Few congressional Democrats could muster a defense of President Joe Biden’s halting debate performance Thursday, opting instead to criticize former President Donald Trump for his answers on how he would handle women’s reproductive health decisions and falsehoods about the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The vast majority of Democrats tried to redirect the conversation to Trump, rather than attempting to defending Biden’s raspy and sometimes unintelligible performance.

“Tonight [Trump] presented another pack of lies which along, with his candidacy, must be rejected,” wrote former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “How dare he place the blame for January 6th on anyone but himself, the inciter of an insurrection?”

A notable outlier: Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who faced his own cycle of questions about his viability after a poor debate performance against Mehmet Oz following a stroke in 2022.

“No one knows more than me that a rough debate is not the sum total of the person and their record,” Fetterman wrote in a post on social media platform X. “Chill the fuck out.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer didn’t address Biden’s performance, but wrote: “Tonight’s debate made the choice clear: Four more years of progress, or four more years of attacks on our fundamental rights and our democracy.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote simply, without mentioning Biden: “Freedom and Democracy are on the line. We will never surrender.”

Normally active Democratic social media posters in Congress were conspicuously silent during and after the debate, but others were not.

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who mounted a futile primary bid against Biden citing concerns over the president’s age, simply posted a Gandhi quote to social media Friday morning: “Speak only if it improves upon the silence.”

“Biden had a very low bar going into the debate and failed to clear even that bar,” wrote former Obama Cabinet official Julián Castro, whose brother Joaquin represents Texas in the House. “He seemed unprepared, lost, and not strong enough to parry effectively with Trump, who lies constantly.

Even those Republicans who’ve been critical of Trump couldn’t defend Biden’s performance.

“Former President Trump has understandably been characterized as a narcissist, however the greatest example of narcissism at this time in America politics is President Biden’s belief that he’s the only person who can defeat Mr. Trump,” posted former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.).

The White House plans to send Congress an emergency funding request to address the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore and other pressing needs as soon as Friday, according to three people who were granted anonymity to discuss the request ahead of the release.

The bridge’s collapse earlier this year severed a key East Coast transportation link and disrupted shipping into Baltimore Harbor. Administration officials have told lawmakers in recent months that the bridge and addressing other losses is expected to cost billions of dollars, likely enough to deplete an emergency relief fund through the Federal Highway Administration.

It’s unclear whether the administration’s emergency funding request — which is also expected to address disaster-related and internet connectivity needs — would get a standalone vote or if it could be attached to a must-pass bill, like a stopgap spending measure that Congress will almost certainly have to pass in order to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1, when federal cash expires.

The White House budget office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

House Republicans moved forward Thursday on their push to hold President Joe Biden’s ghostwriter in contempt of Congress — yet another escalation in their fight over former special counsel Robert Hur’s report.

The Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance a resolution to hold Mark Zwonitzer, who ghost wrote Biden’s memoirs, in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena for records related to his work with Biden.

“The committee needs the information we subpoenaed from Mr. Zwonitzer. No legal or constitutional privilege protects the subpoenaed information. … His willful refusal to comply with our subpoena constitutes contempt of Congress,” Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said.

Jordan subpoenaed Zwonitzer earlier this year demanding that he turn over a slew of records, including evidence of payments for his ghostwriting work, any recordings with Biden and communications with Biden or his staff.

Republicans noted, in their report, that Zwonitzer hadn’t turned over any of the requested records and that his attorney had indicated that they had concerns about the letter. Jordan noted on Thursday that they want more information from Zwonitzer to help determine whether Hur made the right decision in not charging Biden over his improper retention of classified documents.

It’s the second person Republicans have moved to hold in contempt due to subpoenas related to Hur’s report. GOP lawmakers voted earlier this month to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to hand over audio of Biden’s interview with Hur.

The Justice Department quickly informed Speaker Mike Johnson that Garland would not face charges for refusing to hand over the audio, which Biden asserted executive privilege over. Republicans are expected to file a lawsuit against the Justice Department next week and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) plans to force a vote Friday to allow the sergeant at arms to arrest Garland and bring him before the House. It’s unlikely that measure will pass.

Republicans are probing Hur’s investigation as part of their sweeping impeachment inquiry into Biden, which has largely focused on the business deals of his family members. Though Republicans have continued digging for information, GOP leaders don’t have the votes to impeach Biden. A swath of Republicans have repeatedly said that investigators haven’t shown clear evidence that Biden committed a crime or impeachable offense.

Democrats on the committee blasted Republicans for moving to hold Zwonitzer in contempt, arguing that Republicans were trying to help former President Donald Trump and “bullying and intimidating a private citizen.”

“This contempt resolution against Mr. Zwonitzer is an abuse of the committee’s oversight authority,” said New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

Nadler also noted that the committee received a letter earlier this week that the White House counsel sent to Zwonitzer’s attorney. That letter said that the majority of information that Biden gave to Zwonitzer is “private” and that he was “not authorized” to hand over Biden’s information until it had been reviewed for “executive branch confidentiality concerns” and a deal had been reached between the Judiciary Committee and the White House.

Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers abruptly canceled a markup of her bipartisan privacy bill five minutes before the panel was set to deliberate on the controversial legislation, according to four people familiar with the matter.

McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) has gotten heavy pushback from top GOP leadership over the bill, as POLITICO first reported. Members of her panel implored Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on a call Wednesday night to tell McMorris Rodgers to delay the markup until issues with the bill are ironed out, according to one lawmaker on the call.

Hours after the decision to pull the markup, McMorris Rodgers said the bill’s sponsors “needed to regroup” in the face of surging opposition from Republican leadership, the tech lobby and privacy advocates.

“This is not how the House is supposed to work,” she told reporters outside the House chamber. “But we’re gonna get this done.”

The E&C chair blamed “confusion and misrepresentation” for sinking the planned markup of both the American Privacy Rights Act and the Kids Online Safety Act at the last minute. The bills would impose new privacy obligations on companies that collect peoples’ online data and stop social media platforms from recommending potentially harmful content to minors, respectively.

McMorris Rodgers said GOP leadership voiced objections to both bills, suggesting those concerns ultimately led to some members abruptly pulling their support.

“I know at the beginning of the week, we had the votes,” she said.

In a statement, New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the committee’s top Democrat and a co-sponsor of the privacy bill, pledged to continue working with McMorris Rodgers on comprehensive privacy legislation. He was less circumspect in his criticism of GOP leaders, calling it “outrageous that Republican Leadership would interfere with the Committee’s bipartisan regular order process.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), another co-sponsor of the privacy bill and ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Innovation, Data and Commerce Subcommittee, was similarly incensed. “I’m beside myself, I really am,” she told reporters on Thursday. “I’m so furious. … We had an opportunity. I wanted to be there to pass the bill.”

House E&C member Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) told reporters on Thursday that while she supported the broad objectives of the privacy bill, she would have voted against it had the markup gone ahead as planned. “Law enforcement has concerns, industry has concerns, some liberty organizations have concerns,” she said.

“I think there’s still many things that need to be worked out,” Cammack added. “And it’s a process that is going to be complicated. It is a process that is going to be a very hard road.”

In the minutes after the markup’s cancellation, House Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X that he is “committed to working to build consensus in the House on a data privacy bill.”

McMorris Rodgers seized upon his message, saying it showed Johnson believes it is “urgent for Congress to act on a privacy standard for all Americans, especially our children.” She said her committee would aim to reschedule the markup soon.

An E&C aide, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said there was no timeline for a rescheduled markup and it was too early to know whether it can be done ahead of the August recess. It is notoriously difficult for Congress to pass anything in an election year, and particularly rare for major legislation to advance after the August recess.

Robert King contributed to this report.

Mark Rutte is grabbing the reins of NATO at a perilous time for the alliance — but he’ll be starting with effectively a blank slate among U.S. lawmakers.

House members, even those with extensive foreign policy portfolios, say they’ve yet to hear from the incoming secretary general of NATO and many lawmakers know next to nothing about him. That means Rutte, who the alliance formally selected as its next leader on Wednesday, will have significant work to do to establish and develop relationships with U.S. lawmakers tasked with doling out dollars and military assistance internationally.

Democrats who do know the incumbent Dutch prime minister had warm words about his capabilities even as they acknowledged potential friction — particularly if former President Donald Trump regains the White House. Current NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg still holds the post until Oct. 1, a possible reason U.S. lawmakers said they’d not yet had direct outreach from Rutte.

“Having had to navigate European politics, I would say he’s well-prepared to handle ours as well,” Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), president of the NATO parliamentary assembly, told POLITICO.

Connolly said he, along with a bipartisan U.S. delegation, met with Rutte last summer and found him to be “smart, accomplished, politically skilled, very affable, easy to relate to … I think our whole delegation liked him.”

Republicans were a bit more circumspect, signaling they were looking forward to working with Rutte but not praising him outright. While Rutte is generally known for a low-key and consensus-building leadership style, he has directly confronted Trump multiple times, particularly after the then-president threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO. Those threats could easily continue if Trump wins the White House, and NATO already has significant existing problems given the threat of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“NATO is in place because people like Putin exist,” said Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.), another member of the NATO parliamentary assembly. “You got to pull your own weight. Every country brings different capabilities to the table. All of our countries in NATO — whether it’s manpower, whether it’s technology — what they all need to bring to the table is commitment.”

The prime minister’s experience in assembling complex coalitions makes Rutte a “great choice” to take over the alliance, according to Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), as NATO tries to insulate itself from possible attacks by Trump should he regain the White House.

“He’s widely respected, has a lot of support within NATO, which of course gets him off on a good start,” Crow, another member of the parliamentary assembly, said in a brief interview. “Secretary General Stoltenberg did an incredible job. Mr. Rutte, he’s got big shoes to fill but I think he’s up to the task.”

House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio), who is also head of the U.S. delegation to the NATO parliamentary assembly, extended “sincere congratulations” to Rutte on Wednesday in a statement and said he looked forward to “strengthening the Alliance and bolstering our collective defense capabilities.”

Conservatives pronounced themselves agnostic about Rutte’s ascension, but indicated he should prepare himself for Trump to adopt a similar stance toward the alliance if Trump returns.

“I would anticipate if President Trump was reelected that he will continue to support NATO, but press Europe to do its fair share in NATO,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in a brief interview.

“I think President Trump also will be rightly reluctant to engage in foreign adventurism. I think one of the mistakes of the Biden administration is being far too eager to engage in foreign adventurism,” the Texas Republican added.

The offices of Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho), leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, didn’t respond to requests for comment on whether Rutte had reached out. The House Foreign Affairs Committee leaders, Reps. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), said they knew Rutte — but Meeks said he not heard from him since he won the nod to lead the alliance.

“The key is the dialogue and conversation between the NATO nations, to make sure everyone is doing their fair share and working together,” said Meeks. “And I think that if he does that [that] helps with every member — Democrat, Republican.”

Miles Herszenhorn contributed to this report.

The top Senate GOP super PAC is going all in on Pennsylvania.

The Senate Leadership Fund, a group with close ties to Mitch McConnell, is laying down a massive $24 million ad buy to help Republican Dave McCormick in his bid to unseat incumbent Bob Casey. It will run for a month beginning Sept. 3 and include broadcast and cable TV, radio and digital components.

The investment is a sign of confidence in Pennsylvania, the first state where the super PAC has reserved air time outside of the more conservative states of Montana and Ohio. So far, the group is following the plans telegraphed by McConnell in the spring, when he said Republicans would play in Pennsylvania, Montana, Ohio and Maryland.

SLF and its allied group American Crossroads have placed $82.5 million in Ohio ad buys for September through late October. In Montana, those two groups have reserved a combined $47.9 million.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee revealed its first round of fall ad buys last week. Its independent expenditure arm is booking airtime in Ohio, Nevada, Michigan and Arizona, while the committee itself is planning joint ad buys with candidates in other states.

McCormick already has his own dedicated group, the Keystone Renewal PAC, which has booked more than $30 million in ads to boost him throughout the summer and fall, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact.

GOP senators are increasingly publicizing their battle over potential rules changes ahead of the Republican leadership elections, with conservative Sen. Mike Lee doubling down on his push for term limits and clapping back at proposals from Sen. Thom Tillis.

In a letter sent to Senate Republicans on Wednesday, Lee (R-Utah) said the conference has a choice this year to either “further democratize the way we do business” or “further consolidate power in the Leader and weaken the ability of individual members to fully exercise their rights and duties.”

It’s a direct response to Tillis (R-N.C.), who on Sunday sent a letter outlining his own ideas for rules changes. A number of his proposals would give the next GOP leader more power over issues like committee assignments and appointing the chair of Senate Republicans’ campaign arm. He argued the changes could help conference priorities and messaging by being better aligned with GOP leadership.

Suffice to say, Lee disagreed.

“It is a strength of our conference — not a weakness — that we represent a diversity of viewpoints while generally agreeing on a conservative philosophy,” Lee wrote. “Allowing our differences to play-out in the legislative process is the best way to determine consensus and build unity.”

The back-and-forth is the latest example of growing tensions within the Republican conference over not only who will lead them, but what powers that person should have. With Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell planning to step away from his post later this year, conservatives are pressuring his potential successors to commit to a lofty list of rules changes, such as term limits and revamping committee assignments. And while both Tillis and Lee are keeping their written remarks civil, both have become emblematic of a larger and entrenched rift in the conference.

And many senators see the House Republican conference’s chaos this term as a potential warning sign. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy relinquished key powers to appease his conservative opponents before that group booted him nine months later, causing months of governing crises including a three-week battle to replace him with Speaker Mike Johnson. Some senators are worried that proposals like Lee’s could mean similar — if less dramatic — trouble in their own chamber.

Tillis in his letter said he is not outright “advocating” for the rules changes but instead offering “food for thought.”

Tillis, as well as McConnell himself, have been among those who have vocally criticized the idea of imposing term limits on the next GOP leader, arguing it weakens the conference’s standing by impacting fundraising capabilities. Lee maintained his support for the proposed change in his Wednesday letter.

“While it is technically true that the Leader is open to challenge every two years, the reality is that the power of indefinite tenure disincentivizes any real effort to mount such a challenge,” Lee wrote, arguing it was generally too much of a “risk” for individual senators to challenge a leader with no term limits.

And Lee slapped down the idea of expanding the leader’s power over appointments for committees or the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Tillis had suggested the NRSC chair could be appointed by the leader but ratified by the full conference — similar to how Senate Democrats operate.

“The will of the conference is best carried out by the members who serve in it, not by a top-down management system,” Lee wrote.

Lee did find some common ground with Tillis, specifically on proposals that would boost access and visibility into the amendments process for rank-and-file members. But the Utah senator said he’d also want to prevent leadership from jamming up the amendments log via a tactic often called “filling the tree.” When the “tree” is filled, it makes it harder for rank-and-file members to get their amendments through.

And generally, Lee applauded Tillis for being part of the discussion on rules changes. The leadership elections aren’t until November, so there are still months to go as members butt heads over potential rules changes — with no guarantee that any would actually be adopted.

Still, Lee said he hopes the talks keep going.

“I want to thank Sen. Tillis for formalizing a set of proposals that should serve to continue the discussion, and ask that the conference begin setting aside dedicated time to do so,” Lee wrote. “I look forward to the continued dialogue.”

It’s not common to see a primary challenger get a warm welcome on Capitol Hill after ousting an incumbent. But that’s exactly what Westchester County Executive George Latimer is likely to experience with most of the House Democratic caucus next year.

Various House Democrats from different factions of the caucus predicted on Wednesday that Latimer, who has deep relationships within the party after his years in state and local government, could fit right in after toppling Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). It helps that Bowman had rubbed some Democratic colleagues the wrong way lately with off-color commentary and antics like triggering a fire alarm last year.

“I think George will be a great member,” said Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), who was neutral in the primary and served with Latimer in the state Assembly. “Obviously, we have to get through the general. … I’m also thankful to have been able to serve with Jamaal Bowman. He is our colleague, and his voice had a role in our caucus as well.”

Latimer trounced Bowman, a member of the progressive Squad, in Tuesday’s primary after a deluge of outside money and Bowman’s personal controversies narrowed his path to victory. Bowman’s seat was one of the top targets this year for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose outside spending in the race through its super PAC made it the most expensive primary in congressional history.

“Look, when any person wins — and there’s been various members that have been challenged previously, and new members have won — they come in and they become part of this team,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, which endorsed Bowman in his primary. Democrats’ primary goal, Meeks added, remains “winning the majority back so Hakeem Jeffries is the speaker.”

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) predicted only “maybe a couple of people” would have hard feelings toward Latimer: “People come here after winning primary fights all the time, and he’ll be judged for who he is when people meet him.”

Although it’s unclear exactly which ideological lane Latimer might occupy in the House Democratic caucus, one top liberal didn’t rule out letting him into their bloc should he seek admission to the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“We have a criteria, and if he meets the criteria, I don’t see why not,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.). “Obviously, anyone who wants to be a progressive in Congress is welcome in the caucus.”

Even so, some House Democrats have speculated Latimer would likely become a more moderate member after he got endorsed by Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), the co-chair of the bipartisan and centrist Problem Solvers Caucus.

Rep. Troy Nehls said he’s no longer wearing a badge pin awarded to infantrymen or Special Forces who fought in active combat after many of his own colleagues have accused him of “stolen valor.”

Speaking to reporters outside of votes, Nehls said he wasn’t wearing the pin “because you guys are vultures.”

“Now that I don’t wear that, what are you going to talk to me about?” the Texas Republican, wearing a tie of former President Donald Trump hugging the American flag and Trump’s gold sneakers, said. “You guys are gonna be bored out of your minds.”

NOTUS first reported in June that Nehls continued to wear the Combat Infantryman Badge pin despite CBS News finding it had been revoked in 2023. Nehls made what he said would be his “final written comment” on the matter Tuesday, asking how he could be one of just 47 of 142,596 pins rescinded over the last 20 years.

“The American people know just how disgusting the media is — the dishonest media,” Nehls said during his lengthy remarks to reporters. “I know what I’ve done, and I certainly don’t have to justify myself to you guys.”

Rep. Jack Bergman (R-Mich.), a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, said he was among the decorated combat veterans in Congress who were concerned about Nehls wearing the CIB. Bergman said, however, that he was not considering an ethics complaint.

“We’re not going to waste any time on Troy Nehls,” he said in an interview. “We’ve got bigger fish to fry. You make your own bed, lay in it.”

Other veteran lawmakers urged Republicans to address the matter internally.

“I’m going to let the Republicans handle it,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who served in the Marine Corps. “They certainly should”

Joe Gould and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.