President Donald Trump took his pitch to nix the filibuster directly to Senate Republicans on Wednesday. They are once again saying, thanks, but no thanks.

Trump spent several minutes during a breakfast meeting with GOP senators at the White House urging them to eliminate the 60-vote supermajority requirement for most bills and reopen the government on party lines — even as he acknowledged Republicans might not do it and said he would ultimately respect their “wishes.”

“It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do,” Trump said. “If you don’t terminate the filibuster you’ll be in bad shape.”

But Senate GOP leaders quickly reiterated that it’s simply not happening.

“I’ve said before there are not the votes there,” said Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), adding that Trump “could have some sway with members, but I just know where the math is on this issue in the Senate.”

Privately Republicans acknowledge they aren’t anywhere close to having the votes to change the rules. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) pointed to the number of GOP senators who have recently backed the filibuster, adding that Trump is “very attuned to the political realities.”

Several GOP senators also reiterated Wednesday they would not support a change. Opposition from just four of the 53 Senate Republicans could stop Trump’s demand cold.

“I’d never vote to nuke the filibuster,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) similarly said in an interview, “I have long said I don’t support nuking the filibuster.” And Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of Senate GOP leadership, called the filibuster an “important aspect of how the Senate operates.”

The firm opposition hasn’t stopped Trump from hammering Republicans, arguing Democrats will do it when they have control. Republicans have resisted changing the rules in part because it would come back to bite them once they are back in the minority.

Trump appeared to acknowledge Wednesday that he doesn’t have the votes but said he hoped to sway some senators. “I’m going to go by your wishes,” he said, “but it’s a tremendous mistake.”

Nicholas Wu and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report. 

Several Republican senators are voicing uncertainty ahead of a vote to block the Trump administration from taking military action against Venezuela, setting up a potential rebuke of the president over the scope of his war powers.

The White House, in an apparent push to get Republicans on board, has started sharing more information with Congress about its rationale for strikes on suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will brief lawmakers on Wednesday as senators weigh the bipartisan legislation.

Four Senate Republicans said Wednesday they are still reviewing the Justice Department’s legal rationale, which Congress received last week, and two others have already voted against the military strikes. It would only take three more GOP defections to flip the outcome of the upcoming vote.

“I want to make sure that we do our due diligence and that we’re doing things correctly long-term,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, (R-S.D.), a member of the Intelligence and Armed Services panels, who noted the stepped-up engagement from administration officials.

Democratic lawmakers have objected to the U.S. military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that have killed more than 60 people.

Rubio’s push to shore up support on Capitol Hill — where he’ll meet with congressional leaders and national security committee heads from both parties — comes amid bipartisan frustration that the Trump administration has left Congress in the dark about its increasingly aggressive military campaign.

“I’m still looking at everything,” said Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a Senate Intelligence Committee member. “I’m doing my homework.”

Lawmakers are particularly interested in the intelligence behind the strikes and the Justice Department’s legal justification for them.

“I need to read the legal opinion that the Office of Legal Counsel did,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who chairs the Appropriations Committee. “I’ve gone to the classified briefing, as I said, but I’d like to read that opinion.”

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said he wants clarity on when the Constitution requires Congress to authorize military force.

“I’m trying to figure out where that line is drawn,” he said, adding that he also wants answers to “factual” questions. “What are we doing and what is yet to come?”

The last war powers measure failed 48-51 with Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) crossing the aisle to support it. Both indicated on Wednesday that they have not changed their minds.

Paul said there have been “rumblings” of more dissatisfied Republicans switching sides amid concerns about the lack of legal clarity. “Really killing people without an accusation, without evidence and without a trial is not something that I find acceptable,” he said.

A bipartisan group of defense lawmakers pressed President Donald Trump directly for more details in a letter sent to the White House on Tuesday, arguing efforts to stem the flow of narcotics into the U.S. “must be done within the legal, moral, and ethical framework that sets us apart from our adversaries.”

The letter was signed by Republican Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Mike Turner of Ohio as well as Democrats Jason Crow of Colorado and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, all senior members of the House Armed Services Committee.

“The administration should come to Congress, make the legal case, present their intelligence, and assure the American people that any military action is grounded in both authority and accountability,” Bacon said in a statement. “If those standards are met, I’m confident Congress and the American people will stand behind decisive action to confront this crisis.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday he had spoken with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, following the 34-year-old’s electoral win in the Senate leader’s hometown.

Schumer repeatedly passed up opportunities to endorse Mamdani after several conversations between the two New Yorkers. On Tuesday, Schumer declined to say whom he voted for in the mayoral election, sharing only that he looked forward to “working with the next mayor to help New York City.”

The Senate Democratic leader said at a Wednesday press conference that he and Mamdani “had a very, very good conversation” in which they discussed their shared commitment to New York City.

“I congratulated him on running a very, very good campaign, and the issue that he has stressed is being stressed by Democrats across the country, from one end of America to the other, the high costs that the Trump administration is imposing on us and their failure to do anything about it,” he said.

Schumer and some other New York Democrats were reluctant to stand behind Mamdani throughout the race even as he emerged as the clear front-runner, with some in party leadership worrying that the democratic socialist could provide easy fodder for Republicans who seek to paint the party as a bastion of socialism.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, originally from Buffalo, endorsed Mamdani shortly after his primary win and campaigned with him. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — another New York City native — ultimately expressed support for the candidate before the start of early voting.

Speaker Mike Johnson connected House Republicans’ fate in next year’s midterms to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, just hours after GOP candidates took an election night drubbing from Democrats who centered their campaigns on opposing him.

“President Trump is on the ballot next fall,” Johnson said in his first comments of the off-year election results, delivered at a news conference outside the Capitol on Wednesday. That, he explained, is because Democrats will work to unwind Trump’s agenda and “move to impeach him.”

Johnson’s remarks are in part meant to address anxieties among Republicans about the party’s lackluster electoral performance when Trump is not a candidate and can’t draw voters to GOP candidates down the ballot.

But they also underscore what is certain to be a key Democratic message going into next year: that the midterms are a referendum on Trump, whose approval ratings are currently in the low 40s, according to most recent polls — the lowest of his second term.

It’s officially the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, and about a dozen Democrats are itching to find a way out.

But after Democrats’ sweeping victories Tuesday night, their colleagues are waking up this morning and wondering: Are we really going to cave now?

The big wins in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and elsewhere stand to complicate efforts to reopen the government. It’s hard to see most Democrats wanting to temper their momentum immediately after witnessing a massive voter backlash to President Donald Trump and Republicans.

“Tonight’s results are a repudiation of the Trump agenda,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement that called it “a good night for Democrats and our fight to lower costs, improve healthcare, and reach a better future for American families.”

The Democrats searching for an exit to the shutdown had their say during a two-hour-plus caucus lunch Tuesday that ended with grim faces and tight lips. Expect voices like Sen. Chris Murphy’s to carry weight Wednesday.

“Maybe the take is that (a) people think Trump is out of control; and (b) people like Dems when we’re taking a stand and fighting for what we believe in — as we have been for the last month,” Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X Tuesday night.

Now it’s Republicans’ turn to have a long awkward meal. GOP senators are headed to the White House Wednesday morning for a breakfast meeting with Trump, who is unlikely to be in a jovial mood given the GOP’s electoral drubbing.

Senators can expect the president to rekindle his push to kill the filibuster as two senior Republicans granted anonymity to speak candidly say he is getting increasingly unhappy as the shutdown drags on.

He hinted as much in a late-night Truth Social post: ‘“TRUMP WASN’T ON THE BALLOT, AND SHUTDOWN, WERE THE TWO REASONS THAT REPUBLICANS LOST ELECTIONS TONIGHT,’ according to Pollsters.”

But GOP senators made clear Tuesday he won’t have a very receptive audience if he makes a hard sell on going “nuclear,” with many favoring the 60-vote status quo.

“Simply going to make the Senate a mini version of the House is not what any of us really want to do,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said.

What else we’re watching:   

— Congress gets more info on strikes: The White House is starting to provide Congress more information about U.S. maritime strikes as GOP senators threaten to side with Democrats to restrict Trump’s war powers. Senate Armed Services ranking member Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said Tuesday that last week’s bipartisan public admonishment of the administration for not providing the legal rationale for the strikes on alleged drug traffickers prompted DOD officials to provide lawmakers “some new material to read.” He doesn’t think it covered most unanswered questions.

— Boozman, Booker meet with crypto czar: Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) plan to speak Wednesday afternoon with White House crypto and AI czar David Sacks as lawmakers look to finalize the committee’s portion of a sweeping crypto market structure bill.

Connor O’Brien, Jordain Carney, Katherine Tully-McManus, Jasper Goodman, Meredith Lee Hill, Nicholas Wu and Kelly Garrity contributed to this report.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) chided Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-S.C.) on Tuesday for her confrontation with airport security, after the House member claimed she was treated unfairly by agents at the Charleston International Airport.

In a Tuesday evening Facebook post, Scott said Mace had invoked his name “for reasons that are unclear” and that his experiences at the airport had been positive “without exception.” He also thanked airport police for taking extra security precautions due to death threats lobbed against him.

“It is never acceptable to berate police officers, airport staff, and TSA agents who are simply doing their jobs, nor is it becoming of a Member of Congress to use such vulgar language when dealing with constituents,” Scott wrote.

The statement comes after an altercation last week, in which Mace “began loudly cursing and making derogatory comments” toward airport security, according to an incident report filed by a police officer. The confrontation apparently occurred when Mace attempted to use a restricted entrance following a mix-up about the vehicle she arrived in.

According to the report, Mace — who is running for governor in South Carolina — also said the security “would never treat Tim Scott like this” and berated TSA agents.

Mace has repeatedly criticized the security officials involved and defended her actions since Wired first reported the incident, accusing an American Airlines gate agent and several officers of conspiring to lie on the report and vowing legal action against them.

“All federally elected officials including Senators Scott and Graham use the same Crew Member Access Point at airports,” she wrote in one post. “That’s the federal security protocol. Maybe check your facts next time.”

Mace has posted on social media about the incident more than a dozen times, calling on Charleston International Airport CEO Elliott Summey and others to resign.

Scott also wrote that he does not use profanity “in public or private” and that members of Congress work for law enforcement, not vice versa.

“For those who want to invoke my name, please have the courtesy to note my actions and how I treat police officers, TSA agents, and fellow travelers with the respect they deserve,” Scott wrote in the post.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley is seriously considering jumping into the race for the Massachusetts Senate seat currently held by fellow Democrat Ed Markey and has been checking in with allies about a possible run, according to four people granted anonymity to discuss the private conversations.

That could put the 51-year-old member of the progressive “Squad” on a collision course not only with Markey, but with Rep. Seth Moulton, who launched his own primary challenge last month. Moulton, 47, has framed his bid against the 79-year-old incumbent as part of the Democratic Party’s generational upheaval.

A University of Massachusetts Amherst poll conducted at the end of October and released Monday showed Markey leading a hypothetical Senate field including Pressley and Moulton with Markey garnering 35 percent, Pressley with 21 percent and Moulton with 25 percent. The survey of 416 Massachusetts likely Democratic voters has a 6.1% margin of error.

“The Congresswoman remains focused on ending Republicans’ government shutdown, serving her district, and effectively fighting back against the White House’s attacks on the LGBTQ+ community, Black and brown folks, federal workers, and our immigrant neighbors,” Pressley spokesperson Ricardo Sánchez said in a statement Tuesday.

Even before the poll was released, Democrats were chattering about a possible Pressley candidacy.

She has a record of success running against a longtime incumbent. She was elected to her Boston-based House seat in 2018 after unseating incumbent Rep. Mike Capuano in a primary challenge. She became part of a progressive surge in Congress that brought the first four members of the Squad into office.

But she would likely start a Senate race at a financial disadvantage: Pressley only had about $148,000 cash on hand at the end of the last quarter, according to FEC filings. Markey had stockpiled about $2.7 million as of Sept. 30, while Moulton had $2.1 million.

Asked about her reelection plans while campaigning with local officials in Boston Tuesday, Pressley said she is “just very focused right now on how to mitigate the harm of this shutdown and get the government reopened.”

Markey was first elected to the House in 1976 — when Pressley was two years old. He fended off a primary challenge from another younger congressman, then-Rep. Joe Kennedy III, in 2020.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced Tuesday he will not run for governor in 2026.

Speaking from the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Padilla said it was “with a full heart” and “more commitment than ever” that he was choosing to remain in Congress rather than seek the governor’s mansion.

“I choose not just to stay in the Senate. I choose to stay in this fight because the Constitution is worth fighting for. Our fundamental rights are worth fighting for. Our core values are worth fighting for. The American dream is worth fighting for,” Padilla said.

As California’s senior senator and a fixture in state politics, Padilla would have brought formidable assets to a governor race without a commanding front-runner. A concerted campaign to draft Padilla spoke to the unsettled state of the field after former Vice President Kamala Harris took a pass earlier this year and interest groups and elected officials hunted for an alternative to poll-leader Katie Porter, who is facing fallout from videos of her sparring with a reporter and berating a staffer.

In deciding not to run for governor, Padilla said he reflected on an altercation between himself and Homeland Security officials when he interrupted a briefing by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem.

“Y’all recall that event,” Padilla said. “As alarming as that experience was not just for me and our family, but for most people who have seen the video. Countless people have told me, I’m glad you’re fighting for us. I’m glad you’re there.”

Padilla had the potential to loosen Porter’s grip on the lead by entering a crowded field of contenders competing in the June primary for two general election spots, which go to the top vote-getters regardless of party.

But with his decision to bow out, the hunt for a Porter alternative will likely continue. Other potential entrants include Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Bay Area Democrat, and billionaire donor Tom Steyer, who has dipped a toe into the water with an ad blitz for term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom’s gerrymandering ballot initiative.

Sacramento’s political class eagerly greeted the prospect of Padilla running, seeing him as a known quantity and a person with whom they could work. Many of the elected officials, interest groups and political operatives who steer money and endorsements are wary of Porter’s progressive record, her inexperience with state politics and her reputation for abrasiveness — the last of which has dogged Porter’s current campaign.

Padilla has spent years climbing the ladder of California politics, ascending from the Los Angeles City Council to the Legislature to the secretary of state’s office. Newsom, his longtime ally, appointed him to the Senate in late 2020 after Harris vacated her seat to become vice president.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries praised a bipartisan group of House lawmakers who presented a health care compromise proposal Monday for working “in good faith” toward an extension of key health insurance subsidies.

But Jeffries said he expected the other congressional chamber to spearhead any deal on the expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits.

“It seems to me more likely that if there’s a bipartisan agreement to emerge, it will emerge from the Senate, not the House,” Jeffries told reporters Tuesday, casting doubt on whether House GOP leaders would ever allow a compromise.

“It’s been my view from the very beginning that traditional House Republicans aren’t serious about doing anything meaningful, and they never have been,” he added.

The group of four House lawmakers — two Republicans and two Democrats — released a “statement of principles” Monday in an effort to break the logjam as the government shutdown entered a sixth week. They pitched a two-year extension of the tax credits along with new income caps for enrollees.

Democrats have made expiring health care subsidies a centerpiece of their shutdown demands. Jeffries has kept his commitments on the issue vague, ruling out a one-year extension but otherwise saying his caucus would evaluate any bipartisan compromise forged by the Senate.