House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Democratic leaders endorsed Rep. Cori Bush on Tuesday, giving the embattled incumbent a boost in next month’s Missouri primary.

“Cori has shown up for the people of St. Louis in the fight for reproductive freedom, gun violence prevention and affordable housing. We stand together to endorse Cori Bush for re-election as we collectively work hard to make life better for everyday Americans and battle the corrosive extreme MAGA Republican agenda,” said Jeffries, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) in a joint statement.

Bush, a member of the liberal Squad, has drawn a strong primary challenge this cycle from St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell.

Bell has made Israel policy part of his election pitch. Bush has been an outspoken critic of Israel and a proponent of a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war. The limited polling available in the primary shows a close race so far.

It’s not immediately clear whether Jeffries and other Democratic leaders might travel to St. Louis to campaign for Bush before the Aug. 6 primary. Democratic leaders had also endorsed her fellow Squad member, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), and donated money to him, but had not hit the trail for him.

Bowman lost a primary challenge to moderate opponent George Latimer last month, making him the first member of the Squad ever to lose a primary and the only Democratic incumbent defeated for renomination so far this year.

Bush, in a statement, thanked leadership for the endorsement and said: “With their support, I know we’re going to win our race in August, take back the House in November, and continue to deliver for the people and St. Louis.”

Bush has also been dogged this cycle by personal controversies, including a federal investigation into her campaign spending on security services. Bush’s now-husband had worked security for her and been paid by her campaign, though she’s denied any wrongdoing and has said she would cooperate with the investigation.

Democratic leadership has generally backed all incumbents regardless of their ideological background. But liberals have fretted this cycle about the outsize influence of groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which, through the super PAC United Democracy Project, has pumped millions of dollars this cycle into primary elections in an effort to oust lawmakers who have been critical of Israel and has spent or reserved $2.6 million to boost Bell and oppose Bush.

Those raising concerns about President Joe Biden’s physical abilities following a shaky debate performance are posing a “a legitimate question,” former Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday, also noting they should make similar queries about former President Donald Trump.

“I think it’s a legitimate question to say, is this an episode or is this a condition?” she said on MSNBC. “When people ask that question, it’s completely legitimate — of both candidates.”

The former speaker, who enjoys great respect among the Democratic rank-and-file, said she’d not spoken with Biden since the debate but has been in touch with those close to him, so “it’s not a question of not having an opportunity to make our concerns known or have some questions answered.”

Pelosi said she’s hearing “mixed” opinions about whether Biden is up for the grueling fall campaign ahead.

“Some are like, ‘Well, how can we subject the [nomination] process to what might be possible? Others are, ‘Joe is our guy. We love him. We trust him. He has vision, knowledge, judgment, integrity,'” she said. “I trust his judgment.”

Pelosi said it would be “essential” for Biden to do “not one, maybe two” unscripted interviews with journalists to demonstrate his capabilities without a teleprompter. “That would be a great thing for him,” she said.

Irie Sentner contributed to this report.

Rep. Bob Good aimed to overhaul the House Freedom Caucus, making it into a more assertive body within the Republican Conference. But that could come to a roaring halt Tuesday if he formally loses his Virginia primary.

Instead, discussions will shift to whether he can stay atop the group until the end of the year, when he would leave Congress — and if not, who could replace him. Those muted conversations are already taking place privately among GOP aides and members, according to four people familiar with the discussions.

Unless he makes up more than a 300-vote deficit in a recount against primary challenger John McGuire, Good would become the first Freedom Caucus chair to lose his seat, putting the ultra-conservative group in uncharted territory. There’s no rule within its bylaws that the Virginian, who is vowing to request a recount, would need to step down as chair, and he is viewed as having support from the Freedom Caucus board responsible for making recommendations to the larger membership.

At the same time, some said it will be untenable for the group to spearhead discussions about fiscal spending next year when the chair won’t even be there. And it doesn’t help that Donald Trump is doing a victory lap over his efforts to oust Good, adding to the Freedom Caucus’ embarrassment.

Good has rankled high-profile members of the group, including co-founder Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

Under Good’s leadership, the group began discussing changes to prevent committee chairs from having a vote within the bloc. That would specifically target Jordan, who is chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), who leads the House Homeland Security Committee.

“There was talk of changing the bylaws,” Jordan confirmed to POLITICO last month.

When asked whether he believed that was aimed at him, he more broadly responded: “There was a discussion” but changes on that front haven’t been made yet.

“The change they were proposing would obviously impact Mr. Green and myself,” he added.

Allies of Jordan viewed it as much more cut-and-dried: Good was making a move to undercut Jordan, a member allied with former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, whom Good helped to oust.

A spokesperson for the group, in response to questions about a potential leadership shakeup, said “HFC does not comment on membership or internal processes.”

Good has played hardball with other Freedom Caucus members as well, overseeing the removal of at least two because of poor attendance. And the current effort to kick out Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) over his endorsement of Good’s primary challenger has frustrated some corners of the Freedom Caucus. Good isn’t spearheading that effort, but an ally is.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), asked if Good’s loss would impact his role as chair, stopped short of ruling out the possibility, instead noting the Virginia vote count has to first be finalized before the group can have follow-up discussions.

“First of all you’ve got to figure out his race. … You can’t really talk about that until you figure out [his race],” Donalds said.

Donalds is a name some have floated as a potential replacement. But some question his viability, given wide speculation Donalds is interested in running for governor of Florida in 2026, when Gov. Ron DeSantis is termed out. Plus, he isn’t a member of the board — and currently, whoever is picked to be the next chair also needs to be a member of the board.

Another name that crops up: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas). Some have expressed concerns Roy will have the similar issue Good had, however: He crossed Trump by backing DeSantis in the Republican presidential primary.

Freedom Caucus members have also pointed to Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who is viewed as being close to Good, as someone interested in eventually leading the group.

Questions about Good’s fate come as the Freedom Caucus board is reviewing Davidson’s standing within the group. Currently, the board is weighing finding that Davidson is a member not in “good standing”— which would lower the threshold for removing him from 80 percent to 50 percent. But that designation is typically reserved for Freedom Caucus members who either haven’t paid dues or aren’t regularly attending meetings.

Freedom Caucus members are discussing changing their bylaws to include a rule against endorsing the primary opponent of another HFC member, according to two people familiar with the discussion. Davidson’s endorsement of McGuire struck a nerve with a swath of the Freedom Caucus who viewed it as an unprecedented step that underscored a need for change within the group’s dynamics.

Asked about endorsing a primary challenger of another HFC member, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said lawmakers are “free agents.”

“Everybody makes their own decision,” Norman said in a brief interview. “I don’t like it when they endorse against Freedom Caucus.”

Davidson has defended his endorsement, saying it was a referendum on Good, not on the conservative caucus. Davidson and Good have a history of bad blood, with the former stepping down from the group’s board when the latter became chair.

And while Good isn’t officially spearheading the push against the Ohio Republican, the effort to oust Davidson from the group has sparked private questions and public opposition among members over how he can be kicked out when technically his endorsement didn’t break the group’s rules.

“I don’t think that should happen. I’ve not been for kicking anybody out of the Freedom Caucus,” Jordan said, noting that he also voted against ousting Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) last year.

A group of House Democrats is urging the Pentagon to expand training for Ukrainian F-16 pilots as Kyiv races to improve its defenses against Russia.

Why it matters: The lawmakers, led by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are backing Ukraine’s request for 10 more of their F-16 pilots to be trained this year, and are asking Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in a new letter to make it happen.

“The request comes at a critical juncture in Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia, where the deployment of F-16 aircraft has the potential to significantly influence the outcome of the war,” the 15 lawmakers said in their letter, obtained by POLITICO.

“By the end of the year, Ukraine will have more F-16 aircraft than they will have qualified pilots to fly them, this situation threatens to undermine the strategic advantages these aircraft could provide Ukraine,” the group added.

State of play: President Joe Biden last year approved the third-party transfer of aircraft from Norway, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands, but pilot training efforts have faced logistical challenges.

POLITICO first reported that Ukraine says it has 30 pilots who are eligible to start training in the U.S. immediately, and that the Biden administration has told Kyiv it lacks the school seats in its Arizona-based program to accept more than 12 pilot trainees at a time.

As a result, Kyiv has been pressing U.S. and European partners to expand the speed and scale of fighter pilot training, even as allies counter that Ukraine’s pilots aren’t yet ready to start flying its incoming F-16 jets in large numbers.

Hill focus: The American lawmakers argue that NATO allies have extensive training programs and could meet Ukraine’s request for more training. But they want the Pentagon to lead the way. That “may provide the most expedient means” of broadening the pipeline, they wrote.

“This effort not only enhances Ukraine’s ability to utilize the F-16s effectively but also reinforces the broader coalition’s commitment to supporting Ukraine in its fight for sovereignty and territorial integrity,” they added.

House Republicans are suing Attorney General Merrick Garland for audio of former special counsel Robert Hur’s 2023 interview with President Joe Biden.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is a dramatic, but unsurprising, escalation of Republicans’ weekslong standoff with the administration over the recordings.

Top GOP investigators and Speaker Mike Johnson had signaled they would take the battle to court.

The GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, in its filing, is asking the court to find that Garland’s refusal to hand over the audio recordings “lacks legal justification” and order the attorney general to turn them over to the House panel.

A DOJ spokesperson said “the department is reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in court at the appropriate time.”

Republicans seized on Hur’s report, which examined Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, and homed in on a line from the former special counsel that warned the president would be viewed by a jury as a “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”

Republicans pointed back to that descriptor in their filing on Monday, adding that “verbal and nonverbal context is quite important here.”

“The audio recordings, not the cold transcripts, are the best available evidence of how President Biden presented himself during the interview,” the court filing read.

A DOJ official, in court filings in a separate case with outside groups seeking the audio, said the transcript matches the audio except for filler words or when words were repeated. The official added that Hur and FBI personnel present for the interview agreed the transcript “accurately reflects” the audio except for those minor instances.

The legal fight comes after two committees —led by Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), respectively — advanced resolutions in mid-May recommending the attorney general be held in contempt for defying their subpoenas for the audio. 

Biden effectively precluded Garland from facing criminal charges by asserting executive privilege over the audio just hours before the House committee votes. But House Republicans still moved forward with voting to hold him in contempt on the House floor, with only one Republican siding with Democrats against the step.

The Justice Department quickly notified Johnson that in line with long-standing department policy Garland wouldn’t face charges for refusing to hand over records that fell under executive privilege. The Justice Department similarly didn’t prosecute then-Attorney General William Barr or then-Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross after the House held them in contempt during the Trump administration.

Garland did hand over the transcript of the interview and made other documents referenced in Hur’s report available to the committees, but the Justice Department argued that handing over the audio could negatively affect cooperation in future investigations.

The Justice Department has also pushed back on the idea that handing over the transcripts waves executive privilege for the audio. Republicans, however, in their court filing on Monday called the assertion “frivolous” and “at odds with common sense,” since the DOJ had handed over the transcript.

In addition to the lawsuit, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has filed a resolution to fine Garland $10,000 per day until he hands over the audio and said it will come to the floor next week for a vote.

Luna and Johnson have discussed her resolution. But Johnson, asked about the idea on Friday, said he hadn’t yet committed to backing her bill — pointing to their lawsuit.

“I think the easiest way, the best way, is to allow the third branch to resolve this dispute between the executive and legislative branch. There may be other avenues that we can pursue, and we’re looking into all that, but we’re not committed to anything yet,” Johnson said.

Republicans took a victory lap after the Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution over some actions he took as president, while Democrats bashed the decision as an outcome that would haunt the country.

GOP lawmakers are framing the court’s decision as a defense against what they say have been Democrats’ attempts to take down Trump and weaponize the legal system against him.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jim Jordan pledged his panel will “continue to oversee dangerous lawfare tactics in our judicial system,” and said he hopes the decision will stop “attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement the decision “upholds the rule of law in our country and rebukes Democrats’ blatant attempts to weaponize our legal system against Donald Trump.”

Democrats, meanwhile, voiced dismay that the conservative court has offered even partial protection to the former president, severely complicating efforts to put Trump on trial.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted the decision as a “sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy.”

“Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president,” he wrote in a post on social media network X.

“Shame on the six aiders and abettors of treason,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, wrote on social media, referencing the six conservative justices on the court.

Virginia Democrat Rep. Gerry Connolly, a member of the Oversight panel, noted the stakes of the decision and warned the “shameful” outcome “will haunt us for years to come.”

“American democracy is under homegrown attack,” he said.

Fellow Oversight member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) was even blunter: “The court can no longer be counted on to defend the constitution,”he wrote in a social media post.

Democrats are also hand-wringing over how much the decision leaves unresolved, leaving U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to decide which of the allegations which are deemed Trump’s official acts and which are private.

“The vagueness of the standard for immunity set in the ruling is concerning,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) wrote on social media. “It would be hard to argue that dispensing a mob to overturn the election is part of the president’s ‘official duties.'”

Speaker Mike Johnson said Friday that President Joe Biden’s Cabinet should discuss invoking the 25th Amendment in the wake of a politically disastrous debate that compounded age and acuity questions.

Johnson, asked about calls from within his own conference for the amendment to be invoked, said that “there’s a lot of people asking about” it, but that it was up to members of Biden’s Cabinet.

“I would ask the Cabinet members to search their hearts. … And we hope that they will do their duty, as we all seek to do our duty to do best by the American people. These are fateful moments,” Johnson told reporters.

Pressed if he was saying he believed the 25th Amendment should be invoked, he added: “If I were in the Cabinet … I would be having that discussion with my colleagues at the Cabinet level. I would. … We’ll see what action they take. It’s a serious situation.”

Johnson’s comments come after Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said on X that he would be introducing a resolution that calls on Vice President Kamala Harris to “immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene & mobilize the principal officers of the Cabinet to declare the [president] is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office.”

The White House asked Congress on Friday for $4 billion in emergency money to address the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, in addition to tornado, wildfire and hurricane recovery needs nationwide.

The emergency funding request, known as a supplemental, comes after lawmakers approved a long-stalled $95 billion foreign aid package in April, following months of partisan squabbling and Republican resistance to additional Ukraine aid. The $4 billion ask builds on President Joe Biden’s request last fall for $56 billion for child care, internet connectivity needs and more, a push which hasn’t garnered the same Hill momentum.

Issues like the Baltimore bridge collapse and disaster aid, however, have amassed clear bipartisan support. Without the extra cash, administration officials have warned the bridge collapse recovery will drain an emergency pot of federal transportation funding, while FEMA’s disaster relief program could run out of money at the height of hurricane season later this summer.

It’s unclear whether this new emergency funding request will eventually receive a standalone vote in Congress or get attached to a must-pass bill, like a stopgap spending measure that lawmakers will almost certainly have to pass in order to avoid a government shutdown Oct. 1, when federal cash expires.

Attaching the money to a stopgap bill is “probably the easiest way” to get the emergency funding across the finish line, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said Friday. But Cole noted some concern that FEMA’s disaster relief fund, for example, will dry up before Congress can pass that short-term funding bill, also known as a continuing resolution.

Specifically, the White House wants $3.1 billion for the Transportation Department’s emergency relief program to cover the Baltimore bridge and other needs, in addition to $700 million for the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program for Maui wildfires and severe storms across the U.S., including tornado and hurricane recovery efforts.

The administration is also reupping its request last fall to replenish FEMA’s disaster relief fund, stabilize the child care industry, bolster border security, and address firefighter pay and internet connectivity needs.

Biden has requested that the federal government foot the entire bill for rebuilding the Baltimore bridge. But some Republicans have raised concerns about taxpayers shouldering so much of the cost, demanding offsets or rebuffing the administration’s push for a 100 percent federal cost-sharing approach.

“I’ve told the White House this — whatever we’re doing for one place, we’re doing for the other place,” Cole said, arguing that while Maryland needs the emergency money, the bridge shouldn’t receive preferential treatment over other disaster-affected areas.

“So if we’re suspending things and, you know, ratios and payments and whatever, I intend for it to be the same across the board. I’m not going to treat one part of the country one way and another part another way,” Cole said.

House Democrats, smarting from President Joe Biden’s stumbles on Tuesday night, are openly urging the president to avoid a second televised debate.

Biden’s widely panned performance during his first head-to-head with former President Donald Trump has raised real alarms among Democrats about their nominee’s viability on the ballot. On Friday morning, party lawmakers blamed Biden’s preparation for the 90-minute debate and advised him to pass on a scheduled rematch – at least if it’s one with the same format. The two have another debate scheduled for the fall hosted by ABC News.

“If it’s the same debate questions, and it’s the same process, I probably wouldn’t do it. I’m not his advisor, but I probably wouldn’t advise him to do it,” said Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio).

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) went further: “We didn’t even need this debate. Quite frankly, we know exactly who Trump is. And we know exactly who Joe Biden is. You have a debate so that you can learn about a candidate. There’s nothing else to know.”

Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.) said that “if there’s going to be a second debate, the terms and the rules of engagement have to be changed.” Biden’s team has indicated that it has no plans to change September’s scheduled debate with Trump.

Not every Democrat was nudging the president to reconsider those plans; Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.), said Biden “certainly” should debate again.

Others laid the blame not at Biden’s feet but at those of his advisers, whom they said left the president seemingly unprepared for the fight with Trump.

Biden “looked like he hadn’t done any debate prep,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said. “If I was in his shoes, I’d be pretty furious at my political team this morning. He should have knocked that out of the park … He wasn’t prepared.”

Some Democrats have gone so far as to privately discuss replacing him on the ticket, though none have attached their names to the suggestion in public. One Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly told POLITICO on Friday that Biden should bow out of the race as soon as possible so another Democrat can win the nomination at the convention.

“It has to be Biden deciding to step down,” this Democratic member said. “But this is the time. He saved our country once. He has to save our country again.”

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who’d unsuccessfully challenged Biden for the Democratic nomination while raising concerns about the president’s age, tersely commented on X with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “Speak only if it improves upon the silence.”

Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) summed up his feelings about the debate: “Not good … There’s just a concern out there [with Biden] that has to be addressed.”

Among swing-district lawmakers, the disappointment with Biden was palpable.

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said that he still believes the election is largely a referendum on Trump, rather than Biden’s mental fitness, but acknowledged the uncertainty now facing the party at a crucial moment.

“I don’t know what happens next. I truly don’t. I think the president and his team are going to huddle up and have a conversation and we’ll see what happens,” Landsman said, asked if he was entertaining the idea of anyone besides Biden being the party’s nominee.

Purple-district Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) called it a “terrible debate. Joe Biden couldn’t communicate and Donald Trump lied every time he opened his mouth.”

Underscoring how sensitive the topic of Biden’s debate performance is for Democratic lawmakers, at least a dozen of them ignored reporters’ questions about it on Friday.

Normally chatty Democrats like Reps. Adam Schiff (Calif.), Dan Goldman (N.Y.) and Jared Moskowitz (Fla.) declined to talk about the debate. Some vulnerable incumbents, like Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), literally sprinted to the House chamber to avoid reporters.

Other imperiled incumbents, like Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), said that Biden “can make his own decisions” before pivoting to talk about local issues.

The House Democratic leader has not endorsed any efforts to remove Biden and on Friday reiterated his support for the president.

“I support the ticket. I support the Senate Democratic majority. We’re going to do everything possible to take back the House in November,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who served as a surrogate for Biden on the ground in Atlanta after the debate, acknowledged the president’s performance wasn’t his strongest but defended his record.

“Look, I get that President Biden had a sore throat, apparently was not feeling well. But at the end of the day, we’ve seen the President in action for years,” Garcia said. “I think 20 minutes of a debate, half an hour debate …. I don’t think it’s gonna matter at the end of the day.”

Other Biden allies played down any worries even while acknowledging his performance was lackluster.

“Joe Biden didn’t do well last night – that doesn’t mean that Donald Trump is the right man for the White House,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.).

Joe Gould, Jordain Carney, Katherine Tully-McManus, and Jennifer Haberkorn contributed to this report. 

House Republicans on Friday passed three more spending bills rife with budget cuts and divisive policies, grinding through their mission to clear a dozen of their own funding measures this summer.

With little support from Democrats, the House passed measures to fund the Pentagon, along with the departments of State and Homeland Security, after checking off their veterans’ affairs spending bill earlier this month. With that achieved, GOP lawmakers are leaving town for a weeklong recess touting their success in passing one-third of the 12 measures that Congress must clear each year to fund federal agencies.

But they also admit all that legislating is just the prelude to real bipartisan negotiations — which are still a long way off.

“I mean, these aren’t the final products. These are negotiating positions,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week.

Cross-party talks on government funding totals are not expected to begin until control of the White House and Congress are determined on Election Day; before that, lawmakers are widely anticipating a stopgap funding patch in September that would buy extra time beyond the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year. But House Republican leaders remain committed to laying down their own partisan markers on each of the 12 funding bills for fiscal 2025, an ambitious goal they failed to achieve last year.

This week, that meant more tough votes for swing-district Republicans who were asked to support controversial social policies and budget cuts for many non-defense programs, since House GOP leaders have decided to ignore tens of billions of dollars in spending that both parties agreed to under last year’s debt limit deal.

“Some think that what we adopt is the ceiling. I suggest that what we adopt is where we start, and then negotiate from there,” said Republican Rep. Marc Molinaro, who is running for reelection in a Democrat-leaning district in central New York.

The DHS funding bill passed 212-203. The State Department spending measure passed 212-200. And the Pentagon funding bill passed 217-198. Still, House GOP leaders don’t plan to bring the most controversial and austere of the dozen appropriations bills to the floor until late July.

Each of the measures House Republicans passed Friday contain anti-abortion policies, including language blocking foreign aid to international groups that perform abortions or offer abortion counseling. The defense funding bill would bar soldiers from getting paid leave or travel expenses covered for an abortion. And the DHS measure would prevent immigrants from getting abortions while detained.

Some swing-district House Republicans have warned GOP leaders that they would oppose other funding bills because of anti-abortion language. That includes last year’s FDA spending measure — which featured a provision that would block mail delivery of mifepristone abortion pills and an amendment that Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) also proposed this week to block access to fertility treatments like in vitro fertilization.

Molinaro argues that he and like-minded centrists see the abortion restrictions the House passed this week as an acceptable “continuation” of the longstanding Hyde amendment ban on using federal funding for the procedure.

“This concept that the federal government doesn’t put federal dollars toward abortion — that’s been the policy. I’ve had Democratic and Republican predecessors support that,” Molinaro said. “We’ve made clear that advancing the mifepristone prohibitions or outright prohibitions on access to IVF — these are things that we’re just not willing to support. And of course, more broadly, I don’t support any national ban or effort to ban abortion access nationally.”

Democrats counter that tens of thousands of soldiers are stationed in states where abortion is banned, so denying paid leave or travel is “a de facto national abortion ban for women who serve alongside and in the military,” as Minnesota Rep. Betty McCollum, the top Democrat on the defense spending panel, said on the floor.

“Women will exit the force because of this. Husbands and fathers will not want to serve in states where their families could be negatively impacted,” McCollum added, scolding GOP leaders for not allowing a vote on her amendment to strike that language.

While McCollum’s amendment and many others didn’t make the cut for a floor vote, the House debated more than 300 proposed tweaks to the three funding bills. Many of those amendments divided Republicans on polarizing policy issues.

Several amendments to the State Department funding bill put lawmakers on record against funding for international programs, including the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development. A bloc of 70 Republicans supported an amendment from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that would bar funding for Ukraine under the State Department spending measure. Each of those amendments was defeated.

“Just look what happened with the amendments — we won most of them,” said California Rep. Barbara Lee, the top Democrat in charge of the State Department funding bill. “The public knows. Let the people decide who’s with them and who’s against them.”

An amendment by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) forced lawmakers to vote on extinguishing President Joe Biden’s recent executive order that shields some undocumented spouses from deportation, along with children of U.S. citizens. Roy’s amendment failed, with 14 nays from his side of the aisle.

Several swing-district Republicans fighting for reelection in districts with large immigrant populations were among those voices of dissent on Roy’s plan, including Reps. Mike Lawler of New York and Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon, along with California Reps. David Valadeo, Michelle Steel and John Duarte.

The White House promptly issued veto threats for all three of the measures this week, accusing House Republicans of “again wasting time with partisan bills” that would slash border security agencies, foreign aid and civilian military personnel.