The surprising bipartisanship between Senate and House leaders on the foreign aid bill, spending deals and FISA reauthorization is now in the rearview mirror, and a lot of rank-and-file members say that era of legislating is done for. Chuck Schumer isn’t letting it go quietly, though.

By now, you’re familiar with his list: The Senate majority leader name-checked cannabis banking, rail safety, $35 insulin and the House-passed tax bill during an interview this week. That’s on top of the soon-to-expire FAA bill and the September farm bill and spending package deadlines.

“The closer you get to the election, the harder it is, but I’m going to keep trying to get some bipartisan things done,” Schumer said. “Bipartisanship still is not dead.”

All of this is unlikely to happen without buy-in from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is increasingly going to prioritize leaving his GOP successor with a Senate majority now that Ukraine is funded. What does McConnell think of the prospect of future election-year bipartisanship?

You’ll be shocked to find out McConnell is being circumspect. “We’ll see,” he said when asked about Schumer’s to-do list.

“We have cats and dogs that are important, like the FAA reauthorization, that sort of thing. Every time I think surely that it’s for this year, something pops up. So, who knows?” McConnell said in a separate interview.

Not a no, but definitely not a yes.

Schumer and the GOP: The Senate majority leader has kept up some relationships with the GOP rank and file since the big bipartisan bills of 2021 and 2022 — for instance, with Sens. Mike Rounds and Todd Young on AI. Whether something even modest happens in 2024 might depend on folks like them.

“Well, I have to talk to my Republican colleagues. You know, I have different Republicans in here all the time on different bills,” Schumer explained, gesturing to his office.

He’s not at the point where he wants to jam the Senate GOP with the tax bill, though some Democrats think the bill’s prospects improve if Schumer schedules an uncertain floor vote. Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, the top Finance Committee Republican, said this week he still has issues with the bill.

“I’d love to get tax done. That’s a problem with Crapo. But maybe we can get it done,” Schumer said. “We could still do it. You might be able to come up with a compromise. You might have some new element that goes in there.”

McConnell the gatekeeper: Schumer attributed some of the last years of success to working with McConnell, even when he wasn’t always supportive. He recalled “conversations with McConnell when I said, ‘Maybe you can’t be for this, but don’t tell your people not to work with us.’”

When McConnell wants to stop something, he’s pretty good at it. That’s how he got the “Grim Reaper” nickname from Democrats — many of whom now praise him for his work on Ukraine and other bipartisan bills. He did some deals, particularly on the debt ceiling, in part to head off any hint that moderate Democrats might gut the filibuster. He also didn’t see issues like infrastructure and microchip funding as particularly partisan.

Has McConnell mellowed? This was once the guy who shut down much of Democrats’ agenda in divided government and blocked a Supreme Court seat from being filled. He said “one of my great pet peeves” is an old quote about his priority of making Barack Obama a one-term president, which he said is often used without subsequent comments saying he would be willing to work with Obama.

“I think you can’t ignore the facts of each situation,” McConnell said of clinching bipartisan deals. “I always tried to find places where we can have an outcome if we can reach an agreement.”

“I read that one of my colleagues said my job was to be with whatever position was the majority position of my conference,” McConnell added. “I can tell you, if I had had a Hastert rule, we would have never raised the debt ceiling and never funded the government.”

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole has some revamped guidance on earmarks that Democrats won’t like.

The new chair is barring nonprofits from receiving money through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Economic Development Initiative grant program, hoping to minimize some political headaches that popped up in the last months-long fight over funding the government.

That last spending package included more than $3 billion in earmarked funding for the HUD grant program, about a quarter of which flowed to nonprofits. Cole, who oversaw that subcommittee at the time, grappled with a fair share of partisan drama over funding that would have flowed to LGBTQ+ organizations — fighting he seems eager to avoid the next time around.

During an Appropriations markup last summer, Democrats accused House Republicans of behaving like “terrorists,” as they worked to strip millions of dollars that lawmakers had already secured for projects in their districts.

“Some of these are unobjectionable, some of them create political problems for people,” Cole recently told reporters. “That’s just the reality of it. I shouldn’t have to have a political problem in my district because I voted for a bill that had your earmark in it.”

Cole’s directive continues to ban earmarks under the Financial Services and Labor-HHS-Education funding bills, a major change that took effect under the previous chair, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas).

Of course, Cole’s guidance has no effect on the Senate earmarks process, and right now nothing bars Democrats in the upper chamber from inserting money for projects that House Republicans will ultimately find objectionable. And, like the Labor-HHS-Education funding bills this year, it could mean senators get a leg up on spending back home.

“Historically, the Senate and the House have done their own thing,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who oversees the Transportation-HUD panel, in a recent interview.

“And I don’t see any reason to break from that tradition. Chairman Cole does a very effective job of managing the process, and if that’s what’s necessary to enact appropriations bills from the House standpoint, I don’t begrudge him that,” Schatz said. “But I don’t anticipate that it’s necessary for the House and Senate to have the exact same earmark process.”

Ben Leonard contributed to this report. 

The FEND Off Fentanyl Act, which Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown worked on for more than a year with GOP Sen. Tim Scott to pass, hasn’t garnered headlines like this week’s foreign aid package did.

It’s still hugely important for Brown — and his political future.

The bill empowers the president to sanction drug traffickers and gangs, a big deal for Brown since Ohio has one of the highest overdose death rates in the country. It’s also a bright contrast with Brown’s GOP opponent in his tight Senate race, Bernie Moreno, who said he would have opposed the foreign aid package Tuesday.

The Senate Banking chair has perhaps the most ambitious portfolio of bipartisan legislation he hopes to pass of any at-risk senator. And while the FEND Off Act is a popular priority in Congress, it had plenty of false starts after Scott introduced the bill and Brown helped shepherd it through committee.

First the legislation was slated to be wrapped into a defense bill, then a doomed border security package. Finally this month, it was included as essentially the only major border-related item in the foreign aid package, which is now law.

Brown touted law enforcement’s endorsement of his and Scott’s bill, saying they had asked for “more tools to stop fentanyl at its source.” And Ohio Democrats quickly tweaked Moreno’s campaign for saying he’d oppose the package Tuesday, after he said he only supported the Israel component. He also was no fan of the first border package in February, which contained the FEND Off Act.

However, as Brown touted his legislative accomplishment Wednesday, Moreno clarified he would have supported the fentanyl bill on its own and was happy that part had passed. He then criticized Brown, who supported the bipartisan border deal.

“Bernie is happy to see any action to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country and would have supported this as a standalone bill. However, Sherrod Brown has a long record of supporting open border policies that have exacerbated the fentanyl crisis,” said Moreno spokesperson Reagan McCarthy in a statement to POLITICO. McCarthy went on to cite several of Brown’s votes on the border wall and other immigration policies.

The sausage-making of Congress often makes it impossible to get that standalone vote, as several Republicans lamented this week amid an up-or-down call on the $95 billion aid package. For his part, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a Moreno ally, is a co-sponsor of the fentanyl bill but was a staunch opponent of the entire package.

Though Moreno isn’t alone in his stance, Brown’s campaign is not holding back. It’s not hard to see why: The fiery Democrat’s reelection chances in Ohio may rise or fall upon his ability to work with the GOP.

“Sherrod’s leading the fight to stop the flow of fentanyl into Ohio and working with Republicans to get it done — the fact that Bernie Moreno has opposed it every step of the way is another reason he’s wrong for Ohio,” said Reeves Oyster, a Brown spokesperson.

Despite private pressure from centrists, Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday that he would not remove three conservative hard-liners from the powerful Rules Committee, where they’ve heavily impeded getting GOP bills to the floor.

The panel is typically comprised of lawmakers who are closely allied with leadership, as most bills that get floor votes have to go through those lawmakers. But GOP Reps. Chip Roy (Texas), Ralph Norman (S.C.) and Thomas Massie (Ky.) have hamstrung that process, either blocking bills or forcing Johnson to find a way around the panel several times since he took over the House in October.

Most recently, the trio opposed a rule setting up floor debate on the sprawling foreign aid package, forcing the unusual step of Democrats providing the votes to get it through committee. But Johnson said he isn’t considering removing them from the panel, despite his conference’s internal frustrations.

“If I start kicking people off committees right now, it’s likely that I cause more problems than it solves,” Johnson told “The Hugh Hewitt Show” on Wednesday, adding that “there are actions and then there are reactions and reverberations from the actions” given House GOP leaders’ one-vote margin.

Norman late last week said that Johnson hadn’t indicated to him that he was considering booting him from the committee, while other conservatives in the conference were skeptical that the speaker would take that sort of step, since it would be viewed as retribution and out of sync with his leadership style.

In the interview, Johnson also defended his handling of the foreign aid package providing assistance to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, even as some conservatives have vowed its passage would result in a vote to oust him from the speakership. So far, they have not triggered that push.

“History is going to judge this well. It was the right thing to do,” Johnson said. “The perception of a strong America is essential on the world stage — and I think the Congress has acted to make sure that happens.”

The Senate overwhelmingly passed the measure late Tuesday evening, sending it to President Joe Biden, following House passage over the weekend. Biden is expected to sign it Wednesday.

The speaker also predicted Republicans would regain the Senate, expand their House majority and that former President Donald Trump would regain the White House this fall.

“We’re gonna have an extraordinary election cycle in November,” Johnson said. “We’ll be able to turn this thing 180 degrees.”

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson called for Columbia University President Minouche Shafik to resign amid a wave of antisemitic protests that have roiled the Upper Manhattan Ivy League campus.

Johnson’s comments to The Hugh Hewitt Show on Wednesday morning make him the most senior elected official to demand the president’s resignation, and he’s slated to visit the campus in the afternoon. It’s another sign Republicans are looking to impose federal consequences on prominent universities that have seen waves of protests related to the fallout from the war in Gaza.

“This President Shafik has [been] shown to be very weak and inept leader. They cannot even guarantee the safety of Jewish students,” Johnson said. “Every political official — every citizen of good conscience — has to speak out and say that this is not who we are in America, and we got to have accountability and that’s what my colleagues and I are going to be working on.”

The position isn’t exactly surprising, marking a relatively easy way for Johnson to align with the more conservative wing of his conference — who he’s hoping will cool down before returning to D.C. next week, as some consider a vote to oust him — without irritating centrists. All 10 New York House GOP lawmakers have called on Shafik to resign, including those from Biden-won districts. No. 4 House Republican Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) has also championed those demands.

The speaker said he would meet with Jewish students and Rabbi Yuda Drizin at Columbia before holding a press conference with several House colleagues, including New York GOP Reps. Mike Lawler, Nicole Malliotakis and several other members of the state delegation.

A group of House Democrats visited the campus on Tuesday and called on the school to do more to protect Jewish students.

In the interview, Johnson proposed cutting federal funding to schools who cannot control the protesters or revoking student visas for some involved in the antisemitic protests. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Tuesday floated the idea of calling in the National Guard to Columbia.

“We need to revoke federal funding to these universities if they cannot keep control,” the speaker said. “We need to revoke these student visas for these violent protesters. You don’t have a right to be here and to do this.”

The Senate sent a $95 billion foreign aid package for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan to the president’s desk Tuesday — a long-awaited result after months of congressional haggling over whether to provide funding for the allies.

The bill also included a provision that would require TikTok’s parent company to either sell the social media app or face a ban, as well as a measure that permits selling off Russian oligarch assets.

Though the legislation passed with bipartisan support, 79-18, the political ramifications will be felt throughout the Capitol. It’s a win for Democrats and defense-focused Republicans on the critical issue of Ukraine aid, but a swath of conservatives are incensed with party leadership for allowing the bill through.

Some opponents of the bill attempted to delay passage on Tuesday with floor speeches, but senators were only permitted up to an hour each to speak. And there weren’t that many senators eager to participate — particularly given that this week was originally slated to be a recess week, and many members were ready to get home.

Adding to the woes of Ukraine-aid critics, Republican support for this round of foreign aid increased compared to a few months ago. When the Senate voted on a similar deal in February, it passed 70-29.

That earlier version of the bill stalled in the House. But Speaker Mike Johnson introduced his own rendition of the legislation, which segmented aid for each ally into individual votes before lumping the bills back together into a single package for the Senate.

As Congress balked for months, Ukraine began fading in its war with Russia and worries grew that the delay in assistance was costing the country on the battlefield.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he believes that “when it became clear that Russia could be at Poland’s border in a year, if we didn’t help, it started changing things.”

“It strengthened the resolve of the mainstream Republicans,” he added.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, for his part, has remained a stalwart supporter of funding Israel and Ukraine despite resistance from within his own conference. He acknowledged Tuesday there had been some difficulty in garnering Republican support.

Still, he didn’t mince words in his applause for the outcome.

“This was a really, really big day for America and for the rest of the world that actually elects their leaders,” McConnell told POLITICO. “When you’ve been here as long as I have, you’ve had a few big moments. I don’t think I’ve ever had a bigger one than this in terms of the level of importance to our own country and to our place in the world.”

Despite their failure to block the legislation, Ukraine aid critics insisted they’d won on another front: making it clear that other nations couldn’t keep expecting easy checks from the U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) after the vote told reporters, “We were able to make it pretty clear to Europe and the rest of the world that America can’t write blank checks indefinitely.”

And, to that point, it’s unclear what Congress’ role in Ukraine and Israel is going forward. Democrats have voiced growing concerns about humanitarian conditions in Gaza, and some senators had even warned before the vote that Israel aid could have a tough time in the Senate this go around because of Democratic resistance.

That forecasted holdup didn’t come to fruition. But with Congress done with its share of funding, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), who voted against final passage of the bill, suggested the responsibility now falls on the White House.

“My hope is that the president will continue to be very assertive” in pushing for limited civilian casualties, Welch told reporters.

Schumer after the vote said he’s confident the White House will do everything it can to ensure Gaza humanitarian aid “gets to the people in need as quickly as possible.”

And with both Israel and Ukraine mired in conflicts that have no apparent immediate solution, questions linger on what happens the next time Ukraine, Israel or another American ally needs assistance. Schumer said it is a very “full” package but would not forecast when it might run out.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who voted for the package, acknowledged that eventually Congress will be faced with the task of foreign aid again. He suggested that problem will come next year — and that then, things might go a little more smoothly.

“Another thing that’ll be going for us is it will be a nonpolitical year,” Mullin said. “And things seem to happen a little bit easier when people aren’t trying to save themselves.”