All eyes this week will be on the House as they seek to pass aid for Israel — and maybe Ukraine — following strikes launched by Iran against Israel over the weekend.

Speaker Mike Johnson was not specific during a Sunday interview on what his chamber would move forward with this week. “The details of that package are being put together right now,” he said on Fox News. “We’re looking at the options and all these supplemental issues.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated congressional leaders were resolute in their support following a Sunday call between them and President Joe Biden: “There was a consensus on the phone among all the leaders that we had to help Israel and help Ukraine, and now hopefully we can work that out and get this done next week,” he said at a New York press conference.

Among the items listed for possible consideration is a resolution declaring the slogan ‘‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’’ is antisemitic and condemning its use. It’s listed for consideration under suspension of the rules, which would require a two-thirds vote for passage. It’s one of 17 legislative items listed for possible consideration by the chamber this week.

House Republicans are expected to meet in late Monday afternoon to discuss the attack and foreign aid supplemental package. More than 90 House members, including Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), urgedJohnson to take up the Senate-passed measure in a letter.

Over in the Senate, lawmakers must deal with a reauthorization of a controversial spy powers program, known formally as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, before it expires April 19. It may not be easy, with opponents vowing to fight, though the Biden administration is rallying support for speedy passage.

“At a moment of increasing threats and instability abroad, the only way to ensure this critical intelligence tool does not expire on Friday is for the Senate to take up the House bill and pass it expeditiously,” said Matthew Olsen, assistant attorney general for national security.

The House passed a reauthorization on a bipartisan basis last Friday. As always, though, any one senator can slow consideration of legislation.

The articles of impeachment Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are expected to be walked over by the House managers on Tuesday, though we’ll see if the weekend attack further scrambles the timing there.

For today, though: Senators will be voting on reappointing a judge to the Northern Mariana Islands.

They turned the reversal of Roe v. Wade into campaign rocket fuel two years ago, denying the GOP its hopes for a “red wave.” Now House Democrats are preparing to try to again sink vulnerable Republicans on abortion.

Internal party polling data backs up their strategy. Democratic lawmakers viewed a recent survey from their campaign arm during a private meeting on Wednesday that pointed to abortion’s status as a “dealbreaker” for key constituencies ahead of November. The poll, described to POLITICO by a person in the room, found 43 percent of women and 31 percent of independents saying they could not vote for a candidate for Congress who disagreed with them on abortion.

The same polling showed 69 percent of respondents in battleground districts believing that GOP control of the House, Senate and White House would lead to significant restrictions on abortion. The result remained largely the same regardless of whether the respondent was in a state with restricted or accessible abortion. (Notably, the polling was conducted before former President Donald Trump said he’d punt the issue to the states.)

It may prove more challenging than Democrats expect to link swing-district Republicans to state-level abortion restrictions. Voters will also face a messaging bombardment about the economy, the border, crime and other issues that typically put Democrats on defense — though Alabama’s recent court ruling restricting in vitro fertilization yielded messaging that took advantage of GOP vulnerabilities.

Broadly speaking, Trump’s new abortion position is prompting many GOP lawmakers to distance themselves from any further congressional action to ban it. Battleground-seat Republicans have lined up to repudiate Arizona’s new abortion ban after a seismic court decision reinstated it.

“Just like Democrats, Republicans have different views on the issue,” said purple-district Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.), who has opposed a national abortion ban. “My view is very, very clear and very, very simple. I believe that we need to respect women and the choices that they have to make.”

But Democrats are still preparing to yoke their opponents to the restrictions anyway. If they succeed, they’ll be harmonizing with President Joe Biden’s reelection, which is putting abortion rights front and center.

“Some have tried to rhetorically separate themselves, but when it comes to actual work in terms of the bills they support, the votes they’ve taken, they’re not supporting reproductive freedom across this country,” said DCCC chair Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who was confident voters would still see abortion as a top issue. “The data hasn’t changed,” she added. “We’ve seen this consistently since the Dobbs decision [ending Roe].”

Lawmakers are anticipating a media barrage to make the case to voters on abortion. The message: If Republicans take back the Senate, keep the House and take the White House, they will pass a national abortion ban. (Trump has said he opposes a national abortion ban).

“It’s very important that we communicate that even in states where the right to abortion exists on the state level, [that] a national abortion ban, which [Republicans are seeking] and will seek, will overturn the right to abortion, even in states like New York and California,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “I think we really need to be very sharp about the stakes of this as something that we have to continue to emphasize.”

One Michigan Democrat pointed to voters approving an amendment to the state’s constitution in 2022 — after the Dobbs decision — guaranteeing the right to abortion and other reproductive health services as evidence of its down-ballot potency.

“This was clearly a question that was front of mind and it made a huge difference in the Michigan election, statewide and district by district, down to the legislative races,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). He acknowledged the difficulty of keeping the issue “in the political consciousness” but added that Republicans were “doing it for us. They cannot get out of their own way and they’re gonna pay a price for it, I believe.”

Not every lawmaker thinks abortion should be a central part of the party’s election year message. Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), who represents a purple district narrowly won by Biden in 2020, said “I don’t spend a lot of time talking about abortion in my race.” She said she didn’t last cycle, either.

“Quite frankly, I think the voters are aware of the national news. They’re aware enough that you don’t have to spend a whole lot of time talking about it,” she said.

An unusual coalition of Democrats and Republicans fell short of their push to add an amendment to a controversial surveillance bill that would require federal officials to get a warrant to see data from U.S. citizens in communication with foreign targets.

In a highly unusual outcome, the amendment from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) to the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act tied at 212 — thereby failing. More than 80 Democrats joined with 128 Republicans in backing the measure, while 86 Republicans and 126 Democrats opposed it.

“The intelligence community wants control,” Biggs said on the floor. “They want to continue to have control without any checks.”

Tie votes in the House are exceptionally rare, let alone with such a divided breakdown among the parties.

The White House strongly opposed the amendment in a statement of administration policy on Thursday.

“The amendment would prohibit U.S. officials from reviewing critical information that the Intelligence Community has already lawfully collected, with exceptions that are exceedingly narrow and unworkable in practice,” the Biden White House wrote.

The House on Friday passed legislation reauthorizing a controversial government surveillance power — capping off a months-long debate marked by acrimonious GOP infighting.

The 273-147 bipartisan vote is a win for embattled Speaker Mike Johnson, who has struggled publicly to bridge the deep divides within his conference. But it also puts him at odds with some of his biggest conservative critics, 88 of whom opposed the bill, as he faces the threat of an ouster vote.

The bill still needs to get through the Senate and to President Joe Biden’s desk by the April 19 deadline for reauthorizing the spy power.

Friday’s vote comes just two days after 19 Republicans prevented Johnson from even bringing a bill to the floor to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the intelligence community to collect the communications of foreign targets without a warrant.

Another dramatic turn came just ahead of the bill’s final passage, with a proposal to require warrants when searching foreign data collected by the surveillance program for information related to Americans failed on 212-212 tie. The Biden administration and members of the Intelligence Committee waged an intense lobbying effort ahead of the vote; Attorney General Merrick Garland was calling members on Friday to urge their support, according to a person familiar with the conversations who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

In a bid to get his holdouts on board, Johnson shortened the reauthorization period for the program from five years to two years — which caused heartburn in some corners of the Biden administration and would put the next wiretapping fight in a potential second Trump term, if the GOP’s standard-bearer wins in November.

Johnson will meet with Trump at Mar-A-Lago on Friday, with some GOP lawmakers expecting that he will formally bless the changes made to the bill.

The legislation, negotiated by leadership, makes changes to the Section 702 power as well as the broader surveillance law it is housed under in a bid to increase transparency and oversight.

But several conservatives opposed it in the end because of the warrant requirement’s failure on a dramatic 212-212 tie, as well as other amendments that broadened the program’s use.

Privacy advocates in both parties had long viewed the House’s debate as their best chance to get a warrant requirement added into the foreign wiretapping authority. Johnson sparked pierce backlash among some on his right after he came out against the warrant requirement — a position first reported by POLITICO.

Johnson, a former member of the Judiciary Committee, has defended his switch, saying he’s had access to more intelligence information since becoming speaker late last year.

But for his one-time allies on privacy matters felt like he stacked the deck against them.

“The Speaker of the House put his finger on the scale,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).

Trump also helped fuel the GOP backlash ahead of Wednesday’s failed vote to start debate by posting on social media that Republicans should “kill” the broader surveillance law.

Supporters of the surveillance law were quick to note that the former president conflated parts of the law in his post. In addition, Trump has flip-flopped in the past on surveillance fights, including backing a permanent reauthorization of Section 702 in 2018.

The spy fight is the first of two big policy tests Johnson is navigating this month — all with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) threat to his job hanging over his head. Republicans expected that he will try to pass long-stalled Ukraine aid next week, though Johnson hasn’t yet said what that plan will look like.

“How he handles the [surveillance bill] process and how handles funding Ukraine is going to tell our entire conference how to handle the” possibility of an ouster vote, Greene said.

The surveillance fight has dogged Johnson for months and driven increasingly public divisions between two factions of his conference. He sparked frustration from all corners when he tried to bring competing bills from the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees to the floor in December — only to punt after his right flank threatened to upend the plan.

Then, in February he pulled legislation similar to what ultimately passed the House on Friday after members of the Intelligence Committee threatened to scuttle the bill because it would have teed up a vote on a proposal to prevent data brokers from selling consumer information to law enforcement. GOP leaders stripped language allowing that vote from the bill this month; instead they’re expected to give it a vote next week on the floor.

That separation is a win for members of the Intelligence Committee, who pushed for the data broker provision’s exclusion because it’s not related to the broader wiretapping program. Intelligence panel members also cited the likelihood that its addition could complicate an already messy path to get the surveillance bill through Congress.

“The speaker has a tough job, and now he’s going to have to find a way forward,” Intelligence Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said shortly after Wednesday’s failed vote.

One of George Santos’ biggest GOP critics is seeking to block expelled members like him from returning to the House floor and other Capitol hotspots open to former members.

Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) is slated to introduce a resolution Friday morning that would amend the rules to “deny certain privileges” to former members who have been expelled from the House, according to a copy of the resolution first provided to POLITICO.

Those moves would include banning ousted members from accessing the members’ gym, the exclusive members-only dining room in the Capitol and parking spaces around the complex, as well as blocking their access to materials in the Library of Congress or the House document room. The text also calls for expelled members to lose their member’s pin — an adornment that enables former members to waltz back onto the House floor, among other areas restricted to those who previously and currently serve in Congress.

D’Esposito was among those leading the charge against Santos while he was a serving member, which ultimately proved successful: In December, Santos was the first member to be expelled from the House without a conviction since the Civil War.

“Americans deserve lawmakers who exercise the highest degree of respect for the House of Representatives as a pillar of our democracy, and when House members are expelled for violating the public’s trust, they should no longer be able to access resources afforded to them as a lawmaker,” D’Esposito said in a statement.

“My resolution will establish new standards by which expelled frauds are barred from further staining this storied institution,” he added.

Progressive Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) also pushed a similar idea earlier this year — one that would only block expelled members like Santos from the House floor.

He announced his rule — which he called the “GEORGE” Rule, or the “Getting Expelled Officially Revokes Guaranteed Entry” Rule — the day after Santos made a surprise appearance at President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address. There, Santos also announced plans to challenge another critic, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.).

Speaker Mike Johnson is preparing to try again to reauthorize a controversial government spy power, one day after backlash from his right flank unraveled his plans.

The House Rules Committee is expected to convene on Thursday night to tee up legislation reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the intelligence community to collect communications from foreign targets without a warrant.

Lawmakers have been warned that they could start voting as early as 8:30 a.m. on Friday, as Republicans look to bring the surveillance legislation back to the floor and, if they can get over that first hurdle, pass the bill on Friday.

The move comes after 19 House Republicans on Wednesday blocked the bill from floor debate, the latest in a near-constant showcase of angst among conservatives. This time, members on Johnson’s right rebelled against his handling of the surveillance fight just hours after former President Donald Trump urged them to “kill” the broader surveillance law.

It’s far from clear that Johnson’s latest gambit will get him the votes he needs, even as Congress barrels toward an April 19 reauthorization deadline without a clear plan. But the decision to try to bring the bill back to the floor comes after hours spent negotiating with his holdouts.

To try to assuage his nearly 20 GOP holdouts, Johnson shortened how long the foreign surveillance power would be extended from five years to two years — teeing up another fight over government wiretapping during a second Trump term, if the GOP standard-bearer wins in November.

A handful of those “no” votes indicated Thursday that they would now vote to help bring the bill to the floor. Others sounded notes of optimism about the changes, but didn’t explicitly commit to voting to get it to the floor.

Johnson is also expected to give Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) a separate vote on his legislation preventing data brokers from selling consumer information to law enforcement. That vote is expected to likely be next week, though Davidson declined to comment on Thursday on the development.

Trump teed off against the broader surveillance law this week, complicating the GOP’s debate, even as he conflated the issues at the center of the House’s fight. Supporters of reauthorizing the warrantless surveillance power were quick to note after Trump’s comments that he also flip-flopped on his surveillance positions during his presidency, including saying he would have preferred a permanent reauthorization when he signed the last years-long extension in early 2018.

Two GOP members suggested that Trump could clarify his position — though the former president has not yet done so. If he moves toward the House’s surveillance bill, that could help Johnson shore up his vote count.

GOP leadership is hoping to pass the surveillance bill on Friday, before Johnson is expected to appear with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. The bill is aimed at bolstering the transparency and oversight of the spy power, but doesn’t include a sweeping change backed by a bipartisan coalition of privacy hawks: Requiring a warrant before searching the foreign data that the program collects for information related to Americans.

The House is expected to vote on an amendment adding that warrant requirement to the bill. Meanwhile, the Biden administration, intelligence community allies and even Johnson himself are working hard to defeat it.

To meet his ambitious goal of passing a rule for debate and the entire bill on Friday, Johnson will need to flip all but two of his 19 holdouts after Democratic leadership ruled out helping.

Some House Democrats have flirted with voting to get the bill to the floor, arguing that the national security risks of further turmoil could outweigh their typical stance of making Republicans tee up the bill on their own. But the surveillance reauthorization bill also divides Democrats, including those on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Thursday shot down the prospects of a procedural bailout for Johnson, telling reporters that Democrats would not help bring up a stand-alone surveillance bill. Jeffries added that Johnson had not spoken to him about the idea.

“You’ve got Democrats who aren’t necessarily supporting this bill,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) said, noting he had briefly spoken to Jeffries. “And then there’s the larger question that has been a question since Kevin McCarthy — which is, you know, at what point is, do the Democrats stop majority dysfunction? That’s a tough political question.”

Beyond the Hill, it is not clear if the White House will embrace the two-year reauthorization — even if it comes without deal-breakers like the warrant requirement.

An individual familiar with the administration’s thinking said officials are discussing whether to instead pressure the Senate to offer up a one-year clean reauthorization.

The individual, granted anonymity due to the ongoing nature of the debate, said the administration fears that two years wouldn’t be enough time to implement and assess the effectiveness of the reforms included in the base bill.

The DOJ and NSC did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

John Sakellariadis contributed to this report.