House lawmakers passed multiple pieces of legislation focused on penalizing Iran following its attack on Israel last weekend.

The measures passed include:

A resolution declaring the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’’ is “outrightly antisemitic and must be strongly condemned.”

The Holding Iranian Leaders Accountable Act, which would require a report on the financial holdings of senior Iranian officials.
The Iran Sanctions Accountability Act, aimed at preventing the evasion of sanctions against Iran.

The Strengthening Tools to Counter the Use of Human Shields Act, which would impose sanctions on entities that use civilians as human shields.

The Illicit Captagon Trafficking Suppression Act, which would impose sanctions on entities that produce or facilitate distribution of a synthetic stimulant named Captagon.

The No Technology for Terror Act, which would permanently bar the export of U.S.-made technology to Iran.

The No Paydays to Hostage Takers Act, which would bar U.S. admittance of sanctioned officials for United Nations meetings.

The Solidify Iran Sanctions Act, which would make permanent certain sanctions on Iran.
A resolution urging the European Union to “expeditiously” declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization

There is no indication yet that the Senate will act on any of the measures.

Senate leaders are trying to strike an agreement that would allow a few hours of debate before proceeding to a vote to potentially dismiss or table the impeachment trial against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Though it would not alter the outcome, such a pact would avoid a potential pileup of procedural motions from Senate Republicans who are demanding a prolonged trial. And it would give senators additional time to debate Mayorkas’ record, which Republicans could use to criticize Democrats for an upcoming disposal of a full trial.

The deal is not yet final — and leaders have some time before the Senate meets again on the issue. While the House delivered the articles to the Senate on Tuesday, senators will not be sworn in as jurors until Wednesday. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) declined to say how much debate time Senate Republicans could get as part of the deal, but said the hope is negotiations to that end wrap up by the end of Tuesday.

“It sounds like they are making positive progress on how to dispose of impeachment,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “There’s still some negotiations going on, but I think that’s good news.”

Still, any such deal would require unanimous consent in the Senate, meaning any one senator could scuttle it. Asked if he expects a Republican will object to the deal, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said “all options are on the table.” And he’s not alone in floating some tepid opposition to a potential agreement.

Shutting down the trial too quickly “would be a nuclear option on the part of the Democrats,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). “So I think that gives us the right to shut this place down.”

Of course, Republicans’ ideal situation would be a full trial with presentations from House impeachment managers and arguments for supporting evidence. Since any bipartisan agreement would fall far short of that due to Democratic opposition, some Senate Republicans are already voicing their concerns with any intermediate deal.

“I don’t think you can cure the fact that we’re not going to have a trial by saying: ‘But well, we talked about it for a while, so therefore that’s kind of a trial,’” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters. Hawley added that to him, a trial has to include allowing managers to present evidence.

“The House should be able to take as long as they want to present the case, and then let them go defend,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who said a few hours of debate would not alleviate his concerns.

But the deal may be welcome news for other Senate Republicans, particularly those that might consider joining Democrats in tabling or dismissing the trial altogether. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, a Republican who has been critical of the impeachment, said Tuesday he wants to see the Senate consider the trial and debate it before shutting it down.

Asked about the potential deal, Romney said “if there is debate of a fulsome nature, that would be preferential.” Asked what amount of time for debate would be acceptable to him, Romney replied: “As the Supreme Court once said about a different topic, I’ll know it when I see it.”

While many senators expected Democratic leadership would quickly dispose of the trial through a motion to table or dismissal, which only require a simple majority to pass, a number of vulnerable Senate Democrats haven’t publicly committed to supporting those options. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) has been the most watched vote on the matter, as he insists he needs to review the articles before he makes a decision after previously saying he’d support a motion to dismiss.

When Tester sat down in the Senate chamber, he motioned to reporters in the gallery that he was indeed reading the copy of the impeachment articles that was on his desk, taking out his reading glasses and waving them around.

Most Republicans were at their seats as Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), an impeachment manager, read the articles aloud, though there were clear absences on the Democratic side. Romney and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a conservative who has repeatedly called for a longer trial, appeared to annotate their copies of the articles.

Senators will reconvene Wednesday afternoon and be sworn in as jurors — and that’s when parliamentary shenanigans could ensue. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly declined to publicly share his plans for the trial aside from wanting to deal with it “expeditiously.”

Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also circulated a letter, obtained by POLITICO, to senators on Tuesday afternoon that laid out staffing ground rules and Capitol access for both members and staffers. Perhaps most importantly, the leaders reminded senators that there’s no standing allowed during the proceedings, so “senators are requested to remain in their seats at all times.”

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Mike Johnson’s plan to put a package of separate foreign aid measures on this floor is running into a familiar hurdle — conservative backlash — and it remains unclear whether Democrats would step in to save his efforts.

The extent of the right-flank rebellion is still uncertain, as Republicans and Democrats alike stress they need to see the details of the complicated rule that would govern debate on a bill aiding Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan before making a final decision. However, it’s clear at this point Johnson would need Democratic support to even start debate on the floor.

“Right now, the rule doesn’t pass with Republicans,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.). “I walked out of there and I am usually pretty good at seeing the board. I don’t see the board right now.”

“The rule that was proposed last night at conference will fail,” said conservative Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), who declined to say if he would vote for it.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) became the most prominent GOP lawmaker to voice outright opposition to rule on the foreign aid package on Tuesday. Other conservatives are rumbling about voting against the measure, even as they haven’t committed yet.

Republican leaders counter that resistance from their own ranks is premature because they’re still working out the full details of the proposal. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), for example, referred to a second rule for debate that “hasn’t even been written.”

Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) indicated no plans to pressure Republicans to vote for the rule on the floor, even as the GOP majority has lost a historic number of the usually party-line votes this Congress.

“We don’t whip rules,” he indicated. “It’s a team vote on the Republican side to advance our agenda.”

The fate of the foreign aid package comes even as a second Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), voiced support for Greene’s push to oust Johnson from the speakership — despite staunch opposition to her plan from much of the GOP conference.

Asked directly if they could pass a rule for debate on foreign aid along the outlines of what Johnson is proposing, new Rules Chair Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) replied candidly: “TBD.”

As skeptical as conservatives are of the foreign aid plan itself, some appear more open to supporting the rule. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said in an interview he was “listening” to supporters but that “it’s a little early yet” to know if he would vote to start debate. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said “I don’t believe that this is the right approach” on foreign aid.

One conservative who’s not threatening to tank the rule is Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the powerful Rules panel that’s responsible for setting up floor debate. Norman’s support in committee would at least let the rule get to the floor, though its future is perilous beyondthat.

“I am going to vote for the rule on the committee and I will probably vote for the [rule] on the floor,” Norman said Tuesday. “We have a right to vote on it — I don’t have that right to deny that. On final passage, the devil is in the details.”

If Democrats stepped in to save floor debate on foreign aid, it would be an extraordinary development. The minority party in the House, almost without exception, doesn’t step in to save the agenda of the party in power.

Democrats are staying mum for now, but are cracking open the door to doing so.

“We are in negotiations on exactly what is going to be in this bill from Republicans. Once we see that — once that is finalized — then we are going to move to the process discussion,” said Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.). “But it’s certainly on the table as a possibility.”

So what would it say if Democrats salvaged the foreign aid package?

“One of two things: It says either that we’ve got some people in our party that voted against the rule that are going to continue to push chaos, or leadership has brought a bill to the floor that’s fatally flawed,” Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) said.

Asked as to which one he thought was at play here, Graves merely smiled: “I’m going to let you choose.”

Nicholas Wu contributed.

The Senate will take its first vote on keeping a key surveillance power in place Thursday, setting up a tough negotiation with privacy hawks in order to avoid a Saturday lapse in the controversial spy authorities.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday he will move to set up a vote on the expiring Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for later this week, hoping to avoid a brief shutdown for the intelligence community program to collect information from foreign targets without a warrant.

“Democrats and Republicans have to work together to meet the April 19 deadline. If we don’t cooperate, FISA will expire. So we must be ready to cooperate,” Schumer said Tuesday morning.

The two-year FISA bill will need 60 votes to vault the first filibuster, and then Schumer and GOP leaders must work with senators like Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah to set up votes on amendments and debate time.

Some Democrats and Republicans alike want a vote on installing a warrant requirement for searching the program’s database for intelligence swept up on U.S. citizens. Paul says he also wants votes on amendments that would prohibit FISA from being used on Americans altogether, as well as bar the purchase of intelligence data without a warrant.

“We’re trying to make sure there’s a debate over whether or not Americans should be spied on by their own government,” Paul said Monday night. “We need more protections of Americans.”

A second House Republican told Mike Johnson on Tuesday that he will sign on to an attempt to end his speakership, according to two lawmakers in the room — meaning Johnson would almost certainly need Democratic votes to retain his gavel if his rivals move against him.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said during a closed-door GOP meeting that he would back Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene‘s (R-Ga.) effort amid rising conservative frustration with the speaker’s proposed foreign aid package. Massie is the first Republican to commit to supporting her. It’s still unclear when Greene plans to force the ouster vote, though she has vowed to do it eventually.

“You’re not going to be the speaker much longer,” Massie told Johnson, according to two lawmakers in the room.

On Monday evening, Johnson announced his plans to send four separate bills to the floor — on aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, plus a fourth with other miscellaneous provisions. That sparked pushback from Greene and some other conservatives, who have opposed attempts to send further cash to Ukraine. Given that resistance, Johnson would likely need Democratic support to bring those bills to the floor, which could further incite GOP hard-liners in any ouster vote.

Massie confirmed his plans to back Greene in a post on X during the conference meeting. He added that Johnson “should pre-announce his resignation (as Boehner did), so we can pick a new Speaker without ever being without a GOP Speaker.”

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) said Massie’s announcement was “not received very well” in the private GOP conference meeting. Majority Leader Steve Scalise said afterward that he still thinks they can avoid a vote to terminate Johnson’s speakership.

“Folks are very discouraged. … We are screwed,” said one Republican lawmaker, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Democrats aren’t yet committing to backing Johnson’s plan on foreign aid, saying they need to see the substance of the bills. And while a handful of lawmakers in the party said they would help Johnson keep his gavel if he put Ukraine aid on the House floor, it’s unclear if they’ll count his current plan as fulfilling his end of the bargain.

Democrats were told in their private conference meeting Tuesday that the money to Ukraine would still effectively be a grant, because the loan language Johnson is considering would make it difficult for Ukraine to ever pay back the money, according to one person in the room. Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed to structure any further aid to Ukraine as a loan, an idea some Republicans have embraced.

If Johnson’s foreign aid plan passes the House, its fate in the Senate is uncertain. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that he is “reserving judgment” on the package, and he and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have both repeatedly called on Johnson to pass their bipartisan foreign aid bill.

Anthony Adragna and Ursula Perano contributed to this report.

The Senate is set to begin an impeachment trial this week for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — the first of its kind in nearly 150 years — after weeks of delay.

Mayorkas became the second Cabinet secretary ever impeached last month, after the GOP-controlled House’s second try succeeded.

Republicans have channeled their outrage over the record number of border crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border into the effort to oust Mayorkas, alleging that he is refusing to enforce immigration laws. Democrats frame the fight as a policy disagreement between the GOP and the White House, hoping to end the proceedings quickly.

Here’s what to expect:

Dems need speed: Senate Democrats aren’t interested in a full trial, where House Republicans make their case for removing Mayorkas, and will try to keep it as short as possible.

“We’re going to try to resolve this issue as quickly as impossible. Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements,” Schumer said last week.

The Senate must summon Mayorkas to let him know the charges he faces and ask for a written answer. But he would not have to appear in the Senate at any point; don’t expect him to.

The process will be led by Senate President Pro Tempore Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Unlike presidential impeachments, the chief justice of the supreme court is not involved.

Dem dismissal? Democrats hold the Senate majority. If they stand united, they could dismiss the trial outright or move to table the two articles of impeachment.

That would effectively end the House effort and free the upper chamber to pursue other business. No Democrats thus far have voiced support for impeaching Mayorkas.

Schumer has not been concrete about his plans, other than a desire to keep the process short.

Multiple GOP senators have lamented a trial as a waste of time, given the expected outcome in the Democratic-controlled chamber. But it’s not clear that sentiment would drive any to dismiss the charges from the outset.

Mitt Romney (R-Utah) was unclear last week at what point in the process he could voice his view: “Mayorkas has done a terrible job, but he’s following the direction of the President and has not met the constitutional test of a high criminal crime or misdemeanor.”

Reaching for referral: If Democrats are unable to unanimously dismiss or table the articles, they have the option of voting to create a trial committee that would investigate the charges against Mayorkas.

This would follow the precedent of several trials of federal judges in the last 100 years.

There aren’t hard and fast rules for the committee referral process. But in the past, the Senate has moved a resolution to authorize party leaders to appoint six senators and a chair, authorize the calling of witnesses and issue a final report.

Democrats would largely like to avoid this path as it would keep the GOP allegations against Mayorkas and the Biden administration alive heading into an election where border security is expected to be a major issue.

GOP seeks to stretch it out: Mike Lee (R-Utah) and some of his conservative GOP colleagues have pledged to try and force a full trial, or at least utilize procedural delay tactics to drag out out as long as possible.

They argue the Senate has a constitutional obligation to hear the arguments for and against impeachment from the House managers.

Lee is expected to make multiple points of order and possibly force votes. But if Democrats stand united, they can table all of Lee’s attempts.

Ursula Perano contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson told GOP lawmakers that he’ll try to pass four measures this week to send aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan — each in separate bills, according to multiple Republicans in the private Monday meeting.

A fourth proposed bill, which is still being finalized, would include a package of related measures, including a lend-lease deal for military aid, a ban on TikTok in the U.S. and provisions to sell off assets seized from Russian oligarchs.

It’s far from certain that Johnson would have the votes to bring the bills to the floor, given the procedural hurdles of Republicans’ narrow majority that have vexed the speaker for months. Johnson would need near-unanimous support from his own conference to bring the whole package of bills up for passage, a procedure known as a rules vote, plus prior approval from a Rules Committee stacked with conservatives who may resist based on Ukraine aid.

Earlier Monday, hardliners in the House Freedom Caucus released a statement saying they opposed using necessary cash for Israel to “ram through Ukraine aid.” And several members of the group declined on Monday night as they left the closed-door meeting to say if they would support bringing the bills to the floor at this point.

“The American people have made it as clear as they possibly could … that we better secure our border before we spend more money in Ukraine. They are getting ready to fly off the cliff,” Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said. Conservative Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), Bob Good (R-Va.) and Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) each also declined to say if they would vote to bring the package to the floor.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), another Freedom Caucus member, said that he “likes that it’s separate bills.” But pressed if that meant he would help bring the package to the floor, he demurred: “We haven’t even seen the bills, I mean good grief.”

If even a handful of conservatives oppose the rule vote, then Johnson would need Democratic support to move forward — and it’s incredibly rare for the minority party to assist on those rules votes. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries declined to comment Monday on whether he expected his caucus would support the package: “We’re not going to come to any conclusion about process until we understand the substance.”

Other GOP members are already drawing red lines that Johnson is unlikely to meet because they would threaten to sink Ukraine aid in the Senate. For example, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Republicans should incorporate language that mandates the Senate vote on a House-passed, conservative-favored border security bill before it can take up a Ukraine aid package.

“I think the Senate should have to take a vote on our border security legislation before we are just giving a blank check,” Gaetz told reporters, adding that his idea got a positive reaction within the meeting.

Plus, Johnson has a looming threat to his speakership, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) vowing to force a vote to oust him. She said Monday that she hadn’t made a decision on when to triggering that process, but that she’s “firmly against the plan as it stands right now.” She called it “another wrong direction for Speaker Johnson.”

“He’s definitely not going to be speaker next Congress,” Greene said, adding it was “to be determined” if he would even finish out this term. No GOP lawmakers have explicitly said they would join Greene in voting to boot Johnson.

Republicans are still waiting to see when Greene will follow through with her threat to fire Johnson, who brushed off the chance that the foreign aid strategy will lead to his potential ouster.

“I don’t spend my time worrying about motions to vacate. We’re having to govern here, and we’re gonna do our job. I’m not sure how that shakes out,” he said.

The speaker also told members that there would be amendment votes included in the package, though it’s unclear what those would be. Notably absent from his proposal: any measures to address border security, which Republicans have demanded for months. Conservatives said they would push for amendment votes on border security policies as part of the House’s debate.

“There’ll be a possibility for amendments. But the question is how many — they’ll have to be germane,” said Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.). “But let’s face it, he had to make the play call. And I think he’s made a very good play call, given the totality of the circumstances where the world is right now.”

The speaker said he’s committed to abiding by a House rule that gives lawmakers a full 72 hours to review the legislation, once it’s finalized. That would likely push passage votes to Friday evening.

If the House passed more than one of the four bills, it’s unclear if they would be packaged together before heading to the Senate. While GOP lawmakers said the upper chamber would have to take separate votes on each piece of legislation, Johnson told reporters after the meeting that he hadn’t yet decided whether to send whatever bills pass over as a comprehensive package.

It’s unclear if Johnson has Senate support for his proposal, given the upper chamber’s leaders are continuing to insist on their own bipartisan version of foreign aid legislation that combines cash for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

“We’re discussing whether they would be merged together in one package that’s sent to the Senate, or if it goes over as individual measures. My personal preference is to do it individually, but we’ll let the body decide. We’ll have further discussion on that in the morning,” Johnson said.

Katherine Tully-McManus, Nicholas Wu and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

A newly established outside group with ties to California Democrats is hitting Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) as not conservative enough, seeking to boost his GOP primary opponent for a Pennsylvania swing seat.

POLITICO obtained mailers sent by the group — True Patriots PA, established on April 5 — hitting the incumbent. One says ”We sent Brian Fitzpatrick to D.C. to represent our values — instead, he became best friends with Kamala Harris and the Democrats” and another says “MAGA is ready to bag the biggest RINO in Congress.”

The group’s treasurer, Meagan Olson, is listed as Sacramento, California-based and also separately as the treasurer for Rep. Eric Swalwell’s (D-Calif.) campaign. She did not immediately respond to request for comment. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee declined to comment.

Ben Trundy, a spokesperson for the Fitzpatrick campaign, said the move indicated the Democrats believe they have “no chance of beating Congressman Fitzpatrick” so they are boosting his primary opponent, Mark Houck.

“This lame attempt to prop up Mark Houck … shows just how desperate they are to force their extreme policies on Bucks and Montgomery County voters,” he added.

Houck is an anti-abortion activist who drew national attention for comments he made saying he “struggled” with pornography. His campaign did not immediately comment on whether he supported the outside group’s assistance.

Fitzpatrick — co-chair of the centrist Problem Solvers’ Caucus — twice did not support impeaching former President Donald Trump, and has won reelection in his district even as President Joe Biden carried it in 2020.

The Pennsylvania GOP primary is April 23.