Tag

Slider

Browsing

As progressive Squad member Summer Lee fights through a tough Pittsburgh-area primary, she is getting a volley of centrist super PAC opposition spending.

The Moderate PAC, which aims to support centrist Democrats, is running a television ad against Lee, one of the eight members of the Squad, in Pennsylvania’s 12th District. The spot, first shared with POLITICO, accuses Lee of having an “extreme socialist agenda.” Ty Strong, the PAC’s president, said it is supported by a $270,000 buy.

The group supports Lee’s challenger, Democratic Edgewood Borough Council Member Bhavini Patel. Its ad emphasizes Patel being a first-generation college student raised by a single mother.

This is the first outside spend of the race on the airwaves. Earlier this week, Patel started running her first television ad, which went after Lee for wanting to “dismantle” the Democratic Party and “undermine” President Joe Biden.

That ad was backed by a $60,000 buy, according to ad tracker AdImpact. Lee, who is in her first term, is not yet on air but is a strong fundraiser who will be able to. (She had about $1.2 million on hand at the end of 2023, according to her most recent campaign finance disclosures.)

Pennsylvania’s primary is on April 23. Squad members have been bracing for massive spending against them from outside groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has vowed to drop $100 million this cycle to oust progressives for their support for Palestinians amid the Israel-Hamas war.

Moderate PAC is a much smaller, less-established entity, formed last cycle, and its strength this year remains to be seen.

In 2022, it spent around $750,000 in support of Democratic Maine Rep. Jared Golden, and more than $15,000 backing Rep. Don Davis in North Carolina. The anti-Lee spot is Moderate PAC’s first expenditure of the cycle, Strong said.

The group reported receiving just $35 last year, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. It received $1 million in 2022 from GOP megadonor Jeff Yass. Strong said the ad is funded by donations raised recently in Lee’s district.

Rep. Cory Mills has returned to Washington after staging an independent rescue mission in Haiti to evacuate 10 Americans stuck in the unstable and violent situation unfolding in the Caribbean nation.

The 10 Americans had worked at an orphanage in the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince. The rescue was coordinated with Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), and among those rescued was author Mitch Albom. The orphanage, Have Faith Haiti, is operated by A Hole in the Roof Foundation, a nonprofit founded by Albom.

“I have to extend my deepest gratitude to him and his team for getting our Michiganders home safely,” McClain posted about Mills’ (R-Fla.) operation.

Mills blames the Biden administration for what he called “a clear pattern of abandonment” of Americans abroad in crisis zones.

The White House did not immediately comment in response to Mills’ criticism.

Mills has now gained a reputation for staging these missions after bringing more than 90 Americans back from Israel in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and an overland rescue of an American family from Afghanistan after the Taliban took control in 2021.

Mills served in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division before winning his House seat in 2023.

“I have conducted rescue/ evacs of Americans multiple times when Joe Biden has deserted them,” he posted on social media.

On Wednesday the U.S. dispatched an elite unit of Marines to help secure the U.S. Embassy in Haiti as the country faces a turbulent political transition and widespread gang violence in the absence of a new leader. Marines, who routinely provide security at diplomatic sites, helped airlift nonessential embassy staff out of Haiti over the weekend.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) said Wednesday that she is not planning to run in the June special election to replace retiring Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.).

Boebert, who currently represents Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District and is campaigning for Buck’s seat in the 4th District, said on Wednesday in a Rumble livestream that she will “not further imperil the already very slim House Republican majority” by vacating her seat to run for the special election.

“Put in your Ukraine-first candidate,” she said. “I don’t really care. It’s going to be a placeholder for six months, but at least there will be someone to help us keep our majority.”

Buck announced his intention to not run for reelection late last year. But on Tuesday he said he was cutting his term short and leaving office next week, triggering a special election to fill the rest of his term. His maneuver put Boebert in an awkward position: Would she run in the special election and resign from her current seat, or skip the special election and simply face her party’s chosen candidate for a full term?

The special election will be held concurrently with the primary election on June 25.

Boebert slammed the special election, calling it “unnecessary” and warning that it will “confuse voters.”

“It will result in a lame-duck congressman on day one and leave the 4th District with no representation for more than three months,” she said. “I believe that this is selfish.”

A crowded field of Republicans are vying for the seat, a sprawling safe Republican district that covers the eastern part of the state.

The House broke from its normal state of bitter division in striking fashion on Wednesday, assembling a bipartisan coalition to pass legislation that could ban the popular app TikTok by an overwhelming vote of 352-65.

But the no camp proved almost as bipartisan as the yes votes on the TikTok bill. Progressives and a handful of conservatives united in opposition, joining former President Donald Trump — even though his late-in-the-game criticism of the bill did not come with open lobbying against the measure, according to multiple lawmakers.

Opponents of the bill ranged from frequent adversaries Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to House Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and the ideologically chameleonic Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.).

“It’s not constitutionally sound,” Mace said of the TikTok measure. “It’s the Libertarian in me. It’s not the role of government to ban apps from the App Store.”

Other no votes on the TikTok bill — whose future in the Senate remains uncertain — included several lawmakers seeking higher office, including Reps. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) and Dan Bishop (R-N.C.).

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who abandoned his long-shot presidential bid last week, voted no alongside House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), while Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) backed it. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) was the lone lawmaker to vote present.

Fifteen Republicans and 50 Democrats opposed the legislation, though it easily cleared the two-thirds threshold needed for passage.

Notably, Republicans indicated Trump’s opposition to the measure did not affect their position on the legislation.

“I always like to know what President Trump was thinking but I definitely believe this is a good bill,” Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) told POLITICO, referencing the former president’s opposition to the measure that passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously.

“Obviously, we’d want to take into account his thoughts,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) said of Trump in a brief interview. “But again, he didn’t call me personally, and I’m voting to get rid of this because the Chinese Communist Party has no business with Americans’ personal information.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who supported the legislation, put Trump’s stance simply in an interview.

“He’s getting bad advice from somebody. I don’t know why,” Crenshaw said of the former president. “It’s okay. We don’t have to agree on everything.”

Other advocates from across the political spectrum argued the legislation wouldn’t necessarily ban the popular app, but merely force its Beijing-based parent company to divest or face a nationwide ban. President Joe Biden’s White House has said he would sign the legislation into law if it reaches his desk.

“This is not an attempt to ban TikTok,” former Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the floor. “It’s an attempt to make TikTok better. Tic-Tac-Toe. A winner. A winner.”

Speaker Mike Johnson also hailed the legislation’s passage following the resounding vote.

“Today’s bipartisan vote demonstrates Congress’ opposition to Communist China’s attempts to spy on and manipulate Americans, and signals our resolve to deter our enemies,” he said in a statement. “I urge the Senate to pass this bill and send it to the President so he can sign it into law.”

Progressives, who opposed the legislation, don’t see it that way.

“This bill was incredibly rushed, from committee to vote in 4 days, with little explanation,” Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. “There are serious antitrust and privacy questions here, and any national security concerns should be laid out to the public prior to a vote.”

Trump announced his opposition to the bill in a Monday interview, contending that it would only expand the power of Facebook.

“Frankly, there are a lot of people on TikTok that love it. There are a lot of young kids on TikTok who will go crazy without it,” he said.

Shortly after the lopsided House passage, the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee voiced support for the legislation.

“We were encouraged by today’s strong bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives, and look forward to working together to get this bill passed through the Senate and signed into law,” Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a statement.

Daniella Diaz contributed.

Hunter Biden will not attend a March 20 public hearing with the House Oversight Committee, skipping what would have been a high-profile hearing for House Republicans’ impeachment inquiry.

Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden’s lawyer, notified Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday that the president’s son will not attend the hearing in a letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

Hunter Biden, Lowell noted, had a “scheduling conflict” because he had to be in California for a court hearing the day after the hearing. But, Lowell added, that is the “least of the issues,” then delivering a blistering rebuke of the GOP’s investigation into President Joe Biden.

“Your blatant planned-for-media event is not a proper proceeding but an obvious attempt to throw a Hail Mary pass after the game has ended,” he wrote.

Comer had invited Hunter Biden to a public hearing earlier this month, after an hourslong closed-door deposition. Hunter Biden and his legal team had indicated last year that he wanted a public hearing in lieu of the private interview — citing fears that his words might be taken out of context by GOP investigators — but later caved to the demand to do it behind closed doors after Republicans threatened to hold him in contempt.

In addition to Hunter Biden, Comer invited three of his former business associates — Devon Archer, Tony Bobulinski and Jason Galanis — to testify at the March 20 hearing. Comer indicated on Tuesday that the other witnesses had agreed to participate in the hearing.

But Hunter Biden was viewed as a top witness in the GOP’s impeachment inquiry into the president. That inquiry has largely focused on the business deals of Hunter Biden and other family members, as investigators have struggled to find a clear link between Joe Biden’s actions as president or vice president and those financial arrangements.

Republicans have increasingly acknowledged that they are unlikely to get the votes to ultimately impeach Biden. Lowell, in his letter, argued that the invitation was an “attempt to resuscitate your Conference’s moribund inquiry with a made-for-right-wing-media, circus act.”

Lowell did say, however, that Hunter Biden would consider attending the hearing if Comer schedules a hearing with former President Donald Trump’s family members, who also faced accusations of using their father’s political office to benefit their businesses.

“If you are serious about pursuing this oversight purpose in a legitimate and bi-partisan fashion, you would hold a hearing with relatives of former President Trump about whom you indicated you ‘would ask.’ If you do, Mr. Biden would consider an invitation for that event,” he said.

A person familiar with the offer said that if Comer schedules “a legitimate hearing that includes Jared Kushner, Hunter will be there.”

The House will vote Wednesday morning on a bill that would force Beijing-based ByteDance to either sell video-sharing giant TikTok or face a US ban.

Progressive Democrats and a group of libertarian-leaning lawmakers are against the bill, authored by Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), but aren’t expected to mount enough of a challenge to keep it from clearing the House.

Lawmakers and leaders in both parties expect the measure to reach the two-thirds majority it will need to pass under the House’s fast-track procedure. President Joe Biden has said he’ll sign it if this bill comes to his desk.

The Senate is still mulling what to do with the House’s TikTok bill. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has made clear he’d object to a speedy unanimous approval of the bill, which means Democratic leaders will have to weigh floor time.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he’ll be consulting his committee chairs before bringing it up for a vote. There is angst in the upper chamber about the specificity of the bill, singling out TikTok and parent company ByteDance.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he plans to talk to former President Donald Trump about TikTok. Trump flipped from calling for a ban during his presidency but came out against the bill earlier this week.

“I don’t know if we should force a sale. But I don’t want the app to go away if we can prevent it, because a lot of people enjoy it,” said Graham.

Signs of retreat: The vote will close out the week for the House, which is going on early recess to accommodate the House GOP Conference retreat at the Greenbrier resort in West Virginia. (Though attendance at the annual gathering is looking more and more sparse, as many GOP members say they won’t be making the trip.)

But before Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise hit the country roads for West Virginia, they’re expected to speak to Senate Republicans on Thursday at their much more local retreat.

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

House Republicans are increasingly acknowledging that they don’t have the votes to impeach President Joe Biden, leaving them in search of other ways to antagonize the White House.

While some Republicans insist they could still take up formal articles of impeachment, they’re not close to the near-unanimous support to recommend booting him from office. And no bombshell moment emerged out of Tuesday’s high-profile hearing with former Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Hur, though Hur’s testimony managed to cast Biden in a negative light by exploring his mishandling of classified documents.

But Republicans are determined not to give up on a push that’s still a high priority for the GOP base — especially since abandoning it altogether could alienate conservatives they need to turn out in November. So they’re exploring backup options to keep the spotlight on so-far-unproven allegations that Biden misused the public offices he’s held to benefit his family’s businesses.

Those Plan Bs include legislative reforms like tighter financial disclosure and foreign lobbying guardrails; criminal referrals for Hunter Biden and others to the Justice Department; a potential lawsuit for DOJ officials’ testimony and calls from some within their conference to just keep investigating, pushing the probe closer to Election Day.

Any of those off-ramps come with risks of their own — namely that they require cooperation from the Senate or the Justice Department — but, the current GOP thinking goes, Republicans would at least have something to show to their anti-Biden voters with their thin majority on the line.

Asked if he would mind the inquiry ending without an impeachment vote, Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) instead said that his “No. 1 priority” has long been “to get the truth to the American people … and pass influence-peddling legislation.”

“I feel like we’re on track to do what my objective was. Now, if we impeach, then we impeach — and you know how I would vote on that — but that’s not up to me,” Comer added in a brief interview.

The lower-stakes alternatives Republicans are considering have floated in the ether of their probe for months; leading investigators had said in some requests for information that they could end up drafting legislation. But those potential proposals have largely stayed out of the spotlight until now, given leadership still had plenty of runway to try to persuade their colleagues to brand Biden’s presidency with an impeachment.

Now their biggest target, impeaching Biden, is all but guaranteed to fall short — an embarrassing setback in the middle of a presidential election year.

And the embrace of backup plans could have its advantages. If Republicans can coalesce around a legislative or investigative off-ramp, they might find themselves turning a near-certain defeat into a smaller-scale victory, even with their two-vote majority and deep internal divisions.

Republican Study Chair Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) acknowledged that the party is still working to find the sort of “definitive connection” between Joe and Hunter Biden that might warrant impeachment.

But even as Hern noted that the investigation remains ongoing, he appeared open to legislation: “Anything we can do to make this more transparent for the American people, the better.”

Republicans on the committees leading the investigations have outlined a slate of potential proposals stemming from their work. They include tougher financial disclosure laws for family members of presidents and vice presidents, changes to foreign lobbying law, tougher ethics rules and adjusting how classified documents are handled.

Comer has also indicated that he could make criminal referrals to the Justice Department, including for Hunter Biden, though it’s unlikely that the Biden DOJ would proceed on those.

Those legislative endeavors may not spare the House GOP from voter blowback, however, if it ultimately abandons impeachment. Republicans are increasingly worried that their faithful are getting frustrated by their dysfunction — particularly supporters of former President Donald Trump, the party’s de facto presidential nominee.

Plus, senior Republicans will have to confront conservative colleagues who want to see a vote, even if it appears doomed to fail.

“Instead of losing every time by surrender, I would rather try, fight and if you lose some you lose some, but you have a chance to win,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said. He added that some more moderate colleagues have told him privately that Biden “should be impeached.”

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who isn’t a member of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, added that he expects Republicans will have to vote on impeachment — even if it fails on the floor.

“The base is going to demand it. … I think it would affect voters at the ballot box, just the base. I think they would like to see it come to a vote and see where people are,” Burchett said in a brief interview.

Whether to pursue impeachment articles against Biden will likely be up to Speaker Mike Johnson, in consultation with members of a conference whose majority is set to get even smaller next week after Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) leaves office.

If Johnson’s right flank successfully pushes for a vote, though, it exposes swing-district Republicans — who are already fighting to hold onto their seats — to a new wave of criticism from Democrats. Republicans were already the subject of intraparty fury after three GOP lawmakers initially helped sink a push to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over border security, but Republicans were ultimately able to succeed on a second try.

Things would go differently if a first vote on impeaching Biden failed. Opposition within the conference right now is significant enough that a do-over would be just as unsuccessful.

“That’s not a vote you put on the floor if you don’t have a chance of passing it,” Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said of Biden’s impeachment in a brief interview.

Republicans still need to decide on pursuing articles of impeachment against Biden. Still, the timeline for making that call has slipped amid delays in key witness interviews and as investigators continue to go down a slew of rabbit holes.

Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) had initially predicted that a decision on impeachment could come in late January. But that timeline immediately got punted to late February after GOP investigators scheduled interviews last month with James Biden and Hunter Biden.

Even now, as Republicans approach mid-March, they are still preparing for a hearing later this month with Hunter Biden’s business associates and potentially the president’s son himself.

GOP investigators also opened up a new line of inquiry last week into the treatment of a witness currently in prison. On top of that, they’re still seeking National Archives records and have unanswered questions to the FBI about an bureau informant who has been indicted, among other paths.

Additionally, Jordan sent a letter to DOJ last week accusing it of stonewalling the GOP’s request to talk to tax officials about Hunter Biden. In a brief interview, he didn’t rule out a lawsuit for those officials’ closed-door testimony.

Comer, asked on Tuesday about how close Republicans are to making a decision on impeachment, added: “The only people that ask me about articles are you all … I’m investigating the Bidens, and we’re trying to get all the information in.”

But the longer the investigation goes, and the longer leadership waits without making a formal decision, the more appetizing those backup plans look — even to conservatives who support impeachment but don’t see a way to win the vote.

“He deserves to be impeached with the information we have now, but let’s be realistic — this is March. The election is in November,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.). “You save your gunpowder at some point. You saw the trouble we had on Mayorkas.”

In the runup to the 2022 midterm election, something crazy happened: Senate Democrats clinched a fistful of bipartisan bills, from microchips to clean energy to gun safety. That remarkably productive period undeniably boosted Senate Democratic incumbents heading into November.

These days, things are different. The House is Republican-controlled and famously dysfunctional, so no one is expecting another pre-election extravaganza. Nonetheless, Democratic incumbents are making a late-game push for new accomplishments — and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a former campaign arm chief, seems game.

Schumer vows that once Congress is done with its endless government funding saga (which could be as soon as next week), he will turn to that long-awaited list of bipartisan bills he told us he was eyeing last summer. He’s going to get a lot of input about what to put on the floor.

In interviews this week, Democrats sketched out their top priorities: The House-passed tax deal; a rail safety bill responding to the disaster in East Palestine, Ohio; cannabis banking legislation, a new farm bill, a package of community health center funding and action to lower drug prices; and a new FAA bill.

Some Democrats even want another try on the bipartisan border deal that Republicans blocked.

“If Republicans play it straight, we can do immigration, we can do the RECOUP Act [on executive accountability]. We can do [cannabis] banking, we can do the rail bill … and tax,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), one of the party’s most vulnerable senators facing voters this fall.

Brown added, with a friendly personal gibe, “If Republicans do it right, and you get another haircut, then we can do it.” (Note: This reporter did just get a haircut.)

Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), another incumbent up for reelection this fall in a tough race, said “there’s no question” there’s a hunger to do more. But he and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who’s also in cycle this fall, both emphasized that the big laws from President Joe Biden’s first two years are still important to their constituents.

Chief among those earlier Biden-era laws: the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which continues to give senators the chance to roll out funding for big local projects. Those announcements, politically speaking, have just as much pop as newly passed legislation would.

For example, Baldwin teased that Biden will be in Milwaukee on Wednesday “to make a major announcement. It may be legislation that was passed years ago, but these are huge accomplishments.”

Back to Schumer’s next phase of the Senate agenda: The question remains whether the GOP will go along or filibuster anything major that Democrats want to do, even if there’s a Republican cosponsor attached. Some Republicans wonder why they would cut a deal with Democrats now when they think they’re likely to take back the Senate and the White House this fall.

“My sense is some people would like to delay this,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) of the tax deal. “I understand that position but I’d be in favor of doing it now.”

He also advised Schumer to take a chance with the rail bill despite unclear GOP support: “Put it on the floor and make people go on record.”

Given the tilt of the Senate map, Senate Republicans don’t have a ton of electoral incentive to pass legislation that helps Democrats in key states. Still, history is littered with the dashed hopes of lawmakers who blocked bills because they thought they could get a better deal later.

Even so, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) — yep, another vulnerable incumbent — warned that whatever gets done is not going to be as transformative as the bills passed in 2022.

“What we get done now isn’t about [going] to the people and saying ‘look what we’ve got done that’s that big.’ That cake has already been baked,” Tester said. “This is just getting shit done that needs to get done.”

The bill that could lead to TikTok getting blocked from app stores is meeting some resistance from Hill progressives, many of whom have embraced the social media platform to reach younger constituents.

The legislation is set to come up for a House vote Wednesday under a process that requires a two-thirds majority for passage. Some Republicans are also not supporting the bill, especially after former President Donald Trump publicly opposed it, though it’s still expected to pass the House. Both Republican and Democrat House leaders have signaled support for it, as well as the White House.

“We’re steamrolling this bill through without listening to stakeholders, without listening to people who depend on TikTok for their livelihood, including a lot of small businesses,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), the youngest member of the House, who also warned of the political impact the legislation could have with young voters who have embraced the social network.

The legislation in the House would require that a business found to be controlled by a foreign adversary must be divested within 180 days — specifically singling out Beijing-based ByteDance, which owns TikTok.

Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Monday the legislation “came up so quickly” that members were still considering how they would vote for it. The caucus has yet to determine its formal position on the legislation, though Jayapal suggested that’s unlikely to happen at this point due to the quick vote timing.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), a member of the progressive “squad,” said she was still reviewing the legislation but was generally opposed to a ban of the social media app. Sponsors of the bill have been quick to clarify that that legislation is not a ban, since it would only block the TikTok from app stores if the parent company refused to divest.

“Certainly there are things we should be considering when it comes to data harvesting and privacy … for all social media, for all big tech, not just limited to TikTok,” she said in a brief interview. “I also have serious concerns regarding the First Amendment, but I also think this is simply just fomenting anti-Asian and Chinese sentiment.”

Many of the lawmakers attended an all-member classified briefing Tuesday on TikTok’s security threats with Justice Department and intelligence officials. It’s not clear if the meeting changed many liberals’ minds.

“I didn’t support it before the classified briefing, and there was nothing that changed my mind,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who predicted opposition to the bill was “actually growing.”

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) are among other progressives who said on Tuesday that they plan to vote against it.

“I didn’t get to attend this one briefing, that happened the day before [the vote], that wasn’t even an hour long, because I was in the committee hearing with Special Counsel [Robert] Hur,” Bush said in an interview.

Not every progressive is in the “no” column, however. Some indicated they could support the legislation, citing privacy concerns.

“I would say we should be protecting everybody’s data privacy in general, but that might just be a statement,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who was still going over the bill. “This is a good first step.”

If the bill does manage to pass the House, it will likely run into trouble in the Senate, where Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not committed to taking it up. Progressives in that chamber are also not eager to get behind legislation that would ban the entire app. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in an interview that Congress should regulate social media but not specifically target one in particular.

Republican Rep. Ken Buck announced Tuesday that he will leave the House on March 22, moving up his existing retirement plans.

“I will depart Congress at the end of next week,” the conservative Colorado Republican said in a statement. “I look forward to staying involved in our political process, as well as spending more time in Colorado and with my family.”

“This place has just devolved into this bickering and nonsense,” Buck said in an interview on CNN shortly after his announcement. “It’s the worst year in 40, 50 years to be in Congress.”

Buck’s decision will leave Republicans with just 218 seats in the chamber, compared to Democrats’ 213. That means Republicans still can only afford to lose two votes on any bill with united Democratic opposition.

Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Tuesday that he didn’t know about Buck’s departure plans shortly after the announcement, noting he is looking forward to talking to the Colorado Republican. A Buck spokesperson told POLITICO that Buck called Johnson about 30 minutes before the announcement went live and left a voicemail. The move caught many of Buck’s GOP colleagues by surprise.

There’s already a competitive primary to replace Buck in the red seat. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) jumped into that race for Colorado’s 4th congressional district and moved across the state after she narrowly won reelection by just several hundred votes in her current district in 2022. Asked if Buck’s announcement would shift her plans to run in his district, Boebert replied: “I’m running in the 4th.”

In Colorado, the governor is required to set a special election 85 to 100 days after the vacancy occurs. Candidates are nominated by the state party.

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.