House Republicans will try to break a conservative logjam that has frozen the floor.

GOP leadership has scheduled a second vote on Thursday to start debate on a trio of unrelated bills that 13 Republicans, largely from the Freedom Caucus, blocked from coming up on Wednesday.

The hardball strategy was in retaliation for a top-line spending deal congressional leaders rolled out over the weekend. It’s a strategy many of the same members have used under both Speaker Mike Johnson and his predecessor Kevin McCarthy.

Leadership and Freedom Caucus members are in talks to try to resolve the stalemate before Thursday’s vote, with Republicans cautiously optimistic they’ll be able to overcome what is normally a routine hurdle. But given their razor-thin majority, it would only take a few members to doom the vote.

Conservatives say they tanked the rule on Wednesday to send leadership a message about the deal, which they have panned for not including steeper spending cuts or changes to the border.

While they’ve left the door open to blocking additional rules, including potentially Thursday’s, they indicated it would depend on if leadership came to the table on their grievances.

“My hope is to persuade the speaker and the leadership and the entire Republican conference, to not follow through with the deal as it’s been announced. We have leveraged as a House majority,” Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good (R-Va.) said after Wednesday’s failed vote.

Good and other Freedom Caucus members headed into Johnson’s office on Thursday morning. Good declined to answer questions, including if they will pass the rule.

But Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), heading into Johnson’s office, told POLITICO that he expected Republicans to be able to pass the rule on Thursday.

Conservative rebels he added, were not getting firm concessions but brainstorming and talking through their concerns.

“Just being heard. … Going over ideas,” Norman said.

When the Pentagon announced Tuesday that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is being treated for prostate cancer, he joined a sizable club of prominent Washington officials who have publicly grappled with the disease.

That includes a host of senators who publicly disclosed their diagnosis and treatment. Asked about Austin’s handling of the situation today, several of those lawmakers offered sympathy but said there was no excuse for Austin’s delayed disclosure to the White House and to the public at large.

“I sense that he was embarrassed to admit that he had prostate cancer,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who was diagnosed in 2021. “And so I think he not only whiffed in his job duties, but he whiffed as an internationally recognized figure, to just say, ‘This is not something to be ashamed of. It’s something to take on.’”

The House Armed Services Committee is formally investigating the situation, and several lawmakers have called for Austin and other officials to appear at a congressional hearing. A few Republicans and one House Democrat have called on him to resign.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, the news of Austin’s diagnosis has muffled some of the criticism. Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), for instance, said Wednesday that while the situation was “completely unacceptable,” he wanted the Biden administration to first examine “what happened and where the breakdown was.”

Besides Tillis, Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) have publicly revealed prostate cancer diagnoses in recent years. Other than non-melanoma skin cancer, it’s the most common cancer diagnosis in men, according to Centers for Disease Control data. A Pentagon spokesperson declined to comment.

“It’s obviously very common. But it’s also fortunately very treatable,” said Casey, who underwent surgery last year. “My own experience was, fortunately, very positive. I hope he has the same.”

But asked if Austin’s diagnosis should garner him any more understanding or sympathy for his lack of disclosure, Casey said it was “critically important in that instance to provide a measure of transparency — that didn’t happen.”

Senate Republicans are hardening their demands for parole changes to be part of border negotiations, which are stalled out as negotiators struggle to strike a deal.

Now, GOP senators are pushing for an explicit cap on parole, they said after a closed-door meeting to discuss the potential agreement Wednesday. Senate Democrats and the White House are adamantly against restricting the president’s parole authority to release migrants into the United States — but with few options left to unlock Ukraine aid, Republicans believe there’s still room for them to leverage the issue.

“There are a couple of ideas out there about how to deal with it. But one that seems to have a lot of support is inserting a cap aligned with what we do on refugees and other categories,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.).

Republicans coming out of the meeting still stressed that there’s a way to go on a final deal, which lead Republican negotiator Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) had hoped to have as soon as this week — but he said afterward that “we’re not that close, by any means.”

Senate Republicans are demanding that border and immigration policy changes be tied to the $106 billion national security supplemental package, which includes aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and the southern border. Negotiations have yielded progress on asylum claims and expanding expulsions authorities, but parole remains the biggest obstacle to a deal.

Lankford confirmed that Senate Republicans are interested in a cap on parole, arguing that “the frustration is the administration has used [parole] in a way no administration ever has” by releasing migrants in the interior. He said he, the Biden administration and Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) have “swapped a lot of paper back and forth, and clearly we’re not resolved” on parole.

Senators characterized the meeting largely as a policy presentation, with few surprises. Parole has been an ongoing issue in negotiations — and conservative senators have been increasingly interested in tying some form of immigration metrics to the deal as well. The specifics of what those metrics would be or how they would be enforced are still unclear.

There is also still no bill text being presented to members, making it difficult for some lawmakers to forecast their support. What’s more, many Republicans said they didn’t think the Biden administration would implement their ideas unless they are carefully prescribed in legislation.

“It’s not in writing, so I can’t be comfortable. No one can, until they read it,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)

Lawmakers also left the meeting with little more confidence that the deal could actually pass the House, where conservatives are likely to shirk it. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) said it’d “certainly” be more difficult getting votes for a deal in the House. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said “it’d be very hard to pass the way it is right now, to be honest with you.”

Thune earlier Wednesday warned that if the House were to try to amend any Senate-approved bill, he doesn’t know whether the bill could gain the necessary support for passage.

“I just don’t know where the votes come from. Because there are Republicans over there for whom nothing is good enough unless it’s H.R. 2,” Thune said, referring to House Republicans’ immigration bill.

Senate Republicans are still expecting some from a deal though, even if the timing remains unclear. And how exactly the Senate will pass it is up in the air, too.

“I think there will be a deal,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). “And I think the closer we get to a vehicle where you can put that deal on, the more likely a deal materializes.”

House Republicans are one step closer to holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress after he skipped a closed-door deposition last month.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 23-14, along party lines, to send a resolution and a report recommending the president’s son be held in contempt to the full House. The Oversight Committee is also expected to vote on Wednesday.

It paves the way for a dramatic showdown on the House floor, where Republicans will need near total unity among their two-vote majority to refer the president’s son to the Justice Department. Should they get there, DOJ will ultimately decide if Hunter Biden – who is already facing two criminal cases– will get slapped with new charges.

“He blatantly defied two lawful subpoenas. Hunter Biden’s willful refusal to comply with the committee subpoenas is a criminal act,” Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday.

Hunter Biden also made a brief surprise appearance at the Oversight Committee meeting, prompting GOP anger. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said in the room: “I think he should be hauled off to jail right now.” He left as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tried to start questioning him.

Speaker Mike Johnson, asked about the appearance, told reporters that doesn’t change that Hunter Biden hasn’t complied with the GOP’s subpoenas, and that he supports efforts to hold him in contempt. Spokespeople for Johnson didn’t immediately respond to a question on Wednesday about how quickly a vote could be scheduled on a contempt resolution.

House Republicans view Hunter Biden as a top witness in their sweeping impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, which has largely focused on business deals by his family members. GOP investigators are in the final stages of that probe, which has also looked at Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents and the years-long federal investigation into Hunter Biden.

While the House GOP has found evidence of Hunter Biden using his last name to bolster his own influence, and poked holes in previous statements by Joe Biden and the White House they’ve struggled to find clear evidence that proves Joe Biden took actions as president or vice president that were meant to bolster his family’s business deals.

Republicans are starting off the year juggling priorities, including an effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that has gained new momentum after being on the backburner for months. That’s on top of calls to add Attorney General Merrick Garland and Defense Secretary Austin Lloyd to their list of Biden administration officials in line for impeachment.

At the same time, they’ve got a quickly approaching Jan. 19 deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown, with no plan yet for how to avoid it.

Wednesday’s vote comes after Republicans subpoenaed Hunter Biden late last year to meet with congressional investigators on Dec. 13. Instead, he skipped the closed-door interview, speaking briefly to reporters outside the Capitol to defend his father and reiterate that he would be willing to take part in a public hearing.

“Republicans do not want an open process where Americans can see their tactics, expose their baseless inquiry, or hear what I have to say. What are they afraid of? I am here,” Hunter Biden said at the time.

The move angered congressional Republicans, who said they received no heads-up about the move. They had publicly warned that they would pursue contempt if he didn’t appear before the deposition.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers have defended their decision to not comply with the GOP subpoena, arguing that a closed-door hearing would set up the possibility that his testimony would be selectively leaked. His legal team, the White House and congressional Democrats have roundly criticized Republicans for pursuing contempt – reminding them of comments by Comer earlier last year where he appeared open to a public hearing.

“We are here today because the chairman has bizarrely decided to obstruct his own investigation and is now seeking to hold Hunter Biden in contempt after he accepted the chairman’s multiple public offers to come answer the committee’s questions under oath before the American people,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at Wednesday’s Oversight hearing.

White House spokesperson Ian Sams said in a statement that “House Republicans are less than ten days from sparking a partial government shutdown that many of their far-right members are rooting for, but instead of working full-time to avoid it, they are wasting time on political stunts.”

Republicans have since rejected a public hearing, however, unless Hunter Biden first speaks with them behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden is scheduled to appear in court in California on Thursday over federal tax charges. Republicans’ effort to hold him in contempt could force the DOJ to weigh another politically contentious decision.

Congress has held 10 people in contempt since 2008, but only two have faced federal charges, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Congressional investigators spoke with Hunter Biden’s art dealer this week. Republicans are also still working to set up a closed-door interview with Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden, whom they subpoenaed last year.

Rep. Chris Deluzio became the first congressional Democrat to call for Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s resignation after the controversy over his hospitalization.

“I have lost trust in Secretary Lloyd Austin’s leadership of the Defense Department due to the lack of transparency about his recent medical treatment and its impact on the continuity of the chain of command,” Deluzio (D-Pa.) said in a statement that also thanked Austin for his service and wished him a speedy recovery. He represents a swing district.

“I have a solemn duty in Congress to conduct oversight of the Defense Department through my service on the House Armed Services Committee. That duty today requires me to call on Secretary Austin to resign,” he added.

Speaker Mike Johnson’s right flank ground the floor to a halt again on Wednesday, this time amid conservative fury over a spending deal he cut with Senate Democrats.

Roughly a dozen House Republicans threatened to join with Democrats to vote against starting debate on a trio of bills unrelated to the funding agreement, two of which are aimed at nixing Biden administration rules, which effectively freezes the floor. It’s the latest example of how House conservatives, largely in the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, are trying to punish leadership — even if they aren’t willing to oust Johnson.

The vote has remained open for a prolonged period of time, as Johnson huddles in his office with Republican members of the Rules Committee.

“We don’t have a great deal of opportunity to express our disapprobation,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz,) said about why conservatives pulled that move.

Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to quell the most significant conservative rebellion he’s faced since taking the gavel.

His right flank is furious over a deal on overall spending levels he struck with Democrats — looking to avoid a partial government shutdown that would start next week — that largely resembles the bipartisan agreement former Speaker Kevin McCarthy reached with President Joe Biden last year.

During a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, Johnson walked his conference through the topline agreement he negotiated with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer. He defended the deal, warning that he didn’t see Republicans gaining more leverage by shutting down the government.

Privately, he’s indicated he doesn’t want to go down that path, despite some members pushing to do so absent additional border security policies. Raj Shah, Johnson’s spokesperson, posted on X that he had spoken with President Joe Biden and urged him to “use his executive authority to secure the southern border.”

But Johnson’s pitch didn’t sell the most volatile faction of his conference. Conservatives have harangued the speaker both in closed-door meetings and publicly on social media since congressional leaders announced the deal. And that criticism is mounting, underscoring that even though most aren’t ready to oust him they are increasingly disenchanted with a leader they thought would fight for conservative priorities.

“Before we could even get together, he announced the terms of the surrender,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), telling reporters that he was leaving Wednesday’s conference meeting early because he didn’t want to listen to more “drivel.”

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), another Freedom Caucus member, added that “our entire situation makes no sense.”

“He is doing the best that he can. … [But] I think he’s getting bad advice from some of his staff,” Donalds said, adding that he thought “members are not really being talked to and consulted.”

Johnson pleaded with members to voice their disagreements during the closed-door meetings rather than airing their frustrations on social media. And Republicans took him up on it, using the open mic session to sound off against the deal.

Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told Johnson during the conference meeting what he “should have done” on the spending deal, according to one individual familiar with the meeting. Johnson, a former member of Jordan’s panel, replied that he “channeled his inner Jim Jordan” and made demands, according to a different House Republican, but that he wasn’t able to get everything they wanted given the thin House GOP margins.

Johnson’s most vocal critic, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), wasn’t at Wednesday’s conference meeting after getting delayed in Iowa. Roy, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, warned publicly this week that he considers an attempt to oust Johnson “on the table.”

No other Republican has publicly embraced that call, including the eight who helped boot McCarthy last year.

Newly elected Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good (R-Va.) brushed off questions about using the hardball tactic, saying he doesn’t “know anyone who doesn’t support [Johnson] personally.” Asked if the speaker should be fired, Davidson, another Freedom Caucus member, instead said that he “should never have been hired.”

Johnson shrugged off Roy’s criticism on Wednesday.

“Chip Roy is one of my closest friends. … What I’ve talked with him about is the reality of what is soon to be the smallest majority in the history of the Congress,” Johnson said. “We are going to advance the ball … and we are going to demonstrate that we can govern well.”

And Johnson’s allies are projecting confidence that his speakership is safe, even as Republicans face near-constant questions about his grip on the job.

“I think people can say what they want. I think the reality is nobody wants to go through another speaker campaign,” argued Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a nod to the three-week chaos the conference suffered in October, that finally ended with Johnson’s election by a unanimous GOP.

But even if the right flank isn’t ready to oust another speaker, he’s losing support. His conservative critics say they specifically elected him because they thought he’d fight for their priorities, and they’ve felt betrayed by his willingness to strike deals with Democrats — something Johnson’s allies argue is just a reality of governing when the other party controls the Senate and the White House.

“We’ve just got to have a backbone. … How much he’s willing to actually get in there and say no — you’ve got to learn to walk away from a bad deal. This is a bad deal by any stretch of the imagination,” Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said in a brief interview.

It also underscores Johnson’s uphill climb to shore up Republican votes for any shutdown-averting spending bills. Johnson declined to weigh in on the possibility of using another short-term funding patch to buy more time past Jan. 19, when the first tranche of funding will run out. The second shutdown deadline encompassing the rest of federal government spending hits on Feb. 2.

“There’s a lot of concern over the top line,” said Republican Study Committee Chair Kevin Hern (R-Okla.). “It’s going to be very difficult to get a large majority of Republicans to support it.”

House and Senate conservatives are scheduled to hold a press conference later Wednesday, urging leadership to shut down the government without new border restrictions. Johnson has not endorsed that threat, and a Senate group has worked to negotiate border policy changes that would be tied to a foreign aid package — not to keeping the government funded.

While Johnson can pass the bills without a chunk of Republicans, as long as he gets Democratic support, doing so would likely only deepen frustration within his own ranks.

Senate GOP leadership has acknowledged that there will likely need to be another short-term stopgap funding bill, known as a continuing resolution or a CR, to avoid a partial shutdown next week. A coalition of centrists and House Republicans tasked with negotiating government funding are also opening the door to that step.

As Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) put it: “Anybody that understands appropriations would have to agree that we’ve got to have a short-term CR.”