Marjorie Taylor Greene’s push to fire Speaker Mike Johnson is firmly on track to fail, but her vow to plow forward anyway is raising a new question: Is she hurting herself more than him?

Greene wanted to ride a groundswell of new intra-GOP support back into Washington this week. Instead, not only did she fail to grow her ranks of anti-Johnson rebels over the week-long recess, but House Democrats announced that they would help block her effort — and her Republican colleagues began openly forecasting its demise.

It’s a palpable blow for Greene after she previewed her plans to force a vote on ousting Johnson more than a month ago. At that time, she set two red lines she warned the speaker not to cross: calling up government surveillance legislation without major changes and taking up aid to Ukraine. Johnson did both, playing a major role in getting the packages to President Joe Biden’s desk.

Perhaps the biggest sign that Greene’s mutiny is losing steam, however, is how House GOP leaders plan to deal with it. In a move meant to defang her threat after it has hung over the House for weeks, Johnson’s team is leaning towards calling for quick action to dispense with her proposal to fire the speaker as soon as she tries to force a vote on it, according to three Republicans familiar with the talks who were granted anonymity to speak candidly.

The Georgia firebrand could still score a symbolic win on the floor if she keeps pushing ahead, since Democrats’ public plan to protect Johnson frees up other hard-line Republicans to support her ouster plan. That would simply give more conservatives bragging rights with the party base, however, not bring Greene any closer to toppling the speaker.

And whatever fodder Greene and her allies might get from watching Democrats save Johnson, many fellow Republicans indicated that at this point, she risks further alienating herself while his speakership likely survives until November. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) summed up Greene’s effort as “dead.” Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) said he was inundated with pressure back in their home state — but the requests were to get Greene to back down from her “dumb move,” not to join her.

“Everybody said, you know, ‘Can you do something to stop her from doing this?’ They did not want this to happen. They like Mike,” Loudermilk said of his constituents in a brief interview.

Republicans are particularly frustrated because Greene’s renewal of her campaign against the speaker stole oxygen from their messaging push on antisemitism this week. Instead of going on the offense by attacking Democrats for insufficiently condemning pro-Palestinian protests on campuses, Republicans are now bracing for Greene to drag them into another internal fight that most of them would rather delay until after Election Day.

Even before the growing pile-on, there were signs that Greene’s vow to strip Johnson of the speaker’s gavel was on the rocks: While she’s gained no new public GOP supporters yet beyond Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), former President Donald Trump has thrown his support behind Johnson.

One GOP lawmaker, also granted anonymity to speak frankly, said Greene is “enjoying the publicity” in the short term but pointed to that break with Trump as a reason she might suffer more long-running consequences if she goes through with forcing a vote.

“This might be a good distraction for her but … in the long term, not help her politics,” this member said.

Some of the conservatives who previously entertained joining Greene, like Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) now say they will oppose the ouster.

Crane listed four main reasons for his decision in a Tuesday interview, conducted after Democrats said they would back Johnson. In no particular order, they were: Her push won’t succeed; though Crane believes Johnson isn’t putting up enough of a fight, he doesn’t believe a more conservative speaker can get elected; “huge consequential decisions” related to Ukraine aid, government funding, and other issues are already made; and finally, Trump has made his position clear.

“The leader of our party, [former] President Donald Trump, said he doesn’t want to see it. And I think he’s worried about chaos in the House affecting the outcome of this election,” Crane said, adding that “it puts many of us in a tight spot, just because I don’t believe that Mike Johnson is doing a good job.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the first lawmaker to flirt with ousting Johnson, is similarly downplaying Greene’s effort, arguing that Republicans need to keep their focus on trying to hold onto the House in November.

“There’s obviously frustration with what happened, but we’ve got to move forward and try to carry the country forward,” Roy said, adding that a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair should be used “sparingly.”

Greene’s push to oust Johnson comes after she opposed the same firing campaign last year against former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, whom she had grown closer to during his nine months atop the House.

Her position in the conference has shifted dramatically since then. Greene and Johnson, by her own admission, aren’t close. Johnson indicated on Monday that he hadn’t spoken to her much about her effort to dislodge him.

Plus, the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus booted Greene last year. Nowadays, some Republicans privately suspect some hardliners who would’ve otherwise wanted to see Johnson go are opposing her ouster effort because of their personal dislike of Greene. She’s argued that the Republican conference has become out of touch with a base that has grown increasingly frustrated with Johnson — and needs to fix it before the election, not after.

But if she’s going to make good on her promise to force an ouster vote, she’s quickly running out of legislative opportunities. Republicans were waiting for her to make her move earlier this month after the House passed long-stalled Ukraine aid, a fight that infuriated the right flank.

Another House Republican, also granted anonymity to speak candidly, predicted that Greene “lays low on it until the next tough vote we have to take. And so she’ll just kind of continue to trickle it along.”

This lawmaker also said Trump has spoken to Greene about the matter directly.

Meanwhile, Greene has gone somewhat quiet as the entire House begins to wonder how long she’ll drag out her promise. She missed votes on Monday night and largely declined to comment on Tuesday, issuing a lengthy statement vowing to trigger a vote and calling a press conference for Wednesday morning.

“If the Democrats want to elect him Speaker (and some Republicans want to support the Democrats’ chosen Speaker), I’ll give them the chance to do it. … Americans deserve to see the Uniparty on full display. I’m about to give them their coming out party!” she said, using a term some conservatives use to disparage Republicans who work with Democrats.

Greene has largely declined to weigh in on Trump’s support for Johnson, saying that she is close with but doesn’t speak for the former president. Massie attempted to portray Trump’s description of the Louisianan as less than a full-throated endorsement, saying “sometimes by [faintly] praising somebody, you can kind of doom them.”

The media attention she’s vacuuming up, however, is starting to annoy her GOP colleagues, who’d rather share the spotlight.

One Republican lawmaker quipped, while passing by a group of reporters on the way into a closed-door meeting this week: “They’re just here to talk to Marjorie.”

Andy Kim can only remember talking to John Fetterman in person once. Their political styles and looks could not be more different: The Bunyanesque Pennsylvania senator who prefers hoodies and shorts is renowned for off-the-cuff comments and posting punchy political memes on X, while the three-term New Jersey Rep. Kim is a soft-spoken former diplomat who regularly shares wholesome photos of his young kids in Star Wars costumes or playing with Legos.

But despite their opposite demeanors, scarce interactions — and drastically different heights — Kim and Fetterman have become an unlikely pair tied by a mutual disgust for an indicted senator, Bob Menendez. In Kim’s heated Senate primary to replace Menendez, Fetterman became one of the most vocal outside voices on New Jersey politics. They can be considered Washington’s “Odd Couple,” and chances are they’ll be colleagues in the Senate next year.

“I don’t know why we’re odd,” Fetterman said at the Capitol. “We’re both Democrats. We both probably assume Menendez is a total sleazeball. And we’ll both be in the Senate. We seem to have a lot together in common.”

For someone who has made a career of defying norms, Fetterman has stood out as being the lone, non-New Jersey voice in the Senate routinely calling for Menendez’s resignation — rankling Kim’s home state colleagues. Fetterman aligned with the Garden State’s revolting low-level Democrats in the Senate primary by expressing distaste for New Jersey first lady Tammy Murphy, who he said relied partly on nepotism to try winning the nomination.

It all adds to the persona of an iconoclastic political figure who speaks his mind — whether anybody asked him to. Kim certainly didn’t.

“I don’t know him very well, but I certainly respect somebody who has that kind of confidence in who they are, their style, their approach. It’s not easy. Like so much of politics — there’s pressure to kind of conform on a lot of different levels. There’s pressure to not stick your neck out,” Kim added. “I hope to be able to get to know him better.”

That seems likely. Kim was considered the outsider in the race against Murphy but is now gliding towards the Democratic nomination after she dropped out in March. A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll this month showed Kim with a nine-point lead over Republican challengers after his chief rival for the Democratic nomination for Senate left the race.

Kim focused much of his campaign on making New Jersey elections fairer — specifically through tearing down its unusual ballot positioning that gives an advantage to institutional politicians. Known as “the line,” it puts candidates endorsed by the county parties in a row or column, giving enormous influence to chairs with ties to New Jersey’s political establishment.

In February, Kim filed a lawsuit against the line in federal court. And Fetterman was quick to support his efforts: “I thought Democrats were always against voter suppression?”

Kim said he had never spoken to Fetterman until Menendez was indicted. The first time they met was during a Joe Biden speech, when the significantly shorter New Jerseyan was seated behind 6’ 8” Fetterman — who was wearing a tall Steelers winter hat. “Of course they put the 5’ 6” Asian American behind John Fetterman,” he said.

The two lawmakers were first in their chambers to call on New Jersey’s senior senator to resign. Kim jumped into the race immediately after the indictment, and once the race heated up, Fetterman’s endorsement followed.

Early on, Fetterman was the lone Kim supporter from Capitol Hill — even as all of Kim’s colleagues from New Jersey took a pass, despite following Kim in urging Menendez to resign. The rest of the New Jersey delegation flocked to Murphy, who carried the heaviest backing of New Jersey’s political establishment.

“It’s a marriage of convenience,” Michael Sulieman, chair of New Jersey’s Atlantic County Democrats, said.

A lot has changed in the Senate race since Fetterman first put out his endorsement in January, when Kim looked like an underdog to Murphy. Kim’s lawsuit against the ballot positioning measure was successful for the June Democratic primary, Menendez is weighing a run as an independent and the political machine Kim and Fetterman criticized back in September appears to be crumbling in real time.

“It started with Senator Menendez and his criticism there,” Kim said. “But for a sitting senator to want to weigh in on this — I think that just kind of highlights and underscores sort of the intensity of this, this race and how much drama there is.”

New Jersey has a subtle regional rivalry with Pennsylvania, as it does with its other neighbors, New York and Delaware. But Fetterman has weighed in on the New Jersey Senate race as if it was his own state — something you don’t see from Chuck Schumer or from Biden when he was a senator. Fetterman often cites his own experience taking on a “New Jersey Republican,” a double entendre poke at Murphy, who was once registered as a Republican, and his former opponent for the Senate in 2022, Mehmet Oz, who had a New Jersey residence.

“Fetterman is making a bigger and bigger name for himself,” New Jersey GOP strategist Mike DuHaime said. “He’s quasi-local, so that endorsement certainly helped. It gave Kim some credibility.”

But other members of the New Jersey delegation weren’t as keen to Fetterman butting into the Garden State’s Senate conversation.

“I just think he needs to stay in Pennsylvania and take care of his own business,” Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman said at the Capitol.

“I wish he would spend more time worrying about winning Pennsylvania for Biden than worrying about our democratic state in New Jersey,” Rep. Mikie Sherrill said before Murphy dropped out. She previously endorsed Murphy.

No one in the New Jersey delegation endorsed Kim when he was up against Murphy. Originally, more members of the Pennsylvania delegation backed Kim than those from New Jersey did.

Fetterman and Kim said they look forward to working with each other in the upper chamber — where they may find they have much more in common.

“Maybe that’s the connection. Andy is an authentic guy: he’s a lovable guy, you kinda want to give him a hug,” Sulieman said. “Fetterman — he is very authentic. He dresses how he wants, he talks how he wants. He trolls people, he is not a polished politician.”

Sulieman added, “And over the years the authentic politicians have done well.”

President Joe Biden vowed last week that he would take another stab at trying to pass border security legislation that had been axed during negotiations over his foreign aid package.

It was news to those involved in the first round of negotiations over the bill.

Talks around resuscitating the bipartisan border compromise that senators struck in February have been nonexistent in Washington. And despite the president’s proclamation, administration officials and immigration policy experts both say it’s highly unlikely any legislative momentum for border security materializes between now and November.

“They pulled a rabbit out of a hat on Ukraine, but there’s no chance they’re getting anything out of Mike Johnson’s House on border security,” said an immigration advocate familiar with the White House’s thinking, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations with administration officials. “They’ve known that since December, when they realized they had to count votes in the House. There’s no chance of legislation on this, and they know that. It’s rhetorical posturing.”

Biden’s comments last week underscored the administration’s desire to try and turn the politics of the border — long an albatross for Democrats — into something more advantageous. After former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers tanked the compromise bill, the White House moved to put blame for the crisis at their feet. The president has openly weighed the possibility of taking executive action and, as he did upon signing the foreign aid bill, talked up the need to revisit the legislation.

“I proposed and negotiated and agreed to the strongest border security bill this country has ever, ever, ever seen,” he said last week, speaking about its exclusion from the foreign aid package. “It was bipartisan. It should have been included in this bill, and I’m determined to get it done for the American people.”

But, in reality, there’s been no behind-the-scenes jockeying from the White House to restart talks, in part because the White House believes that the migration crisis has temporarily stabilized, with illegal border crossings dipping again in March to 137,000.

While talks may be currently dormant, that doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t be restarted. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has a number of moderate members of his party up for reelection this year, some of whom are pushing for him to bring the bill to the floor again.

“We’re not leaving border alone, we’re going to come back to it,” Schumer said in an interview this week, echoing the president.

But another attempt at action in the Senate would run into the same hurdles as last time: Trump’s opposition and dim prospects in a Republican-run House.

“My colleagues said it wasn’t good enough. And then, our nominee for president said: I don’t want you to do anything because this is my best issue going into November,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lamented last week.

That outlook, in turn, has left the White House weighing new executive actions, including restrictions on asylum. Administration officials have held a number of meetings on the new policies this week, spurring chatter that the announcements could be coming soon. But five people close to the administration, who were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations with administration officials, say the timeline remains murky. The White House is weighing both the political optics of moving forward unilaterally and questions about whether some of the actions it takes would pass legal muster.

“I think everything is in pencil,” said a former administration official. “Nothing is in Sharpie.”

The administration has been crafting an executive action that would include using a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar migrants from seeking asylum in between U.S. ports of entry. Like the border legislation, the directive would likely be tied to a trigger, coming into effect after a certain number of illegal crossings took place, said the five people close to the administration. The order would also make it more difficult for migrants to pass the initial screening for seeking asylum, as well as ways to quickly deport those who don’t meet those elevated asylum standards.

Border crossings dropped by 50 percent in January and have since remained stable, creating a belief among administration officials that the president has more space to deal with the issue. Increased enforcement on the Mexican side of the border, which began after Biden administration officials traveled to meet with counterparts in December, has helped alleviate some of the political pressure in the U.S.

While it has been reported that the White House would make the moves by late April, it’s still expected that the administration will roll out the new policies when border numbers rise again.

“Because otherwise, it would be like a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it,” said another advocate familiar with the White House’s thinking. “Unless something’s happening at the border, people don’t pay as much attention.”

In addition to combating political pressure on the right, some Democrats have also expressed concerns that Biden hasn’t done enough to draw contrast with Trump on the immigration issue. New polls have shown that voters prefer a balanced approach to the border — a mix of border security measures and actions that protect Dreamers and other immigrants who have been in the United States for an extended period of time. Along those lines, administration officials are discussing potential actions they can take for undocumented people who have long resided in the United States. One idea that has been floated among administration officials is opening access to the cancellation of removal program for people who have lived in the U.S. for over 10 years and have citizen or resident relatives who would “suffer” if they were deported. But the biggest debate is around whether or not Biden should provide temporary legal status and work permits to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who are married to American citizens, an estimated 1.1 million people.

Immigration groups have been pushing the White House on this move, suggesting it could energize Democrats ahead of the November election, like former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program did in June 2012. But there are also concerns among some administration officials that it could spur more political blowback on an already vexing issue for the president, particularly if border numbers creep up again.

“That’s where the conversation is probably being had most thoroughly is, ‘OK, is there a political consequence to this, or should we wait for a second term?’” said a former administration official. “It’s not like this idea has an expiration date. He could do this or look at it in the future, where the political space might be greater.”

Burgess Everett contributed to this report. 

Karen Pierce, Britain’s ambassador to the United States, told a Washington gathering Thursday night that she would “have to be dragged out of here by my fingernails.” That was a disarming quip for a crowd gathered to launch White House Correspondents Dinner weekend in the opulent gardens of the British embassy. It was, however, closer to the truth than Pierce’s cheery brand of diplomatic caution acknowledged.

Speaking about her time in office at a special recording of POLITICO’s Power Play podcast in front of a live audience at the embassy, Pierce refused to speculate about why an announcement of her successor, expected in senior diplomacy circles in both London and Washington this week, has not been made.

A convivial figure on the ambassadorial circuit in Washington since her arrival in 2020, Pierce judged her words carefully: “I think the next ambassador will arrive in early 2025, and I will stay till then.”

The uncertainty about who will next occupy the grand residence of 1300 Massachusetts Avenue is the result of a stand-off between British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak — who decided to appoint Tim Barrow, a career diplomat who has served in Moscow and as the top representee to the EU during Brexit — and the Labour party, which is likely to form the next U.K. government.

Officials in London and Washington have been riveted by the saga of a putative successor to Pierce. The current U.K. national security adviser, Barrow was slated to be announced as the winner of a swiftly conducted internal Foreign and Commonwealth Office contest for the plumb role, but so far there has been silence.

“All the signs were that this was about to happen,” said a person with knowledge of the process who was not authorized to speak publicly. “Then nothing. We were all very surprised.”

Sunak’s timely transition plan for the ambassadorship was intended to signal continuity in trans-Atlantic foreign and security policy, given uncertainty about implications for Ukraine and the Middle East policy depending on whether President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump will be in charge when the newcomer presents credentials early in 2025.

Britain’s prime minister came close to confirming the intended appointment when questioned by reporters on a trip to Warsaw earlier this week, claiming that it was “entirely normal, entirely keeping with precedent” to appoint ambassadors well ahead of their start date to help them “acclimatize” and build relationships in their next job. He also confirmed that a successor in the national security role from the defense staff had been appointed.

But the opposition Labour party has objected to naming a new key envoy so close to a general election — likely to be held by the end of this year, and with the opposition party now far ahead in the polls. A person with close knowledge of the Labour party confirmed that there has been “consternation” at the move and argued that a significant post should fall within the remit of the incoming government.

The stand-off has led to speculation that Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, might even ask for the appointment process to be rerun if he becomes Britain’s next leader.

Asked if the handover was turning out to be unusually eventful, Pierce on Thursday deployed a wry guillotine. “The Foreign Office is very boring about two things and two things only,” she said. “One is that it does not reveal the contents of diplomatic conversations, and we don’t comment on future appointments.”

But she paid tribute to congressional leaders for supporting the passage of $61 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine. The package, which was part of a wider raft of support for Israel and Taiwan, was signed by Biden this week. “The central message, which is going to give Ukraine a huge psychological boost,” Pierce said, “is that America is behind her, and Congress is behind her, and our will to support Ukraine is undimmed.”

“So, I salute the congressional leadership in the House and in the Senate on both sides … and it’s a collective expression of our determination to push back on President Putin’s ambitions.”

Asked about perceptions in Washington of the volatility in British politics in the last two years — including three prime ministers in the space of three months — the ambassador was diplomatic.

“There was a little bit of a wry smile on the faces of some American politicians when we had that quick turnover of prime ministers, because it’s not what you think of when you think of British politics,” she reflected. “On the contrary, you think of something solid that doesn’t change very much for years. But we’re through all that.”

Listen to Ambassador Pierce’s conversation with POLITICO Power Play host Anne McElvoy here: