Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has proposed a vote on ousting Speaker Mike Johnson, according to three people with direct knowledge — setting up a high-stakes vote of confidence in his leadership as conservatives lament the Louisiana Republican’s passage of a $1.2 trillion government funding deal with mostly Democratic votes.

Greene, who supported Johnson’s October election as speaker, is one of several members on his right flank who have publicly soured on his leadership in recent weeks. She had hinted earlier Friday that she was considering a maneuver to force the ouster vote. Johnson may or may not have to take it up, since it’s not yet clear whether Greene filed it as a “privileged” resolution that requires House floor time.

If Greene did not file her resolution as privileged, Johnson could let it sit. Even if she did file it with the protections of privilege, Johnson would be able to postpone any vote on it after the House takes a two-week recess.

Should there be an ultimate vote on ejecting Johnson, Greene could easily fall short, despite rising conservative angst with him. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), one of the eight GOP lawmakers who voted to fire former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, said Friday that he had “no idea” what Greene was doing and would not support her effort.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), another of the eight who opposed McCarthy, also said she would vote no on firing Johnson. But Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), another frustrated conservative, declined to tip his hand and said only “we’ll see.”

If all Democrats vote for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as speaker during an ouster vote where the House has full attendance, Johnson could only afford to lose two Republican votes if he wants to remain in power.

Asked earlier Friday if he was concerned about Greene forcing an ouster vote, Johnson simply shook his head. His spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

House rules allow for a delay in voting on Greene’s move, known as a “motion to vacate” the speaker’s chair, until after the recess that is set to begin Friday.

Nicholas Wu, Daniella Diaz and Anthony Adragna contributed.

House lawmakers intend to vote in the 11 a.m. hour Friday to pass a six-bill government funding package and avoid a shutdown. But there could be turbulence in rounding up the votes needed for passage.

Leadership is trying to pass the package, known as a minibus in Washington parlance, through suspension of the rules — an expedited process requiring two-thirds of the chamber’s support. But one centrist Republican who is voting for the bill said Thursday evening that chances the House passes the government funding bill appeared “iffy at the moment.”

In an ominous sign for House leadership, senior appropriator Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) announced he would oppose the package over concerns about earmarks added by the Senate in the process. He said the Senate had “taken liberties” and “The Senate must respect the work of the House.”

If and when the measure escapes the House, the timing for Senate action remains unclear. Conservatives vented about the bill, but didn’t indicate in interviews they planned to hold it up — assuming they secure some amendment votes.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Two of the top contenders to be the next Senate GOP leader are taking subtle but different approaches to the future of Social Security and Medicare.

Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) suggested that lawmakers take steps to ensure the programs’ continued viability — amid Democratic attacks on his party for potentially entertaining new limits to entitlements.

“It’s going to take courage at some point,” Thune said. “And this maybe isn’t the season, but we can’t wait much longer,” referring to the presidential election.

The South Dakotan added: “At some point, we’ve got to confront the reality that Social Security and Medicare are headed for bankruptcy.”

By contrast, John Cornyn (R-Texas) — Thune’s chief rival so far in the race to succeed Mitch McConnell — largely demurred on entitlements. Cornyn said the political reality is that both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have resisted major changes to the programs, alterations to which are a long-running third rail of U.S. politics.

“We’re not going to do anything without the president’s leadership — and neither President Biden or President Trump have indicated their desire to deal with those [programs],” Cornyn said. “We need to try to do the work to build that bipartisan support to get it done.”

Asked what he would personally support, the Texan quipped: “If I had a magic wand? I don’t have a magic wand.”

Both men are running to be the next Senate GOP leader in a field that could continue to grow. Their answers offer a glimpse into how they could contend with one of the thorniest issues facing Congress — the future viability of two of the nation’s most popular programs — as Republican leader.

Biden has steadfastly refused all proposed cuts to the programs. Trump, though, said during a recent CNBC interview that there’s “a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.”

He later cleaned up those comments in an interview with Breitbart, saying “I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare.” Biden, however, quickly responded that “I’m never going to let that happen,” regarding cuts.

The second time’s the charm: The Senate approved José Javier Rodríguez, 50-48, for a senior Labor Department role after previously voting against confirming the former Florida Democratic politician last November.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) joined with all Republicans in voting no, but Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) flipped his vote in favor of the nominee for assistant Labor secretary for employment and training, a break from the prior vote.

Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) did not vote, meaning Vice President Kamala Harris was not needed to break a tie.

“It was never about the nominee,” Menendez, who faces multiple federal charges of corruption, told POLITICO in a brief interview. “It was about issues with the White House.”

Senators previously voted down the nomination by a 44-51 tally last year with four Democrats and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) absent. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer changed his vote to no for procedural reasons.

House Republicans are suing in a bid to force testimony from two Justice Department attorneys — part of the GOP’s sweeping impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

Judiciary Committee Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) filed a lawsuit on Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to try to enforce subpoenas that compel closed-door testimony from two DOJ tax division attorneys: Mark Daly and Jack Morgan. They were both first subpoenaed last year as Republicans probed the years-long federal investigation into Hunter Biden.

“The failure of Daly and Morgan to comply with their respective subpoenas is impeding the Committee’s impeachment inquiry and its oversight of DOJ’s handling of the Hunter Biden investigation, matters of significant public concern,” attorneys for the House wrote in the 59-page complaint.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson is plowing forward with his plan to fund the government — at a cost.

House conservatives have renewed their threats that any actions against the Louisiana Republican are on the table, incensed over the latest spending deal that Johnson reached with Democrats and how quickly he’s pushing the legislation to the floor.

In the past, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, had broadly defended Johnson and dismissed talk of taking direct action against him, such as calling a vote to remove him from the speakership. But after leadership released legislative text for the massive spending bill in the middle of the night, Norman fired a direct warning shot on Thursday morning.

“We’ll just see,” Norman said when asked if calling for a vote to oust Johnson is an option. “I like Mike as a person. He’s honest. I just don’t know if it’s in his DNA to fight. … This is just sad.”

Still, the persistent question for conservatives this Congress has been if — or when — their frustration will evolve from saber rattling to actual action. Given the three weeks of limbo after the right flank pushed Kevin McCarthy out of the speakership last fall, many Republicans believe another ejection would be unconscionable, particularly in a heated election year. Even Democrats have little appetite for ejecting a GOP speaker right now.

Burchett, who helped oust McCarthy, seemed to dismiss taking action against Johnson, saying Thursday that “if he has the votes he has the votes.” But Burchett warned that Republicans could face backlash from their base in November “if we don’t keep our word.”

“We just fold,” Burchett said. “The Republican Party needs to decide who we are and what we’re about.”

Ahead of the deal becoming public, Johnson sought to steady expectations with the MAGA-aligned group during a private meeting on Tuesday night. Johnson argued in the closed-door meeting, which was described as cordial by people who attended, that the funding package isn’t perfect, but it had many policies House Republicans could be proud of, according to people familiar with the discussion. Johnson also spent a private Wednesday conference meeting highlighting what he saw as Republican wins.

Clearly, the messaging attempt didn’t quell conservative anger.

Rep. Chip Roy, a Freedom Caucus member who has floated a vote to oust Johnson before, didn’t address a so-called motion to vacate in a Bannon War Room interview Thursday morning. But he railed against the speaker, saying: “Johnson blew it.”

“It’s total lack of backbone, total lack of leadership, and a total failure by Republican leadership, there’s no other way to describe this bill. It is an abomination,” the Texas Republican added.

Absent trying to oust Johnson this year, his right flank’s options for taking revenge on leadership is limited. Their most reliable play call, dating back to McCarthy’s speakership, is to paralyze the House floor — voting against so-called rules so leaders can’t pass any legislation, whether it’s related to their concerns or not.

Many are open to continuing that tactic in protest of the sweeping funding deal. But it’s also a limited option: When Johnson cuts deals with Democrats, as he did this week, he can leapfrog his own hard-liners. That means the bills they end up tanking are party-line GOP priorities.

Absent a quick ouster threat, the bigger test for Johnson could come after the 2024 election, when he’ll have to decide if he’s going to remain in leadership. If Republicans lose their paper-thin majority, some in his conference have already predicted he’ll be swept out of the top office.

But if they keep the majority, many Republicans predict he’s more likely to hang on. He would need 218 votes on the House floor, which could be a difficult prospect if he still faces opposition from the band of conservative rebels that helped elect him in October. Unless the GOP significantly grows its majority, he could still be in trouble.

“I promise you I will not be going out and supporting any Republican who votes for this bill for any position, ever again,” Roy said.

Senate conservatives are angry about the $1.2 trillion government funding deal — but they’re stopping short of any threats to slow its eventual passage in their chamber.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a perennial thorn in the side of leadership given his tendency to object to speedy passage of legislation, told POLITICO that “I’m going to continue to talk about how bad it is to have a $35 trillion debt.” When asked if he’d slow senators from approving the funding package, though, he said only “we’ll see.”

“To have a reasonable expectation that you can have amendment votes and take the time to review a bill is not being unrealistic,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said, declining to say whether he’d insist on specific amendments of his own. “This is a crazy way to run a country.”

Both parties have been negotiating potential amendment votes throughout the week, even before the spending bill’s text got released — an escape hatch designed to give conservatives airtime for the issues they care about most while not impeding quicker passage of the legislation.

“Amendments are coming,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), adding the process would “hopefully” not result in a shutdown. Funding for parts of the government lapse after Friday.

The legislation came out shortly after 2 a.m. on Thursday, with House members expected to vote on passage on Friday. The six-bill package emerged following days of heated negotiations on border security and immigration provisions.

Many Senate conservatives expressed frustration with Speaker Mike Johnson’s handling of the situation, even as the Louisiana Republican contends with the narrowest of GOP majorities — just two votes and further shrinking at the end of this week. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he was “disappointed” with how the speaker conducted the negotiations.

“The whole process has been a total disaster,” he said.

Other conservatives, such as Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), also told POLITICO in interviews they were unlikely to slow the bill’s eventual passage.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), another staunch conservative, spoke on the floor to ask until April 12 to review the legislation prior to its passage. That would, of course, then entail a continuing resolution in order to keep the government fully open. Conservatives typically detest those sort of stopgap bills, too.

“We must dismantle this corrupt process,” the Utah Republican said on the floor.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not yet indicated whether he intends to allow amendments. But he bemoaned delays in government funding on Thursday morning, quipping that “some folks here in the Capitol are past the point of exhaustion.”

Senate Democrats are still keeping their weekends flexible — but insist work could be done rather quickly, if Paul and other conservatives dispense with their typical threats to force delays.

“They may want amendments,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). “If we really want to get something done, we’ve shown the ability to [have] everybody sit in their seat, we’re gonna do amendments, we can do one every 10 minutes.”

It’s possible that the government might go through a brief weekend shutdown, if wrenches are thrown in the Senate’s gears, before opening on Monday once the Senate’s internal clock is exhausted. Kaine framed it all as a delay, however, rather than an actual risk of a real closure.

“We know the votes are there, we’ll avoid a shutdown,” he said.

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester is picking a public fight with President Joe Biden over beef as he battles for reelection in his deep red state.

The Senate is poised to vote Thursday afternoon on Tester’s measure to override the Biden administration’s recent decision to lift a ban on beef imports from Paraguay. Two other vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection this fall, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, are co-sponsoring the proposal, which is headed by Tester and Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

They argue it will hurt cattle ranchers and consumers in their states.

But the vote also gives the trio of Democrats a clear policy break with Biden — who is unpopular in their states — on a low-stakes, populist issue. Tester’s office is highlighting the fact that it will mark the first time a Senate Democrat has directly challenged Biden in such a way.

Before the vote, the Montana Democrat plans to argue on the Senate floor that Biden and his administration “butchered” the decision, according to a spokesperson. The measure is slated to get a floor vote around 2:45 p.m. and is expected to clear the 50-vote threshold required to pass.

Details: Biden’s Agriculture Department last year allowed the small South American nation of Paraguay to import beef into the U.S. after a decadeslong ban, after Paraguay faced economic blowback for recognizing Taiwan and lost market access in Russia after denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The administration said access to the U.S. market is critical to Paraguay to recover exports lost to Russia and withstand pressure from China to drop its recognition of Taiwan. When USDA issued a final rule allowing beef imports from Paraguay, the department said a risk analysis concluded beef could safely be imported from the country under certain conditions.

“We are confident that we have a system that will ensure protection,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told lawmakers during a House Agriculture Committee hearing last month.

Tester has argued against that decision, noting that Paraguay has a recent history of foot-and-mouth disease that could infect the U.S. cattle herd.

“It’s bad policy,” Tester said in a brief hallway interview. Paraguay has “foot-and-mouth disease, and foot-and-mouth disease goes through cattle like a hot knife through butter.”

Brown said Wednesday he has heard from Ohio voters who are concerned about the move.

“I think that Tester’s right, so that’s why I’m voting for it,” he said in a brief interview.

Past pushes: Tester made a push in 2021 to ban Brazilian beef imports, which the Biden administration rejected. Paraguay, a much smaller player in the world beef market than Brazil, is an easier target.

The White House this week issued a statement opposing Tester’s measure, but has not threatened a presidential veto. It could be one of Tester and Brown’s few legislative wins on agriculture policy before November, given the dim prospects for a new farm bill reauthorization, which has been stalled by deep partisan divisions.

“I think the people that will vote against my [measure] are doing it because they want to have Paraguay as our friend in South America, and I’m gonna tell you I think that’s important,” Tester said in the interview. “I just think the risk is too high for our beef industry and our food security.”