Tag

Slider

Browsing

California Assemblymember Evan Low launched his run Tuesday to represent wide swaths of Silicon Valley in Congress, offering himself as a new generation of leader with close ties to law enforcement and unveiling some big early endorsements to bolster his status in a competitive primary for the highly coveted blue seat.

“We need fighters and the Republican Party has been the party of Trump and I have been a fighter,” Low said in an interview with POLITICO ahead of the announcement. “And given that we have the most homophobic speaker in generations, the best way to combat that is to send more openly LGBT individuals to Congress.

Low leaned into his support from law enforcement and his work on tech issues, including chairing a caucus to advocate for one of California’s signature industries. His endorsements include a progressive stalwart from a neighboring district, Rep. Ro Khanna, as well as California Democratic Reps. Judy Chu and Mark Takano.

Low, previously served as mayor of the city of Campbell, becoming the youngest Asian American and youngest LGBTQ+ mayor in the country in 2009. His father was president of a local chamber of commerce and his brother is a police officer in San Jose.

After moving to the state Legislature, the five-term lawmaker established himself as a prominent voice on LGBTQ+ rights, violence against Asian Americans and tech industry issues. But his ambition to be Assembly speaker put him at odds with leaders in the chamber; in 2021, then-Speaker Anthony Rendon stripped him of a committee chairmanship, an unusually public rebuke for his behind-the-scenes politicking.

Low, 40, will likely make his youth, as well as his Chinese American background, a selling point of his campaign. A quarter of the district’s eligible voters are Asian American.

“It’s important and personal to me to continue the legacy of those that have come before me, like Norman Minetta and Mike Honda — two individuals who were in internment camps themselves, icons in our community,” he said.

He joins a burgeoning field of Democratic hopefuls eager for a shot at the solidly blue Bay Area district.

Santa Clara Supervisor Joe Simitian has had a federal campaign account open since January, giving him a sizable fundraising headstart with nearly $700,000 on hand as of the end of September. Low projected confidence that he’d be able to catch up quickly, pointing to his deep donor base with tech executives and national LGBT advocacy groups.

Former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, who previously considered taking on Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren in a neighboring Silicon Valley district, jumped in soon after Eshoo’s announcement.

State Sen. Josh Becker is also considering a run, while Low’s colleague in the Assembly, Palo Alto Democrat Marc Berman, has ruled it out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional Republicans are steeling themselves for a return to daily life with Donald Trump — which means constant, uncomfortable questions about his erratic policy whims and political attacks.

With Trump far ahead of the GOP primary pack and leading President Joe Biden in some polls, Republicans are getting a preview of future shellshock akin to their experiences in 2016 and his presidency. It’s likely to continue for the next 11 months. And perhaps four more years after that.

Trump’s recent call to replace the Affordable Care Act is triggering a particularly unwelcome sense of deja vu within the GOP. Even as many Senate Republicans steered away from Trump over the past couple years, now they’re increasingly resigned to another general election that could inundate them with the former president’s often fact-averse and hyperbolic statements.

But Hill Republicans are girding to treat Trump the third-time nominee the same way they did Trump the neophyte candidate and then president. They’re distancing themselves and downplaying his remarks, which touch on policy stresses like his urge to end Obamacare and political grievances like his vow to come down “hard” on MSNBC for its unfavorable coverage.

“He is almost a stream of consciousness,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), one of only three Senate Republicans who will remain in office after voting to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial — the other four have either already left or plan to next year. It’s “analogous to when every day he would tweet,” Cassidy added, “and 99 percent of the time it never came to anything.”

Even so, Trump’s return threatens to spark the same clashes with the Hill GOP that took a heavy political toll on the party, perhaps to an even stronger degree than his first term. Some potential flashpoints are evident in his agenda: Trump is likely to tap nominees who rankle Senate Republican leaders and pursue a polarizing bid to reshape the civil service into a less independent force.

Other sources of tension will be political. Trump could try to force an ouster of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, if the Kentucky Republican even tries to keep the top job under another Trump presidency. House Republicans could see their own leadership shakeup if Trump is elected, since the former president has the power to purge a leader he dislikes.

“One thing I’m pretty certain of is that the leadership is all up in the air. And I don’t think any of them survive after this term,” said Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), a Trump ally who recently began airing public criticisms of Speaker Mike Johnson.

Trump’s first four years as president were a time of nearly constant tension within the establishment GOP, which wanted another nominee in 2016 but gradually fell in line behind him. Those stresses boiled over after the violent riot of Jan. 6, 2021, with many Republicans savaging Trump for stoking the Capitol insurrection and 17 Republicans in both chambers opposing him at his second impeachment trial.

Most of those 17 Republicans will be gone from Congress by the end of 2024. Those who will remain are slowly resurrecting a familiar dynamic: pushing aside worries that he’ll lose again to Biden and minimizing his online screeds and less palatable policy proposals.

“I’m under no illusions what that would be like,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who served as the GOP whip during Trump’s first two years as president and voted to acquit Trump. “If it’s Biden and Trump, I’m gonna be supporting Trump. But that’s obviously not without its challenges.”

The retiring Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted to convict Trump at two impeachment trials, put it more bluntly. He recalled meeting with a health secretary during Trump’s administration to delve into the president’s policies: “They had nothing. No proposal, no outlines, no principles.”

“He says a lot of stuff that he has no intention of actually doing,” Romney said of Trump. “At some point, you stop getting worried about what he says and recognize: We’ll see what he does.”

Trump is paying little heed to how Republicans on Capitol Hill are reacting to his candidacy or plans for a second term. While only 13 of the 49 Republican senators have endorsed Trump, he has racked up over 80 House GOP endorsements and the list is expected to grow. In a statement, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said the former president’s “second term will be one for the ages” and attacked Biden.

Even for those who liked Trump’s policies during his term, his related slew of controversies is an inescapable part of the deal.

“We have a lot of people on our side that utilize Donald Trump for their political benefit,” Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) said, people who “get really tired of answering questions about Donald Trump. And I don’t think that’s fair to the president. You don’t get the good without … the whole package.”

Another House-Senate GOP split is also likely to emerge if Trump continues steaming toward the nomination. Senate Republicans can win back the majority next year even if he loses the presidential election, given their red-leaning map.

But in the House, Republicans’ future is more deeply intertwined with the vacillations of the mercurial ex-president. And many of Trump’s House GOP critics don’t even want to entertain the idea of trying to govern alongside him; in interviews, some simply shook their heads and furrowed their brows in feigned fatigue.

“Shit, yeah,” Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) replied when asked whether his colleagues are worried about clashing with Trump. “The orange Jesus?” he added with a laugh.

Trump’s allies argued that his second term would be smoother than the first, notwithstanding the reality of his chaotic exit from office and subsequent indictments.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), an influential voice on the House’s right flank, said Trump has “learned that there are people who [he] can trust and can’t trust.”

Miller, a former Trump aide, said that the presidential frontrunner would look more closely to “allies like me who are moderately pragmatic, that are all in on the America First agenda,” than more unpredictable conservatives like the eight (including Biggs) who voted to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He dismissed those Trump allies as “the freak shows within our party.”

Trump’s team is confident of their broader relationships in the House and predicted GOP senators would fall in line behind pro-Trump colleagues like Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio and Rick Scott of Florida. Indeed, Johnson has endorsed Trump for president and recently met with him at Mar-a-Lago on the sidelines of a political fundraiser at Trump’s club. The two men, who have a good relationship since Johnson’s days on the Judiciary Committee during Trump’s first impeachment, had a friendly conversation and smiled for a photo together.

Johnson also supported Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, as did most House Republicans. Most Senate Republicans, on the other hand, did not — which could mean more static toward McConnell and his allies should Trump reclaim the White House.

A Trump adviser laughed off a question about McConnell’s relationship with Trump, arguing “there’s not much that Trump hasn’t said on that himself.”

McConnell’s office declined to comment for this story. He’s made zero effort to rejuvenate his partnership with Trump, which crumbled after Jan. 6.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) argued that McConnell and Trump could still rekindle their partnership, “remembering that there’s pre-election and then there’s post-election. Things change after people become elected.”

Another Republican close to Trump’s campaign specifically mentioned Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), whose reelection Trump threatened to oppose, as a potential target of future ire. (Thune won his race handily in 2022.)

In an interview, Thune acknowledged that Trump was in a strong position but said he likes what he’s hearing from former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s presidential campaign. Thune advised fellow Republicans to “be prepared to respond to similar types of ideas and proposals and statements in the future” from Trump as the primary accelerates.

Other Republicans who served during the first Trump presidency are reluctant to make any predictions about the future — beyond expecting the unexpected.

Still, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said plenty in the GOP dread Trump’s return to the political spotlight but “everybody is being more private about it.”

“I wouldn’t expect him to be different,” Simpson said, adding that many colleagues worry about “four years of revenge … we just have to wait and see.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson signaled Saturday that he plans to tee up a formal vote on the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, calling it a “necessary step.”

“We’re being stonewalled by the White House, because they’re preventing at least two to three DOJ witnesses from coming forward, a former White House counsel, the national archives … the White House has withheld thousands of pages of evidence,” Johnson said in an interview on Fox News.

“I think it’s something we have to do at this juncture,” Johnson added.

The speaker’s comments came after several Republicans predicted Friday that a vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry would come before the House breaks for December recess.

The Biden administration has argued that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate since it has not yet been formalized by a House vote. Such a vote is not technically required, but has been used in the past to legitimize the process.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Saturday called the House vote to expel former Rep. George Santos a “regrettable day,” lamenting what he viewed as an affront to due process principles and the rule of law.

The House voted Friday to expel Santos 311-114, with 105 GOP members joining Democrats to oust their fellow Republican.

“We allowed [House Republicans] to have a vote of conscience,” said Johnson in an interview with Fox News. Johnson opposed Santos’ expulsion.

Santos’ tenure in Congress has been scandal-ridden: He initially told bold-faced lies about his education and resume. A recent House Ethics Committee report found substantial evidence that Santos used his House campaign for his own personal benefit, misusing funds and misleading donors. He now faces a 23-count federal indictment that accuses him of stealing the identities of campaign donors and using their credit cards in unauthorized charges.

However, Johnson noted, Santos has not yet been convicted on any of these charges.

“Our party believes in the rule of law and due process,” he said, arguing that expelling Santos was in conflict with Republican values.

Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik said during the joint interview that members who supported Santos’ expulsion had expressed concerns over the Ethics committee report’s findings. She dismissed questions about the dent in the already slim Republican majority and expressed optimism that the seat would be filled by another Republican.

“We saw a red wave on Long Island at the local level, so we’re very optimistic that we’ll have a strong candidate to join our Republican majority in February or March,” Stefanik said.

Sen. John Fetterman argued Friday that the successful expulsion of George Santos from the House should make clear that Sen. Bob Menendez, who is facing his own legal troubles, should not remain in his Senate seat.

Fetterman (D-Pa.) said on ABC’s “The View” Friday morning that he was “not surprised” Santos (R-N.Y.) was removed from Congress, but noted that “the more important picture is is that we have a colleague in the Senate that actually did much more sinister kinds of things.”

“Senator Menendez needs to go, and if you are going to expel Santos, how can you allow somebody like Menendez to remain in the Senate?” Fetterman asked. “He has the right for his day in court and all that but he doesn’t have the right to have those kinds of votes and things that — that’s not a right. And I think we need to make that kind of decision to send him out.”

Menendez “is really a senator for Egypt, not New Jersey,” Fetterman added.

In a statement to POLITICO, Menendez said “Mr. Fetterman appears to think he’s judge, jury, and executioner. The junior Senator from Pennsylvania seems to be more interested in clickbait than justice.”

“He cannot say he stands for core constitutional principles of due process and the presumption of innocence when he is actively working to undermine my rights. I’m confident when all the facts are presented, I will be exonerated and the Senator will have to eat his words,” Menendez continued.

Fetterman has previously called for the New Jersey Democrat’s resignation and said that he’d be open to backing Menendez’s expulsion, given his refusal to step down. Fetterman’s remarks Friday came after a bipartisan vote to expel Santos after a damning House Ethics Committee report accused the first-term lawmaker of misusing campaign funds.

Menendez was first indicted along with his wife on federal bribery and extortion charges in September for allegedly accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in cash, gold bars, a Mercedes-Benz C-300 convertible and home mortgage payments in exchange for using the senator’s position to benefit the businesspeople and the government of Egypt between 2018 and 2022. In October, federal prosecutors accused him of secretly acting as an agent of the government of Egypt, while serving as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The senator has pleaded not guiltyto all charges.

Although other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, including New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker, have also issued calls for Menendez’s resignation over the allegations, Fetterman has repeatedly raised his objections.

In October, Fetterman tweeted “would it be awkward to attend a classified briefing on Israel when you’ve been accused of being a foreign agent for, let’s say, a country like Egypt. Asking for a friend,” in a clear dig at Menendez. In November, Fetterman introduced a resolution that would strip senators indicted on offenses such as mishandling classified information or being a foreign agent of their committee assignments and other privileges.