The House passed legislation Wednesday that would curb the ability of local D.C. judges to reduce sentences for younger criminals and bar local government officials from changing sentencing laws, thanks in part to the support of 18 Democrats.

The final tally was 225-181.

The bill, led by Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), has little chance of becoming law. The Biden administration indicated it strongly opposed the measure even as it stopped short of formally threatening a veto.

Local D.C. government officials roundly condemned the measure, with Democratic Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton calling it a “radical, undemocratic and paternalistic bill” on the House floor.

Efforts to influence local Washington governance matters are not new this Congress. President Joe Biden signed a repeal in March 2023 of changes to the D.C. criminal code after it passed both chambers of Congress on a bipartisan basis.

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin is open to reinstating the blue slip on circuit court nominees next year, a proposal that would restore significant power to the minority party to block the White House’s judicial nominees.

Durbin (D-Ill.) said during a committee markup last week that he’d entertain conversations around restoring the blue slip — which home-state senators could use to effectively veto certain nominees — but only if it is bipartisan and agreed to before Election Day. Such a deal would be a high-stakes gamble for both sides, since neither would know who would benefit from the policy change or if future leaders would honor it.

“If there’s any members of the committee that want to start an active conversation along those lines, I’d be glad to join it,” Durbin said. “If we are going to do anything on blue slips on circuit court judges, I think there’s one premise: We should do it prospectively, not knowing the outcome of an election that may change the presidency or may not. That is a fair way to approach it.”

Republicans signaled they’re willing to have the discussion. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the panel, said in a brief interview in the Capitol that he hopes “we can find a way forward to have a little bit of a check and balance on the committee.”

Until 2017, Judiciary Committee chairs didn’t move circuit court nominees unless both home-state senators signed off on the candidate. But then-Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) stopped honoring that precedent for circuit court nominees, accusing Democrats of using it as a makeshift filibuster.

After that, the Trump administration and Senate Republicans moved circuit court nominees over objections from Democrats. The Biden administration and Senate Democrats followed suit.

Restoring the blue slip would amount to a seismic shift in the White House’s and Senate’s ability to confirm judges and would restore a significant point of minority power. It would engender pushback from progressives, who have long bemoaned that Democrats should be doing away with all blue slips rather than restoring those already gone. For that reason, and others, such a policy change is far from certain.

A Durbin spokesperson said any changes to the policy would not apply until the next Congress. By requiring the parties to agree before Election Day, both Republicans and Democrats would be taking a risk — that they would be the ones to benefit and the incoming administration and next year’s Senate leadership would abide by the terms. A White House official said it’s up to the committee to make its own rules on blue slips.

Graham wasn’t the only Republican who might be open to the idea. Even Grassley — who said he could be the committee’s chair again if Republicans retake the majority — said he might support such a move.

“I think it’s a good thing to have the blue slip back to where it was,” he said.

Grassley saw the elimination of blue slips as a piece of a larger strategy helmed by GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.

“McConnell had a good plan going and the blue slip for the circuit judges was standing in the way and he wanted to get as many circuit judges on as you could get. And that’s part of the reason it was revised and effectively eliminated,” the Iowa Republican said Wednesday.

The enormous roster of judges the Senate confirmed during the Trump years was a key piece of McConnell’s legacy: his laser focus on installing as many conservative judges as possible.

“McConnell obviously won’t be leader next time. There’ll be a new leader, and that new leader could be a majority leader,” Grassley said, acknowledging that the landscape for judicial strategy is already changing.

Members of both sides of the Judiciary Committee have bemoaned the current circuit court nomination and confirmation process. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C) was sharply critical of the committee advancing the nomination of Kevin Ritz to the Sixth Circuit over the objections of Republican Tennessee Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty.

“We have politicized circuit court nominees,” he said.

But he also warned that Democrats are building up ill will now and any changes to the blue slip process should take place before next year.

“I think the only way you could take Democrats seriously, you just can’t say: ‘Prospectively next Congress,’” he said in a hallway interview. “Why don’t we start today? And then get people like me who would uphold it going into the next Congress? Because I’m gonna be there and I’m gonna be on Judiciary. But the fact is they’re not willing to do that.”

In the hearing, Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Cory Booker of New Jersey also indicated they were open to the conversation.

Whitehouse said “a lot of us got burned hard by that rules change” during the Trump administration and that Democrats were shown “disrespect.”

“I’m more than happy to consider trying to undo that and figure out a way to go forward,” he added.

“This happened to me under the Trump administration,” Booker echoed. “I’m happy to meet with anybody that wants to try to figure out a way out of this mess, because I think that what my colleagues are putting out on the other side of the dais is absolutely right. This is wrong and I believe we should get back to where we were before.”

A large House GOP group is discussing a trip to New York to back up Donald Trump at his hush money trial, according to four Republicans familiar with the matter — joining a growing GOP trend.

Those lawmakers considering a Thursday visit, which is not yet finalized, include a chunk of the House Freedom Caucus, two of those people told POLITICO, granted anonymity to discuss fluid discussions. Members of that conservative group are being particularly tight-lipped in case a busy House schedule this week delays their plans.

Roughly 16 people from the House Freedom Caucus are eyeing a trip to New York, one of those people said. Chair Bob Good (R-Va.), whose primary opponent has made Good’s initial backing of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis a wedge issue in the race, is among those included in the discussions, according to that person.

“Every Republican should go support President Trump,” said Good, who declined to comment on whether he was making the trip and whether he has spoken to the former president about attending.

Trump has had a packed list of notable GOP names acting as surrogates as they visit the scene of his trial. They include Speaker Mike Johnson, Sens. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) and past GOP presidential candidates Doug Burgum and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Many have attacked both the case and the judge while Trump himself remains under a judge-mandated gag order, with some specifying they decided to come themselves and that Trump did not ask them to do so. The gag order also blocks the former president from “directing others” to publicly criticize those involved in the case.

Underscoring the political sensitivity of the trip, a typically media friendly Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) echoed Good in refusing to discuss the potential visit. He warned: “You won’t find anybody who will say anything.”

But Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the group, acknowledged that there were “conversations” about going up to New York to support Trump. However, he added, they were juggling that with the need to be in D.C.

To that end, Republicans are navigating a myriad of dynamics with the House schedule, including two high-profile committee votes on holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress that are expected to eat up a decent chunk of Thursday. The House will also vote on reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration on Wednesday, keeping members in town. The Trump trial isn’t slated to be in session on Friday, when the House has a lighter schedule.

The trial could go to the jury as soon as Monday, if prosecution rests on Thursday.

And there’s an extra level of sensitivity. Some of the House Republicans involved in the discussions — including Good, Norman and Roy — didn’t initially endorse Trump in the presidential primary.

Asked about making the trek, Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said it depended on the schedule, pointing to both Thursday’s contempt markup and an unrelated hearing on Wednesday.

“I want to be there with President Trump,” Jordan said in a brief interview, “but it’s also important to get these two hearings as well.”

House Democrats are projecting confidence that they’ll be able to limit floor defections this week on GOP legislation that’s aimed at compelling President Joe Biden to deliver heavy bombs to Israel amid its ongoing war with Hamas.

Democratic lawmakers, including several staunchly pro-Israel ones, view the bill as a poorly-drafted attempt to jam Biden — even as they view his support of the key U.S. ally as unwavering despite his pause on the heavy bomb shipment. The White House has urged Democrats on the fence to vote no, working to keep the number of defections to a minimum even as lawmakers were loath to admit the lobbying would sway their votes.

“This bill is very ill-advised, and it’s not in Israel’s best interest,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), former House majority leader, told POLITICO. “I think — I hope — there aren’t going to be a lot of Democratic defections.”

House Republicans are expected to bring up their legislation compelling Biden to deliver the weapons for a vote as soon as Thursday. The measure freezes budgets for the offices of the defense secretary, secretary of state and National Security Council if Biden doesn’t deliver the weapons that are being withheld, and it also includes language condemning “the Biden Administration’s decision to pause certain arms transfers to Israel.”

Biden and Speaker Mike Johnson haven’t spoken this week about Israel or other matters, according to a person familiar who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

“I think that you will see that Democrats will vote no on this, because we understand it’s a political ploy,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the party’s top member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He delivered a presentation opposing the legislation at Wednesday’s private Democratic caucus meeting.

House Democratic leaders have also whipped against the legislation, and the White House has weighed in with a veto threat too.

“Overwhelmingly Democrats will reject this overly political bill,” Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said on Wednesday.

Not every Democratic lawmaker was ready to tip their hands on how they’d vote, however, and many rejected the idea that White House lobbying would affect their decision.

“It’s an unserious piece of legislation, and one that is cynically designed to divide people,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a staunch Israel ally who nevertheless didn’t reveal whether she’d ultimately support it.

She wasn’t alone.

“I’m gonna just reject the entire premise of your question because the idea of Democratic defections — we vote how we want to,” said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.). “We’re a free-thinking caucus. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we disagree. Certainly it’s important to hear the opinion of the White House.”

The GOP-led legislative effort comes as the Biden administration informally notified Congress of a potential $1 billion sale of weapons to Israel, an announcement made soon after it said the president would veto the House bill in the unlikely event it reached his desk.

Republicans strongly rejected the Democratic characterizations of the legislation and said Biden could avoid the showdown with Congress by delivering the congressionally-approved weapons.

“If he wants to change course on that, he should come talk to us or put something on the floor. But Israel’s being held to a double standard right now,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said. “If, after 9/11, people tried to dictate to us how to protect ourselves from al-Qaeda, I think you know how we would have responded.”

Despite that push, many Democrats see the bill as a politicized attempt to micromanage the president’s ability to navigate foreign affairs.

“It’s sort of a nakedly partisan effort to attack Biden,” said Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.). “The United States had a 200-plus year tradition of the President — the executive branch — taking the lead on foreign policy. This would be a bill that preempts that in very dangerous ways, including defunding key national security and defense leaders, which is insane. It’s a ridiculous bill and it deserves to be voted down.”

Nicholas Wu and Olivia Beavers contributed. 

A bipartisan group of senators has taken a critical step forward in regulating artificial intelligence, releasing a long-awaited, Chuck Schumer-endorsed “roadmap” for addressing AI that Congress could take up this term.

The bipartisan working group, which consists of Schumer, Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), has been developing the report for months, looking to outline areas of AI ripe for bipartisan regulation. The quartet hosted a number of AI briefings this term for senators, hoping to educate sometimes tech-averse lawmakers.

Topline AI priorities in the report include:

Boosting funding for AI innovation
Tackling nationwide standards for AI safety and fairness
Using AI to strengthen U.S. national security
Addressing potential job displacement for U.S. workers caused by AI
Tackling so-called “deepfakes” being used in elections, and “non-consensual distribution of intimate images”
Ensuring that opportunities to partake in AI innovation reach schools and companies

“AI is not only complex, but it’s rapidly evolving and it’s so broad in its impact,” Schumer said in a discussion on the report with journalists Tuesday night. “So the longer we wait, the more the gap becomes. … We’ve never ever dealt with anything like this before.”
Those goals would come at a price, though. The report says the eventual goal would be to spend “at least $32 billion per year for (non-defense) AI innovation,” as recommended by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence in a 2021 report. But the senators emphasized that would be over a number of years.

“I think when you’re talking about AI, they’re going to upgrade the old message of ‘you could be penny-wise and pound-foolish,’” Rounds said. “In this case, it may very well be, you could be billions-wise and trillions-foolish.”

Schumer and the rest of the working group said the plan is to have individual committees move forward with the parts of the report relevant to their jurisdiction. The Senate majority leader also said the plan is not to wait on a larger package to come together — and instead to be flexible on moving smaller bills individually if they’re ready to go.

Schumer did indicate one area of legislating that was particularly high up on the priority list: addressing the use of AI in elections. He did not specify timing on that legislation on the floor, however.

Of course, it’s a huge jump from a report to passing bills through both chambers — particularly in this split Congress. The Senate is going to be largely unfriendly territory for legislating these next few months and will be gone for weeks at a time this fall. And while the group said it is hoping for buy-in from the House, the House is a bit unpredictable nowadays, to say the least.

The Senate’s next deadline for must-pass legislation isn’t until fall, on government funding and the farm bill, meaning AI provisions won’t be able to hitch a ride on more comprehensive legislation for a while. And with the November elections just around the corner, vulnerable incumbents aren’t going to be looking to vote on much. Any bills that include government spending could have particular holdups.

Still, Schumer has been adamant that he’ll push Congress to act on a bevy of priorities this year, AI included. And there’s always the post-election lame-duck session, where finicky policy can weasel its way through.

Asked about the difficulty of passing policy in an election year, Schumer told POLITICO: “We’re going to have to persuade our colleagues, but we think the arguments are overwhelming.”

Mohar Chatterjee contributed to this report.

News the Biden administration is continuing with arms transfers to Israel won a tentative quick seal of approval from many in the House Democratic conference, even as members across the spectrum called for greater clarity on the administration’s overall approach to the ongoing conflict.

Signs of divisions within the caucus were nevertheless apparent over the latest weapons shipment plans Tuesday night and came shortly before Republicans prepared to try and divide the conference over the president’s pledge to withhold heavy bombs from the key ally.

“I’m not going to second-guess every detail of that [decision on arms transfers] — that the president and people who know a lot more than me have to decide,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a progressive, told POLITICO.

“If the president and the United States drew a red line at Rafah, then it’s really incredibly important that we do not equip the Netanyahu government with the tools and weapons to cross our own red line,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “In terms of a more cohesive approach, I think it’s important.”

Many Democrats were quick to note they didn’t know the details of the latest arms package, details of which first emerged in The Wall Street Journal. The bulk of progressive Democrats have argued for restrictions on weapons transfers to pressure Israel to change its conduct in the war, while staunch pro-Israel advocates have argued against any limits on military aid.

The reports of new shipments of certain military aid comes hours before the chamber is slated to deliver a pointed rebuke to the Biden administration’s plan to withhold heavy bombs from the key U.S. ally, a vote that members believe could see dozens of Democratic defections.

Some Democrats inclined to support the GOP-led legislation also called for greater clarity from the White House about the overarching strategy in the conflict.

“What would be really helpful is clarity from the White House and the president as to our strategic priorities, as it relates to ending this war,” said Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), a frontline member who’s said he’ll support the GOP legislation up for a vote this week.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a brief interview she was undecided on whether she planned to support the Republican legislation that would move the weapons package but had concerns about the Biden administration sharing its defense plans to the public.

“These are not the kind of discussions and strategies that need to be playing out publicly, because there are so many different kinds of decisions — a lot of moving parts —  but it was still concerning that [Biden] made that announcement last week,” she said. “But with the addition of this billion dollars, that makes it very clear that [withholding the weapons package] is just one small component of the broader strategy.”

A spokesperson for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another member of Democratic leadership, Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado, declined comment.

A White House official referred questions about specific weapons packages to the State Department, but confirmed that “arms transfers are continuing as scheduled.” A State Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The new arms shipment comes as the White House has sought to tamp down support for the GOP-led bill that would prohibit Biden from withholding military aid to Israel. Biden officials spent Tuesday whipping against the bill, the White House official said, amid worries that many lawmakers were misinterpreting the extent of the administration’s actions.

“The legislation assumes as a baseline that the administration is pausing more weapons shipments than just one,” said the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking. “That’s just not the case.”

In calls to lawmakers and aides, the White House has argued that the legislation amounts to little more than a political ploy aimed at dividing the Democratic Party. Biden officials have also reiterated that the administration remains steadfastly in support of Israel’s defense, and that its decision to hold up a shipment of bombs last week was rooted solely in an effort to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza.

The White House typically steers clear of getting deeply involved in internal debates among Hill Democrats. But the decision to take an early public stance against the legislation represented the heightened concern within the administration that many lawmakers would support the bill — and deliver an implicit rebuke of Biden’s decision-making — without first fully understanding the specifics of its fast-evolving Middle East strategy.

That’s not to say those Democrats who have been critical of the administration’s approach to the conflict between Israel and Gaza were pleased to hear weapons shipments were continuing.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is not big on receiving messages,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “They have the right to defend themselves. They have the right to go after Hamas, but they don’t have the right to do it in any manner they see fit when they’re using our resources.”

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

Republicans aren’t working hard to claim the seats of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), even after their high-profile corruption-related indictments. But the GOP is laying plans to hang their legal problems around the necks of their Democratic colleagues.

In a year when the party faces a notably favorable Senate map replete with opportunities in more purple states, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is not making a play in New Jersey (good news for Rep. Andy Kim!). But the GOP’s Senate campaign arm is homing in on Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) in a bid to build Menendez’ indictments into a larger narrative that Democratic incumbents are ethically challenged.

“Bob Menendez’ comical level of corruption has brought political self-dealing to the forefront of voters’ minds. That is bad news for Bob Casey and Jon Tester, because they both have serious vulnerabilities on corruption and ethics issues,” NRSC spokesperson Mike Berg said in a statement to POLITICO.

Why Casey and Tester, and not others? Republicans have specifically eyed Casey and Tester as vulnerable to ethics critiques even before their colleague got indicted, thanks to past reports about their connections to lobbyists. Casey’s also been hit on certain donor ties, while Tester has faced some negative press about periodic lapses in his self-imposed ethics pledge.

Both Casey and Tester, notably, have called on Menendez to resign over his bribery charges.

“Jon Tester goes above and beyond nearly every Senate office when it comes to transparency and cracking down on lobbyist influence,” Tester spokesperson Monica Robinson said in response to the Republican jab.

Robinson also dinged likely GOP nominee Tim Sheehy’s “refusal to divest from his company” as a “major conflict of interest, as he tries to get elected to the very office that would steer lucrative federal contracts to his business.”

Casey spokesperson Maddy McDaniel similarly replied that “Pennsylvanians know Bob Casey for his decency, ethics, and honesty” and dinged GOP Senate nominee Dave McCormick for “dishonesty and self-dealing,” noting carpetbagger allegations against the candidate, among other subjects.

McCormick spokesperson Elizabeth Gregory responded: “On November 5, Pennsylvania will retire empty suit Bob Casey and send Dave McCormick to the Senate.”

Over in the House, the GOP has a similar strategy for Cuellar’s seat. Republicans targeted him directly last cycle, but this time around he has stayed off their list — until the indictment made his troubles a problem for the other House Democrat in a South Texas district.

Now the National Republican Congressional Committee is using Cuellar’s legal challenges to try to connect him with vulnerable Rep. Vicente Gonzalez. The latter Democrat is facing an uphill battle in his reelection against former GOP Rep. Mayra Flores, who lost the South Texas district to Gonzalez by 9 points last cycle.

“Cuellar’s indictment puts the other South Texas Democrats in a lose-lose spot – they either condemn their colleague or they stay silent and become complicit in the pattern of politicians using their positions for self-serving purposes. So far, Vicente Gonzalez and Michelle Vallejo have chosen to stay silent and put corruption ahead of serving South Texans,” said Delanie Bomar, an NRCC spokesperson, in a statement.

“Mayra has a lot more to worry about being endorsed and following and loving a 92-time indicted orange master than I have by somebody who’s two districts away and a very independent person,” Gonzalez said in a statement to POLITICO Tuesday. “The NRCC’s insinuation of me and South Texas is just one more racist and anti Latino remark the Republican Party is so used to making. Which is also why the majority of Latinos in this country continue to reject their party.”

Another front: The NRCC is also pushing House Democrats, including Minority Whip Katherine Clark, to return donations from Cuellar’s leadership PAC, called the Texas First PAC. The PAC gave Clark $5,000 this cycle.

Meanwhile, the GOP’s rising interest in ethics-related indictments doesn’t extend to Trump. And Democrats aren’t shying away from turning the presidential frontrunner’s New York trial into a potential problem for their opponents.

Take Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who made headlines a few days ago when he stopped by to support the former president at his trial in New York — and was called out by Democratic opponent Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

“Instead of showing up to vote on a bill that protects Florida travelers, strengthens air safety, and provides our aviation workforce with the resources they need to secure our skies, Rick Scott spent his day sucking up to a defendant found liable for sexual abuse,” she said in a statement.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna is leading a handful of GOP colleagues in a push to award a Congressional Gold Medal to former President Donald Trump.

Luna (R-Fla.), joined by seven other Republicans — GOP Deputy Whip Guy Reschenthaler (R-Pa.), and Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Andy Ogles (Tenn.), Randy Weber (Texas), Bob Good (Va.), Mary Miller (Ill.) and Mike Waltz (Fla.) — offered the resolution Tuesday. It comes as Trump sits in New York amid an ongoing criminal case concerning hush money payments to former adult actress Stormy Daniels.

Neither the offices of Speaker Mike Johnson nor Majority Leader Steve Scalise were immediately available for comment.

Among the clauses in the resolution are “the greatest of President Trump’s foreign policy achievements was that no wars were started while he was in office.”

Recent recipients of the award have ranged from the Dalai Lama to the Tuskegee Airmen and golfer Jack Nicklaus, among others.

Top House Democrats plan to oppose GOP legislation compelling the delivery to Israel of defense equipment already approved by Congress — and are actively urging a no vote in their caucus, teeing up a fight over an issue deeply dividing the party.

“This is not a serious legislative effort. It is another partisan stunt by Extreme MAGA Republicans who are determined to hurt President Biden politically,” Minority Whip Katherine Clark’s (D-Mass.) office said in a notice sent to Hill offices on Tuesday.

The Republican legislation significantly escalates tension with the Biden White House over its planned holdup of certain weapons to Israel while the U.S. ally’s military prepares a push into the southern Gaza city of Rafah. Slated for consideration as soon as Wednesday, the GOP measure will force many Democrats to make a tough choice: Either rebuke their party leader’s approach to Israel or leave themselves open to GOP attacks.

The bill freezes budgets for the offices of the defense secretary, secretary of state and National Security Council if Biden doesn’t deliver the weapons being withheld. The House Rules Committee plans to tee it up for consideration during a Tuesday meeting. The Biden administration has publicly said it would oppose the legislation and is likely to issue a statement of administration policy and could threaten a veto, which might help solidify Democratic opposition.

The latest furor over Israel policy came after Biden told CNN last week that his administration would stop deliveries of bombs and other munitions to conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government if it proceeded with a major invasion of Rafah, prompting an immediate condemnation from Republicans in Congress. After his remarks, Republicans accused Biden of abandoning a top ally and hurting U.S. foreign policy.

House Appropriations Committee Republicans unveiled the legislation over the weekend; it would compel the delivery of defense equipment already approved by Congress. It also includes a section that “condemns the Biden Administration’s decision to pause certain arms transfers to Israel.”

The Democratic-controlled Senate is unlikely to act on the legislation after it passes the House.

A group of several dozen House Democrats sent a letter last week pushing back on Biden’s decision, but not all 26 Democratic signatories are guaranteed to defect on the House floor. And the whip operation is going into effect with some Democrats still on the fence.

Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), a signatory of the letter, is “still reviewing the Calvert bill but would strongly disagree with a purely political approach to ensuring that Israel has the weapons they need to eliminate Hamas as the bill appears to be,” said his spokesperson, Jayce Genco.

Some national security-minded Democrats indicated opposition to the legislation, with House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) calling it “a blunt instrument” that would be “tantamount to writing a blank check to unconditionally send weapons, something we cannot do no matter how close an ally or friend.”

“It ties the hands of the president in a vain effort to score political points at home,” he said in a statement.

Centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) was the only Democrat to sign onto a letter to Biden, co-signed by 103 Republicans, seeking an explanation for the delayed weapons shipments and asking the president why his administration is “working to prevent Israel from eliminating remnants of an evil terrorist group” in Hamas.

“Through actions and words, your administration, President Biden, has made our allies unsure about our loyalty to them,” the mostly GOP group wrote. “The U.S. must stand with Israel throughout their conflict and support them until they accomplish their goal of dismantling Hamas.”

Daniella Diaz, Joe Gould, and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report

House GOP leadership has a chance to spotlight Democratic divides over Israel this week with a bill that will force lawmakers to take a position on the Biden administration’s weapons pause to the ally.

The vote is expected to split Democrats, exposing divisions between those who fully back Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza, and those who support a ceasefire and oppose further military aid to Israel.

The measure calls on the Biden administration to “proceed quickly” with previously green-lit arms transfers and requires the administration to “utilize all congressionally appropriated funds for security assistance for Israel as Congress intended.”

More than a messaging bill: The measure has substantive provisions limiting what can be done with funds appropriated by Congress to the Pentagon and State Department.

GOP members are expected to widely support the condemnation of the Biden administration’s weapons pause.

Republicans benefit from any opportunity to divide Democrats in an election year. But keep in mind: The legislation has bleak chances in the Senate.

Also, aviation: Also on the House’s agenda this week is the Senate-passed, five-year, $105 billion bill that will reauthorize the FAA. Votes on both the Israel and aviation measures are expected Wednesday.

Election watch: What we’re keeping an eye on this Election Day

Maryland’s Democratic primary for Senate, where it’s a fight between Rep. David Trone and Angela Alsobrooks to replace retiring Sen. Ben Cardin. The winner’s prize will be facing former Gov. Larry Hogan in the general election. 
The race to replace retiring Maryland Rep. John Sarbanes in the 3rd District pits activist and former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn against state Sen. Sarah Elfreth, who has the support of AIPAC’s super PAC.
West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice is favored to win the GOP Senate nomination, which sets him up to replace retiring Democrat Joe Manchin.