NEW YORK — Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who rose to national prominence and popularity during the height of Covid, is about to face the most high-profile scrutiny yet for his handling of the pandemic — and he plans to mount an aggressive defense.

Cuomo will be publicly questioned Tuesday by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, a panel reviewing governmental responses to the public health crisis.

Republicans who control the hearing have signaled that they will grill him over his administration’s nursing home policies and why federally provided resources like the USNS Comfort hospital ship — sent to New York City to relieve health care providers — was barely used.

GOP lawmakers insist that the hearing is rooted in nonpartisan efforts to avoid mistakes during future crises and that Cuomo needs to answer questions. Cuomo’s team has telegraphed their disdain for the inquiry and accused Republicans of doing former President Donald Trump’s bidding.

The ex-governor rose to national stardom in the initial months of the pandemic, but later resigned amid sexual harassment allegations, which he has denied. After becoming ubiquitous — and gaining popularity — for his televised Covid briefings, his fall from grace was nothing short of epic.

The hearing is being held at a delicate time for him: Cuomo has been weighing a potential comeback via a run for New York City mayor or even his old job in Albany as the state’s chief executive.

Framing Tuesday’s questioning as a partisan exercise against him comes with a clear advantage.

And while it might help that more than four years since the onset of the pandemic Covid is not as politically potent an issue for voters, the Tuesday appearance may not reflect that general reality for Cuomo.

“For most New Yorkers, life is as close to back to normal as possible,” Siena College pollster Steve Greenberg said. “But Republicans asking Cuomo about what happened in the early days of the pandemic and how that hearing goes could absolutely trigger significant memories for a lot of New Yorkers.”

Cuomo, who was governor of New York for 10 years until his 2021 resignation, is well-versed in how to spar with members of Congress. He appeared before lawmakers multiple times while working in the Clinton administration as the Housing secretary. Cuomo spoke to the subcommittee in a private session earlier this year.

In such settings, Cuomo can be equal parts combative and lawyerly.

The impact of the hearing, too, may be muted. It’s being held the same day as Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris hold their first televised debate.

Exactly what he’ll face is not entirely clear, but it almost certainly will not be easy.

Republicans on the subcommittee set to question Cuomo say it’s valuable to gain insight on the decisions that were made — especially when it came to the state requirement issued in March 2020 that nursing homes and adult living facilities not turn away Covid-positive patients.

“Thousands of New Yorkers died,” Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, the sole New Yorker on the subcommittee, said in an interview. “They were Republicans, independents, Democrats. It really has nothing to do with politics, and it’s about getting answers and accountability for these families.”

Cuomo has tried to “dodge and stonewall” the subcommittee, she said.

“He shows no remorse,” Malliotakis said. “No accountability and no remorse.”

Republicans intend to ask Cuomo about his administration’s requirement that long-term care facilities and nursing homes not turn away Covid-positive patients — a directive issued amid concerns New York’s hospital system would be overrun with sick people.

Aside from that, the federal indictment this month of Linda Sun, a former state employee accused of acting as an unregistered agent of the Chinese government, could also come into play.

Sun, who worked for both Cuomo and his successor, Gov. Kathy Hochul, helped secure personal protective equipment and ventilators from Chinese representatives and business leaders, according to her indictment. The state was later billed $700,000 for the equipment.

But while some GOP lawmakers want to keep the focus on Cuomo, the former governor will likely try to tie them to Trump.

Cuomo has long taken the view that criticism of his handling of the pandemic and the nursing home order — which was rescinded more than a month after it was issued — are rooted in Trumpian attacks.

In his Covid-era memoir, “American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Cuomo wrote that nursing home accusations were, in part, stirred by “Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post” in an attempt by Republicans to cast blame on Democratic governors for the death toll.

Cuomo has long asserted the state was relying on guidance from the federal government and that the nursing home order was legal. The state order itself did not cite federal guidelines.

Cuomo and his top aides in 2020 actively covered up nursing home deaths and undercounted how many people died in the facilities, according to a 48-page memo released by the GOP-led subcommittee on Monday.

The memo, first reported by the Times Union of Albany, details how Cuomo tried to manage the public relations fallout over the nursing home order by withholding and manipulating data in a public state report issued in July 2020.

Cuomo’s spokesperson called the House Republicans’ memo “all smoke and mirrors.”

Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson has blasted the former governor for a “nursing home massacre” and Cuomo spokesperson Rich Azzopardi believes the rhetoric from GOP lawmakers is a sign the hearing will be stacked against the former governor.

In an interview, Azzopardi unspooled a string of invective against subcommittee Republicans in response, accusing them of attempting to “run interference” for Trump and downplaying the actions Trump took as president during the pandemic.

“This MAGA committee of foot doctors, disgraced, demoted, naval captains-slash-Trump physicians and Q-Anon nuts are running interference for Trump and his Covid mismanagement,” he said. “Anyone with a brain in their head sees that.”

And yet Democrats on the select panel aren’t jumping to Cuomo’s defense.

They have made clear the hearing will spotlight Trump’s handling of the pandemic ahead of the November election, and that the panel should take an “objective look at the missteps that allowed COVID-19 to spread in our nation’s nursing homes — including the Trump Administration’s failure to ensure adequate supply of testing and PPE that paved the way for the virus to ravage our most vulnerable.”

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report. 

NEW YORK — Justice Elena Kagan is keeping up her public drive for an enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court’s ethics code despite strident criticism from some voices on the right and skepticism about it among some legal ethics scholars.

“It seems like a good idea in terms of ensuring that we comply with our own code of conduct going forward in the future. It seems like a good idea in terms of ensuring that people have confidence that we’re doing exactly that,” Kagan said during an appearance Monday at New York University School of Law. “So, it seems like a salutary thing for the court.”

Kagan effusively praised the ethics code the high court adopted last November under intense pressure from Democratic lawmakers that followed a series of press reports about undisclosed gifts to some of her colleagues and behind-the-scenes efforts to influence the justices.

“I think it’s a good ethics code,” Kagan said, adding that some departures from rules for lower-court judges were justified by the Supreme Court’s unique role atop the judicial branch.

However, Kagan also defended her call — first issued at a judicial conference in California in July — for an external enforcement mechanism that could be overseen by retired or highly experienced judges. She scoffed at the notion that such a panel would be too deferential to the justices.

“Judges … they’re not so afraid of us,” Kagan said. “I think that that’s in the picking, basically. And I think that there are plenty of judges around this country who could do a task like that in a very fair minded and serious way.”

The Obama appointee also said she did not think such a mechanism would produce a flurry of frivolous allegations against the justices. The panel charged with enforcement could sort out meritless allegations, she said.

Kagan did not say whether her colleagues have privately discussed an enforcement regime or where they stand on it, although Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in a recent interview that she was open to it.

Kagan also declined to address a report in ProPublica that the the head of a conservative group that regularly brings cases to the high court, Kelly Shackelford of the First Liberty Institute, described earlier comments by Kagan on the subject as “somewhat treasonous.”

Kagan joked that the description sounded akin to being “somewhat pregnant,” but wouldn’t address it directly. “I don’t want to dignify it any further,” she said.

Shackelford wrote to Kagan Monday apologizing for the comment, First Liberty spokesperson Hiram Sasser said. “Kelly sent a letter saying he should not have assumed she was inviting other branches to control the court and he should not have used that word,” Sasser said.

Even as Kagan leaned into her call for an enforcement mechanism, she retreated from a suggestion she made last year that Congress’ power to dictate ethics rules for the court was well established.

“Can Congress do various things to regulate the Supreme Court? I think the answer is: yes,” she told a judicial conference in Oregon last summer. Her comment was a riposte to Justice Samuel Alito, who has said the Constitution didn’t give Congress power to dictate the court’s ethics processes.

On Monday, Kagan said she was steering clear of commenting on Congress’ power. “I don’t want to say anything about that because, you know, one day, who knows, I might have to decide a case involving that,” she said.

Kagan didn’t explain or acknowledge the shift, but in July President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris — who is the Democratic presidential nominee — endorsed the notion of a law imposing an externally-enforced ethics code for the high court, as well as term limits for justices.

During an hourlong on-stage interview at a luncheon for a women’s legal leadership center, NYU Professor Melissa Murray asked Kagan about future consequences of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning the federal constitutional right to abortion. Justice Clarence Thomas suggested at the time that precedents guaranteeing rights to contraception and same-sex marriage might also someday be overturned under the same legal rationale.

“This analysis that you’ve just applied to abortion … it applies to a lot of other things,” said Kagan, who dissented from the court’s far-reaching abortion ruling two years ago. “Just as a matter of logic, that point is true,” the justice added, although she stopped short of saying whether she thought the high court would move toward repealing those other rights anytime soon, or ever.

Kagan also shared some details about the justices’ private pastimes, including that one topic of behind-the-scenes chatter at the court is golf. “Justice Kavanaugh is a good golfer and the chief justice is a good golfer,” Kagan said, adding that Chief Justice John Roberts’ wife, Jane Roberts, is “very good, too.”

Kagan said the shared interest in golf contributes to the court’s camaraderie, but should only matter to the public if it leads the justices to more give-and-take with their colleagues about the court’s official business. On that score, she was more opaque, saying: “The proof is in the pudding, right?”

Former President Donald Trump’s proposal to have government or insurance companies cover IVF was an unprecedented shift last week — and Republicans are split on whether to support it.

Two prominent Republican senators — both strong supporters of Trump — took different approaches to the issue of in vitro fertilization on Sunday morning, highlighting the split in the party over whether to support the measure.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) supported the new IVF proposal, adding that he believed most Republicans would be open to the idea. The Arkansas senator said that the fiscal impact and “whether the taxpayer can afford to pay for this.”

“Well, all Republicans, to my knowledge, support IVF, in the Congress. And there’s no state that prohibits or regulates IVF in a way that makes it inaccessible,” Cotton said in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It is expensive for many couples. I understand that. So, it’s something I’m open to, that most Republicans would be open to.”

He added, “In principle, supporting couples who are trying to use IVF or other fertility treatments, I don’t think is something that’s controversial at all.”

But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) disagreed: The South Carolina senator said he would not support mandating insurance coverage of IVF “because there’s no end to that.” Instead he said he would prefer a tax credit in an interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC’s “This Week.”

“We have tax credits for people who have children. Maybe we should have a means-tested tax credit for people using IVF and other treatments to become pregnant,” Graham said. “I would support a tax credit, means-tested, kind of like we do with children, that makes sense to me, to encourage people to have children.”

IVF became a major campaign issue in February when the Alabama Supreme Court declared frozen embryos to be children under state law, which led to the possibility that medical professionals could be criminally prosecuted for embryos that are lost in the process.

Both Republicans were among 47 Republicans who voted against a bill in June designed to expand access to IVF and other fertility treatments. Two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, supported the measure, which Cotton on Sunday referred to as “Chuck Schumer’s ridiculous messaging bill.”

As for Trump’s unprecedented call for public funding for IVF, Graham said Trump is “just trying to show his support for IVF treatments.”

“We’ve been accused — the party has — of being a bit against birth control. We’re not,” Graham said. “We’ve been accused of being against IVF treatments. We’re not.”

American leaders expressed their frustration and anger Sunday morning after Hamas murdered six Israeli hostages, including Israeli-American Hersh Goldberg-Polin.

“I am just absolutely heartbroken for Hersh’s family, for the families of these other hostages that were butchered by these Hamas terrorists,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” noting Goldberg-Polin was from California. “I hope and pray, I think as we all do, that there’s a negotiated end to this war, and soon, and that not another innocent person loses their life.”

On Sunday, Israel reported the body of Goldberg-Polin, 23, was recovered alongside five other hostages: Ori Danino, Eden Yerushalmi, Almog Sarusi, Alexander Lobanov, and Carmel Gat. IDF spokesperson Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani said in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday morning that the hostages were killed shortly before their bodies were found in an underground tunnel in Rafah.

“This is a very sad morning in Israel, very sad news coming out of the Gaza Strip announcing today after we were able to talk to the families and inform them about finding the bodies of their loved ones,” Shoshani said Sunday morning. “We examined them and we found that they were murdered by Hamas recently. We were able to inform the families about it and share the news today, the very, very sad news about them.”

The reports about the death of the hostages served as a stark reminder of the human cost of the ongoing war in Gaza that began with Hamas’ attacks last Oct. 7 on Israeli territory. The news was also another setback in the quest for peace and made clear there’s no immediate end in sight to the conflict.

Goldberg-Polin, who was captured during a music festival in Israel, became one of the most well-known American faces of the hostages. His parents, Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg-Polin, spoke at the Democratic National Convention, urging for a ceasefire deal and release of the hostages less than two weeks ago.

Vice President Kamala Harris offered her condolences and support to Hersh’s families in a statement early Sunday morning. She later spoke to Hersh’s parents later in the day, alongside her husband, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, she said in a post on X.

“Hamas is an evil terrorist organization. With these murders, Hamas has even more American blood on its hands,” Harris said in a statement Sunday morning. “I strongly condemn Hamas’ continued brutality, and so must the entire world.”

And President Joe Biden said he was “devastated and outraged” and called Goldberg-Polin’s death “tragic and reprehensible.” “Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes. And we’ll continue working towards a deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages,” Biden said in a statement.

Republicans criticized Biden and Harris for their handling of the hostage crisis. Former President Donald Trump reiterated his belief on Truth Social that the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel would have never happened under a Trump administration: “The Hostage Crisis in Israel is only taking place because Comrade Kamala Harris is weak and ineffective, and has no idea what she’s doing,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“What are they going to pay? I mean, what’s the price?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on ABC’s “This Week” in response to Biden saying Hamas will pay. “They destroyed a lot of Gaza. They put their own people in harm’s way. Hamas could care less about the Palestinian people.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said that Biden and Harris need to put more pressure on Hamas and Iran: “I would urge him to finish the job against Hamas, which is exactly what Kamala Harris and Joe Biden should’ve done from the very beginning,” he said in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Ronen and Orna Neutra, parents of Israeli-American hostage Omer Neutra who is still being held, recently spoke at the Republican National Convention about freeing the hostage. They called on the administration to do everything possible to free their son and the remaining hostages on Sunday morning after the news of Goldberg-Polin’s murder.

“We are calling on President Biden and vice president Harris to do everything in our power to reach a deal and bring the hostages back,” Ronen Neutra said in an interview with Bash on “State of the Union.” “We were warning about that kind of situation.”

Schiff, a Democrat running for Senate in California, defended the Biden administration saying that they are doing everything he can. But he also acknowledged the limitations of the American government.

“We’re not putting boots on the ground in these tunnels under Gaza, so it is a very difficult situation in terms of our own ability to rescue these hostages,” Schiff said in an interview with Bash. “But I really sincerely believe the administration is doing everything possible.”

Jonathan Dekel-Chen, the father of one Israeli-American hostage still held captive, reaffirmed the building internal pressure and criticism on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reach a deal. Mass protests in Israel had already been putting pressure on Netanyahu to bring the hostages home, but news of the death of the six ratcheted up their size and intensity, with the Jerusalem Post reporting that 300,000 gathered Sunday in Tel Aviv.

“Israelis at large, and myself included, have been extremely critical of the Israeli government for not negotiating in good faith now, for many, many months,” Dekel-Chen said in an interview with Nancy Cordes on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, adding that only Netanyahu and Hamas’ Yahya Sinwar (“with the blood of thousands on his hands”) have the power to end the carnage.

Dekel-Chen added, “There is no explanation, a reasonable explanation why our government is refusing to deeply engage in these negotiations and complete them, when our entire senior military establishment and intelligence community has been saying publicly and openly for weeks and months that the time has come to end the fighting in Gaza get our hostages home, as many alive as possible.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), in an interview with Welker, also noted the increased pressure on Netanyahu to reach an agreement, including from hostage families.

“What we need now is an end to the war,” Khanna said. “And we need to continue to pressure Hamas to unconditionally release the hostages, but the hostage families themselves are saying that Netanyahu needs to actually be in the negotiation.”

Khanna added that Netanyahu’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has also criticized the prime minister for not withdrawing troops from the Philadelphi Corridor along the border between Gaza and Egypt, as requested by Egypt and the United States deal. “I hope there’s going to be pressure on Hamas and Netanyahu to end this war, release the hostages,” he said.

Some of the House GOP’s most vulnerable members told Speaker Mike Johnson in a private GOP call on Wednesday that they’re worried his spending strategy heightens the risk of an electorally damaging government shutdown.

During a private, 30-minute call with GOP lawmakers Wednesday, Johnson laid out his plan to quickly pass a spending bill that would punt the current Oct. 1 shutdown deadline into March. He’s also going to attach legislation that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. It’s the exact strategy pushed by House conservatives, and will almost certainly be rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Right now, it’s not even clear it has enough GOP support to pass the House.

New York Rep. Nick LaLota, a vulnerable first-term Republican, asked Johnson on the call what the speaker would do if the Senate rejected that package and instead sent back a straightforward funding bill without the voting policy proposal, known as the SAVE Act. LaLota argued that allowing a shutdown would mean 10 vulnerable GOP incumbents lose their races in November — enough that Republicans would lose control of the House — according to two people on the call.

The speaker declined to answer how he would respond in that situation, saying he didn’t want his plans to leak to the press. He also argued: You don’t go into a fight planning to fail.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), whom Democrats are also targeting in November, also pressed leadership during the call and sought clarity about the strategy behind the funding plan, a person familiar with her comments confirmed. She asked: “How long do we take this? Is the intent to message ‘Dems oppose SAVE,’ but are we going to take this to a shutdown?”

It’s a familiar House Republican fight, but the political stakes are significantly higher this time. Vulnerable members don’t want to flirt with a shutdown so close to the election, especially when the ultimate outcome — a clean spending bill with no policy bills attached — feels inevitable. Plus, with centrists nervous about prompting a shutdown and some conservatives planning to oppose the spending bill regardless of policy riders, the strategy could mean Johnson and House Republicans tee up a bill that can’t even pass their own chamber.

Johnson outlined his thinking for taking that risk on the call, arguing that Congress would need another six months to reconcile the $100-billion difference between Republican House and Democratic Senate leaders on topline spending numbers. If they kicked the deadline into December as Democrats want, Johnson argued, they’d likely just need another short-term patch and have to deal with a spending fight at Christmas. And attaching the SAVE Act was important to show Republican voters that the party cares about elections, he said.

Plus, the speaker noted a new March deadline could give former President Donald Trump the chance to influence spending, if he wins the presidency.

Republican leaders want to put the conservative-favored stopgap government funding bill on the floor for a vote next week. Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) told lawmakers on the call that he’ll start whipping the funding plan on Monday night, when his team will meet in person for the first time since late July.

Most Republicans on the appropriations committee, as well as some members of leadership, also prefer a stopgap bill that goes into early December. Still, many are unlikely to buck Johnson on the floor.

Those governing-minded Republicans aren’t planning to oppose a short-term funding patch, known as a continuing resolution or a CR, that includes the SAVE Act, at least not yet. But they view it as an opening move Johnson is making to placate spending-weary conservatives, not as an actual solution. Ultimately, they have no interest in shutting down the government or getting into a preelection standoff with Democrats.

“You realize the federal law already says that … you have to be a citizen to vote. So, from my perspective, I hope it doesn’t hold up the funding,” said Rep. Larry Buschon (R-Ind.).

“I think that ultimately we will … pass a clean CR into early December.”

Further complicating matters, Johnson could also face pushback from his right flank on his funding plan. Some conservatives vowed last year to oppose any short-term funding patch — a dynamic that could easily tank the GOP’s vote count, especially if centrists aren’t on board.

The ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus last month called on leadership to tee up a continuing resolution into early 2025 with the voting bill attached, taking an official position that requires the support of 80 percent of its members. But some members who oppose any stop-gap funding bill are privately complaining about that position, according to a person familiar, granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics.

Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.), a Freedom Caucus member who is retiring from Congress, appeared to hint at that frustration on Wednesday, predicting that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would just reject any spending bill House Republicans pass that includes their proposal on non-citizen voting.

“He will reject it when tied to a CR,” he said in a post on X. “We should be focusing on passing ALL 12 appropriations bills!”

A spokesperson for Rosendale said that the Montana Republican “has always been and continues to be against any form of a CR.”

Still, conservatives who support the spending strategy are hoping that Trump will bring some skeptics over to their side. They also argue some of the anti-CR sentiments last year were driven by animosity toward then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy.