Republicans are vowing retribution after the International Criminal Court said it would seek an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his handling of the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan filed applications for warrants against the two leaders Monday, as well as the commander of Hamas’s military wing, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Republicans on key foreign policy panels blasted the decision and warned that they would make good on threats from earlier this month to punish the international tribunal, of which neither the United States nor Israel are members, if it went after Israeli officials.

“I will feverishly work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both chambers to levy damning sanctions against the ICC,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said shortly after the news became public.

In a statement, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that “Khan’s kangaroo court has no jurisdiction in Israel to pursue these anti-Semitic and politically motivated ‘charges,’” adding that he looks “forward to making sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States.”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee blasted the action as “absurd” — saying in a statement the decision to simultaneously pursue arrest warrants against Hamas leadership and Israeli officials creates a “false moral equivalency” between the two groups’ actions.

House Republicans have introduced a number of measures taking action against the ICC, though Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately comment on whether the chamber would take any of them up.

The outrage was not isolated to Republicans. Democrats representing large Jewish American communities also slammed the decision. In a post on X, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) slammed the warrants as “not justice but rather retribution against Israel for the original sin of existing as a Jewish State and the subsequent sin of defending itself amid the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.”

Progressives, however, celebrated the decision. “If Netanyahu comes to address Congress, I would be more than glad to show the ICC the way to the House floor to issue that warrant. Ditto for Hamas leader,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a past head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, posted on X. A handful of progressive Democrats have previously indicated support for an arrest warrant.

The National Security Council didn’t respond to a request for comment. But the White House previously said that it doesn’t support the ICC’s investigation into Israel, as Israel isn’t a member of the court. Earlier this month, the State Department also issued a report which didn’t find that Israel had violated international humanitarian law during its war in Gaza.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken came out against the warrant requests Monday afternoon: “We reject the prosecutor’s equivalence of Israel with Hamas. It is shameful,” he said in a statement. “This decision does nothing to help, and could jeopardize, ongoing efforts to reach a cease-fire agreement that would get hostages out and surge humanitarian assistance in.”

In a statement, President Joe Biden called the announcement “outrageous” and stated that “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

An arrest warrant could be “highly problematic for the Biden administration, as it effectively puts not only Netanyahu, but also Gallant — who the Biden team has viewed as a potential moderate alternative to Netanyahu — in the same category as Vladimir Putin,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute think tank.

In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for the Kremlin leader over the forced transfer of children to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, limiting Putin’s international travels. And Johnson has said he plans to invite Netanyahu to address Congress, raising the question of whether the Biden administration would defy the ICC during such a visit.

But the arrest warrants over the Israel-Gaza conflict haven’t been issued yet, so there’s a chance the Biden administration won’t have to deal with the issue during the war. Negotiators have been trying for months to secure a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas, though talks have recently stalled.

After Khan’s filing, ICC judges will determine whether the evidence he provided is enough to formally issue the warrants. That process can take several months.

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

Republicans are vowing retribution after the International Criminal Court said it would seek an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his handling of the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan filed applications for warrants against the two leaders Monday, as well as the commander of Hamas’s military wing, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Republicans on key foreign policy panels blasted the decision and warned that they would make good on threats from earlier this month to punish the international tribunal, of which neither the United States nor Israel are members, if it went after Israeli officials.

“I will feverishly work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both chambers to levy damning sanctions against the ICC,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said shortly after the news became public.

In a statement, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that “Khan’s kangaroo court has no jurisdiction in Israel to pursue these anti-Semitic and politically motivated ‘charges,’” adding that he looks “forward to making sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States.”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee blasted the action as “absurd” — saying in a statement the decision to simultaneously pursue arrest warrants against Hamas leadership and Israeli officials creates a “false moral equivalency” between the two groups’ actions.

House Republicans have introduced a number of measures taking action against the ICC, though Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately comment on whether the chamber would take any of them up.

The outrage was not isolated to Republicans. Democrats representing large Jewish American communities also slammed the decision. In a post on X, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) slammed the warrants as “not justice but rather retribution against Israel for the original sin of existing as a Jewish State and the subsequent sin of defending itself amid the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.”

Progressives, however, celebrated the decision. “If Netanyahu comes to address Congress, I would be more than glad to show the ICC the way to the House floor to issue that warrant. Ditto for Hamas leader,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a past head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, posted on X. A handful of progressive Democrats have previously indicated support for an arrest warrant.

The National Security Council didn’t respond to a request for comment. But the White House previously said that it doesn’t support the ICC’s investigation into Israel, as Israel isn’t a member of the court. Earlier this month, the State Department also issued a report which didn’t find that Israel had violated international humanitarian law during its war in Gaza.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken came out against the warrant requests Monday afternoon: “We reject the prosecutor’s equivalence of Israel with Hamas. It is shameful,” he said in a statement. “This decision does nothing to help, and could jeopardize, ongoing efforts to reach a cease-fire agreement that would get hostages out and surge humanitarian assistance in.”

In a statement, President Joe Biden called the announcement “outrageous” and stated that “We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.”

An arrest warrant could be “highly problematic for the Biden administration, as it effectively puts not only Netanyahu, but also Gallant — who the Biden team has viewed as a potential moderate alternative to Netanyahu — in the same category as Vladimir Putin,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute think tank.

In March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for the Kremlin leader over the forced transfer of children to Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, limiting Putin’s international travels. And Johnson has said he plans to invite Netanyahu to address Congress, raising the question of whether the Biden administration would defy the ICC during such a visit.

But the arrest warrants over the Israel-Gaza conflict haven’t been issued yet, so there’s a chance the Biden administration won’t have to deal with the issue during the war. Negotiators have been trying for months to secure a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas, though talks have recently stalled.

After Khan’s filing, ICC judges will determine whether the evidence he provided is enough to formally issue the warrants. That process can take several months.

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

A prominent pro-Israel super PAC is throwing its backing behind Democrats running in a handful of competitive races, as the party grapples with how the Israel-Hamas war will impact races up and down the ballot in the fall.

The Democratic Majority for Israel PAC is issuing its first general election endorsements, shared first with POLITICO. The group is supporting three senators running in battleground states — Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Jacky Rosen (Nev.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) — along with three Democrats looking to flip House seats currently held by Republicans: Joe Kerr, a retired fire captain challenging Rep. Young Kim in California’s 40th District; former state Assemblymember Rudy Salas, who’s running in a rematch against Rep. David Valadao in California’s 22nd District; and former news anchor Janelle Stelson, who’s running against Rep. Scott Perry in Pennsylvania’s 10th District.

The group said it will roll out additional endorsements ahead of November. DMFI PAC does not announce its future spending plans, but has a record of notable investments in support of its endorsees. In 2022, the group spent more than $7 million on independent expenditures, primarily in House races. This cycle, it has so far spent more than $500,000 in a half-dozen House contests, along with the California Senate primary in support of Rep. Adam Schiff and for President Joe Biden.

DMFI PAC is just one prominent pro-Israel group that has emerged as a major player in recent cycles — and could prove to be even more influential as the ongoing war roils national politics. But in the months since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack that sparked the current war, public opinion among Democratic voters has shifted in support of Palestinians, complicating support for Israel’s sustained military campaign. The vulnerable senators endorsed by DMFI have already seen pushback from those advocating for Palestinians — voters who could make a difference come the fall in the competitive races.

Beyond DMFI, American Israel Public Affairs Committee has vowed to spend $100 million to oust candidates it deems as anti-Israel, and has already spent millions of dollars this cycle in primaries. AIPAC has drawn the ire of progressives on the other side of its spending, with those candidates taking issue with the group’s donations from Republicans and its support of GOP candidates. DMFI only endorses Democrats running for office.

With this new round of endorsements, DMFI and AIPAC are on the same page in some races, including both groups’ support of Casey, Rosen and Tester. But in the House races, AIPAC is backing Kim, Valadao and Perry.

As part of its general election endorsement slate, DMFI is also playing in races where Democrats are the heavy favorites. In California, that includes state Assemblymember Laura Friedman in California’s 30th District to succeed Schiff and former Rep. Gil Cisneros’ bid to replace retiring Rep. Grace Napolitano in the 31st District. In Maryland, the group is backing Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski in the 2nd District to replace Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger; state Sen. Sarah Elfreth in the 3rd District to replace Rep. John Sarbanes; and former Commerce Department official April McClain Delaney in Maryland’s 6th District to replace Rep. David Trone. Texas state Rep. Julie Johnson also got an endorsement in the 32nd District to replace Rep. Colin Allred, as did Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-N.Y.) reelection campaign.

DMFI has waded into a couple of primaries this cycle in an attempt to shape the Democratic caucus. That includes the competitive primary taking place this week between Oregon state Rep. Janelle Bynum and Jamie McLeod-Skinner to take on GOP Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer in the 5th District. The group is supporting Bynum over McLeod-Skinner, a progressive who unseated incumbent Kurt Schrader in the 2022 primary and ended up losing in the general election. It’s also backing former Virginia state House Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn in the crowded primary to replace outgoing Democratic Rep. Jennifer Wexton in the 10th District.

More notably, DMFI is looking to oust incumbent Reps. Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.) and Cori Bush (Mo.) — progressive members who are being targeted this cycle, in part, for their support for Palestinians amid the war. The group is supporting their challengers, George Latimer and Wesley Bell, respectively, as is AIPAC.

“As Israel faces powerful enemies committed to its destruction and amidst an alarming rise in virulent and vicious anti-Zionist antisemitism at home, we’re heartened by the moral clarity of this group of Democratic leaders who are committed to strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship,” DMFI PAC chair Mark Mellman said in a statement.

A version of this story first appeared in POLITICO Pro’s Morning Score newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Pro.

House Republicans are already deriding the Senate’s bid for a vote on bipartisan immigration legislation as a political ploy that’s doomed — in the extremely unlikely event it even reaches their chamber.

“Leader Schumer is trying give [sic] his vulnerable members cover by bringing a vote on a bill which has already failed once in the Senate because it would actually codify many of the disastrous Biden open border policies that created this crisis in the first place,” Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team said in a statement. “Should it reach the House, the bill would be dead on arrival.”

That Senate immigration bill, forged over months of bipartisan negotiations as part of a broader package of foreign aid that subsequently passed on its own, will get a floor vote this week, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Sunday.

The House GOP leaders’ opposition should not come as a surprise. They have long expressed a preference for their chamber-passed more hardline immigration measure, H.R. 2, which has been a nonstarter for congressional Democrats.

“If Senate Democrats were actually serious about solving the problem and ending the border catastrophe, they would bring up H.R. 2 and pass it this week,” the GOP leaders said in their statement.

However, no one on the Hill expects the Senate’s border deal to make it across the Capitol to the House. A handful of Senate progressives are expected to oppose their own leaders’ move to call up the negotiated bill — viewing its policy as too extreme — and Republicans have indicated they view the floor action as a move to boost endangered Democratic incumbents who are getting hammered by their opponents on immigration.

Jon Tester recently became the first Democratic senator to sign onto a stringent GOP immigration bill. He isn’t happy that Republicans are accusing him of a late-stage transformation into a border hawk.

“They’re full of shit. And whoever told you that, you can say ‘Jon Tester said you’re full of shit,’” the Montana Democrat said in an interview, responding to GOP claims that his support for the Laken Riley Act — named for the nursing student killed earlier this year by an undocumented immigrant — was an act of political expediency.

“I firmly believe in my heart of hearts that if you’re here and you’re undocumented … and you break the law, you should be shipped back,” Tester added. He indicated in March he’d support the legislation as a standalone bill.

Republicans counter that Tester joined other Democrats to rule out the addition of new immigration restrictions to a must-pass spending bill. Meanwhile, the GOP is running millions of dollars in ads hitting him for “supporting Biden’s border disaster.”

The episode underscores the core challenge facing this year’s Senate Democratic hopefuls in red and purple states: They must carve out distance from President Joe Biden to keep running ahead of his numbers — while dodging political hits that they’re shifting gears purely to win reelection.

Because Biden is no sure bet in November and may offer Democrats little coattails to ride, Senate hopefuls across the country are hoping to defuse a sustained GOP campaign linking them to Biden. And with little must-pass business scheduled the rest of the year and a divided Congress, Democrats will have plenty of opportunities to emphasize strategic differences with their party’s leader.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is pushing Biden to beef up tariffs against China and ban Chinese electric vehicles. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) is challenging Biden’s Israel weapons policy and opposing a key judicial nominee. Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a Senate candidate, is urging Biden to take tougher border action. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) helped pause a global trade deal.

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) wants Biden to reconsider an LNG export pause while harmonizing with Brown on tariffs and Rosen on Israel. And Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas), a Senate candidate, just launched an ad saying he “stood up to the president when he was wrong.”

Then there’s Tester, whose state Biden lost by 16 points in 2020. Tester didn’t play up his beefs with the administration too much the first two years of Biden’s presidency, but he’s fighting Biden’s regulations on multiple fronts these days and working to burnish a tough image on immigration.

He chastised Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to “step up” last month — though Tester did not support Mayorkas’ impeachment. He says voters shouldn’t judge him on a procedural vote with a funding lapse hanging over lawmakers’ heads: “That was a government shutdown vote, it wasn’t a Laken Riley vote.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), the GOP’s campaign arm chief, responded: “Where was he when we needed him, when the vote really counted? … [T]he politics back home have changed, and Tester’s changed his position.”

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), who occasionally works closely with Brown but supports his GOP opponent, is more measured than Daines when talking about his home-state colleague: “Do I doubt Sherrod’s sincerity? No. But I think the big mistake that Sherrod has made on manufacturing policy is he got way too pregnant on the green energy stuff.”

Brown responded that the nation “should ban electric vehicles from China. So, the tariffs help, and [Biden’s] made them better, but we should do more.”

“I’m not going to get into a political debate with the guy who has already endorsed my opponent,” Brown said of Vance’s comments. “I’ve taken on presidents in both parties.”

The pro-tariff stance he and other vulnerable colleagues have taken also aligns with former President Donald Trump’s — not bad for their crossover appeal. Casey said “a lot of people back home expect that type of aggressive action, especially with predatory China.”

And in Nevada, where Biden is struggling against Trump, Rosen has split with Biden on everything from environmental and mining regulations to solar tariffs. She said in a statement she hasn’t “been afraid to break with my own party to do what is right for my state.”

Creating distance from an embattled president is not a new tactic, but it’s always harder in years when the White House is on the ballot. Plus, most of the Senate GOP’s candidates are political novices with no voting record to create a clear contrast. Democratic incumbents, on the other hand, spent two years in a 50-50 majority where unity was paramount, leaving them with lots of votes supporting Biden’s position.

“The president is grateful that their common values mean they are overwhelmingly united on the same agenda based on standing up for the middle class and our freedoms, and respects when his colleagues have different views from his own,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said of Democratic dissent.

Most of those lawmakers see little upside in totally running away from the president anyway, due to the strong correlation between voters’ presidential and Senate choices. Brown, for example, hasn’t decided on joining Tester in backing the Laken Riley Act, which would detain and remove undocumented immigrants arrested for theft-related offenses.

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) summed up the meaning of Tester’s move: “He’s more conservative on some issues than I am. And I respect it.”

“In tough states, it’s not unusual for the candidates to split from the president’s party — both sides of the aisle,” Durbin said.

House Republicans are eyeing a court fight as their next step in their ongoing standoff with the Justice Department.

Republicans on the Judiciary and Oversight committees voted on Thursday to advance resolutions holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to hand over the audio of President Joe Biden’s interview with former special counsel Robert Hur. Hours earlier, Biden effectively headed them off by asserting executive privilege over that audio — bringing the chances that Garland would face criminal charges for defying subpoenas to near zero.

But they are hinting they already have a back up plan: Duking it out in the courts.

“I think that’s very likely,” Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Friday in a brief interview about filing a lawsuit.

Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) added that House GOP attorneys are skeptical that Biden’s executive privilege claim will hold up in court, since the Justice Department did turn over the transcript.

“Hopefully we’ll find out if that’ll hold up in court very soon,” Comer said.

There’s an obvious drawback to Republicans going the judicial route: A lawsuit would drag out for months, if not longer. Plus, there’s no guarantee they will win and Republicans are at risk of losing the House majority in the November election.

At least one other GOP lawmaker wants to try a different route, as well. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said during the unruly Oversight meeting on Thursday night that absent DOJ action she would try to force a vote within 10 days on “inherent contempt” against Garland. It’s a rarely used tool that would let the House sergeant at arms take Garland into custody for a congressional proceeding.

“I fully intend in 10 days after this passes out of committee to hold … Garland in inherent contempt of Congress if the Department of Justice doesn’t do its job,” she said during the committee meeting. She reiterated that pledge to reporters Friday morning.

Garland hasn’t weighed in on that possibility, and neither have most other House Republicans. But the attorney general did preemptively push back on the GOP’s likely legal argument in a letter he sent to Biden dated Wednesday.

“The department’s disclosure of the transcripts of the interviews does not constitute a waiver and does not preclude an assertion of privilege with respect to the audio recordings,” Garland wrote, adding that “interpreting the production of the transcripts as a waiver of privilege would incentivize less Executive Branch cooperation and broader privilege assertions.”

House GOP leadership hasn’t yet said if, or when, it will hold a vote on the floor on the two contempt resolutions, where they will need near GOP unity. As of early Friday afternoon, neither resolution has been slated to come up next week — though leadership hasn’t yet released the official schedule and can easily add more items.

Progressive icon Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Friday hit back at Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) — who’s assumed a more middle-of-the-road image recently — for describing a nasty House Oversight Committee hearing as worse than the Jerry Springer Show.

“I understand you likely would not have stood up for your colleague and seem to be confused about racism and misogyny being a ‘both sides’ issue,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. “But I stand up to bullies, instead of becoming one.”

The clapback came after Fetterman linked to an article detailing the hearing, which contained pointed personal barbs by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) against several lawmakers of color. The Pennsylvania Democrat wrote: “In the past, I’ve described the U.S. House as The Jerry Springer Show. Today, I’m apologizing to The Jerry Springer Show.”

POLITICO has reached out to Fetterman’s office, which did not immediately return the request for comment.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke out passionately on Friday morning in the aftermath of Greene’s attacks against her and Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who is Black.

“A person is either have to accept and normalize the indignity of that treatment or feel like they have to defend themselves because the institution will not and that is why rules are important,” she told repoters. “That’s why structure is important. And that’s why [House Oversight Chair] James Comer’s leadership has been one of the biggest failures in the country over the last year.”

Fetterman’s tough talk on border security and his ironclad support for Israel have rankled progressives since he came into office — and drawn warm words from the same Republicans who fought to defeat him in his successful 2022 Senate bid.

Daniella Diaz contributed to this report.

Texas Democratic lawmakers aired fury on Friday over Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to pardon Daniel Perry, who was convicted of murdering a protester in a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin, Texas.

Perry was convicted of fatally shooting protester Garrett Foster, a former mechanic in the U.S. Air Force, and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Abbott pardoned Perry on Thursday after a recommendation from the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles. Both Perry and Foster are white.

Among the reactions from Texas Democrats:

“By aligning yourself with someone that is racist, you’re saying that this is who I am and these are my values,” Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said in an interview. “[Abbott] thinks it’s going to make him a hero, and in some corners it will make him a hero.”

“But you choose to make your buddy someone that calls black people monkeys. That is, that is beyond F’d up,” Veasey added, referring to Perry’s social media history and text messages, which included racist comments.

“Texas is leading the way in the [descent] to hell,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas).

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), one of two members who represent Austin, where the murder happened, called Abbott’s decision a “horrible abdication.”

“Gov. Abbott keeps on finding the newest and, and craziest ways to be the biggest hypocrite in the state,” Casar said. “And it’s just actually a horrible abdication of our duty as elected officials to be issuing pardons and putting people in or out of jail based on how they vote or or what their views are on the world. I mean, that’s just actually — that’s medieval stuff.”

“It’s just another political stunt for Abbott,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas). “I mean, clearly he murdered somebody and he’s getting away with it. It’s a shame. It shows you how divisive things are that we pardon hardened criminals and let them roam free.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) referenced Perry’s offensive social media posts in a statement after the pardon.

“Before Daniel Perry murdered a veteran in 2020, he told a friend he ‘might go to Dallas to shoot looters.’ A year before, he wrote, ‘to [sic] bad we can’t get paid for hunting Muslims,’” Castro said on Thursday. “Governor Abbott’s alliance with white nationalists is putting dangerous people on our streets.”