Dems urge GOP to pass border deal amid Trump’s opposition

lead image

It took Tammy Murphy just weeks to win the backing of key New Jersey Democratic leaders in her bid for Senate. In a state where party bosses still carry strong influence in elections, that could ordinarily be enough to ensure her nomination — giving the New Jersey first lady preferential ballot positioning right below President Joe Biden in many critical counties.

But Murphy is leaving nothing to chance in her battle against Rep. Andy Kim and is now looking to possibly take even greater advantage of New Jersey’s unusual primary ballot system to give her an edge.

To do so, Murphy is considering appearing with Biden on the primary ballot across the state even in counties where she doesn’t gain party endorsements, according to three people familiar with the private discussions among Democrats. It is a seemingly small visual distinction but one that could lead many voters to ignore Kim, who would be forced into a separate column without the president.

Such a move would require the consent of the Biden campaign, giving the president tacit but significant influence over the high-profile primary to replace indicted Sen. Bob Menendez. The outcome will test the influence of Murphy, a former financier who’s long been a player in Democratic circles. Her husband, Gov. Phil Murphy, served as the finance chair for the Democratic National Committee and was a member of the Obama administration.

The Biden campaign told POLITICO it is working to get on the primary ballot in the state but does not plan to weigh in on the Senate primary.

“The campaign is focused on our ballot access work in the state and look forward to talking to New Jersey Democrats across the state as we work to place the President on the Democratic primary ballot,” Biden campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz said in a statement.

The Murphy campaign declined to comment.

In New Jersey, where Democrats have a nearly one million-voter registration advantage, the winner of the Democratic primary is likely to glide to a general election victory in November. The state hasn’t sent a Republican to the Senate in half a century.

Ballot placement for a primary election may not seem consequential, but New Jersey’s unique ballot design plays a large role in how races are won and lost. Phil Murphy, for example, spent years gaining influence with Democratic party chairs before securing their backing for his first run for governor. As a result, two expected primary challengers stepped aside and cleared his path to victory.

In 19 of New Jersey’s 21 counties, primary ballots bracket individual candidates running for different offices together in horizontal or vertical lines. Candidates endorsed by county political parties are together with other party-backed candidates from the highest office to the lowest, making them appear more legitimate to voters. That’s unlike other states, where candidates are grouped together on the ballot by the office they are running for.

Candidates who don’t receive backing of county political parties — and don’t have allied candidates to bracket with — are placed alone on the ballot, making them appear less credible to voters. A recent Rutgers University study of 45 New Jersey congressional candidates over 20 years found that those who had the county party backing had a 38 percentage point boost.

Each county differs in how the so-called line is awarded, but in some areas, a county party leader’s backing is tantamount to receiving the preferred ballot treatment. In that respect, Murphy quickly won an advantage by racking up endorsements from party leaders in voter-rich Democratic counties.

But some Democratic county parties host conventions where a few hundred elected party faithful can elect who they want to endorse, giving Kim the opportunity to win the preferable ballot placement in parts of the state, which normally would be bracketed from the highest office to lowest.

However, candidates can ultimately choose who they want to bracket with on the ballot. The president — being at the top of the ballot — could choose to bracket with Murphy in all counties whether she wins the local county convention or not. The Murphys have a long-running history with Biden: Phil Murphy was a former ambassador to Germany in the Obama administration, and Biden campaigned for Murphy during his first run for governor in 2017.

Bracketing with Biden could blunt the impact of a Tammy Murphy county convention loss — should it happen — since Murphy would appear with the president. However, an agreement to exclusively bracket with Biden could be a moot point should Murphy run a clean sweep at county conventions — in that scenario, the line with the president on top followed by Murphy for Senate, House and local candidates would continue as normal, with no rival line of candidates headed by the president on the ballot.

There is some precedent to high-profile candidates running “off the line” to underscore their support for down-ballot candidates. In 2020, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) declined to run alongside county party-endorsed candidates in the Democratic primary in Atlantic County — including Biden — to bracket with then-House candidate Brigid Callahan Harrison, who was in a primary with Amy Kennedy. Harrison, however, lost that primary.

Running on a separate line with Biden would not be without political risks for Murphy. It could upset party leaders who would have otherwise seen their candidates bracket with the president. It also raises questions if a rival Biden-Murphy line would also include county and local candidates, which could pose a threat to candidates and incumbents who are supported by the local county party.

Katey Sabo, a Kim campaign spokesperson, said Murphy looking to bracket exclusively with Biden is “an undemocratic effort to rig this Senate primary.”

“The President is running a campaign to protect our democracy, and it’s completely inappropriate and plain wrong for the First Lady’s campaign to even think about, let alone look into efforts to drag him into New Jersey’s broken and corrupt politics,” Sabo said. “Instead, the First Lady should agree to have all Senate candidates grouped together on the ballot to give voters a clearly laid out and fair way to choose.”

Senators could vote on a bipartisan immigration deal as soon as next week, one of the top negotiators said Sunday.

But first, they have to sell it to their members. And that part is looking tricky.

“Well, we do have a bipartisan deal. We’re finishing the text right now,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Senate Democrats are expected to more widely support the deal — aside from some progressives who may be turned away by the amped-up border provisions. But whether Republicans in both chambers will support the long-awaited legislation amid pressure from former President Donald Trump to deny Democrats a win is unclear.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) went on Fox News on Sunday to defend the deal, noting that Republicans were the ones to demand border policy changes be tied to the national security supplemental in the first place. He’s faced backlash from within his own party for his part in negotiating a deal, which some Republicans argue would hand President Joe Biden a win in an election year.

“Republicans four months ago would not give funding for Ukraine for Israel and for our southern border, because we demanded changes in policy,” Lankford said. “So we actually locked arms together and said, ‘We’re not going to give you money for this. We want to change the law.’”

Murphy said he’s “hopeful” enough Republican senators will be willing to sign on.

“The question is whether Republicans are going to listen to Donald Trump,” Murphy said, “who wants to preserve chaos at the border, because he thinks it’s a winning political issue for him, or whether we are going to pass legislation which would be the biggest bipartisan reform of our border immigration laws in 40 years and would give the president of the United States, whether that president is a Republican or a Democrat, new, important power to be able to better manage the flow of people across the border.”

Negotiators says the terms of the deal are not yet final, but it will allow the president to “shut down the border in between the ports of entry when crossings reach catastrophically high levels.” That power wouldn’t be permanent — it would last “until we are able to be able to better process people crossing the border,” Murphy said.

Lankford also sought to dispel the growing belief that the border deal would allow 5,000 migrants into the country a day.

“It’s definitely not going to let a bunch of people in. It’s focused on actually turning people around,” Lankford said, arguing that members have a “constitutional obligation to be able to secure our country as fast as we can secure our country.”

Biden on Friday night urged Congress to pass bipartisan legislation, pledging to shut down the border the day the bill became law.

The bill also seeks to shorten wait times for asylum-seekers waiting for their claims to be heard, and would help new arrivals more quickly obtain work authorizations, according to Murphy.

POLITICO previously reported that the deal would also give the Department of Homeland Security expulsion authority if border encounters hit an average of 4,000-a-day over the course of a week, a metric that includes asylum appointments. That authority would become mandatory if daily crossings average more than 5,000 people for a week or crest over 8,500 a day, according to two people briefed on the emerging agreement and who were granted anonymity to discuss the details.

But even if the Senate is able approve a bipartisan agreement, getting the bill through the House, where immigration reform faces stiff opposition from conservatives including House Speaker Mike Johnson, will be another challenge.

In a Friday letter to senators negotiating on the border deal, Johnson wrote that even if the bipartisan deal passed through the Senate, it would be “dead on arrival” in the House.

Former President Donald Trump has also criticized the deal as he seeks to deny Biden, his likely 2024 presidential opponent, a win on one of the most crucial issues facing the country ahead of the November election.

“As the leader of our party, there is zero chance I will support this horrible, open borders betrayal of America. It’s not going to happen, and I’ll fight it all the way,” Trump said Saturday during a campaign event in Nevada.

“I notice a lot of the senators, a lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I said that’s OK, please blame it on me. Please, because they were getting ready to pass a very bad bill. And I’ll tell you what, a bad bill, I’d rather have no bill than a bad bill.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Saturday called on President Joe Biden to unilaterally take action on immigration reform instead of waiting for congressional intervention.

“President Biden falsely claimed yesterday he needs Congress to pass a new law to allow him to close the southern border, but he knows that is untrue,” the GOP speaker wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “As I explained to him in a letter late last year, and have specifically reiterated to him on multiple occasions since, he can and must take executive action immediately to reverse the catastrophe he has created.”

Johnson and other conservatives criticize the emerging immigration deal for still allowing too many border crossings; he said in his statement it “would expressly allow as many as 150,000 illegal crossings each month.” Yet the bill’s advocates say that the actual amount of illegal crossings would be much lower and that the proposal does not greenlight such a number.

The Department of Homeland Security would be required to shut down illegal crossings if the daily average of encounters surpasses 5,000 migrants or if a one-day total surpasses 8,500. DHS would have the authority to shut the border down at 4,000 encounters per day, however, and Biden has signaled he would aggressively use that authority.

Once the mandatory shutdown is enforced, it would take two weeks of starkly lower illegal crossings (about 2,000) to reopen the border to crossings other than asylum appointments at ports of entry. As a result of high illegal crossing numbers, the border shutdown could continue for weeks or months until the situation numbers go down.

“This is the valve to manage the overwhelming numbers of illegal crossings. It allows immediate operational control of the border. It does not allow 5,000 migrants to enter the country a day,” said a person familiar with the details.

Johnson’s message came on the heels of Biden’s Friday exhortation of Congress to pass a bipartisan law addressing immigration at the southern border. Biden’s statement marked the strongest stance his administration has taken on immigration policy yet.

“What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said in a statement. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

In a Friday letter to senators negotiating on the border deal, Johnson wrote that even if the bipartisan deal passed through the Senate, it would be “dead on arrival” in the House.

In his Saturday message to Biden, Johnson cited Title 8 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as an Oct. 2017 ruling by the Supreme Court, which he claimed already gave the president “ample authority” to restrict entry of illegal immigrants.

Referencing a letter he wrote to Biden last month, the speaker reiterated his call for the Biden administration to begin instituting measures to “secure the border” now, including recommencing construction of the notorious border wall that former President Donald Trump began during his term.

“President Biden can begin to secure the border by ending catch-and-release, ceasing exploitation of parole authority, reinstating the Remain in Mexico program, expanding the use of expedited removal authority, and renewing construction of the border wall.”

Trump also addressed the border deal Saturday, saying “A bad border deal is far worse than no border deal.”

Donald Trump on Saturday said he’ll fight the Senate border deal “all the way” and praised House Speaker Mike Johnson for declaring the bill dead on arrival in the lower chamber.

Speaking at a “commit to caucus” event in Nevada, Trump railed against President Joe Biden’s handling of the southern border, a subject he has repeatedly leaned into as a base-rallying issue. He called the bipartisan, unreleased Senate agreement a “bad bill” and said there’s no chance he could support it.

“As the leader of our party, there is zero chance I will support this horrible, open borders betrayal of America. It’s not going to happen, and I’ll fight it all the way,” Trump said.

“I notice a lot of the senators, a lot of the senators are trying to say, respectfully, they’re blaming it on me. I said that’s OK, please blame it on me. Please, because they were getting ready to pass a very bad bill. And I’ll tell you what, a bad bill, I’d rather have no bill than a bad bill.”

While the text has yet to be released, a trickling of details this week set off a firestorm on the Hill, as bipartisan negotiators tried to rally Senate Republicans in support of the policies that would alter the nation’s immigration laws. Trump has further complicated negotiations by wading into the debate in an effort to dissolve the deal.

The border has long been a political headache for Biden, who’s seen record levels of migrant crossings since taking office. Border Patrol agents reported a record 302,034 migrant encounters last month, according to data released Friday by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Of those encounters, 249,785 were recorded between ports of entry.

The White House is eager to cut a deal with the Senate, which officials believe will demonstrate the president’s ability to reach bipartisan agreement and his eagerness to address the border problem. After that, the president’s team plans to blast House Republicans, some of whom have suggested it’s better for the party to hold on to the issue until November.

Johnson on Saturday released another statement, warning that the Senate bill faces dim chances in the House, where he’s declared the deal “dead on arrival.” Trump praised Johnson’s stance during Saturday’s rally, just hours after the speaker’s latest statement.

“I think he’s going to prove to be a very good speaker. It’s tough when you have a very small majority. Very tough. Mike Johnson, speaker, he just said it’s dead on arrival in the House. Dead on arrival,” Trump said.

Biden also jumped into the fray late Friday, ramping up the White House’s rhetoric and sending a sharp message to Republicans who have threatened to tank any agreement. The president urged action and said he would shut down the border after signing the bill into law.

This shutdown authority Biden was referring to would give his administration the ability to turn away migrants in between ports of entry once the agreed upon metric is hit. This would not apply to some migrants who show they are fleeing persecution or torture, and asylum-seekers would still be allowed to present claims at authorized ports of entry. The contours of the deal are still subject to negotiation.

Top appropriators have reached a deal on the totals for a dozen spending bills, clearing a critical hurdle toward securing a broader government funding agreement before federal cash expires for a swath of agencies in less than five weeks.

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) reached the deal late Friday night, according to two sources familiar with talks. Both sides aren’t releasing the numbers for the 12 funding bills, which will provide federal agencies with updated budgets for the current fiscal year.

Key context: The deal, which came together after weeks of tough negotiations, follows the announcement of a government funding framework hashed out by staff for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker Mike Johnson. It will allow lawmakers to hash out the finer policy and funding points of each individual bill. Appropriators have been anxious to get their hands on the figures, acknowledging that time is short to finalize a government funding accord that will top $1.7 trillion.

Government funding for veterans, transportation, agriculture and energy programs runs out March 1. Funding for the rest of the government, including the military and the biggest domestic programs, expires March 8.

Former GOP House chair Liz Cheney on Saturday accused her successor Elise Stefanik of deleting a press release from 2021 condemning protesters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.

On Tuesday, Cheney tweeted at Stefanik, an ally of former President Donald Trump, saying: “This is what ⁦⁦@EliseStefanik said, in a rare moment of honesty, about the January 6 attack on our Capitol. One day she will have to explain how and why she morphed into a total crackpot. History, and our children, deserve to know.”

In Stefanik’s 2021 press release, she condemned the “violence and destruction” of Jan. 6 and called for the perpetrators to be prosecuted.

Stefanik has since downplayed the significance of the attack on the Capitol and cast doubt on the legitimacy of legal action against the attack’s participants. She is reportedly under consideration to be Trump’s VP pick should he win his bid for the presidency.

Cheney formerly was vice chair of the House Select Committee on the Jan. 6 attack — which Stefanik has described as ”illegitimate and unconstitutional.” Cheney became the focus of Trump’s ire and lost in the primary for her Montana House seat in 2022.

On Saturday, Cheney posted again to point out that the statement in question was no longer available on Stefanik’s official House website.

As of Saturday morning, the website showed no press releases prior to 2023.

In a statement to POLITICO, a spokesperson for Stefanik accused Cheney of “lashing out” over personal animus, noting that Stefanik’s previous statements could still be found on several social media channels.