Senators in both parties have finalized a deal on stricter border and immigration policies that is headed toward an uncertain floor vote in the coming days.

The $118 billion agreement, which was released Sunday afternoon and negotiated for months, would tighten the standard for migrants to receive asylum, automatically shut down the southern border to illegal crossings if migrant encounters hit certain daily benchmarks and send billions of dollars to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as the border.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has vowed to hold a procedural vote to advance the package Wednesday, though it’s unclear if the legislation has the necessary 60 votes to clear the chamber. About 20 to 25 Republican senators are ready to evaluate the specifics and a similar number are leaning against the deal, according to lead GOP negotiator Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). At least a handful of Democrats are also expected to vote against it.

President Joe Biden praised the agreement in a Sunday night statement that called on Congress to send it to his desk: “If you believe, as I do, that we must secure the border now, doing nothing is not an option,” Biden said.

The border-foreign aid deal faces even more difficult odds in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday that the House would take up a $17 billion Israel aid bill instead of the supplemental funding package. In a Saturday letter to House Republicans, Johnson had said the chamber would not swiftly consider the bipartisan deal.

Lankford and GOP allies hope that release of the text will dispel the notion that the bill would allow 5,000 undocumented immigrants to cross into the country daily. Under the parameters of the legislation and the current situation at the border, which sees crossings sometimes exceeding 10,000 per day, the border would be shut down to illegal crossings immediately.

The bill would preserve orderly asylum appointments at ports of entry as a way for immigrants to seek legal entry into the country, requiring that those ports process at least 1,400 migrants daily during periods when the border is shut down.

The legislation also includes the Fend Off Fentanyl Act and Afghan Adjustment Act as part of the larger deal. It would send about $62 billion to support Ukraine in its invasion against Russia, $14 billion in security aid for Israel, $10 billion in humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip and Ukraine, $20 billion for the border and nearly $5 billion to partners in the Indo-Pacific to fight Chinese aggression.

In addition to mandating a border shutdown at 5,000 daily encounters, the bill would allow the president to invoke that authority at 4,000 per day. Once the border is shut it would stay sealed to illegal crossings until encounters of unlawful crossings drop to about 2,000 per day. In addition, the use of presidential parole authority, which gives the president wider latitude to allow more undocumented immigrants into the country, would be curtailed. And the bill speeds up the asylum screening process significantly.

Lankford said he had hoped to release the bill earlier to get the process moving more quickly but the complexity of the language made that tricky: “The words matter.” The legislation is the most ambitious piece of immigration legislation to get serious congressional consideration in six years.

At the end of the new accelerated asylum process that the bill would create, migrants who are “unable to meet that threshold, they are removed from the country in an expedited manner,” Sinema said on Sunday.

“Individuals who are approached between ports of entry are currently paroled,” she added, meaning that the migrants are given a notice to appear and are released. But under the new bill, Sinema said, “those individuals will be taken into custody, where they will then, if they claim asylum, go through the initial protection determination interview.”

“If they do not claim asylum, they will be removed under expedited removal … So people who come through the desert, whether they are evading law enforcement or giving themselves up to law enforcement, if they’re not seeking asylum, they don’t have a claim to the country and will be removed,” she said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries slammed Johnson in a statement Sunday, calling the speaker’s decision to instead put an Israel aid bill on the floor this week “a cynical attempt to undermine the Senate’s bipartisan effort, given that House Republicans have been ordered by the former president not to pass any border security legislation or assistance for Ukraine.”

Former President Donald Trump and conservatives in both chambers have repeatedly attacked the legislation as insufficient, instead calling on Biden to use his existing executive authorities to shut down the border.

Republicans, including Johnson, had demanded a package last fall that linked border policy changes to billions in foreign aid. But the speaker denies his new position is due to Trump, saying on Meet the Press: “He’s not calling the shots. I’m the one calling the shots.”

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) called House Speaker Mike Johnson’s decision to move forward with a separate Israel package “very dirty pool” Sunday.

“It’s an act of staggering bad faith,” Himes told CBS’ “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan in an interview alongside Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio).

Senate lawmakers are negotiating a border deal coupling immigration law and foreign aid, a deal that many lawmakers fear will be dead on arrival in the GOP-controlled House. Johnson sent a letter on the deal to House Republicans on Saturday saying that “by failing to include the House in their negotiations, they have eliminated the ability for a swift consideration of any legislation.”

“Next week, we will take up and pass a clean, standalone Israel supplemental package,” Johnson wrote.

Part of the rationale for negotiating a foreign aid deal that includes changes to the immigration system is because Republicans in both the House and Senate had been insisting that no foreign aid should be added without border reforms.

But now that a proposed deal is in the works, GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has argued against it, and at least some congressional Republicans have changed their tune. According to Himes, “before the wording of a bipartisan border deal was even available to anybody,” Johnson said the bill would be dead on arrival.

“I think what’s happening here is that the speaker is taking a move to get Israel aid done, which we all support, most of us support, I shouldn’t say all. But that will allow him to ultimately not do a border deal because there are Republicans, Mike Turner not amongst them, who would rather that problem be an issue in November and that it not be solved,” Himes said.

Turner also defended the border deal Sunday, saying, “I think that we really have four significant national security threats. We have Asia, we have Ukraine, we have Israel and what’s going on in the Middle East. And of course, we have our border. And right now we’ve been proceeding on negotiations on those four.”

“So I do think that all these are coupled,” Turner said.

“So as much as it is important for us to provide aid to Israel, this is the first step in getting aid to Israel at the expense of any aid to Ukraine and at the expense of a generational opportunity to actually get a border immigration deal done,” Himes said.

Describing the jurors as from “extremely left-wing jurisdictions,” Sen. J.D. Vance said Sunday the New York jury verdicts in the E. Jean Carroll defamation and sexual assault cases against President Donald Trump had no validity.

A former “Never Trumper,” Vance (R-Ohio) now fully backs the former president, who is originally from New York City. Trump was ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages to advice columnist Carroll and is the center of a myriad of cases set to play out this year amid his 2024 campaign.

“This case, like so many legal cases against Donald Trump, they’re trumped up — they’re in extremely left-wing jurisdictions, or it’s actually the Biden administration prosecuting his chief political rival,” Vance said to host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

“George, if you look at all of these cases, the through line, two-fold. No. 1, they’re funded by Donald Trump’s political opponents, and the goal here is not to help us actually have a real conversation about how to advance the country forward. Their goal is to defeat Trump at the courts because these people know they can’t defeat him at the ballot box,” he told Stephanopoulos.

Stephanopoulos pressed Vance as to whether he believed any verdicts by a group of average citizens in New York City had any validity. “Well, when the cases are funded by left-wing donors and when the case has absolute left-wing bias all over it, George, absolutely I think that we should call into question that particular conclusion,” he said.

The response mirrors that of the former president, who criticized the verdict in a post to his site Truth Social.

“Absolutely ridiculous! I fully disagree with both verdicts, and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party. Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” Trump wrote.

When asked about claims that support for Trump sanctions behavior like sexual assault and defamation, Vance said that the statement was unfair to victims.

“I think it’s actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault, to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president, when what he’s trying to do, I think, is restore prosperity,” Vance said.

“I think most Americans recognize that this is not what we want to fight the 2024 election over. Let’s fight it over issues,” Vance said.

Speaker Mike Johnson warned Saturday that the House won’t rush to pass a Senate border-foreign aid deal and will instead take up a stand-alone bill for Israel aid next week.

The decision by House Republicans comes as a bipartisan group of Senate negotiators are expected this weekend to release the text of their deal, which would link more funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan to new border security measures.

But Johnson, in a letter to House Republicans, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO, hit the brakes on any already outside chance that the House would quickly take up any deal that passes the Senate without changes.

“Their leadership is aware that by failing to include the House in their negotiations, they have eliminated the ability for swift consideration of any legislation. As I have said consistently for the past three months, the House will have to work its will on these issues and our priorities will need to be addressed,” Johnson wrote in the letter.

Johnson’s letter is the latest sign of the hurdles a Senate deal will face in the GOP-controlled House. There’s growing pressure from former President Donald Trump and his allies within the Senate Republican conference to spike any agreement.

Meanwhile, House conservatives, including Johnson, have warned that if they don’t believe the border reform efforts go far enough that the bill will be dead on arrival in their chamber. And there’s growing skepticism about more Ukraine aid within the House GOP conference, including a warning from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that she could trigger a vote to try to oust Johnson if he put it up for a vote.

Instead, Johnson said in his letter to House GOP colleagues that they will vote next week on a “clean, standalone Israel supplemental package” — and try to build pressure on the Senate to take up the bill if it passes the House. Conservatives have been floating trying to break up the Senate deal. And Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) and Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), the chair of the Republican Study Committee, called on Johnson earlier this week to bring up a new Israel aid bill without IRS cuts attached.

The House bill, rolled out by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) and backed by members of GOP leadership and the Appropriations Committee, would provide $17.6 billion in military assistance to Israel and funding for U.S. forces in the region.

The House previously passed new funding for Israel that was paid for by cutting IRS funding, making it a nonstarter for many Democrats. The Israel bill rolled out Saturday would not include offsets.

“During debate in the House and in numerous subsequent statements, Democrats made clear that their primary objection to the original House bill was with its offsets. The Senate will no longer have excuses, however misguided, against swift passage of this critical support for our ally,” Johnson wrote.

The intraparty contest between two Democrats vying for Rep. Katie Porter’s toss-up Orange County seat is rapidly emerging as one of the most vicious primary battles in California.

The latest salvo: an ad from state Sen. Dave Min accusing his rival, Joanna Weiss, of powering her campaign with money earned through the legal defense of sex offenders. The attack comes a week after Weiss released an ad slamming Min for his DUI arrest last year.

The volley of attack ads is the most public manifestation yet of a feud that has been playing out in Democratic circles for months. The two camps have been making their case to party bigwigs and activists that their rival’s baggage could compromise Democrats’ chances of holding on to a hard-fought swing seatthat could very well tip the balance of power in the House in November.

Now, those behind-the-scenes arguments are playing out on the airwaves, increasing the risk that either Democrat could emerge from the primary weakened against the likely Republican contender, Scott Baugh. Baugh, a former Republican lawmaker who came within 4 percentage points of Porter in the district in 2022, has consolidated much of the GOP establishment support and has built a war chest with an eye toward the general election.

Min’s ad, which is part of a six-figure streaming and digital buy, was released on Friday.

“Why is Joanna Weiss attacking Dave Min?” asks the ad’s narrator. “To hide the fact that she and her husband made millions defending Catholic priests found guilty of molesting children in Orange County — money that Joanna is using to fund her campaign. Those aren’t the values we want in Congress.”

The ad cites a report from the Daily Beast that delved into work by Weiss’ husband, attorney Jason Weiss, to defend the Catholic Diocese of Orange County in multiple sex abuse cases.

Dan Driscoll, Min’s campaign manager, called the accounts in the story “as disgusting as they are disqualifying.”

“Joanna Weiss has run a 100% negative campaign to hide the fact that she is funding her campaign with money through truly despicable means,” Driscoll said in a statement. “State Senator Dave Min stands with survivors of sexual abuse and assault and is proud to have 8 bills signed into law providing them greater means of protection and justice.”

Weiss’ campaign pushed back against the allegations in the ad, noting that Jason Weiss primarily represented the diocese on employment matters and did not make millions of dollars through that legal work.

While Weiss, a former lawyer who founded a volunteer political activism group in 2018, has loaned herself significant money during the course of the race — roughly $230,000, according to campaign finance filings — her campaign said the money came from refinancing her house, not her husband’s earnings.

“Dave Min is resorting to lies to distract voters from his criminal history and that he would be serving his first term in Congress on probation,” said Emma Weinert, Weiss’ campaign manager. “Orange County deserves a leader who keeps their promises and will not turn to these defamatory, sexist attacks.”

Min was arrested last May in Sacramento for drunk driving after a night of receptions with lobbyists. He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to three years probation. He has spoken frankly about the incident as “the worst mistake of my life.”

Electability has been at the heart of the fight between the two Democrats vying for the coastal Orange County seat. For months, Weiss’ allies have argued that Min’s drunk driving arrest — which took place in Sacramento after a night of receptions with lobbyists — is so politically toxic that his candidacy would offer a pickup opportunity for Republicans, who are mostly playing defense in key California House races this year.

Weiss has a powerful ally on her side — EMILYs List, a group that supports pro-abortion rights women candidates. The organization has made Weiss a top priority for this election cycle and announced a $1 million television and digital ad buy to boost her.

While some national Democrats say Min’s arrest remains a concern, he has not seen a major exodus of supporters. He has touted his early endorsement from Porter, as well as the backing of the state Democratic Party and the endorsement by the Los Angeles Times editorial board, which both came after the arrest. Other allies have mounted a vigorous defense of the state lawmaker, including the board of Democrats of Greater Irvine, who wrote a letter to EMILYs List accusing them of backing a “flawed” candidate.

Major players such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have stayed on the sidelines. That has left the Min and Weiss campaigns digging in for trench warfare and making their electability argument directly to the judges who matter most: the voters.

Prominent Republican lawmakers were quick to criticize Friday’s airstrikes in Iraq and Syria as insufficient following the deaths of three U.S. soldiers in Jordan this week.

In the first of multiple rounds of expected retaliatory actions, U.S. bomber aircraft hit more than 85 targets connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force and “affiliated militia groups,” the U.S. military said in a statement. The Quds Force is Iran’s primary unit charged with conducting covert operations outside Iran.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Ark.) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) welcomed the strikes but said they were too little, too late.

“It is past time for our commander-in-chief to adopt a new approach that targets the actual sponsors of terrorism in the region,” Wicker, the lead Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, said in a statement.

“The Biden admin must be decisive with sustained retaliatory strikes and begin to enforce oil and other sanctions to cut off the source of terror funding,” McCaul, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the SASC, said: “These strikes, announced well in advance, likely did not accomplish nearly enough to stop Iran’s axis. Whatever next steps the President takes must be significantly stronger.”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), also a SASC member, posted: “Finally. Iran needs to know the price for American lives.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), posted: “To restore effective deterrence, President Biden must hit Iran where it hurts. Weak, telegraphed responses will not cut it. We need leadership, not appeasement.”

However, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), SASC chair, said in a statement: “This was a strong, proportional response. In fact, the 85 targets struck tonight mark a greater number than the prior administration. Iran’s proxy forces in Syria and Iraq have been dealt a significant blow, and Iranian-linked militias around the Middle East should understand that they, too, will be held accountable.”

Military veterans from both parties were quick to air their opinions.

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, posted: “It’s a huge expenditure of precision munitions from increasingly depleted stockpiles that are needed in the Indo-Pacific.”

Navy veteran Rep. Jen Kiggans (D-Va.) wrote that the strikes must “kneecap” Iran’s presence and threats against Americans.

Meanwhile, Rep. Austin Scott (D-Ga.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, wrote in a post: “I applaud the bravery and skill of @CENTCOM, who carried out multiple airstrikes against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and affiliated militia groups today.”

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted that Biden, in ordering the strikes, had “circumvented Congress.”

“Our troops need to come home. Our president needs to follow the constitution,” she added.

Before Jason Smith moved his $78 billion bipartisan tax deal through the House, the Ways and Means chair made sure to run it by Donald Trump.

In a 90-minute meeting in December, Smith briefed Trump on the package that would expand the child tax credit and provide a series of business tax breaks — a move that helped ensure Trump would not scuttle the deal. The former president, presumably, gave him that reassurance.

“I have discussions with President Trump quite often, and he was well aware that this is a big win for his policies,” Smith (R-Mo.) said, recalling the lengthy conversation about the tax package that overwhelmingly passed this week. “President Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. People may not want to admit that. But he has been for a long time.”

Trump’s restraint made it easier for House Republicans to steer the deal to overwhelming bipartisan passage. By contrast, the president’s vocal opposition has essentially put the Senate’s emerging border deal on life support.

With every day that Trump draws closer to the GOP’s presidential nomination, his voice carries more weight within the party. The former president, who holds no elected office, arguably can exert more influence over the Republican agenda than either the party’s speaker or Senate GOP leader.

It’s a 180-degree turn from three years ago, when Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden culminated in a violent Capitol riot that ended with seven Republican senators voting to convict him in a second impeachment trial. These days, Republicans are increasingly sensitive to Trump’s viewpoints and conscious of his power to upend bills that Joe Biden might be able to tout on the campaign trail.

At a minimum, Trump’s ballooning clout could doom two top Biden priorities: Ukraine aid and a bipartisan border deal. Even the tax deal Trump blessed on its way to House passage faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where some Republicans have warned that it could amount to a win for Biden. Republicans are still wondering whether Trump might publicly support the tax bill, according to interviews with several senators this week, with Finance Committee ranking member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) saying he’s only heard “rumors.”

On the other side of that GOP divide, a sizable number of lawmakers are chafing at the idea that Trump can single-handedly tie their hands.

“I just think it’s unfortunate that we can’t, as individual United States senators, take the time and the effort and intellectual honesty to study something on your own and make a decision,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “Donald Trump has an opinion too. That’s great, but ours should be our opinion.”

When the Senate started its bipartisan border negotiations last fall — a Republican demand, to be clear — it still was not entirely clear Trump would lock up the GOP nomination. More than three months later, as those negotiations come to a close, Trump’s collision course with Biden is threatening any deal in Congress that has Biden’s imprint on it.

So Trump’s attacks have become something of a bat signal now for many Republicans in Congress.

“When former President Trump says something, everybody listens,” said Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who hails from a border district. “Everybody.”

When Trump was president, he frequently dialed up senators and members of Congress to discuss the daily Washington grind of politics and policy. He tanked a 2018 border deal, leaned on senators to support his nominees and developed his own kitchen cabinet of congressional advisers — some of whom, like former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and former Sen. David Perdue, are no longer in Congress.

So Trump’s leaning on old and new allies as he prepares for a fall slugfest over control of Congress and the White House. In the House, he frequently chats with Speaker Mike Johnson, according to advisers, as well as Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Max Miller of Ohio, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Ronny Jackson of Texas.

Over in the Senate, Trump iAndrew Harniks in regular contact with lawmakers like Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Steve Daines of Montana, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.

“President Trump has worked to develop and maintain close relationships with Congressional members and elected officials that fight for the American people. That’s why he’s received overwhelming support,” Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement.

Trump views his relationships on the Hill as critical to his return to power. Over the course of the past year, he has spoken to over 100 members, soliciting endorsements and inviting them to his rallies or dinner at Mar-a-Lago. He has worked closely with Brian Jack, a senior campaign aide and congressional liaison, on cultivating relationships on the Hill.

His efforts have been fairly successful; Trump currently boasts the support of 137 House members and 31 senators. And when Republicans call Trump, it is often to ask for his opinion on whatever is playing out on the Hill as a kind of party elder, according to an adviser.

Still, even some Trump allies disagree. Graham said he speaks with Trump regularly, but he was comfortable differing with the former president and backing more aid to Ukraine, saying: “My policy ideas are pretty firm.” He was unwilling to comment yet on the border deal until he sees text.

Vance, another close Trump ally, seems to be more en vogue with the former president.

“I’ve made the argument on Ukraine that it’s very stupid for us to get crosswise with the party’s nominees, especially on an issue where he’s very directly opposed to Joe Biden,” Vance said. “Where I am substantively aligned with President Trump, which is on most things, my strong preference is that the caucus listens to President Trump.”

While Vance and other Trump confidants say that he isn’t personally lobbying GOP lawmakers to kill the border and Ukraine deal, that’s probably because he doesn’t need to. As the Republican primary fizzled out and Trump romped in the two early states, the GOP is intuitively reacting to Trump’s positions to avoid getting too far out of step with him.

The effect is most pronounced in the House, where two-year terms and a constant threat to Johnson’s job make it politically perilous to diverge from Trump. Plus, House members are more susceptible to primary challenges that could easily spring from Trump-defying votes, like on the Senate’s border and Ukraine package.

“President Trump has had an influence on it. You also have to think about where we are in political cycles,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said. “If you’ve got somebody who’s got a filing deadline in March or April or May, there’d be no way to prevent an uninformed person from challenging them.”

Tillis, one of Congress’ most prominent deal-cutters, is urging other Republicans to develop their own opinions about legislation. The North Carolina Republican is opposing Smith’s tax bill and supporting Sen. James Lankford’s (R-Okla.) border deal, which backers argue won’t hurt Trump because it comes far too late to save Biden’s standing on the issue.

Trump realizes the border “is a potent issue for him. What I would tell him is I don’t think the issue is going to go away,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a potential future GOP leader who has endorsed Trump. “Even if something were to pass in the next 10 months, I don’t think you’re gonna see a dramatic change at the border.”

So far, that argument has not sunk in. Trump visited Washington this week and attacked the border deal, warning that those who support it are making a “terrible mistake.” Episodes like that remind Republicans trying to negotiate deals Trump doesn’t like — and break Congress’ stubborn unproductive streak — that every day becomes more of an uphill battle.

“You gotta read it and understand that there are divided chambers and tight margins. And is half a loaf better than no loaf? That’s what we got to look at,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).

NEW YORK — House Republicans are banking on border security being key to keeping their majority. The special election in a district straddling Long Island and migrant-overwhelmed New York City provides their first test case.

Outside a sprawling migrant shelter last week, Ethiopian-born Mazi Pilip introduced herself to reporters as a legal immigrant before identifying herself as a GOP congressional candidate. She then linked Democrat Tom Suozzi — her opponent in the race to replace George Santos — to what she described as President Joe Biden’s failed border policies.

Facing cameras in the same spot moments later, Suozzi delivered a rebuttal, arguing Republicans are politicizing the issue instead of solving it.

The competing news conferences outside the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center migrant tent complex in Queens laid bare how central the border fight is in this local race. And they underscored how illegal immigration and national security are affecting voters in a presidential election year as Republicans hammer Biden over the border.

The Long Island race on Feb. 13 should be Democrats’ to lose.

They’re running a familiar candidate, vastly outspending the GOP and are not the party of Santos — the first Republican ever expelled from Congress. Suozzi, a former House member with centrist views, would appear to be a heavyweight against Pilip, a political novice who makes herself scarce on the trail and keeps some views close to the vest.

But between the surge of migrants to New York City — more than 170,000 since April 2022 — and the infrastructure of the hyper-organized Nassau County Republican Committee, Democrats find themselves on the defensive.

“This is our seat to win,” Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, a Nassau County Republican, said in an interview. “This is going to be the message that is sent across this country and to Minority Leader [Hakeem] Jeffries that perhaps they should be investing their money somewhere else in the general.”

The face-off between Pilip and Suozzi marks the first House race of the year. And it has provided some early insights into how each party is campaigning.

So far, Democrats are showing caution as Republicans are projecting confidence — especially around border politics.

“I will work to stop Joe Biden and Tom Suozzi’s sanctuary city policies and secure our border and invest in our brave ICE agents,” Pilip pledged outside Creedmoor.

Her campaign’s first three TV ads have featured juxtaposed images of Suozzi, Biden and masses of migrants on the move at the Southern border. An ad push by the House GOP super PAC Congressional Leadership Fund also capitalizes on migrant crisis backlash.

There’s good reason for that: An Emerson College/PIX11 poll found 26 percent of voters in the district listed immigration as their top concern. The same poll, the only public survey released thus far, showed Pilip within three points of Suozzi, who represented the district for six years.

Republicans have an easier task.

They must persuade voters concerned enough to head to the polls in a typically low-turnout special election that they have a better handle over the migrant crisis. And in Washington, House Republicans have advanced impeachment articles against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Some reject the notion that they should negotiate with the Democrats on a border deal, saying instead that Biden should enforce laws already on the books.

Democrats, by contrast, are on the defensive.

They must juggle acknowledging the gravity of the situation while calling out the GOP on leveraging it for political gain — and do both without undermining the president.

“I agree, it’s a big, big problem,” Suozzi said at a recent news conference, referring to the migrant crisis. “Why would you not do everything in your power to try and get a bipartisan deal done to fix this problem?”

Democrats and allied PACs in ads and mailers have portrayed Pilip as beholden to “MAGA Republicans,” tied her to extremist policies like a proposed nationwide ban on abortion and accused her of hiding from hard questions. (She has called herself “pro-life,” but has said she would not support a federal ban on abortion.) Suozzi’s campaign has run mostly biographical ads about his work across the aisle and touted his support for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The party that wins can claim momentum ahead of November, when six competitive New York House races will help determine which party wields the speakership come 2025. And the special election results will shape messaging nationwide in a presidential contest focused on inflation, the Israel-Hamas war, abortion access and illegal immigration.

“Fear-mongering is an effective tool for campaigning,” Rep. Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat, said in an interview. “But our responsibility as legislators is to provide solutions, and at the very least, to show up and talk to our voters, which is not happening.”

The comment was a dig at Pilip’s limited time in the public eye.

The first news conference of her campaign occurred six weeks after she was nominated.

Three days later, the Nassau GOP hosted a rally with eight House Republicans, including Majority Whip Tom Emmer, but excluded the candidate they were on hand to honor. Organizers had scheduled an event at a time when Pilp, an Orthodox Jew, was observing the Sabbath.

Additionally, Pilip has agreed to just one debate against Suozzi.

What’s nonetheless clear is that Republicans are framing Suozzi and Biden as a threat to their way of life.

“This ain’t about Nassau County, about the North Shore. It’s about the United States of America,” Nassau GOP chairman Joe Cairo said. “We have to stop the nonsense.”

Suozzi may be uniquely positioned to take it all on. Rather than a full-throated defense of Biden, the former representative has shown a readiness to call out obstinance in either party.

“And the Democrats who say, ‘My way or the highway,’ they’re wrong, too,” he said. “The key to solving problems, complicated problems, is compromise.”

Republicans, including Suozzi’s former congressional colleague Pete King, say it may not be enough in a region that has turned red over the years, thanks to the Nassau Republican apparatus.

Democrats say it will have to be.

“This race sets the tone for Long Island, it sets the tone for New York State, it sets the tone for the battle for the House,” said Zak Malamed, a former House candidate who endorsed Suozzi. “Some are describing this race as the Alamo for Nassau County Democrats.”