Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that his plans to release all security footage from the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol have been delayed because Republicans are blurring faces to protect participants.

“We have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day, because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and be charged by the DOJ,” Johnson told reporters Tuesday, adding that he still wants to release those tapes “as quickly as we can.”

More than 1,200 people have been charged in the attack and more than 700 of those have pleaded guilty.

Johnson said not blurring the faces of those who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 could cause them “other concerns and problems.” It is “a slow process,” he said, but additional staff have been hired to work on the alterations and ultimately release the 44,000 hours of footage.

“We want the American people to draw their own conclusions. I don’t think partisan elected officials in Washington should present a narrative and expect that it should be seen as the ultimate truth,” said Johnson.

Speaker Mike Johnson is threatening a House floor showdown over a controversial surveillance program as Congress remains divided on the path forward.

The move would once again force the party’s deep divisions into the public eye. Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) have negotiated behind the scenes for months but failed to unify behind one bill that would avoid a fight involving one of the House GOP’s most frequent targets: The FBI.

And lawmakers are running short on time. They have until the end of the year to reauthorize a surveillance program known as Section 702, which is meant to target foreigners but sometimes sweeps up the communications of Americans.

During a closed-door conference meeting on Tuesday, Johnson said that he could bring Jordan’s and Turner’s two competing bills up for a vote in a rare procedural gambit known as “King of the Hill” if there isn’t a consensus over Section 702, according to two Republicans in the room. Under that gambit, leadership can bring competing proposals to the floor as amendments, and whichever proposal is the last one that comes up for a vote and still gets a majority is the one that gets adopted. It allows leadership to try to influence the outcome by putting its preferred proposal last.

Johnson, according to the two Republicans, told his conference on Tuesday that Turner and Jordan remain at “loggerheads.” A spokesperson for the speaker declined to comment on any potential plans to bring both bills to the floor.

“We have a Turner version and a Jordan version. … He’s going to let them both win the conference over,” one of the Republicans in the room told POLITICO.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committee spent months talking behind-the-scenes to try to iron out a path forward, with the two panels agreeing on several areas — including new reporting and auditing requirements, penalties for surveillance violations and changes to a shadowy surveillance court.

But the two remain divided over when a warrant requirement should be needed to search 702-collected data for Americans. The Judiciary Committee is proposing a broad warrant requirement that would cover most of those searches, while the Intelligence Committee is proposing mandating a warrant only for “evidence of a crime” searches, which don’t deal with foreign intelligence and are only a small subset of overall searches.

“There’s still conversations on different approaches and the reforms. I think if you look at both committees, there’s over 40 reforms that both committees agree on,” said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) when asked if Johnson played referee on which 702 bill to support. “It’s a few things and obviously the ones that are the final piece are trying to work through.”

The Judiciary Committee is expected to mark up its bill on Wednesday and the Intelligence Committee is expected to consider its bill Thursday morning. And Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), an Intelligence Committee member, added that which bill comes to the floor “is a decision the speaker is going to have to make.”

Even as the two Ohio Republicans work on their separate long-term reauthorizations, lawmakers are looking to buy themselves more time to work out their differences. Leadership is expected to attach a short-term extension to a sweeping defense bill, according to three people familiar with the matter, though they cautioned that there was an active effort to try to get it removed.

Some House Republicans said they feared the clash over the surveillance power could wreak further havoc on the passage of that annual defense package, the National Defense Authorization Act.

GOP leadership could try to sidestep that by bringing up the defense bill under suspension — which would require a higher threshold and a significant amount of Democratic support, but would also avoid a rule vote that conservatives could use to hijack the floor. If leaders can’t pass it under suspension, they’ll need near unity to get the defense bill to the floor on their own — something members and aides have predicted they won’t get if a surveillance extension is attached.

“FISA expires at the end of the year. There were promises that Mike [Johnson] made that he would not let FISA 702 lapse. But Judiciary and Intel can’t get to an agreement. There’s threats that if FISA gets put in NDAA, then they may not have the votes for the NDAA. If FISA doesn’t get reauthorized, then there was a threat” to vote against the rule by one House Republican, said one GOP lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“So we’re back to the circular firing squad,” this member added, referring to conservatives’ past strategy of tanking rules.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) won’t be seeking reelection, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The departure of the House Financial Services Committee chief, expected to become formal as early as Tuesday, is one of the most high-profile congressional GOP retirements this year. McHenry went from conservative rabble-rouser to a well-liked lieutenant of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy — and he later served as acting speaker during the frenetic three-week search for a replacement following McCarthy’s ouster.

McHenry is known on the Hill for his policy chops and his bow ties.

One-two pitch on Ukraine aid: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is set to give a classified briefing to senators this afternoon by video conference, where he’ll make yet another pitch for billions of dollars in aid.

Congress, of course, remains stalled on the issue. Ukraine cash has become mired in difficult border discussions, and there’s slim chance Zelenskyy’s entreaties will unstick negotiations.

Senators will also be briefed this afternoon on the status of the Ukraine war by key officials, including Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Charles Q. Brown. The briefing will also include information on the Israel-Hamas war.

The pointed combo of Zelenskyy’s video pitch and the classified briefing comes just a day before Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will bring a $106 billion supplemental spending bill to the floor for a procedural vote. The package includes $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion for Israel along with funding for border security. Republicans are expected to block the legislation, which needs 60 votes to advance, because it lacks border policy measures they’ve demanded.

Senate Democrats and Republicans are still far apart on border policy proposals, though talks continue.

Sitting, waiting, wishing: Two key December agenda items are still waiting for their day in the sun: the National Defense Authorization Act and topline spending numbers for fiscal 2024.

Final text of the conference version of the annual defense policy bill, a compromise between House and Senate negotiators, could come as soon as Tuesday — but no one is making promises.

And the House is expecting negotiators to release a topline spending number by mid-week, with the dual funding deadlines looming on Jan. 19 and Feb. 2. It’s not too early for “looming” given how little time Congress is set to be in session before that mid-January deadline, and how much lawmakers have left to do.

The administration is urging lawmakers to avoid letting a controversial surveillance program expire as Congress nears an end-of-the-year deadline without a path forward.

The Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence sent a letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Monday night, touting the importance of the surveillance authority, known as Section 702, including for use against organizations like Hamas.

“Time is running out, and there remains an acute need to reauthorize this critical authority,” Assistant Attorney General Carlos Uriarte and Assistant Director of National Intelligence Matthew Rhoades wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

“There is no way to replicate Section 702’s speed, reliability, specificity, and insight, and every day it helps protect Americans from a host of new and emerging threats,” they added.

The letter comes as Congress has less than two weeks left on its calendar before leaving for the year. It is without a unified path toward reauthorizing Section 702, which is meant to target foreigners abroad but has run into controversy because of its ability to sweep in Americans.

Leadership is expected to attach a short-term extension until Feb. 2 to a sweeping defense policy bill, three people familiar with the matter previously told POLITICO. But they cautioned that given opposition within some corners, in particular in the House GOP conference, the surveillance extension is at risk of being taken out until the defense bill text is finalized.

Some privacy advocates, and their allies on Capitol Hill, have argued that an extension isn’t needed before the end of the year because the program was recertified in April 2023 for a full year. But intelligence community allies, and even some lawmakers proposing sweeping overhauls to the bill, warn unless Congress acts before the end of the year, the surveillance authority would be on risky ground and at risk of a lawsuit.

And both the House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee will vote on their own long-term reauthorization bills this week — the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

And while the two bills have areas of overlap — including on new auditing and reporting requirements, new penalties for surveillance violations and changes to the broader Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the surveillance court — the two panels remain at odds over when a warrant should be required for searching data collected under the 702 surveillance authority for Americans’ information.

The Intelligence Committee bill is expected to require a warrant for so-called “evidence of a crime” searches, which don’t involve foreign intelligence and are a small slice of searches. The Judiciary bill would require a warrant for most searches involving an American, though it would have an exception including for “emergency situations,” if an individual has consented to the search, or some cybersecurity-related searches.

The administration, in its letter on Monday, warned that a warrant requirement would “severely undercut” the ability to use the surveillance authority and presents “grave concerns.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is setting the Senate on course for a failed vote this week on President Biden’s $106 billion request for Ukraine, Israel and border funding.

His hope: That the prospect of defeat is enough to make both sides get serious about a deal.

Schumer moved to set up a vote for Wednesday that will almost certainly fail due to the ongoing border security negotiations that hit an impasse in recent days. Given the intractable problems that bipartisan negotiators are finding as they search for a workable deal on the border, some senators think at least a looming deadline will help them focus.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), one of the negotiators, said that the failed vote could be “a necessary next step.” Tillis argued that if senators can’t get a border deal “that’s going to reduce future flows [of migration], then take the vote. It will fail, and then we’ll go from there.”

A Democratic senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed that Schumer’s move might help: “That’s going to create a lot of smelling salts to wake people up to the crisis and the urgency,” the Democrat said, adding that “it creates even more urgency … deadlines and emergencies and last minute snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory seems to be par for the course” for these types of negotiations.

The stakes are higher for this week’s vote than for most filibusters by the Senate minority party. Even if it’s a predictable and easily forecast vote, this isn’t a partisan messaging bill in the traditional sense — it’s a massive tranche of aid to help some of the nation’s closest allies.

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will address senators in a closed briefing on Tuesday, cranking up the stakes even further.

People in both parties argue the Senate can’t fail in the end, even though the bill’s failure on the Senate floor will certainly look like failure. As Schumer put it, “if Ukraine falls, Putin will keep on going.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), whose pessimism on Monday drove an entire day’s forecast of dire prognosis about the border negotiations, implored his Republican colleagues to vote to advance the bill. Wednesday’s vote will technically try to break a GOP filibuster stopping the chamber from starting to debate the bill; sometimes the Senate advances a bill that doesn’t yet exist to help buy time for high-stakes talks.

“We need to get on the bill, so if we do come to an agreement, that we can move quickly. The Senate moves really slowly,” Murphy said. “I hope we don’t lose the vote. I hope the Republicans understand that they can vote to get on the bill … to try to get to a final conclusion.”

Republicans don’t see it that way. They’ve warned for several weeks now that they would block a vote to move forward on Biden’s aid request absent a border deal, and they say they have to make good on that vow.

Although negotiators have made progress on asylum reform, it appears discussions over parole and other more restrictive measures are now on ice, perhaps until after the failed vote. Which “it will certainly fail” on its current trajectory, said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), another lead border negotiator.

“I don’t want to have a failed vote on anything,” Lankford said. “I don’t think that proves anything other than everyone knows where we are on this, that we really want to be able to secure the border. And Democrats have been very outspoken that they want to do a little bit on the border, but leave it open.”

So just how far apart are the two sides? Murphy estimated that the two parties are about a week or more away from an agreement. He said he’s done negotiating with Lankford until his partner across the aisle moves more toward the middle.

Lankford said that he and Murphy are still talking and said the negotiations haven’t stopped.

“To me, we’re going to get it resolved,” he said.

While House Republicans await Kevin McCarthy’s decision on whether to seek reelection — or even stay in Congress — after his eviction as speaker, they’re planning to throw him a party.

The House GOP’s campaign arm has invited members to a reception on Dec. 13 that thanks the ousted speaker for his “tireless work in support” of their electoral efforts “and delivering our House majority,” according to a copy of the invitation obtained by POLITICO.

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, is the lead name on the call to toast the man who has “done so much for each one of us.” The rest of Republican leaders are featured on the digital invitation below Hudson’s name, including McCarthy’s successor Speaker Mike Johnson.

The 3-hour party, whose location is disclosed only to attendees, comes as many Republicans watch eagerly to see what McCarthy does next after eight GOP colleagues joined a unified Democratic caucus in stripping his gavel in October. Some believe he could resign his seat now that the chaotic three-week clamor to replace him has settled down.

“Is this a going-away party?” one House Republican asked upon receiving the invitation, hinting at the rampant speculation about McCarthy’s future.

Other Republicans wonder if McCarthy will stay in office to prevent the party from facing an even thinner majority, particularly after the House expelled scandal-plagued New Yorker George Santos from Congress last week. The GOP is also expected to lose Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) before next year’s election, as he leaves for a new job in academia.

The deadline for McCarthy to file for reelection is Friday, a deadline that could offer a glimpse about his plans. But even if he opts to file to run again, some Republicans note that such a move wouldn’t stop him from leaving Congress shortly thereafter.

The House Judiciary Committee is set to unveil its bid to revise a controversial surveillance program that’s set to expire in just a few weeks.

The new legislation would require a warrant to search for any American’s information under Section 702, according to draft text obtained by POLITICO, which is meant to target foreigners abroad but in the process sweeps in citizens’ communications. The current program does not require a warrant when that occurs.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on that bill Wednesday, which hasn’t been publicly released but is expected to earn bipartisan support.

Congress has until the end of the year to reauthorize Section 702. Congressional leaders have attached a short-term extension until Feb. 2 to a sweeping defense policy bill, three people familiar with the decision told POLITICO, though they cautioned that until text is finalized House GOP opposition to linking the two could mean it gets stripped out.

When to require a warrant for Americans’ information has long been the biggest sticking point in the larger reauthorization debate. And those negotiations have churned behind the scenes for months, even as Congress was mired in government funding and speaker fights.

The Judiciary bill would require a warrant for U.S person searches under the surveillance authority. But the warrant requirement has exceptions built in, including for “emergency situations,” if an individual has consented to the search or some cybersecurity-related searches.

“The idea … is to protect Americans’ rights under the Fourth Amendment and under the Constitution,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said late last week about the forthcoming legislation, which he helped spearhead.

The bill’s warrant requirement is significantly broader than a forthcoming bill from the Intelligence Committee, which is expected to only require a warrant in the case of “evidence of a crime” searches, which are not related to foreign intelligence and make up only a small slice of searches.

The intelligence community, and its allies on Capitol Hill, have warned that a broader warrant requirement like the one in the Judiciary bill would make the surveillance authority unworkable and undermine a critical national security resource.

“That’s entirely unworkable. That would be the equivalent of every time a police officer pulls you over in order to run your license plate, they’ve got to get a warrant,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).

Republicans on the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees negotiated behind the scenes for months to try to reach an agreement on how to move forward on changes to Section 702. And while they were able to reach broad areas of agreement — including on new penalties for surveillance violations, reporting and auditing requirements and changes to the broader surveillance law — they remain at odds over warrant requirements.

Additionally, the Judiciary bill limits how many FBI personnel can search 702-collected data, would implement new penalties for violations under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and makes changes to the secretive surveillance court. Many of those proposals are expected to also be included in the Intelligence Committee’s forthcoming bill.

The Judiciary panel’s bill also includes a bipartisan proposal to prevent data brokers from selling consumer information to law enforcement. Separate legislation on that piece already advanced through the panel on its own, but privacy advocates have been pushing to attach it to 702 reauthorization.