick to note: “If it were to get to the floor, it would pass — let’s just be frank about that.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer implored Johnson to take up the legislation in a Tuesday press conference, saying “if the hard-right kills this bill, it would be an enormous gift to Vladimir Putin.” But the Senate Democrat deferred to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on how to pursue a discharge petition.

And it’s not just Democrats who want Johnson to act. Even as he embraces his right flank by refusing to take up the Senate bill, there are other corners of his conference who view more financial help for Israel and Ukraine as essential. And many of those lawmakers are sick of seeing leaders bow to conservative priorities that have no shot in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

Some Republicans have floated considering pieces of a foreign aid package separately. That would let Republicans vote for Israel aid and lean on Democrats to help pass Ukraine aid. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told POLITICO last week that he’s discussing a stand-alone bill on Ukraine military aid with a group of lawmakers.

And Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) — who led a trip last week to Ukraine to try to reiterate the United States’ support — predicted that Johnson will ultimately allow for a vote on the Senate-passed bill. Notably, Johnson’s statement did not rule out the House eventually taking it up.

“The speaker will need to bring it to the floor,” he said.

House Republicans impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday, making him the first Cabinet secretary since 1876 to be impeached by the House.

A week after a first attempt that fell short and caused heartburn for GOP leadership, Mayorkas was impeached in a second vote, 214-213.

The Senate is all but guaranteed to sidestep it, with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office saying the articles will be presented after the upcoming recess with senators sworn in as jurors shortly after. Lawmakers predicted they could quickly dismiss the charges of betraying the public trust and refusing to comply with the law. The Senate is not expected to spend much time on the trial.

Three Republicans defected on the impeachment effort: Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who all also voted “no” last week. But GOP leaders were able to revive the articles against Mayorkas with Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) return this week after treatment for blood cancer.

The vote comes on the same day that Republicans are trying to hold onto expelled Rep. George Santos’s seat. If Democrats flip the seat, that would likely have put impeaching Mayorkas just out of reach until special elections later this year.

The eventual success caps off months of Republican work to impeach Mayorkas, after they were caught flat footed last week when Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) showed up from the hospital to cast his no vote. Republicans, while acknowledging their own dysfunction, quickly tried to salvage the situation by noting they would impeach the Homeland Security chief as soon as Scalise returned.

The GOP views the border as a unifying issue in their raucous conference and an easy cudgel against Democrats as they head toward November. They’ve been building up support for the historic step for months, while also scuttling a bipartisan border plan in the Senate — raising the likelihood that legislation to address spiking migrant crossings isn’t signed into law this year.

In a statement after the vote, Speaker Mike Johnson said Mayorkas “deserves to be impeached.” “Since this Secretary refuses to do the job that the Senate confirmed him to do, the House must act,” the speaker added.

But even as GOP leaders tried to convince their colleagues to support impeaching Mayorkas, the effort wasn’t guaranteed. Last week it appeared to be on the verge of collapse as several Republicans remained on-the-fence just hours before the vote. Though leadership managed to win over nearly all of them, they still fell short because of opposition from Gallagher, Buck and McClintock, alongside full attendance from House Democrats.

Gallagher announced his plans to retire days after the vote, and Buck also plans to leave the House at the end of this term.

The GOP’s impeachment push has sparked pushback from the administration, typical GOP constitutional allies and congressional Democrats — and is already being turned against Biden-district Republicans up for reelection. In a post-vote statement, President Joe Biden said, “History will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship.”

“House Republicans will be remembered by history for trampling on the Constitution for political gain rather than working to solve the serious challenges at our border,” DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said in a statement. “While Secretary Mayorkas was helping a group of Republican and Democratic Senators develop bipartisan solutions to strengthen border security and get needed resources for enforcement, House Republicans have wasted months with this baseless, unconstitutional impeachment.”

Gallagher, Buck and McClintock each raised concerns that the Mayorkas impeachment didn’t meet the bar laid out under the Constitution — a concern from GOP-aligned constitutional experts who publicly urged Republicans against taking the step heading into last week’s vote.

The Department of Homeland Security, in a new memo on Tuesday, also made a final push to sway Republicans against impeaching Mayorkas, writing that they should “listen to their fellow Republicans and stop wasting time on this pointless, unconstitutional impeachment.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson is facing another challenge as he tries to navigate an already tricky spy powers fight: an effort within his own ranks to link upcoming legislation to gun rights.

Rep. Warren Davidson is circulating a letter to Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise urging them to use a revived debate over controversial surveillance power to also prevent data brokers from selling consumer information to law enforcement.

And the Ohio Republican is weaving in another hot button issue, arguing that without changes, gun owners are at risk of being negatively impacted.

“It is vital that any forthcoming legislation Section 702 … close the data broker loophole. Congress now has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to update our laws to protect Americans’ liberty, Americans’ right to privacy and the Second Amendment,” Davidson wrote in the letter.

Davidson is collecting signatures from his colleagues for the letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. The House Judiciary Committee already passed legislation on a bipartisan basis to prevent data brokers from selling consumer information to law enforcement.

It’s the latest potential hurdle for Johnson. House Republicans are hoping to bring a revived bill to change and reauthorize Section 702 to the floor this week. The surveillance power is meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under fire because of its ability to sweep in Americans data.

But a coalition of privacy hawks, including both progressives and conservatives in the House, view the data broker issue as a top priority for the 702 debate. They are expected to get a vote on an amendment related to it as part of this week’s debate.

And they are already getting support from some traditional GOP allies closely watching the debate.

Aidan Johnston, Gun Owners of America’s director of federal affairs, told POLITICO the group “is closely tracking the FISA loophole allowing federal law enforcement to buy lists of gun owners and concealed carry permit holders without a warrant or regard for the Second and Fourth Amendments.”

“We have serious concerns about the potential for the federal government to weaponize this data against Americans, especially given the Biden administration’s lengthy record of harassing and prosecuting political opponents, including gun owners,” he added.

House Republicans are preparing a second attempt at passing legislation reauthorizing a controversial surveillance power.

The Rules Committee will take up legislation Wednesday that would make changes to and extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The authority is meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under scrutiny for its ability to sweep in Americans.

A spokesperson for Majority Leader Steve Scalise didn’t immediately respond to a question about timing for a vote. But individuals involved in the closed-door discussion told POLITICO they expect the bill to be on the floor Thursday or Friday.

First it will need to get through the Rules Committee, where Speaker Mike Johnson’s plan last year to bring competing bills to the floor ultimately unraveled.

Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who are both members of the Judiciary Committee, along with Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), have the combined ability to block a bill in Rules absent Democratic help. They could also be a barometer for the bill’s reception among privacy hawks, members of the Freedom Caucus and their allies.

POLITICO first reported last Wednesday that Johnson was leaning toward bringing a bill to the floor this week after leadership revived a GOP working group aimed at bridging the party’s surveillance divisions.

Two individuals briefed on the discussion told POLITICO late last week and over the weekend that there are expected to be approximately six votes on amendments to the bill, including on a warrant requirement before searching 702-collected data for Americans information and on preventing data brokers from selling consumer information to law enforcement.

The revised bill comes after intense closed-door negotiations about the path forward after the Judiciary and Intelligence committees offered competing proposals late last year.

Technically Congress has until mid-April to work out a deal, but Republicans have hinted that Johnson wants quicker action. The House is currently scheduled to leave after Friday until Feb. 28. When they return, Congress is expected to be consumed by twin government funding deadlines and averting a shutdown threat.

Another Donald Trump impeachment over Ukraine funding? Ohio Republican Sen. J.D. Vance says it’s a possibility, if the $95 billion emergency foreign aid spending bill becomes law and Trump wins the election.

Vance distributed a memo to Senate GOP offices on Monday arguing that the foreign aid measure could tie Trump’s hands if he comes into office next year wanting to pause Ukraine funds as part of negotiations on ending Russia’s war on the U.S. ally. That’s because some of the legislation’s funding expires nine months into the next presidency, effectively — according to Vance — handcuffing a future President Trump from making his own decisions on Ukraine spending.

Vance is one of the most outspoken opponents of Ukraine assistance, and he’s making a last-ditch effort to block the legislation before a critical vote later on Monday to end debate on the foreign aid plan, which needs 60 votes.

“The supplemental represents an attempt by the foreign policy blob/deep state to stop President Trump from pursuing his desired policy, and if he does so anyways, to provide grounds to impeach him and undermine his administration. All Republicans should oppose its passage,” reads the memo by Vance’s office.

The then-Democratic House majority impeached Trump in 2019 over the then-president’s move to withhold funding slated for Ukraine and pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch investigations into Joe Biden, who defeated Trump in November 2020. The Senate acquitted Trump in early 2020.

Though the 2024 election is nine months away, Trump is trying to kill the foreign aid bill and urging the Senate to stop it. Despite that, the bill is clearly on track for passage — with just one more opportunity for the GOP to block it later on Monday. It would still need to pass the House, which is an uncertain prospect at the moment.

If the overseas aid bill does become law and Trump wins the election, Vance’s new memo argues that the incoming president could be impeached again if he “were to withdraw from or pause financial support for the war in Ukraine in order to bring the conflict to a peaceful conclusion.”