The House is on track to rebuke a veteran Illinois lawmaker over a hardball political tactic — a move that has stirred intraparty anger at the fellow Democrat who prompted it.

The formal admonishment targets Rep. Chuy García, who announced his retirement earlier this month only after the candidate qualification period closed — all but assuring his chief of staff would succeed him in the solid blue Chicago district.

What has roiled Democrats is who forced the issue: Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, who introduced the rebuke Wednesday under a fast-track process bypassing House leadership. That she did so as House Democratic leaders moved to focus attention on GOP disarray on health care and the Jeffrey Epstein case has further exacerbated the tensions.

A vote to kill the disapproval resolution backed by House Democratic leaders failed on a 211-206 vote Monday, with Rep. Jared Golden of Maine being the only other Democrat joining Gluesenkamp Perez to proceed with the symbolic measure.

That tees up debate and a final vote as soon as Tuesday. Some Democrats granted anonymity to describe private conversations with colleagues said they expected many more defections on that vote.

“You don’t get your cake and eat it, too,” Gluesenkamp Perez said during a debate that followed the vote. “If you are not going to run, you don’t choose your successor — no matter the work you have done beforehand.”

Although some in the party privately disagreed with García’s decision to retire after only the filing deadline, many House Democrats bristled at Gluesenkamp Perez’s decision to call it up on a day when the party was attempting to project unity at the end of the record government shutdown.

Many also cited García’s own response, saying his decision to retire was based on his health and family needs. His office has forcefully pushed back against any accusations of wrongdoing, blasting out talking points to Capitol Hill offices Monday.

“There was absolutely nothing illegal or unethical,” said Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.). “This is entirely based on an assumption about what one member believes were his intentions, when in fact, he has clearly stated he needed the time to make up his mind, and he was going through a lot of personal difficulties in his life trying to decide if he was going to run again.”

García spoke out on his own behalf Monday night after the vote, saying that “our job comes second to the people waiting at home.”

“When a colleague chooses his family, that shouldn’t be a moment for division — it should be a moment for understanding and unity,” he said. “One day you might be the one making that choice, and you shouldn’t have to debate it on the House floor.”

But many in Democratic circles have spoken up on Gluesenkamp Perez’s behalf for calling out García for essentially hand-picking his successor, including Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey and veteran Chicago political strategist David Axelrod. Purple-district Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.) said Monday she had “a lot of questions about the timing of what he did.”

Even those who defended García registered some distaste for how he engineered his departure from the House.

“I have tremendous sympathy for the family situation that Chuy has. I also think we have a long history [in Illinois] of greasing the skids for successors, which is not a good way for democracy to work,” said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). “But I don’t think that this is something that should really warrant the attention of the House.”

“I don’t think it was a long decision,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), whose own retirement has kicked off a hotly contested primary, of García’s deliberations. “I don’t know if it was as short as it appears, either.”

Yet Democratic leaders firmly backed García, who remains popular with his Democratic colleagues. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, of which García and Gluesenkamp Perez are both members, released a statement last week “in solidarity with” García. And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries gave the 69-year-old his full-throated backing in comments to reporters Monday.

“He’s been a progressive champion in disenfranchised communities for decades, including during his time in Congress, and he’s made life better for the American people,” Jeffries said, adding that he believed the disapproval measure would be successfully tabled.

Gluesenkamp Perez, who represents a swing district and belongs to the moderate Blue Dog faction, has a much less cozy relationship with her colleagues. She had a testy confrontation with House Minority Whip Katherine Clark on the House floor after introducing her measure. Clark later told reporters that lawmakers “should be focused on the issue of health care.”

Gluesenkamp Perez has doubled down on her criticism of her fellow Democrats. In a CNN interview Sunday, she said she understood the desire to have a unified message as a party. But, she added, “When you see things like this … it’s not just about having affordable stuff or holding another team accountable, it’s that we want leadership. We want a team that calls a spade a spade.”

It’s not the first time she’s cut against her party. Earlier this year, she unsuccessfully attempted to add congressional ethics standards relating to cognitive ability to an appropriations bill. And she was one of a half-dozen Democrats who voted with Republicans to pass the funding bill ending the government shutdown.

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Capitol Hill Republicans are rapidly falling in line behind a bill that would force the disclosure of Justice Department files concerning Jeffrey Epstein after President Donald Trump signaled Monday he would sign it.

Two prominent House committee chairs said they planned to support the bill compelling the release of materials related to the late convicted sex offender, and GOP leaders are exploring whether to advance the measure under special fast-track rules later this week.

Meanwhile, Trump’s sudden support for the measure — after a monthslong campaign to kill it — has transformed its prospects in the Senate, where it was long assumed Republicans would simply bottle it up. Now a growing number of GOP senators are open to giving the bill a vote, and some are wondering whether it might simply be sent to Trump’s desk by unanimous consent.

It’s a remarkable reversal of fortune for the effort to disgorge the “Epstein files,” prompted by a successful bipartisan effort to circumvent Speaker Mike Johnson and force the legislation to the floor.

Recognizing that House approval of the legislation was all but certain, Trump abandoned his efforts to derail the bill in a social media post Sunday night. Asked in the Oval Office on Monday if he would sign it, Trump said, “Sure I would.”

Some of his closest allies in the House said Monday they were ready to follow the president’s lead.

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in an interview Monday afternoon he will vote for the Epstein bill.

“I think everyone will vote for it,” Jordan said, adding he agreed with Trump that Republicans need “to get this ridiculous thing past us.”

Asked if he expected any changes to the bill authored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) before it gets a floor vote, Jordan replied: “No.”

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), whose panel has released thousands of Epstein emails that have heightened scrutiny of Trump’s dealings with the disgraced financier, also said he would vote for the bill. He, too, suggested the vote would not be close.

“I mean, I think everybody’s gonna vote for it,” Comer said in an interview.

“It’s just a show vote, you know? I mean, we’re the ones that have already gotten all the new information from the estate,” he said, touting his own panel’s probe into the matter.

Comer also questioned the practical impact of the legislation: “I think the Department of Justice has turned over what they’re legally allowed to turn over.”

Trump suggested as much in his Sunday night post telling lawmakers to support the bill, with many Republicans skeptical about how much new information the department would release if the bill passes.

GOP leaders have tentatively planned to advance the Epstein bill by first adopting a procedural measure in the Rules Committee Monday night that would incorporate a separate procedural measure from Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). If adopted early Tuesday afternoon, the House would immediately proceed to debate and a final vote on the Epstein bill.

House Republican leaders also discussed the option Monday to put the bill up for a vote Tuesday or Wednesday under so-called suspension of the rules, a fast-track procedure requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. No final decision has been made, though, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private leadership deliberations.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune isn’t currently expected to weigh in on whether he will bring up the Epstein measure until after it passes the House, according to a person granted anonymity to disclose internal strategy.

But Trump’s support for passing the Epstein files resolution has changed the dynamic inside the Senate GOP, where top Republicans have previously downplayed the chances of the chamber acting on the House bill, according to two other people granted anonymity to comment on the sensitive matter.

A growing number of GOP senators are open to giving the resolution a vote — pointing to both Trump’s comments and interest from their own constituents in seeing Congress take action on Epstein.

“I don’t have any problems with data coming out. So lots of people ran on this issue in the last election, so I don’t have any problems with us voting on it,” Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) told reporters Monday.

Senate Republicans will not return to Washington until Tuesday evening, when they are expected to discuss next steps. The only way for the resolution to pass the Senate this week would be with buy-in from every senator to either speed up a vote or skip one altogether with a vote by unanimous consent, which would let it clear the chamber without a roll call vote.

Congressional passage — and a Trump signature — would not be the end of the Epstein saga on Capitol Hill, however.

Jordan said he plans to have Attorney General Pam Bondi back before his panel for a rescheduled oversight hearing “as soon as possible.” Questions about the Epstein case are sure to take center stage in any hearing, as they did when Bondi recently appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Lawmakers are also bracing for the possibility that Trump might pardon Epstein’s convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a possibility Trump has repeatedly declined to rule out .

Comer responded sharply when asked if he’d support a pardon for Maxwell: “No, I do not,” he said. “I’ve already said that.”

President Donald Trump’s call for House Republicans to support releasing Jeffrey Epstein-related documents was a stunning capitulation after a months-long campaign to block the vote.

It was also a specific defeat for Trump at the hands of a despised GOP opponent: Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

“He got tired of me winning,” Massie said of Trump’s U-turn in an interview Monday morning.

Insisting “I DON’T CARE!” in a late-night Truth Social post, Trump was bowing to the inevitable — a broad House Republican mutiny on a vote that was only scheduled because Massie forced it. It was the result of Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) launching a discharge petition aimed at sidestepping senior GOP leaders who desperately wanted to avoid bringing the issue to the House floor.

The campaign to avoid the vote got remarkably ugly in the days before Trump finally conceded, with the president personally attacking Massie for recently remarrying after the sudden death last summer of his wife of more than 30 years. Just hours before Trump’s reversal, one of his top political advisers called him “garbage” in an X post.

That adviser, Chris LaCivita, is carrying out a Trump-ordered effort to unseat Massie from the rural northern Kentucky seat he has held since 2012. Trump recently endorsed a challenger, former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, in the GOP primary.

Massie has not flinched from the threats. Politically, he has seen the best fundraising of his congressional career, entering October with more than $2 million in his campaign coffers. As for the personal attacks, Massie said Monday he and his wife were laughing them off.

“She said, ‘I told you we should have invited him to the wedding!’” Massie said.

Massie’s efforts around Epstein have been no laughing matter for the White House, with top aides and legislative affairs staff furiously scrambling late last week to head off the completion of the discharge petition.

That included pulling Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) into the White House Situation Room in the final hours to try to persuade her to remove her name from the petition she had signed alongside GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Nancy Mace of South Carolina, a survivor of sexual assault. All three have cast their support for the petition as an effort to protect women.

The effort failed. The three female House Republicans held firm, and the petition notched its final and 218th signature Wednesday moments after Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) was sworn in following her September special election win.Despite a final barrage of attacks from the president over the weekend — which included Trump calling his once-close ally Greene a “traitor” and threatening a GOP primary against her — backers of the Massie-Khanna discharge effort knew they had the president beat.

There were emerging signs that it was Massie, not Trump, who had his fingers closer to the pulse of the MAGA base.

Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), a top Trump ally in the House, posted online he would be “voting NO on the Epstein Hoax” as he sought to rally Republicans to “stand by” the president’s side. Nehls received an immediate barrage of online pushback, suggesting a position against full transparency on Epstein would not be sustainable.

Massie, in conjunction with the three GOP women who signed the discharge petition, have sought to put Epstein’s victims front and center amid the battle. They invited several to Capitol Hill in September to keep the fight in the public eye as members returned from the summer recess. They are tentatively scheduled to appear together again Tuesday ahead of the final House vote.

“This shouldn’t have been a battle, and unfortunately, it has been one,” Greene said as she left a meeting with Epstein victims in September.

Yet for months, senior White House officials labored to convince rank-and-file Republicans to keep their names off Massie’s discharge effort. That, according to five people granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, included warnings that any effort to support an Epstein vote would be viewed as a direct and personal move against the president.

Trump has denied wrongdoing in relation to the Epstein allegations, and no evidence has suggested that Trump took part in Epstein’s trafficking operation. The president also has maintained that he and Epstein had a falling out years ago.

“President Trump has been consistently calling for transparency related to the Epstein files,” said Abigail Jackson, a deputy White House press secretary, in a statement. “The Democrats knew about Epstein and his victims for years and did nothing to help them until they thought they could weaponize the files against the President.”

In an effort to undercut Massie’s effort, GOP leaders and the Justice Department worked to release 30,000 pages of DOJ documents in early September, right after Massie could begin gathering signatures on his petition. But lawmakers quickly realized most of the materials had been previously released.

Around that time, the White House’s key legislative affairs liaison to the House, Jeff Freeland, was on the Hill, seeking to head off Massie right after lawmakers returned from recess.

“Jeff introduced himself to me outside of the Capitol, and he said I was moving too fast for him,” Massie said in the interview. “I told him I made a mistake by getting 12 sponsors [on the Epstein bill], because I had given him his whip list to block the most likely signers” of the discharge petition.

Over the past week, it became clear to House GOP leaders that they would no longer be able to keep the Epstein measure off the House floor. Shortly after Grijalva signed, Speaker Mike Johnson announced he would expedite the vote, holding it this week rather than next month as required under the discharge petition. Still, with Trump opposing the effort, he maintained Massie’s legislation was reckless and “moot” now that the House Oversight Committee was heading up its own probe.

Last week, Johnson tried calling one of the three GOP women who had signed on to Massie’s discharge petition. The member looked down at her phone and let the call go to voicemail, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter who declined to identify the specific lawmaker.

Trump’s Sunday night edict was directed only at House Republicans, according to Trump officials. The president could order the release of the entire Epstein document trove at any time, vote or no vote. So far, he’s declined to do so.

Senate GOP leaders have not committed to holding a vote on the Epstein bill if the House passes it as expected this week. While Republicans still widely assume the measure will die in the other chamber, it will be hard to argue to GOP senators that they should take the political heat while their House counterparts get to take a consequence-free vote.

Massie has been working with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who authored a Senate version of the bill, to bring the matter to a head across the Rotunda. Senate Democrats are already exploring options to force a vote in the coming weeks.

Massie said last week that the Epstein drama reflects how Republicans are starting to take stock of a post-Trump political world.

“They need to look past 2028 and wonder if they want this on their record for the rest of their political career,” he said.

“Right now, it’s OK to cover up for pedophiles, because the president will take up for you if you’re in the red districts — that’s the deal,” Massie told reporters last week. “But that deal only works as long as he’s popular or president. … If they’re thinking about the right thing to do, that’s pretty obvious: You vote for it.”