Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked further debate on a $100 billion-plus proposal to aid Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan — which also includes border funding — citing its lack of stricter border policy changes.

The mostly party-line 49-51 vote did not reach the 60-vote threshold to continue debate on the bill. The Senate GOP for weeks threatened to stop it from advancing absent an agreement to add more conservative border policy changes. But those border talks, which recently stalled, are still significantly short of a deal.

Congressional leaders signaled they aren’t giving up on passing more aid money, but it’s tough to see a path forward since Republicans have said they won’t clear it without significant border policy adjustments.

“You’re not going to find something that gets every Democrat or Republican,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said Wednesday morning. “But we need to find something that gets hopefully the majority of both.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer Wednesday morning tried to barter with Republicans, suggesting they could offer a border amendment to the supplemental package before its final vote, an offer he made publicly on Tuesday that was quickly panned by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Schumer said Democrats would “not interfere with the construction of that amendment” and that there would be no conditions — but it would have to pass at a 60-vote threshold.

“It’s they who have injected border into the Ukraine issue, even though the two are unrelated. And now they’re getting a golden opportunity to offer border at 60 votes,” Schumer said. “If that is not good enough for them, then what are they doing?”

McConnell made clear that wouldn’t fly with Republicans and they still planned to block the supplemental spending bill.

“I’ve spent months highlighting the undeniable links between the threats we face in Europe, in the Middle East, and in the Indo-Pacific,” McConnell said on the floor Wednesday morning. “But Democratic leadership appears to be telling us today that they’re willing to risk each of these urgent priorities to avoid fixing our own borders right here at home.”

Speaker Mike Johnson has backed tying support for the the supplemental to border policy changes as well, especially given conservative opposition to sending more money to Ukraine could tank any bill in the House otherwise. That’s bolstered some Senate Republicans who’ve framed this as a must-have.

“We believe that securing our own homeland, protecting American citizens should take precedence,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

The Senate is slated to head out of town Thursday and only has one more week of session scheduled until the new year. Senate Democratic leadership had hoped to pass the supplemental package before the holiday break.

At this point, that timeline is looking increasingly unlikely. While the White House has struck an especially urgent tone for Ukraine cash, saying it’s imperative if Ukraine is going to keep countering Russia, it’s not clear when, exactly, that funding would run out.

The U.S. has $4.66 billion left in presidential drawdown authority for Ukraine, which is how America transfers weapons directly to the battlefield. And there is also $1.1 billion in existing resources available to backfill U.S. stocks.

“We may reach a point where we cannot sustain the current level of security assistance support to Ukraine but until we get to that point, if ever, our spending decisions are informed by multiple factors, including Ukraine’s immediate needs, equipment availability, and our capacity to replenish resources, ensuring that our aid is both strategic and sustainable,” said DOD spokesperson Maj. Charlie Dietz.

Lara Seligman contributed to this report.

The United States’ commitment to Ukraine took a devastating blow on the Senate floor on Wednesday. Senators insist the saga isn’t over quite yet.

Both parties quickly moved to resuscitate border negotiations that could clear the way for delivering tens of billions of dollars to U.S. allies Ukraine and Israel after the GOP blocked President Joe Biden’s spending request on Wednesday afternoon. Republicans are expected to make a new offer to Democrats, which Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said could bring his party back to the negotiating table.

“This is not the end,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the top GOP negotiator. “Reset and say: ‘Let’s keep doing the work.’”

Still, there’s no clear pathway forward and Democrats and Republicans alike are throwing around ideas to unstick negotiations. The impasse boils down to Democrats being unwilling to enact the type of restrictive border policies that Republicans prefer and the GOP arguing the Democratic concessions so far — mostly on asylum — would barely decrease migrant flows.

Republicans have insisted they’ll only greenlight aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan if they get a deal to tighten border restrictions. There’s a long way to go on that front, but if there’s any silver lining from Wednesday’s face plant of a vote, it’s that senators haven’t given up yet.

What’s more, President Joe Biden cracked the door open to further Democratic concessions, declaring Wednesday he is “willing to make significant compromises” and praising the baritone, even-keeled Lankford as a “decent guy.” In a best-case scenario, those comments and prodding from leadership from both parties to finish the job could unstick stalled negotiations.

“I hope there’s an agreement to go back to the negotiating table and to put in place negotiators who are charged with getting an agreement. I don’t think we do have that now,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “The important thing is to have leadership provide a directive to get this done.”

Still, there’s certainly an enthusiasm gap between Lankford and Murphy, who along with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) are now guiding the talks. Murphy said the forthcoming GOP offer would determine whether the talks resume since they fell apart nearly a week ago.

“If the room is just a forum to make unreasonable demands, then I’ve got other things I can do with my time,” Murphy said. “But if we’re actually going to sit down and negotiate, and Republicans are going to move and we’re going to move, then let’s sit down and talk.”

Lankford said processing asylum claims much more quickly and cutting down mass release of migrants into the United States are must-haves for Republicans. Asked why he was more optimistic than his Democratic partner, Lankford cracked: “Maybe he needs more ice cream. … He is committed to getting an outcome.”

Still, someone’s going to have to blink. Democrats are resisting full-scale border security policy changes demanded by Republicans that would reshape asylum, parole and detention law — and everyone’s got their own ideas.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who has been involved in the bipartisan negotiations, suggested that Biden and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell should cut a deal. Republicans are pushing Biden himself to get more personally involved and some negotiators believe that the White House may be more willing to compromise than congressional Democratic leaders.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has in meetings endorsed some of the policies Republicans are pushing, while Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said clinching a deal will require a “higher level of engagement” with the White House.

“It’s going to require their involvement this time,” Bennet said of McConnell and Biden, longtime Senate colleagues. “I’ve had conversations this morning with Republicans, I’m having conversations this afternoon with Republicans. None of those discussions are going away.”

And Lankford acknowledged that he, Murphy and Sinema can only get things to a certain point, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, McConnell, Speaker Mike Johnson and Biden can finish the deal and sign off on it. Lankford said he’s working with both the White House staff and Johnson’s staff to try and find middle ground with Murphy and Sinema.

Still, it’s a tough moment to reset, given the raw emotions over the failed test vote on Wednesday set up by Schumer. The Senate is slated to go on recess for the holidays at the end of next week, though many senators said they hoped the Senate would try to finish the work before the end of the year.

There is a full week scheduled for recess before Christmas, and if negotiations keep plodding along, some senators think the chamber should use it.

“If I gotta be here on fucking Christmas Day I will, because Ukraine funding needs to be done. I’m willing to stay here 24/7 to get it done,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

Jennifer Haberkorn and Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.

Congress is preparing to extend its deadline for untangling a complicated fight over warrantless government surveillance – which will mean yet another headache for House GOP leaders.

Top lawmakers are attaching a short-term extension of the government wiretapping power known as Section 702 to a sweeping defense policy bill, according to seven aides and lawmakers familiar with the text of the bill.

The extension would give Congress until April 19 to figure out how to reauthorize Section 702, named for its specific section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The provision is meant to target foreigners abroad but has long stoked controversy for its ability to sweep in Americans.

Whether to attach a surveillance powers extension was one of the final sticking points on the defense bill, whose text is now finalized and expected to be released later Wednesday. Both the House and Senate still need to pass the defense bill, and there is bipartisan backlash already brewing over the decision to attach a surveillance extension.

Conservatives privately urged Speaker Mike Johnson to separate the two issues. His decision not to do so promises to complicate a final vote on the defense bill, a typically must-pass proposal that could come to the House floor as soon as next week.

“This was a total sell-out of conservative principles and a huge win for Democrats,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted of the defense deal, pointing to the surveillance extension among other provisions as reasons she would be opposed.

But the extension will give the House time to resolve his chamber’s two competing long-term overhaul proposals for the surveillance authority: one from the Judiciary Committee and one from the Intelligence Committee.

Both bills would make major changes to Section 702, such as limiting the number of FBI personnel who are able to conduct searches and imposing new penalties for surveillance violations. The bills also would implement new auditing and reporting requirements for the program, as well as change the larger surveillance law the authority is housed under as well as a related surveillance court that fields requests for wiretapping power.

But the two committees have split over when a warrant should be required for searching 702-collected data for Americans’ information.

The Intelligence Committee bill would require a warrant for so-called “evidence of a crime” searches, which aren’t related to foreign intelligence and comprise a small subset of searches. The committee is expected to easily advance its bill on a bipartisan basis on Thursday.

“I think it’s going to pass unanimously. I think it’s a fabulous product. I think it’s the answer to solve the problem,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a member of the panel, told POLITICO.

Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday advanced its own sweeping bill on a 35-2 vote.

“I know our approach will have its critics. … [But] I believe we have struck the right balance here and perhaps the only balance that can pass the House at this time,” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said about the bill.

The Judiciary bill would impose a warrant requirement for searching 702-collected data for Americans’ information. However, it builds in exceptions including for “emergency situations,” if an individual has consented to the search or for some cybersecurity-related searches.

The legislation also makes broader surveillance reforms, including preventing data brokers from being able to sell consumer information to law enforcement.

The two no votes on Wednesday came from Democratic Reps. Eric Swalwell (Calif.) and Hank Johnson (Ga.).

“This bill ignores the extensive remedial measures the FBI and the Justice Department has taken,” Swalwell said.

John Sakellariadis and Connor O’Brien contributed.

The House is lining up a final vote to censure Rep. Jamaal Bowman for triggering a fire alarm after Republicans defeated a Democratic-led effort to block the measure.

The full vote on the formal reprimand is expected on Thursday.

Bowman has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for pulling the fire alarm in a House office building during a chaotic vote on government funding at the end of September, though he’s maintained it was not intended to disrupt the House proceedings. He’d also agreed to pay the maximum fine, but some House Republicans demanded the House further punish the progressive lawmaker. The House Ethics Committee, which is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, has declined to take any further action on Bowman.

If censured, Bowman will be the second Democrat to receive the formal reprimand in recent months after the House voted to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) over her vocal criticism of the Israeli government. House Republicans also voted earlier this year to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) for his handling of investigations into former President Donald Trump.

Rep. Thomas Massie is getting no apparent pushback from either party in the House after a social media post that suggested Congress was more interested in “Zionism” than “American patriotism.”

The Kentucky Republican posted a meme on X on Tuesday that put the two concepts at odds — drawing condemnation from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who called it antisemitic, as well as from the Biden White House. But among Massie’s House colleagues, the move is attracting little if any attention.

Interviews with nearly a dozen House members from both parties on Wednesday revealed a lack of concern and awareness of Massie’s post. Some fellow Republicans defended Massie, who has opposed recent U.S. aid to Israel since its Oct. 7 attack by Hamas and staunchly defended critiques of its conservative government as not equivalent to antisemitism.

“Massie doesn’t have any antisemitic bones in his body,” Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) said, adding that he had not seen the Tuesday post.

House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) spoke for most colleagues in an interview, saying that “I don’t know anything about it.” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a fellow conservative and vocal supporter of Israel, also brushed off Massie’s post.

Massie voted against a resolution the House passed last week that affirmed Israel’s right to exist, citing language in the resolution that he said equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism. The lack of internal criticism of his stance contrasts starkly with the backlash faced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — who voted “present” on last week’s resolution — after she publicly invoked a slogan that’s widely perceived as calling for the elimination of the Jewish state.

A spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson did not return a request for comment on whether he had discussed the post with Massie.

Despite Schumer amplifying the post — and urging Massie to take it down — there’s also no sign that Democrats have discussed the image.

“I didn’t see this,” said Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), a member of the caucus’ leadership.

The Kentucky lawmaker responded to Schumer’s call to delete his post on Tuesday by indicating that he had meant to draw a contrast between Congress’ support for Israel and its treatment of migration on the southern border.

“If only you cared half as much about our border as you do my tweets,” Massie replied to Schumer.

Westchester County Executive George Latimer on Wednesday officially launched his Democratic primary challenge against Rep. Jamaal Bowman with a video contending that the second term congressman hasn’t done enough for the suburban New York City district.

Latimer, as expected, attacked Bowman for his pro-Palestinian positions and his focus on “rhetoric” rather than “results.”

“We’re all fed up with the chaos and the dysfunction down in Washington where nothing ever seems to get done,” Latimer said in a video that mixed videos of Bowman with ones of Republicans such as Marjorie Taylor Greene. “Because up here, from Westchester to the Bronx, we do things differently. We work together and we get results.”

Latimer included a clip of Bowman voting against a resolution to condemn Hamas. And he attacked his opponent for voting against President Joe Biden’s 2021 infrastructure bill.

“Instead of helping our communities with flooding and infrastructure, he put his own personal politics ahead of progress,” the county executive says. “One of six Democrats to vote against it, just to stick it to our Democratic president.”

The launch video officially kicks off what is expected to be one of the country’s most contentious primaries in 2024. The vote is currently scheduled to be held in June, barring any complications arising from the ongoing legal battle over New York’s congressional district lines.

His supporters have attacked Latimer for the support he has received from AIPAC, which has also helped raise money for Republican congressional candidates who are supportive of Israel.

Emma Simon, a spokesperson for Bowman’s campaign, said it’s focused is on winning reelection and to “deliver” for the 16th District. She knocked AIPAC’s involvement.

“Congressman Bowman’s focus remains first and foremost on delivering for the people of his district and standing up to powerful special interests in Congress,” Simon said in a statement.

“It’s not a surprise that a super PAC that routinely targets Black members of Congress with primary challenges and is funded by the same Republican mega-donors who give millions to election-denying Republicans including Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz, has recruited a candidate for this race.”

The House could hold Hunter Biden in contempt if he refuses to appear behind closed doors as part of a sweeping investigation into President Joe Biden, Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) warned on Wednesday.

“He’s been subpoenaed. We expect him to show up. They don’t get to make the rules,” Comer said in a brief interview with POLITICO.

Asked what the next step would be if Hunter Biden does not meet with his panel, Comer added: “I would expect Congress to hold the president’s son in contempt.”

Comer and Hunter Biden’s legal team are locked in a standoff over the latter’s requested appearance before the Oversight Committee. The Oversight chief subpoenaed Hunter Biden to appear for a closed-door deposition on Dec. 13.

But Abbe Lowell, an attorney for the president’s son, instead offered public testimony on the same day, or any other day in December that could be agreed to. House Republicans rejected that offer; Comer hasn’t ruled out eventual public testimony by Hunter Biden, however, as long as he meets with the committee privately first.

Typically, House panels insist on a private deposition before allowing a public appearance. The Jan. 6 select committee denied several requests by high-profile potential witnesses to testify publicly, including one from Donald Trump ally Rudy Giuliani.

Lowell, in a letter to Comer sent on Wednesday, doubled down on his offer that Hunter Biden would appear before the committee for a public hearing – arguing that a meeting behind closed doors would run the risk of details getting selectively leaked.

“He is making this choice because the Committee has demonstrated time and again it uses closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and misinform the American public — a hearing would ensure transparency and truth in these proceedings,” Lowell wrote on Wednesday.

The committee can publicly release deposition transcripts. Comer and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) previously pledged that they would do so for a closed-door Hunter Biden interview “soon after its completion.”

Hunter Biden is one of several targets of House GOP impeachment inquiry subpoenas or interview requests made as Republicans enter the final stage of their months-long investigation. They are looking to make a decision early next year on whether or not to pursue impeachment articles against the president.

Republicans have found examples of Hunter Biden involving his father to try to boost his own profile, in addition to poking holes in some of Joe Biden’s and the White House’s previous statements, but they’ve yet to find a direct link that shows Joe Biden took official actions as president or vice president to benefit his family’s businesses.

The Senate’s top Democratic appropriator is warning that accepting Speaker Mike Johnson’s fallback idea for government funding would be “absolutely devastating” for federal agencies and families across the country if bipartisan spending negotiations falter.

“It’s dangerous and a non-starter,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray said in an interview on Wednesday. “Everybody needs to understand that it’s dangerous, and we can’t go there.”

Johnson has floated an extension of the current stopgap spending bill through the end of the fiscal year, with “appropriate adjustments,” if House Republicans and Senate Democrats can’t reach a government funding deal for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.

While the speaker’s proposal sounds innocuous, Murray stressed that it has never been done and would result in major cuts to critical domestic programs, including nutrition assistance for women and children, federal hiring, food safety and medical research.

“That’s not negotiating,” Murray (D-Wash.) said. “That’s holding hostage, and we’re not going to bow to that.”

Key context: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the Senate’s top Republican appropriator, and military officials have also warned that a full-year stopgap would hurt military personnel, Navy shipbuilding, readiness investments and other defense priorities.

Thanks to the funding limits set by the bipartisan debt limit deal earlier this year, non-defense funding would plummet from $777 billion to $704 billion if the current stopgap spending bill is extended through the rest of the fiscal year, resulting in a $73 billion cut. Defense funding would increase from $860 billion to $886 billion, forgoing more than $26 billion allowed under the debt limit agreement.

Murray said Johnson must accept the numbers and terms established by the debt deal so that House and Senate appropriators can move forward with bipartisan, bicameral negotiations over a dozen annual funding bills, with federal cash set to expire for a chunk of the government on Jan. 19.

“We’re absolutely stuck,” Murray said, “because we don’t have his agreement to write these bills to the agreement that’s already been signed into law.”

What’s next: Johnson’s staff is quietly negotiating with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s staff on overall government funding totals to allow that process to begin. But Murray said she is concerned about those topline talks, particularly after House conservatives recently demanded scrapping a handshake agreement accompanying the debt limit deal, which would add tens of billions of dollars to non-defense funding.

“It’s reneging on what was already agreed to,” Murray said, stressing that the Senate has written its annual spending bills in line with the debt limit deal.

“You don’t go back and say, ‘Oh now that you’ve done all the work, we’re going to take away one of your hands.’ That’s not how you negotiate,” she said. “We need this deal, and we need it now.”