House and Senate Republicans are sending more signals they doubt their ability to pass a new, bipartisan farm bill this year.

Their latest suggestion of looming defeat: Lawmakers are currently weighing whether to put Biden-era conservation programs into their party-line megabill that might have otherwise been included in their separate reauthorization of federal farm programs, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

One of the people said it’s “likely” that Republicans will pull unspent conservation program dollars from the Democrats’ 2022 climate law into their party-line megabill to continue funding those popular programs. But Republicans will also likely push to remove climate-related guardrails on those climate law initiatives as they have during previous negotiations.

GOP lawmakers previously rejected a similar push from Democrats to add conservation money to the farm bill; now, they are open to adding certain programs to the other pending piece of legislation as U.S. producers grapple with economic headwinds and an outdated farm safety net.

Republicans are also considering including two key farm bill provisions — increased reference prices and updated crop insurance for farmers — into the legislation that would enact broad swaths of President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda, one of those people said.

The House Agriculture Committee is due next week to mark up its component of the major package of tax cuts and extensions, border security investments, energy policy and more. The biggest fight is set to be over the level of cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is worrying to many Republicans who don’t want their constituents to lose food aid benefits.

But conservatives outside the committee who typically vote against major agricultural subsidies could eventually shoot down the inclusion of any farm provisions, making this gambit a risky move for when the full party-line package comes to the House floor and GOP leaders can only afford to lose a handful of votes.

Rep. Elise Stefanik and Speaker Mike Johnson met Wednesday afternoon after tensions between the two boiled over this week.

The relationship between the two senior Republicans has deteriorated after President Donald Trump pulled Stefanik’s nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations — a move Stefanik allies blame on Johnson after Trump cited the slim House GOP majority. Two people with direct knowledge of the meeting described it as a step to possibly settle the situation.

Their flare-up spilled further into public view this week after Johnson suggested he had talked with Stefanik about her possible bid for New York governor, prompting her to post on X that it was not true. A New York Times story published Wednesday further explored the tensions, quoting Stefanik telling Johnson she was the “angriest member” he’d have to deal with.

After Wednesday’s meeting, Johnson downplayed any tensions: “She’s a close friend, trusted friend,” he said.

Asked if he had reached a detente with Stefanik, Johnson laughed. “No, no,” he said. “This is a totally friendly, collegial thing. She’s a close friend and ally.”

One flashpoint has been Johnson’s announced plan to put Stefanik back on the House Intelligence Committee — something that has yet to happen. Johnson said Wednesday he intended to follow through “as soon as possible.”

House Judiciary Committee Republicans backtracked on a plan Wednesday to centralize all antitrust activities within the Justice Department as they debate their portion of the party-line megabill.

“The amendment also removes the section that would consolidate antitrust enforcement authorities and resources in the DOJ antitrust division,” House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said at the markup, as he announced his amended version of the package.

This is a significant reversal after the GOP majority sought to yank antitrust responsibilities from the Federal Trade Commission, a move long sought by conservatives. The attempt to enact the change via the megabill was one of the most promising chances for Republicans to deliver on President Donald Trump’s agenda this Congress.

Democrats and some conservative antitrust proponents criticized the proposed consolidation of antitrust powers.

No reason for the reversal was immediately available. Jordan’s office did not immediately respond to questions.

The markup of the Judiciary Committee’s section of the megabill is ongoing, and committees of jurisdiction will continue to mark up their portions of the package over the coming weeks.

The Senate Commerce Committee appeared poised Wednesday morning to narrowly advance a bill to make daylight saving time permanent — a sign that lawmakers are coalescing around ending the practice of changing clocks twice a year. But the panel still remains deeply divided over whether to embrace permanent daylight saving time or standard time.

“There are times when you have a hearing on a bill, and you’re trying to move forward with a bill, and you think there’s a clear right answer — this is not one of those times, at least for me,” said committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “The testimony we heard at the hearing … persuaded me that we should lock the clock, that the practice of springing forward and falling backward every year doesn’t make sense.”

Cruz went on to vote to advance the legislation from Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), which would move to make daylight saving time the default, resulting in more daylight in the evening hours with less in the morning, and bring to a halt biannual clock adjustments. Cruz amended the bill beforehand to allow a two-year window for states to decide whether or not they want to use daylight saving time or standard time permanently.

President Donald Trump earlier this month endorsed daylight saving time following a hearing on the matter.

Ultimately, the 16-12 vote will have to be repeated at a later date when more senators are physically present: too many voted by proxy. The final tally, though, provided an important window into where lawmakers currently stand.

The vote breakdown on either side of the issue did not fall at all neatly along party lines. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota, Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas were among the Republicans who voted “no.” So did Democrats including Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — a member of her party’s leadership team — alongside Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois.

Meanwhile, Republicans joining Cruz in voting “yes” included Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Sens. John Curtis of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming. Democrats supporting moving forward with the bill included ranking member Maria Cantwell of Washington, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts — a longtime advocate of the proposal — and Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii — who is running to be the next Democratic whip.

There are “serious arguments on both sides” on whether to use daylight saving or standard time, Cruz said, citing witness testimony from the panel’s hearing this month about economic benefits for daylight saving time for golf courses and entertainment venues, while doctors argued more morning light with standard time can be better for health.

“Reasonable people can differ,” Cruz said, noting Texas is considering a referendum on the issue that he hopes will occur and making the case that states should have leeway to decide.

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), who opposed the bill Wednesday, proposed but quickly withdrew an amendment that would have renamed the bill the “Make America Rested Again Act” and made permanent standard time the law of the land. Permanent daylight saving time, he argued, would make the sun rise after 9 a.m. in some of parts of his state in the winter months. Young also said there should be more debate and analysis on whether to use permanent standard or daylight time.

“Moving to permanent standard time is widely recognized as the healthiest option for promoting better sleep, alertness and overall well-being,” Young said. “After surveying constituents across Indiana in recent weeks, it’s clear to me there is no single right way to approach the issue of time. Regional differences play an important factor in these decisions.”

The Commerce Committee hearing, followed quickly by Trump’s comments in favor of permanent daylight saving time, have reignited a lobbying battle, with golf and retail interests favoring daylight saving time and sleep doctors and Christian radio broadcasters favoring standard time.

The Senate in 2022 passed legislation to make daylight saving time the status quo by unanimous consent, a move that surprised some senators since the procedure is usually reserved for noncontroversial issues. It died in the House.

Republican hard-liners say a bill to restore the District of Columbia local budget and forestall planned layoffs doesn’t have votes to pass the House without conservative policy add-ons, according to three people with direct knowledge of the matter.

Those could include a provision blocking noncitizens from voting in D.C., which is one option the hard-liners have raised with senior Republicans in recent weeks. The three people were granted anonymity to describe the private talks.

District officials say they’re facing a $1 billion funding shortfall after House Republicans inadvertently reverted city spending to prior-year spending levels in the latest government funding bill. A fix passed the Senate unanimously but despite support from President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to move it forward in the House.

D.C. allows noncitizens to vote in local elections under a 2022 law that first took effect last year. The House voted last year to overturn the law.

GOP Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, said in a WTOP radio interview Tuesday that he and other conservatives oppose the Senate-passed measure and are seeking to “put some guardrails on the spending” done by D.C.’s local government.

“The bill is not ready for prime time in the House,” he said. D.C. largely governs itself under a 51-year-old home rule arrangement, though Congress retains ultimate constitutional power over the capital city.

Harris did not mention the noncitizen voting law but cited city policies surrounding reparations for slavery and abortion funding as reasons for congressional intervention, as well as the Washington Commanders stadium deal announced this week, saying “there are some people who question whether those are responsible uses of money.”

The usually cutthroat House Oversight and Government Reform Committee put partisanship on a brief pause Wednesday morning to offer bipartisan prayers and support for outgoing ranking member Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who unexpectedly announced Monday he will soon step aside amid the return of his esophageal cancer.

The panel started a contentious hearing on its portion of the GOP party-line megabill, including major overhauls to federal employee retirement benefits, with kind words for their absent colleague who represents more federal workers than any other member of Congress.

“We don’t always agree, but I will tell you, I think he is a tremendous legislator,” said committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.). “I think that Ranking Member Connolly is a role model for what a good member of Congress should be. He fights for what he believes in. He’s honest, and he tries to do what he thinks is best, and we, all the Republicans on our side of the aisle appreciate and respect Gerry Conley and wish him a speedy recovery.”

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), who was asked by Connolly to fill in as ranking member on an interim basis, stressed that Connolly — who also said he will not run for reelection — has not yet left his post.

“Gerry Connolly is still involved here, so he is whispering in my ear,” said Lynch. “I know it pains him greatly not to be part of this, but I hope that his presence and his love and his long time advocacy on behalf of federal employees has an impact on this hearing and on the votes that we will take from the course of this day.”

Tennessee Republican Rep. Tim Burchett asked his colleagues to join him in a prayer for the panel’s top Democrat.

“We just ask for his healing and thank you, Lord, for bringing him into our lives,” said Burchett. “We don’t agree on anything, but I love him like a brother.”

Republicans’ drive toward the “big, beautiful bill” is starting to hit some big potholes.

As lawmakers get into gear on extending President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, cracks are deepening on critical issues, including Medicaid, food aid and even lower-profile issues like transportation funding. Lawmakers are also getting impatient for more details about the plans from leaders, including on lifting caps on deductions for state and local taxes.

“We’re in the seventh or eighth inning of this game. At some point in time, leadership and/or the committee need to reveal part of their hand,” Rep. Nick LaLota told reporters, adding he expects a number on how much leaders are planning to lift the SALT cap from a meeting Wednesday. “[It’s been] mostly pleasant the last few months, mostly because we haven’t been specific.”

Here are the key headaches they have to solve:

MEDICAID — House Speaker Mike Johnson has a deepening challenge on his hands: How to deal with the safety-net health program millions of Republican voters rely on. Couple that with blue-state Republicans’ push to boost the SALT cap, and he’s got a big math problem that could delay the GOP’s bid to extend Trump’s tax cuts.

Key vulnerable House Republicans like David Valadao and Don Bacon are raising red flags about the extent of potential spending cuts, as POLITICO reported Tuesday afternoon.

LaLota told reporters Tuesday he wants to hear more from Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie about how capping federal spending in states that have expanded Medicaid would impact recipients.

“My sense is that would be a cut, and I’m not in favor of that,” LaLota said. Guthrie is huddling with concerned members Wednesday.

SNAP — The White House won’t support a proposal to push some nutrition program costs onto states, House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson said Tuesday. That throws a wrench in his plans to scale back federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in order to reach their target of $230 billion in spending cuts.

Now he’s waiting to see if Republican leadership lowers the savings target. “If it’s $230 billion, I don’t think that’s an appropriate number” absent the cost-sharing arrangement, he said.

VEHICLE FEES — Johnson and other Republicans were hesitant about a proposal to create a $20 annual fee on passenger cars in the Transportation and Infrastructure portion of the package unveiled Tuesday. The speaker said it wasn’t his “priority.” Fiscal hawk Rep. Chip Roy was more direct in his opposition, calling it a “gimmick.”

And as of early Wednesday morning, the proposal is kaput: T&I Chair Sam Graves plans to eliminate the universal fee in a manager’s amendment expected to be offered at a morning markup, Chris Marquette reports. The EV fees will not only remain, but go even higher.

FEDERAL PENSIONS — On Oversight, Rep. Mike Turner said he would oppose the committee’s proposal to slash federal employee retirement benefits as a way of offsetting the cost of the larger legislation. The panel is tasked with finding $50 billion in savings, much of which is expected to come from changes borne by the federal workforce.

“These pensions are not giveaways — they are promises to federal workers in exchange for their dedicated service,” Turner said in a statement.

CARRIED INTEREST — House Republicans might be souring on Trump’s proposal to kill a tax break favored by Wall Street. Ways and Means has privately indicated it’s not leaning toward closing so-called carried interest loophole in the package, according to one House Republican and another person familiar with the private conversations. One House Republican said they are “talking about it” but indicated it’s unlikely to survive.

What else we’re watching:

— Judiciary markup: House Judiciary will mark up its portion of GOP megabill Wednesday, which includes more than just the expected immigration provisions. The bill hands Trump a new swath of executive powers: It would consolidate the federal government’s antitrust enforcement powers at the Justice Department and supercharge the GOP’s deregulatory agenda. House Oversight, Financial Services and Transportation and Infrastructure will also mark up their portions of the GOP party-line bill Wednesday.

— Tariff talk: Senate Majority Leader John Thune is cracking down on members of his conference still squeamish over Trump’s trade strategy as Democrats and GOP Sen. Rand Paul push a vote Wednesday to reject the president’s use of emergency powers to impose blanket global tariffs. After four Republicans joined Democrats in rejecting the emergency Trump was using to justify his tariffs on Canadian imports, Thune warned GOP senators in a private lunch Tuesday with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer not to cross party lines again.

— Dems 100 days in: Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries will continue hammering the second Trump administration’s first 100 days in a joint appearance on the Capitol steps Wednesday afternoon. But even as Democrats cast Trump as their unifying force, fissures remain in their resistance strategy.

Benjamin Guggenheim, Meredith Lee Hill and Grace Yarrow contributed to this report.

A proposal to create a new $20 fee on most passenger cars to help pay for Trump administration priorities may already be in danger thanks to Republicans loathe to create a new fee.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.) released the details Tuesday of his committee’s contribution to the larger GOP megabill ahead of a planned Wednesday markup, which included the $20 annual fee indexed to inflation.

Graves said it is intended to lay the foundation for eventually doing away with the federal gasoline tax, which has helped pay for transportation projects since it was established in 1932. For now, though, the fee, which would be levied on gas-powered passenger cars, would be additive.

But Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) was outraged by the proposal and put it forward as an example of why he’s skeptical about how much the Republicans’ party-line package of tax cuts, border security investments, energy policies and more will actually reduce the federal deficit.

“Like, are you out of your fricking mind?” Roy said Tuesday upon reviewing the proposal. “Like, the party of limited government is gonna go out and, ‘say we’re gonna have [a car tax]?’”

“You know what I was told? ‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll get rid of it later in the highway bill,’” Roy continued. He said the message he received is that the car tax is “a gimmick to pay for this, so we know that we’re not actually gonna pay for it. That’s how this town works.”

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) said when the committee convenes to vote on the matter, he’s planning to vote “no,” calling the language “problematic.”

He said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) is working on an amendment that would modify the language, though he didn’t elaborate. Perry’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“We’re trying to get the message to leadership that there’s got to be a better way to find the funds than to create a new national vehicle registration fee,” Burlison said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson separately told reporters the proposed fee wasn’t a priority of his, but also didn’t oppose the idea — a least not publicly.

These early reactions from some Republicans don’t bode well for the proposal. But if Graves succeeds, it would mark the first meaningful change to the excise tax revenues that pay for federal transportation projects since Bill Clinton was president — and a major move away from the political inaction on funding deficits that has been the cornerstone of the country’s transportation policy for decades.

Graves’ proposal would call for state departments of transportation to collect the fee and remit it to the Federal Highway Administration. It wouldn’t take effect until Oct. 1, 2030, and would expire four years later unless Congress renews it. Actually doing away with the gasoline tax would require subsequent legislation, as well.

House Education and Workforce Committee Republicans advanced draft legislation Tuesday to slash billions of dollars to student aid programs to help offset the cost of legislation to enact President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda.

Chair Tim Walberg’s plan, which advanced in a 21-14 party-line vote, would make major changes to federal student aid programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and is estimated to produce $351 billion in savings, according to a preliminary score from the Congressional Budget Office — exceeding the $330 billion in cuts the panel was tasked with finding to help pay for the larger package of tax cuts, border security investments, energy policy and more.

“Higher education is at an inflection point,” Walberg of Michigan said in his opening remarks. “We are on a fiscally unsustainable path, so we must deliver on the promise of economic mobility to our students and families.”

The measure, dubbed the “Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan,” includes significant changes to the Pell Grant like addressing the shortfall in funding and adjusting eligibility for the award. It also would place stricter limits on federal loans borrowers can take out,; repeal regulations related to gainful employment and borrower defense; and include a risk-sharing provision that would put schools on the hook for a portion of unpaid student loan balances.

It also would incorporate a risk-sharing provision that would put schools on the hook for a portion of unpaid student loan balances. Many of the plan’s provisions stem from Republicans’ signature higher education bill known as the College Cost Reduction Act, which has stalled on Capitol Hill.

In a major rebuke of former President Joe Biden’s student loan plans that Republicans have long criticized, the committee’s draft bill would repeal the last administration’s income-driven repayment plan known as SAVE, which offered an easier path to student loan debt forgiveness.

“The Biden-Harris administration’s foolish actions in the federal student loan program exacerbated this budgetary catastrophe,” Walberg said. “From their radical SAVE loan repayment plan to the never-ending repayment pause, Democrats are intent on forcing taxpayers to pay for free college.”

Democrats introduced a little over three dozen amendments that were all rejected during Tuesday’s markup.

The House Armed Services Committee advanced its $150 billion portion of Republicans’ megabill on Tuesday with the support of several Democrats, even as most lambasted it as a “blank check” for a Pentagon in chaos and a defense chief who can’t be trusted.

The 35-21 committee vote came after Republicans thwarted more than 20 Democrat amendments aimed at gutting key funding provisions and highlighting complaints about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leadership.

Five Democrats sided with Republicans on the final vote to increase defense spending: Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Don Davis of North Carolina, George Whitesides of California and Eugene Vindman of Virginia. But most, if not all, Democrats are expected to oppose the broader Republican measure of tax cuts and reductions to domestic programs, such as Medicaid.

Democrats immediately dove into Hegseth’s now infamous decision to share sensitive military details on a Signal chat. Top Armed Services Democrat Adam Smith introduced an amendment that would have restricted 75 percent of the new defense funding until the Pentagon develops a plan to prevent the sharing of classified information outside of approved systems.

“They have not even begun to prove that there’s a chance in hell that they will spend this money intelligently,” said Smith. His amendment failed in a 26-29 party-line vote.

Another amendment from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) would have prevented any of the new Pentagon money from being spent until Hegseth steps down as Defense secretary. Her amendment was voted down 24-31, with Democrats Davis and Golden opposing it.

Democrats also highlighted other controversies surrounding Hegseth. Rep. Sara Jacobs of California put forward an amendment that would have blocked funding for a Pentagon makeup studio, following a report that he had ordered a room retrofitted to use before television appearances. Hegseth has denied the report. The measure was defeated in a 26-29 partisan vote.