House Democrats are reluctantly preparing to give Speaker Mike Johnson the votes he needs to keep the government open as Congress nears final passage of another stopgap funding measure as soon as Thursday afternoon.

Republican leaders are bringing that spending patch to the floor using a fast-track maneuver that requires two-thirds majority for passage, which will require a large bloc of Democratic support amid entrenched opposition from hardline Republicans. The situation puts Democrats in the awkward position of bailing out a GOP speaker caught between warring factions of his conference — Johnson would be unable to pass the funding bill with Republican votes alone.

Even so, Democratic leaders are urging a “yes” vote on the spending patch.

“The entire session has been the most clusterfuck session that I’ve seen,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), an Appropriations Committee member. But, he added: “You can’t shut down the government.”

Democrats’ readiness to make the stopgap vote easier for Johnson reflects renewed faith among some of them in the speaker’s ability to clinch a longer funding deal now that the deadline is set to slip to March. Now that Johnson has agreed to stick to the funding levels in last year’s bipartisan debt deal despite pressure from his right flank, the opposing party is a bit more prepared to work with him — a political trust fall of sorts.

“It just gives me more confidence that he doesn’t want to shut down the government,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). “It gives me more confidence that he’s not going to cave to the Freedom Caucus and take us to crazy places.”

Things might play out much differently, however, if conservatives push for a vote to oust Johnson to vent their fury with him. A rerun of the painful, chaotic October firing of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy would leave centrist Democrats with a choice between backing House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) or bailing out Johnson.

For the moment, as some Democrats start to wonder aloud about the possibility of another speaker-ousting effort, there isn’t much appetite in the party to unconditionally save the conservative Republican. The centrist Blue Dogs are already signaling they wouldn’t lend Johnson a lifeline.

Some Democrats suggested that both parties’ leaders sit down to negotiate over the so-called motion to vacate the speakership. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), said in a brief interview that “there’s some Democrats who are willing to help out. But [Johnson has] got to be able to talk to Hakeem.”

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), who represents a swing district and had briefly floated voting “present” to protect McCarthy, predicted a “spirited debate” in the caucus over a potential ouster but indicated that Democratic lawmakers would ultimately defer to their leadership.

Democratic leaders have largely batted aside questions about the speaker-tossing motion as hypothetical. Jeffries had pitched a power-sharing agreement with Republicans amid the fallout from McCarthy’s ouster but it largely fell on deaf ears.

Asked Thursday about the motion to vacate, Jeffries told POLITICO: “We’re focused right now on making sure that we avoid an unnecessary partial government shutdown. That’s what’s in front of us right now.”

Others had very little sympathy for Johnson’s predicament.

“He got himself into this mess. He signed up for this. This is what it is to lead,” said Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.).

One month into his term leading the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Bob Good is facing a new wave of intra-party attacks — from the Trump campaign to allies of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to, now, a military-focused PAC led by fellow Republicans.

Good is facing a challenge in June’s Virginia GOP primary from State Sen. John McGuire, a former Navy SEAL who last week got endorsed by the board of the SEAL PAC, which aims to elect conservative military veterans to Congress. While Good has endorsed the flagging presidential campaign of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), McGuire is a longtime backer of former President Donald Trump’s 2024 bid.

The SEAL PAC, notably, has its own ties to Trump. It’s led by Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), a former Navy SEAL and Trump Cabinet member. Zinke said in an interview that unlike the “reckless” Good, who’s used his Hill perch to suggest cutting off government funding in a bid to squeeze Democrats into bigger cuts, McGuire understands how damaging a shutdown would be to the country’s military.

“[Good] endorsed Ron DeSantis and continues to be an anti-Trump policy candidate,” Zinke, who served as Trump’s Interior secretary, told POLITICO. “SEAL PAC is proud … to announce it is endorsing McGuire for that seat.”

SEAL PAC is the latest member of a growing list of enemies Good has acquired within his own party. POLITICO first reported on the growing animosity toward Good, including McGuire’s challenge, and McCarthy’s refusal to rule out spending money against the Virginian after Good joined seven other Republicans in voting to oust the former speaker last fall.

“A tremendous amount of House Republicans are tired of Freedom Caucus members who threaten to primary and vacate [the speakership]. There are many more of us than there are of them, and we want to get on with the country’s business,” said one House Republican who is trying to help unseat Good, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the intra-party battle.

This week, Trump’s campaign manager Chris LaCivita also signaled to a local Virginia news outlet that his operation intended to go after Good.

“Bob Good won’t be electable when we get done with him,” Chris LaCivita told Cardinal News.

Good has defended his DeSantis endorsement as not motivated by opposition to Trump, but by his desire for a candidate who could serve two terms in the White House. He has reinforced his Trump support this week, touting the former president’s Iowa caucus victory by calling Trump the “best president in my lifetime.”

“I think people in the Fifth District of Virginia like what I’m doing. I’ve kept my word. I’ve been the kind of consistent conservative that they elected me to be and I expect they’ll get it right,” he added.

That did little to stop the intra-GOP attacks.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a Trump and McCarthy ally, slammed Good on Wednesday. Greene claimed that the once Trump-aligned Freedom Caucus, which evicted her from its ranks last year, has misled donors because its leadership is “filled with Never Trumpers led by their new chairman angry disloyal MAGA traitor Bob Good.”

Greene, who was booted from the group in part because of her penchant for publicly criticizing its members, added on X, formerly known as Twitter, that “President Trump is going to win in 24, and he needs loyal America First warriors NOT Congressmen on a power trip who will stab him in the back.”

Despite the outside blowback, Good still commands widespread support in the Freedom Caucus.

“Seriously, she is a distraction,” Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said of Greene. “And I do not think about anything she says.”

Boebert added that while she is a Trump supporter, conservatives should be free to endorse any presidential candidate: “It doesn’t affect our policies, our positions, and HFC is going to continue to lead the conference in a more conservative direction.”

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who has endorsed Nikki Haley in the primary, argued that Good could even leverage the outside barbs for his re-election campaign.

“He’s gonna win that race,” Norman said. “Bob is smart enough to do that. Use that as a plus.”

Anthony Adragna contributed.

More than a dozen House Democrats joined with the chamber’s Republicans in backing a resolution slamming the Biden administration for its handling of the southern border in a floor vote Wednesday.

The non-binding resolution, which passed 225-187, “denounces the Biden administration’s open-borders policies” and “condemns the national security and public safety crisis” it says results from them. It was sponsored by Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas).

Fourteen House Democrats supported the resolution:

Colin Allred (Texas)
Yadira Caraveo (Colo.)
Angie Craig (Minn.)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Donald Davis (N.C.)
Jared Golden (Maine)
Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)
Greg Landsman (Ohio)
Susie Lee (Nev.)
Jared Moskowitz (Fla.)
Wiley Nickel (N.C.)
Mary Peltola (Alaska)
Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.)
Eric Sorensen (Ill.)

Speaker Mike Johnson’s indicated that his position on a border deal has not changed after a Wednesday meeting with President Joe Biden and other congressional leaders about Ukraine and a national security supplemental bill.

“We must have change at the border,” Johnson said. He added that House Republicans “understand the necessity about Ukraine funding” but that the “status quo is unacceptable.”

Johnson’s remarks show a continued hardline position on tying Ukraine funding to border restrictions. He also said he was not wedded strictly to the name of any bill being attached, a nod to the fact that many House Republicans want the deal to closely mimic the conservative border bill H.R. 2, but said the elements in any deal “have to be meaningful.”

“We need the questions answered about the strategy, the endgame,” Johnson told reporters of Ukraine. And he added: “We must insist that the border be the top priority.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday brushed back Speaker Mike Johnson’s concerns about a potential bipartisan border deal tied to Ukraine funding, as Senate leaders projected renewed confidence that their negotiators are close to an accord.

Ahead of a meeting at the White House with congressional leaders, Johnson continued to tout the House GOP’s hardline border plan while questioning Senate talks that will fall far short of his members’ demands. McConnell acknowledged that he wasn’t sure what Johnson might do with a Senate-passed border bill — but made clear that would not affect the Senate’s path forward.

“It’s not unusual for the House and Senate to be in a different place on an issue,” McConnell told reporters. “The supplemental in the Senate is designed to actually pass … we can only deal with what’s before us in the Senate.”

McConnell said it’s his “assumption” that the Senate will take up the legislation next week. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wouldn’t commit to that timeline for the proposal to pair new border and immigration restrictions with $100 billion in foreign aid, but said there was a better-than-even chance that the Senate would pass a bill: “For the first time, I’m optimistic.”

Taken together, the two leaders’ comments are the clearest sign that the Senate is going to try to push past Johnson’s reluctance to endorse their long-in-the-works agreement. Johnson and House conservatives may still stop a massive foreign aid and immigration deal in its tracks, but the Senate appears resolved to take a laborious gamble on the lower chamber.

Senators and the Biden administration have spent more than two months negotiating, staying in Washington over the holidays while the rest of Congress went home. There is no deal yet, though, despite the rosy tone Wednesday from Schumer and McConnell.

“There are still multiple issues outstanding. None of them are insurmountable. It is possible to vote next week,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), one of the three principal negotiators. “We’ve blown through every artificial deadline on these talks and negotiations, so I’m maybe a little more sanguine about our ability to wrap this up.”

Earlier Wednesday, Johnson made the case for more oversight of aid to Kyiv and said that “we need to know that Ukraine would not be another Afghanistan.”

Asked about that remark, McConnell touted progress for women and terrorist suppression while the U.S. military maintained a presence in Afghanistan. He and other hawkish Republicans argue that cutting off funding to Ukraine sends a bad message to America’s foreign adversaries, just as leaving Afghanistan did.

“My view — may be different from others — was that Afghanistan was a big success. And that [by] withdrawing from Afghanistan we sent a message to Putin, for example, that maybe we were pulling back from international responsibility,” McConnell said.

In response to House Republicans who argue a border deal would help President Joe Biden and that Republicans should wait until after the presidential election, McConnell said a unified GOP government “would not be able to get a single Democratic vote” to pass potential changes to asylum laws, presidential parole power and expulsion authority.

“This is a unique opportunity to accomplish something in divided government,” McConnell said. “That we wouldn’t have a unified government.”

Nancy Mace’s former top aide is weighing a primary challenge to the South Carolina Republican, setting up what could be one of the campaign season’s most bitter intra-party clashes.

Dan Hanlon, who served as chief of staff to Mace until late last month, is meeting with potential donors and potential people for his team as he weighs running against her, according to two Republicans with direct knowledge who spoke on condition of anonymity. Hanlon became Mace’s chief in 2022, rising quickly to the top spot in her Hill office after serving in the Trump administration for four years.

Hanlon has until South Carolina’s March 30 filing deadline to decide on a run, though candidates usually need to get their operations up and running early if they want to be competitive, particularly against incumbents. Any primary challenge to Mace could get serious attention from the upper ranks of the House GOP, where some feelings are still bruised by her surprising vote to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) back in October.

“Hanlon has been pleased with how well the idea has been received and how many people are looking for a Mace alternative, both money people in D.C. and movers and shakers in S.C.,” one of the Republicans familiar with his decision-making said.

While primary challenges are nothing new on the Hill, it’s rare to see a member face a direct challenge from a top aide who departed weeks earlier. Hanlon is well-positioned to expose Mace’s weak points during a primary battle, given his high-level knowledge of her office. But if he runs, he’d also leave himself open to counter-attacks from her backers that he’s motivated by a grudge against his former employer.

A spokesperson for Mace did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

GOP critics of Mace — particularly allies of McCarthy — are still looking for ways to unseat her after she joined seven other Republicans in voting to strip his gavel. Most of the other GOP lawmakers who moved to eject McCarthy were more predictable foes and members of the House Freedom Caucus.

Mace’s ejection vote also turned into an awkward moment for Hanlon, however. After the ouster vote, in early October, McCarthy blasted her on national television and claimed that he’d called Hanlon to ask “where have I not kept my word” when it came to Mace.

“[The] Chief of staff said, ‘You have kept your word, 100 percent,’” McCarthy said at the time. “Her chief of staff told all of us, we have kept every single one of our words. And he said he’s told her that too.”

Mace, for her part, has argued that she voted McCarthy out was because he wasn’t truthful with her.

Hanlon departed Mace’s office in early December after she had already moved to replace him as chief of staff, according to four people familiar with the matter.

Tensions spiked on his way out the door as Mace’s incoming chief of staff, Lorie Khatod, called the Capitol Police to the office as Hanlon returned to give back his keys and other office-related items, according to three people familiar with the matter.

One of the Republicans who confirmed Hanlon’s potential candidacy even predicted that other former Mace staffers would join his campaign, a signal of former aides’ growing alienation toward her.

Rep. Dean Phillips, the Minnesota Democrat mounting a long-shot challenge to President Joe Biden, drew sharp criticism from fellow Democrats in Congress after he removed language about diversity, equity and inclusion from his campaign website.

POLITICO reported on Tuesday night that Phillips scrubbed the language amid public criticism of DEI from one of his top donors.

Rep. Barbara Lee, a prominent progressive running for Senate in California, rebuked Phillips for the move, which she said she had not previously read about.

“I think that speaks volumes as to what his values are,” Lee said. Phillips has already angered some House Democratic colleagues with his decision to take on Biden.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) was blunt: “I’m disappointed.” Beyer said Democrats should not allow themselves to be pressured by the right into “abandoning things we believe in, but he may have had a good reason.”

The donor who criticized the language, hedge fund investor Bill Ackman, previously called Phillips’ DEI language a “mistake” and said the candidate was “getting educated” about the topic. Phillips’ campaign confirmed on Tuesday that it replaced the DEI language with the phrase “Equity & Restorative Justice,” stating that DEI — a decades-old initiative in academia and government aimed at promoting fairer representation of groups that have faced historic discrimination — “now means such divergent things to different people.”

Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, posted on X implying that Ackman’s $1 million contribution to the Phillips effort led to the campaign dropping the DEI language.

A Phillips campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Beyond Lee, other Democrats hadn’t directly seen the news of Phillips’ move but still took the opportunity to criticize him.

“The Democratic coalition is overwhelmingly women, people of color, LGBT communities,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “I mean, if you don’t believe in championing them, then good luck.”

Up in New Hampshire, where Phillips’ has grounded his longshot presidential primary bid, some Democrats echoed those frustrations. Longtime Democratic operative Kathy Sullivan, who is helping to lead the write-in effort for Biden in the state, called Phillips’ moves “grotesque.”

But she didn’t expect it to translate into paid attack ads against Phillips in New Hampshire, given that “a lot of what we’re doing is set in stone now because of timing.”

“From our social media perspective, talking to friends and neighbors, it’s something I hope gets out there in a widespread manner,” she said. “Word-of-mouth is big in our state, since we’re a small state.”

Elena Schneider contributed.

Another speaker, another plead to House GOP lawmakers to unify — at least in public — and stop leaking the drama that plays out behind closed doors.

As usual, the request is proving ineffective.

Speaker Mike Johnson complained about members airing their grievances to the media at a private conference meeting Wednesday morning. Almost immediately, multiple members vented to reporters about Johnson’s spending strategy, as the speaker pushes to pass a short-term funding bill as soon as Thursday, the ongoing fight over border policy changes — and the leak squabble.

“I think the speaker’s been concerned about some loser in conference [that] is live-streaming or passing on to media what’s happening in conference as we try to discuss strategy. But I think I would turn the tables — I would just go totally transparent,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Bishop urged Johnson to instead go scorched earth on the border, saying he should stake out how the conference can get a conservative win, such as on new border policies, then try to get every Republican to commit to fighting for it.

“And whoever won’t commit to it, [he should] let the American people know who that is,” Bishop said, recounting his message to reporters after the meeting.

It’s not the first time Johnson has made it clear the leaks are frustrating him. During a Sunday night press call, Johnson signaled he felt uncomfortable sharing further details of his spending plan, worried they’d be publicized amid negotiations with Senate Democrats. It’s an echo of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who would scold reporters for listening in and implore his own members to stop sharing such details.

It’s a further sign of the seemingly impossible problems in the House GOP. Johnson started leading the conference about three months ago, and conservative members were convinced he would bring in a new type of leadership and fight for their priorities. Instead, he’s facing near-identical headaches to McCarthy, including leaks and growing backlash from his right flank, plus added resentments from some members over McCarthy’s ouster.

The squabbling over leaks largely overshadowed talk of the funding deadline during Wednesday’s closed-door meeting, though Republicans acknowledge there’s still plenty of tension over that, too.

In further evidence of the near-constant bickering, Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) accused leadership of giving House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good (R-Va.) more time at the mics.

“I go up there and I get a minute and I get gaveled out. How does that happen? How do you think other members feel when they see that he gets treated in a different way that’s special?” Miller said after the meeting.

Miller added that there should be consequences for those Republicans who voted to boot McCarthy or others who aren’t following conference rules, a nod to conservatives who have blocked floor action several times in recent months: “We need disciplinary action — removing committee assignments, cutting off access to fundraising or things of that nature and actually making them pay for their actions.”

Rep. Jeff Duncan won’t seek reelection in his solidly Republican district in western South Carolina, opening the seat he’s held since coming into Congress as part of the Tea Party wave of 2010.

“At some point in a career, one needs to step aside and allow others to bring fresh and abilities,” he wrote in a post to X, formerly known as Twitter. “I will not seek re-election to the US House of Representatives.”

Duncan is a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He said in September 2023 that his family was “dealing with a difficult and private moment” after his wife filed for divorce.