Congressional leaders in the House and Senate are privately negotiating a deal to address increasing concerns about artificial intelligence, and they’re hoping to move a bill in the lame-duck period, two people close to the negotiations tell POLITICO.

The specifics of the package are in flux as Democratic and Republican leadership haggle over common ground. Several bills have passed through committees on a bipartisan basis related to AI research and regulating its role in the workplace, which could be prime areas for agreement. But other subjects like AI’s role in misinformation, elections and national security are areas rife with potential partisan roadblocks and would likely be more difficult to include in a deal.

Lawmakers this term have been eyeing ways to address AI as the technology increasingly creeps into everyday life, including in politics and elections. Artificial intelligence has specifically been a priority for Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who initiated the negotiations, according to one of the people familiar. The New York Democrat helmed an “AI policy roadmap” of suggestions that was released earlier this year.

Congress returns the week after the November election and will have less than two months to move legislation before the start of a new term. During that time, lawmakers must also clear government funding legislation in order to avoid a shutdown in mid-December. It’s likely the potential AI package would be tacked onto other must-pass legislation, like government funding, or the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act.

Many lawmakers have expressed concerns over misinformation generated by artificial intelligence, including involving elections and national security. As AI technology grows more sophisticated, so has its ability to produce deep-fake images, videos and audio that can mimic political officials and candidates, resulting in reported attempts to target lawmakers as well as aiding in everyday crimes like identity theft.

But lame-duck periods — the weeks after a November election but before new members are sworn-in — are tricky. The outcomes of the presidential and congressional elections could have a significant impact on what policy gets through. Some members could be inclined to hold off on passage if they believe any upcoming switches in party control would heighten their leverage over a deal.

Then there’s the presidential candidates themselves. Former President Donald Trump has expressed reservations about regulations, saying he wants AI development to be rooted in “free speech and human flourishing.” Vice President Kamala Harris, who served as attorney general in the tech-heavy state of California, has been more vocal about addressing AI’s potential risks while balancing opportunities for innovation.

The Biden administration has repeatedly said it is open to additional regulation on AI. The president signed a broad executive order heightening AI safety standards last year that Trump has since vowed to repeal.

The House GOP could also face an intra-party battle over its leadership shortly after Congress returns, depending on the results in November. That could impact existing House Republican leaders’ willingness to move on major legislation, particularly given Trump’s position on AI regulation.

Implementing comprehensive AI reforms would likely come with a price tag. And additional government funding — particularly as Congress continues to haggle over basic spending levels, and conservatives push for more cuts — could come as a difficult sell over the next few months.

Congress, and particularly Schumer, has been working on solutions as AI has rapidly developed. Schumer’s AI roadmap was developed with Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and GOP Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). The group also hosted a series of “AI Insight Forums” for the chamber to educate members on the emerging technology and its potential threats. And Schumer has publicly urged his committee chairs to advance legislation that addresses AI.

It’s not the Senate’s first swing at regulating tech in this Congress. The chamber passed a sweeping package aimed at protecting children online earlier this year by a 91-3 vote. That deal has since stalled in the House.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday defended comments he made following the 2020 election where he privately slammed Donald Trump as “stupid” and “despicable.”

“Whatever I may have said about President Trump pales in comparison to what JD Vance, Lindsey Graham, and others have said about him, but we are all on the same team now,” McConnell said in a statement to POLITICO.

The nearly four-year-old remarks were revealed Thursday in an Associated Press report on excerpts of an upcoming biography on McConnell, “The Price of Power,” by the outlet’s deputy Washington bureau chief Michael Tackett. The book, set to publish at the end of the month, draws from years of interviews with the Senate leader and his recorded diaries.

McConnell made the disparaging comments about the former president leading up to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as Trump was making a bid to overturn the 2020 election.

The Kentucky Republican said Trump was “stupid as well as being ill-tempered,” and a “despicable human being” in private remarks that were recorded, according to the Associated Press report.

“It’s not just the Democrats who are counting the days” until Trump leaves office, McConnell said.

“And for a narcissist like him,” McConnell continued, “that’s been really hard to take, and so his behavior since the election has been even worse, by far, than it was before, because he has no filter now at all.”

McConnell’s relationship with Trump fell apart after the longtime Senate leader recognized President Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. The bad blood between the two simmered this year when McConnell endorsed Trump for president in the 2024 race.

Republican Sens. JD Vance and Lindsey Graham have not always seen eye to eye with the former president, with Vance saying in 2016 that he “can’t stomach” Trump when describing who to vote for and Graham calling Trump a “jackass” while the two were rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in 2015. Both senators have since made amends with Trump.

McConnell announced his exit as the Senate’s GOP leader in February, saying he does not plan on running for another term. McConnell plans to serve out the rest of his current term until 2026.

The nation’s loan program for disaster survivors has fully exhausted its funding, the Biden administration announced Tuesday. And lawmakers, the only ones who can greenlight more funding, are slated to be out until after Election Day.

Without congressional action, the Small Business Administration can’t make new loan offers to people trying to rebuild businesses and homes hit by disasters like Hurricanes Helene and Milton. Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly said he does not intend to call lawmakers back to town before the scheduled Nov. 12 return, however, saying over the weekend that it would be “premature” to gavel back in to approve emergency disaster aid before states have calculated their recovery needs from the two hurricanes.

After learning that the loan program was depleted, Johnson said in a statement Tuesday that “there’s no question these devastating back-to-back storms have stressed the SBA funding program.”

“But the Biden-Harris Administration has the necessary disaster funding right now to address the immediate needs of American people in these hurricane affected areas,” the speaker continued. “Congress is tracking this situation closely, and when members return in just a few short weeks, the administration should have an accurate assessment of the actual dollar amount needed and there will be strong bipartisan support to provide the necessary funding.”

Some Republican lawmakers have publicly indicated they would be more open to returning if agencies said they were out of money. Without calling lawmakers back to the Capitol, congressional leaders could use their brief “pro forma” sessions to pass an emergency funding bill for the loan program. But any lawmaker could block a request for passage without a roll-call vote.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) has already introduced a bill that would provide SBA with $8 billion for disaster loans, stressing that Congress should have “proactively funded” that agency and FEMA “before going on a months-long recess during hurricane season.”

President Joe Biden said in a statement Tuesday that Johnson “has promised that this and other disaster programs will be replenished when Congress returns.” He urged Americans to continue to apply for the loans.

Without a refill, the agency must halt all new loan offers but can still do some prep work like initial processing of loan applications.

FEMA, on the other hand, is still expected to have enough funding to last until after Election Day, even though the agency has blown through nearly half of the $20 billion Congress approved for the disaster relief fund in late September.

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell warned last week that she might have to pivot to covering only “immediate needs” with money in the disaster relief fund earlier than anticipated.

Criswell has predicted that she would need to switch to that cash-conservation mode in December or January, pausing all long-term disaster recovery efforts like rebuilding on Maui after last year’s wildfires. But last week the administrator warned that she’s “going to have to assess that every day to see if I can wait that long.”

The more than $20 billion Congress cleared before they left in September does not fulfill any of the emergency disaster aid requests the White House has sent over the last year. In June, the White House requested $4 billion in extra disaster funding to respond to tornadoes, wildfires and hurricanes, as well as the rebuilding of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore.

That unfulfilled request builds on the White House’s year-old plea for Congress to provide $23.5 billion in extra disaster aid.

RANGELEY, Maine — Democratic Rep. Jared Golden has been on the fringes of his party. Now, he’s on the cusp of becoming a power broker.

Deep inside Maine’s northern logging country, during a soaked ATV ride to Quill Hill, a lookout about 3,000 feet above sea level, Golden discussed his political future this summer.

The combat veteran is running for a fourth term in Maine’s largely rural, sprawling and deeply purple 2nd District as an outsider unbeholden to his party. He faces Republican Austin Theriault, a former NASCAR driver turned state legislator in one of the country’s most expensive battleground races.

A victorious Golden could see his power swell. That’s because he’s helping lead an independent-minded group of young lawmakers willing to use their leverage and buck leadership in order to get what they want. They are rebuilding the Blue Dog Coalition, a once-venerable centrist bloc that has more recently been viewed as an outdated relic.

If Democrats win a small majority in November led by Blue Dog candidates, it would give Golden and his group power to dictate the outcome of legislation on top priorities from climate change to immigration.

“We’re building, we hope, a team of young Blue Dogs who actually want to legislate and use leverage to get things done the way they should be done for their districts,” Golden said in an interview here at Oquossoc Grocery, a small market the northern stretch of his district.

“One way you have to do that is a willingness, if the margins are tight, to say ‘no’ to your own leadership, and be, like, look, here’s the list of things that really matter to our constituents,” he said.

This is a working class region where logging trucks rumble by and paper mills still churn — and Golden looks like he fits in. He arrived in his Chevy pickup wearing a raincoat, khaki utility pants and boots.

Nobody in a crowded store seemed to notice the third-term representative buying breakfast, and he spoke so softly that he was barely audible over a jackhammer across the street.

But he described an ambitious plan to refashion the Blue Dogs into a populist group of Democrats with real power to be a bulwark against the party’s left — which has been its power center for the past decade.

“We basically reject party loyalty, the idea that there should be some kind of national party with a series of cascading litmus tests and everyone’s gotta follow suit,” Golden said. “I view us as much more populist … it’s about establishing leverage and exerting force and power, political power, for very specific means.”

Nobody currently in Congress has used their leverage as a centrist, swing vote better than Sen. Joe Manchin, the Democrat-turned-independent from West Virginia.

Manchin tormented his party’s leadership and left flank for two years when Democrats held Congress and the White House, holding back his vote for months on end to extract concessions from his party’s leadership on what became the Inflation Reduction Act.

Now, with Manchin retiring, he’s backing Golden. “The best of the best,” Manchin said of the Mainer. “What we’re trying to do — and I’m trying to help him any way I can, I’m with him 1000 percent — is try and create support for the middle.”

For Manchin, that means supporting independent-minded candidates from primary challengers who could unseat them.

“A person that comes here and wants to be independent … vote your conscience and vote what’s best for the country first, don’t follow the party lines,” Manchin said. “We’re going to make sure they have support.”

While Golden may not have the sway of a single senator from his post in the House, he may not need too many more Blue Dogs to become a significant force.

“As congressional majorities have gotten so much narrower, it’s not obvious that you need so many members, as long as you’ve got just enough,” said Ruth Bloch Rubin, a political science professor at the University of Chicago who studies how intraparty divisions impact lawmaking.

“Golden’s working from a point of advantage, because whatever congressional majority if Democrats are to retake the House, it’s going to be a narrow one,” she said. “To have someone like Golden who recognizes the importance of organization and institution building, that’s where the action is and that’s where moderates are going to find success.”

If the margins work out in Golden’s favor, it sets him on a collision course with the party’s most powerful figures. That includes Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who has already discussed taking another stab at broad climate legislation.

“I don’t want to talk about a climate bill, I’m not doing any more of that,” Golden said of one of the Democrats’ top priorities for next year.

That doesn’t mean Golden views himself as a bad Democrat. He believes his brand of politics dubbed “progressive conservatism” could be a way to rescue the party in rural, blue-collar districts where Republicans have trounced Democrats in recent years.

“I’m still the most popular Democrat that has been on the ballot in Maine’s Second District since before I started running for office,” Golden said, citing internal polling numbers that show him maintaining 90 percent support among Democrats. “So who’s out of whack with Democrats in rural America?”

Golden sees Vice President Kamala Harris — the Democratic presidential nominee — following his model by swinging left on economics and right on other issues such as the border, crime and the environment.

“If you wanna win, then fine, follow me,” Golden said. “I’ll be a bit of your thought leader on how to really represent working class and rural communities where if we were doing as well as we used to, we’d be quite dominant nationally.”

The Blue Dog Coalition was pivotal during the Obama administration in shaping issues such as the health care debate. Their numbers have since dwindled. They had 54 members in 2009. They are now down to 10.

Golden chairs the group alongside Reps. Marie Glusenkamp-Perez of Washington and Mary Peltola of Alaska. Their races are all considered toss-ups.

A recent poll from the Portland, Maine-based Pan Atlantic Research had Theriault ahead of Golden 47-44, but within the margin of error. The Democrat is ahead in the money game.

“Hopefully, I’ll have a team of Blue Dogs around me [next year], and part of it will just be to try and use our collective leverage to make sure that what gets done meets our priorities,” Golden said.

Challenging Dems on energy

Golden and his Blue Dogs have plenty of priorities, and many of them are parochial and unsexy.

He consistently battles the Biden administration over regulations on lobster fishermen. Peltola joins Republicans to slam the Biden administration’s land protections in Alaska. And Glusenkamp-Perez, an auto mechanic by trade, has bucked the Biden administration on electric vehicles, warning they won’t work in rural communities and fights for farmers to be able to repair their own tractors.

Some of Golden’s strongest resistance to President Joe Biden and Democratic colleagues has to do with energy and the environment. Golden has an 82 percent lifetime score and a 53 percent 2023 score from the League of Conservation Voters, which generally aligns with Democrats.

He was one of only four Democrats to support H.R. 1, a House Republican package to ease environmental reviews and promote energy projects, with a heavy emphasis on fossil fuels.

“You want to talk about doing an energy bill, let’s do an energy bill,” he said about what Democrats should focus on next year if they win the elections.

Golden voted for the IRA, but only after months of objecting to its precursor, the “Build Back Better Act,” which he said was a “poorly-targeted and fiscally irresponsible agenda put forward by the Biden administration.”

“I voted for a bill that was drafted by Joe Manchin,” Golden said. And, like Manchin, he objects to how the administration is implementing it to promote electric vehicles and other green energy.

“Their approach to it in the White House has been to get the lawyers out and figure out how they can use waiver authority and all kinds of other shit.”

“They’re not committed to an energy focus that’s about American energy strength, about making an effort to bring new energy sources and technology to America rather than buying from China or from even our allies in Europe,” Golden said. “That’s what I’m for, whether it’s oil and gas, or nuclear, or wind or solar, all the above, all great as long as it’s all made in America.”

Golden says the people he represents care more about affordable energy than the climate crisis. And for Golden’s brand of politics, pragmatic solutions to local issues always come before the interests of the national party.

“I think that stems from a very constituency-oriented mindset,” Ryan LaRochelle, a political science professor at the University of Maine. “Lots of Mainers are, like, ‘yeah, climate change is important,’ but it’s probably not the most pressing issue for a lot of them.”

The median household income in Golden’s district is around $62,000 — below the U.S. average — and around 7 percent of residents are without health insurance, according to census data. The area is mostly white, and 13 percent live below the poverty line.

While riding on his ATV at full speed so water would splash through the dashboard, Golden was far more eager to talk about securing funding for off-road wheelchairs so disabled children can hunt than the existential threat of climate change.

When he does align with his party, it also aligns with his district. Golden supports higher taxes on the rich, higher wages for workers, more affordable access to health care and lower prescription drug costs.

He knocked Republicans for wanting to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act — not because of the law’s climate spending and green energy incentives, but because of it allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices and capped insulin at $35 a month.

“With Golden, part of his appeal comes from this sort of pragmatism, that I think is very rooted in rural areas, like ‘who cares about what party you’re from let’s just get shit done’ sort of thing,” LaRochelle said.

Golden’s relationship with former Maine state Sen. Tom Saviello, who came along on the ATV ride, is an example. The Republican met Golden in the State House while Golden was a representative.

Saviello was a supporter of then-Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine). But in 2018, frustrated with Poliquin’s support of Trump-era tax cuts for the wealthy and repeal of the Affordable Care Act, Saviello bucked his party to back Golden in his successful bid to oust Poliquin.

“Where do you have a congressman that shows up at Farmington, Maine, at your local bar? … That’s who Jared is, he’s part of the fabric and he’s independent in how he thinks,” Saviello said in a phone interview.

Golden left the University of Maine at Farmington in 2002 to join the Marine Corps and finished his degree at Bates College when he returned from tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Later, he worked on Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ staff before running for the state Legislature as a Democrat. He won and eventually rose to the position of assistant House majority leader.

“He hasn’t forgotten the poverty we have up here,” Saviello said of Golden. “The Democrats have forgotten that. ‘Oh we’re gonna have electric cars.’ How much does an electric car cost?”

Race to the finish

Even though Golden could wreak havoc with Democratic policy plans next year, the party is focused on making sure he wins. Golden’s seat could catapult them back into the majority.

National Republicans, for their part, are going all-out to elect Theriault and oust Golden, a prize they have sought for years.

“I’m going to go to work on day one and look at reforming our energy policy so that we can bring more American energy online in our country,” Theriault said during a debate.

Golden shot back: “Since we passed [the IRA], we have drilled more oil and gas in this country than ever before in the history of the United States. That’s the result of that law he’s talking about.”

In August, House Speaker Mike Johnson paid a visit to Auburn, Maine, to stump for Theriault, who is endorsed by former President Donald Trump. “Make America Great Again” hats dotted the crowd in a strip mall GOP office.

Theriault introduced himself as a Mainer from Aroostook County, a vast stretch that borders both New Brunswick and Quebec. He served one term in the Maine Legislature.

“I’m not just a race-car driver,” Theriault said. “I’m very, very proud to have come from a logging family from one of the most rural parts of the state of Maine. My grandfather was a logger, his father was a farmer and my dad is a trucker.”

Theriault harped on Golden as a “flip-flopper,” who has “voted against border security at every turn,” while also arguing that Golden and Democratic leadership bear the blame for inflation.

“We have an influx of these illegals coming across our country. They’re stressing our social safety net. We got veterans that are homeless on the street,” Theriault said. “What about the Americans that paid their taxes, who served our country? We need to be putting them first.”

Johnson took the stage to cheers of “USA, USA.” “This election and this race with Austin is one of the most important America, and it will decide the fate of our freedom. I am not overstating this,” Johnson said.

Golden brushed off the GOP’s rhetoric.

“They’ve been pounding on me, tens of millions of dollars, and yet my favorables are still significantly higher than my unfavorables. Not to say that I can’t lose, I certainly could, but not because of Mike Johnson or anything he does,” Golden said.

“If [House Democratic Leader] Hakeem Jeffries came up here, a whole bunch of Democrats would pack the room. But you know, who wouldn’t be in the room, the types of voters that are going to determine the outcome: swing voters.”

And Golden’s supporters say those Maine swing voters like a maverick independent. After all, the state elected William Cohen — one of the first Republicans who backed impeaching President Richard Nixon. Cohen later became Defense secretary for President Bill Clinton.

“I think Jared’s got the potential to be in the same category where those people communicated and they voted with what their constituents wanted, not what the party wanted,” Saviello said. “He knows he’s elected by people that want that kind of person down there.”

At the end of the ATV ride, Golden returned to his truck, removed his bag from the ATV and opened it.

“It’s soaked,” he said, as he pulled a holstered pistol out of his bag and placed it in the truck. “Gonna have to clean it.”

Speaker Mike Johnson said Sunday that Congress will “do whatever is necessary to cover the needs of the people” after Hurricane Helene and Milton, but that it would be “premature” to come back to Washington now before assessing how much disaster relief is needed.

“What happens after every storm is that the states have to assess and calculate the actual needs, and then they submit to Congress that request,” Johnson said during an interview with host Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “As soon as that is done, Congress will meet and in bipartisan fashion, we will address those needs. We’ll provide the additional resources.”

“But it would be premature to call everyone back now, because these storms are so large in their scope and magnitude, it’s going to take a little bit of time to make those calculations,” the Louisiana Republican added.

Johnson said that money has already been allocated to storm victims to meet their immediate needs and that as of this morning, two percent of those funds had been distributed. But he said as for Congress passing additional resources to rebuild and refund the area, that will first require more calculations. He added that Congress approved $20 billion to FEMA the day before Helene hit.

Congress is currently not scheduled to be back in session until after the election.

Later on the same program, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said that Congress will need to come back to fund FEMA but currently there is enough money for individuals impacted by the hurricanes. But he encouraged Congress to return, especially since more storms could be on the way.

“FEMA has the money to address the immediate needs of individuals impacted by Hurricanes Helene and Milton, but we need Congress to act swiftly to fund FEMA and specifically its Disaster Relief Fund, because hurricane season is not over,” Mayorkas said.

Johnson also said the Biden administration needs to act quicker in getting the current funds to hurricane victims.

“People are hurting and I’ve been on the ground in the most affected disaster areas, Florida, North Carolina, they really need the help,” Johnson said.

Mayorkas pushed back on claims of delays, saying the Biden administration has already distributed over $470 million in relief to hurricane victims even as it tries to determine who needs help.

“Assessing the damage from Hurricane Milton, which is of historic strength, and it also led to approximately 27 different tornadoes, so we don’t know the impact,” Mayorkas said. “We don’t know what’s coming tomorrow. Whether it’s another hurricane, a tornado, a fire, an earthquake.”

He added, “We have to be ready, and it is not good government to be dependent on a day-to-day existence as opposed to appropriate planning.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Sunday he does not expect to see “anything like” the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — but reiterated doubts over the election results in 2020 and said he expects “cheating” in the 2024 election.

“I don’t think we’ll see anything like that. I certainly pray and hope that’s true,” Johnson said in an interview with Margaret Brennan on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” when asked if he expects violence like in 2021.

“There’s a lot of great work that’s been done at the federal, state and local level to prevent the chaos that ensued after 2020, the Covid election year, when all the states were changing their laws and regulations.”

Johnson, one of the lead architects in the argument against certifying the 2020 election results before becoming Speaker, reiterated that there were “all sorts of concerns about fraud and irregularity” in 2020 though a lot has changed at the state level to ensure free and fair elections in 2024. But the Louisiana Republican, who said he believes former President Donald Trump’s lead on Election Day will be “too big to rig,” also said that he thinks there will be “cheating” in the 2024 election.

“The good thing is, and I think everybody should be encouraged, that since that time, most of the state legislatures went to work to shore up their systems to ensure that those kinds of things didn’t happen in the future,” Johnson said. “And I think that that’s going to give us a high degree of certainty, and certainly hope that this will be a free and fair and legal election. I think everybody on both sides should be praying and hoping for that, and that’s what I hope and expect.”

But he later added, “I think there is going to be some cheating in this election. I think non-citizens are going to vote,” Johnson said.

Johnson contended that the Biden administration — including Vice President Kamala Harris — are responsible for non-citizens voting in U.S. elections because of their border policies. He pointed to Democrats refusing to support the SAVE Act, which was House legislation aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from voting in U.S. elections, as a root point of concern. Non-citizens voting in federal elections is already illegal.

“I believe, by my count, we have about 16 million illegal aliens in the country since [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas and Harris and Biden opened the border wide,” Johnson said. “And because of that, there’s concern, because those people are distributed all around the country, as you know, there’s concern some of those people will try to participate in the elections.”

Democrats and others have argued that the extensive litigation over the 2020 proved there was no systemic fraud that affected the outcome. “I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff which I told the president was bullshit,” said Bill Barr, who was Trump’s attorney general when the 2020 election took place.

Experts also argued that the notion of undocumented immigrants voting is a scare tactic with no basis in fact. For instance, an examination of state records in Virginia showed “as few as three people” have been accused of illegal voting in the state in recent years, and none of them were non-citizens.

But other Republicans continue to reiterate the same concerns over the 2020 election results across the Sunday shows, less than a month until the election. Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance said again that he had concerns with the 2020 election results: “I’ve said repeatedly I think the 2020 election had problems. You want to say rigged, you want to say he won, use whatever vocabulary term you want.”

“If you look at what happened in Pennsylvania, Arizona and other jurisdictions in 2020, they did not follow election procedures passed by the state legislature,” Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) said in a contentious interview with CNN’s Dana Bash. “That’s an empirical fact.”

As for security at the Capitol ahead of certifying the 2024 election results, Johnson said that the Capitol Police and Architect of the Capitol have “done extraordinary measures” to prevent anyone from invading the Capitol.

“They’ve hardened the facilities around the building to prevent anything in the future from foreign terrorists or anyone else who might want to, you know, try to invade the Capitol. That’s taken care of,” Johnson said. “But I think the greater issue and the bigger story is that you’ve had really great work done in most of the states to shore up their systems and to make sure that we have a free and fair election.”

Mike Johnson has about a month left to solve his speakership math problem.

He may have earned unanimous GOP support to lead the House a year ago, after the divisive and chaotic ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, but he can’t count on those numbers again. Fierce critics turned against Johnson within weeks of backing his bid for the gavel, taking issue with the GOP leader’s dealmaking with Democrats to prevent government shutdowns.

If House Republicans keep the majority, Johnson will face public and private criticism from multiple factions of the conference. The easiest way to defang his detractors would be growing his House majority significantly. But if he doesn’t manage to do that on Election Day, he’ll have to work to appease those pockets of opposition. If the GOP keeps the House majority by only a narrow margin, he can only afford to lose a handful of Republicans in a Jan. 3 speakership vote on the House floor.

His most outspoken and well-known critics are the nearly dozen GOP lawmakers who voted to advance an ouster effort against him earlier this year, but they’re not alone. While the majority of Republicans support Johnson, saying he has the right temperament for the difficult job, others are publicly venting about his spending strategies and privately questioning his future — or even floating alternatives.

Right now, Johnson says he’s not sweating it, adding he’s done his best to maintain good relationships throughout his conference.

“There’s a passage of scripture that I think of all time that says: ‘So much as it is possible, be at peace with all men.’ So, that’s my responsibility. It’s my role. I can’t control what other people do or say,” Johnson told POLITICO.

Just shy of his first anniversary as speaker, here’s a breakdown of the factions to watch as Johnson tries to hold onto power:

Anti-Johnson 11

Eleven conservatives advanced an ouster effort against Johnson in May that failed after Democrats sided with most Republicans to block it. Unsurprisingly, this group is Johnson’s biggest potential headache.

Republicans view their three colleagues who spearheaded that effort — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) — as the most likely to vote against Johnson in a future speakership vote, regardless of what he does in the coming months.

While eight more Republicans opted to vote to advance the ouster resolution, it’s not certain that all of them would’ve actually approved removing Johnson. Trump had made public statements supporting the speaker at the time, and Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) told POLITICO previously that Trump’s opinion was significant and protected the speaker.

While Crane was one of the 11, he told POLITICO in mid-April that Trump’s backing of Johnson prompted the Arizona Republican to back off from further pursuing an ejection effort. He added that he’ll be paying attention to the former president’s position in the coming months.

Another Republican who voted to advance the effort, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said their decision was partially motivated by not wanting to side with Democrats who came to Johnson’s aid — not necessarily their issues with the speaker himself.

Two more, Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), have vented about Johnson’s recent decisions on spending bills but have declined to say how they would vote for speaker. Biggs and Crane also backed McCarthy’s ouster last year.

Other members in that group of 11 have largely declined to indicate how they would vote on a future Johnson speakership bid.

Disgruntled Republicans

Outside of those 11, there is a broader group of conservative members who are frustrated with Johnson but less vocal.

That includes Republicans who opposed the effort to boot Johnson in May, arguing that doing so risked too much chaos in an election year and could even result in a Democratic speaker. But more than a dozen have indicated they might be ready for new leadership come January.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is one member of that group. She previously told POLITICO in late April that while she didn’t support the so-called motion to vacate against Johnson, she wouldn’t back him for a leadership role again after he green-lighted a vote to send more aid to Ukraine.

“I can tell you this: I will never support Speaker Mike Johnson as speaker again. That’s for certain,” Boebert said at the time.

Other Republicans say they like Johnson, but they’re frustrated that he hasn’t played hardball against Democrats like they hoped he would when they elected him in October.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) declined to say if he would vote for Johnson, telling POLITICO that it depends on how the rest of the year plays out — a sentiment widely shared among this group. He added that while Johnson “has a general likeability because he’s honest,” he argued Republicans need the “hardball tactics that a Nancy Pelosi has” in their fiscal battles.

Rivals’ allies

There’s another, difficult-to-navigate wrinkle: Other members are quietly considering making their own bid for top spots. Even if they defer to Johnson, the speaker still has to worry about their allies.

A major player here is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). The current Judiciary Committee chair has dozens of staunch conservatives who privately say they want to see him in the top spot. And while Jordan has stated he would not challenge Johnson for speaker, some members are already floating a Jordan leadership trial balloon. That could mean they oppose Johnson in favor of Jordan.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who was elected Freedom Caucus chair last month, name-checked Jordan as someone he wants to see in leadership. Harris opposed booting Johnson earlier this year.

“I like Jim Jordan. I think he should have a shot at being speaker. I think he will have a shot at being speaker after the election,” Harris said back in March.

He’s not the only one pointing at the Ohio Republican, who tried to become speaker last fall but was blocked by a coalition of centrists and allies of Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.).

During the September funding fight, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) predicted to reporters that Johnson will need Democratic help to keep the gavel in January and floated Jordan as someone who he thought would have been a “great” speaker. And Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) is dodging questions about the next leadership fight after he advanced the Johnson ouster effort earlier this year.

First-term members

The incoming class of House Republicans will be another wild card in the speakership election. And many of them have not yet indicated where they stand.

Trump’s influence could sway some in the group. One incoming member, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said that they would take direction from the former president. Others are waiting to see the outcome of the November election before going public on their decisions.

POLITICO reached out to about two dozen GOP candidates expected to serve in the House next term, after they won their primary races in safe red seats. About half of those expected incoming members did not respond to questions about where they stand on the leadership race. A handful of them indicated they plan to back Johnson.

Many of the new lawmakers will replace Republicans who were already in Johnson’s camp, though there are a few in the incoming class who will replace some hardliners — like John McGuire, who defeated Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) in a nasty primary. Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.), who advanced the effort against Johnson, is retiring, as is perennial leadership thorn Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.).

And at least one candidate who is expected to join the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus indicated that they would back Johnson for speaker, if they keep the majority: Mark Harris of North Carolina, who is running in the seat currently held by retiring Rep. Dan Bishop.

“I think Mike’s doing a phenomenal job. I thought he is in an incredibly difficult place with the vote margins that he’s working with. And … he has been working his tail off all over the country, raising money, trying to help the candidates, trying to increase the majority,” Harris said in an interview last month. “And I think that if he increases the majority, I think there’s no question that he’s going to have that next time as speaker.”

Another conservative candidate and likely Freedom Caucus recruit, Abe Hamadeh of Arizona, praised Johnson, but didn’t say directly how he’d cast his vote.

It’s worth noting that first-term members change their minds on leadership votes more readily than veteran lawmakers. About one-quarter of the twenty Republicans who voted to block McCarthy from the speakership last January were new members. They later agreed to back McCarthy after he made various concessions.

Silent Republicans

There are a number of Republicans who privately kvetch that they will oppose Johnson in January, but publicly they give themselves room to reverse their position — looking to avoid blowback or potentially crossing Trump.

“I feel completely justified going back home and saying: ‘Why would I sign up for this again?’ No chance,” said one House Republican, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly, referring to how Johnson has led the conference.

It’s harder to quantify how many members belong to this group, or how many are serious about opposing Johnson. Their decisions could highly depend on both Trump and the November election results, and the looming December funding fight could also play a role.

They also may want to avoid the lobbying that could ensue if they publicly opposed Johnson now. A handful have privately floated that they hope Johnson will bow out if it becomes clear he can’t win the gavel again. But other frustrated members concede there isn’t a viable candidate to replace him if they win the majority in November.

Johnson will have a better idea how large his opposition is — though not exactly who is in it — when the conference holds a secret-ballot, simple-majority vote to name their speaker nominee in November. The tougher, full House vote follows in January.

Senate Republicans are preparing to significantly escalate their plans to exploit a campaign-finance loophole that will allow them to save millions of dollars on TV advertising, irking Democrats who hoped federal regulators would block the GOP plan.

Republicans in late July began quietly piloting their new strategy: running campaign ads for a candidate, framed as a fundraising plea, to get cheaper ad rates and avoid awkward content restrictions. Democrats, furious at what they saw as the crossing of ethical and legal lines, asked the Federal Election Commission to weigh in.

At a contentious meeting Thursday, the agency deadlocked 3-3 on whether these joint fundraising ads should be permitted — effectively allowing the practice to continue.

With no restrictions imposed, Republicans, who have been facing a deep cash disparity with Democrats, are now preparing to turn what was a smaller-scale effort into a key component of their closing TV ad strategy.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and its candidates already set up these fundraising vehicles in several states — and they added Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Nevada in recent weeks. Those committees have already been collecting money for a flood of the new, cheaper “fundraising” ads.

The financial reality is that Republicans, facing a significant money gap, need this kind of spending workaround the most. But Democrats, who, “unlike Republicans …asked for clear guidance from the FEC” and did not receive it, now say they will be forced into using the tactic, too.

“Moving forward the DSCC is committed to ensuring our campaigns do not operate at a disadvantage in the closing weeks of the campaign and will utilize the same tactics that are being employed by Republicans regarding joint committee advertising,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson David Bergstein said in a statement.

And Republicans took a victory lap: “Senate Democrats’ attempt to limit party speech backfired spectacularly. This is a rough day for the DSCC,” said Ryan Dollar, the NRSC’s general counsel.

Democratic candidates have raised far more than Republicans and can purchase ads at the cheaper rate offered to candidates. Republicans rely more heavily on independent expenditures from their campaign arm and allied super PACs, which have to pay much more per ad.

The NRSC has tried to overcome the deficit by using so-called “hybrid ads” in which the party and candidates split the cost — and receive the candidate rate. But half of those ads must be devoted to a national party or issue, often leading to clunky messaging. And the candidate’s campaign must foot half the bill.

The NRSC was searching for ways to more effectively narrow Democrats’ massive money advantage within the constraints of campaign finance law. Dollar had been advocating for deploying a new strategy. The plan: air political ads through what’s known as a “joint fundraising committee” — a group that raises money for several groups, such as party committees and individual campaigns, at the same time.

That would allow the NRSC and other party committees to cover nearly the full cost of the ads, while keeping the focus on the specific race. All the committee has to do is insert a donation line at the end of the ad, turning a campaign ad into a fundraising one.

As financial disparities mounted, the NRSC decided to try Dollar’s idea.

They started testing the idea in Montana at the end of July, with ads run by a joint fundraising committee helping GOP Senate candidate Tim Sheehy. One ad from the group, which has spent $2.8 million so far, is narrated entirely by Sheehy. He begins by discussing his military service and ends with the phrase “join my team, give now.” A QR code that leads to a fundraising page briefly appears in the closing seconds of the spot.

In mid-September, the NRSC and its candidates began running similar fundraising campaign ads in Maryland and Arizona, with joint fundraising committees spending nearly $3 million so far on TV in the former and $500,000 in the latter.

“This is just a really blatant attempt to bypass contribution limits, and it’s just the latest attempt by Republicans to further dismantle our campaign finance system,” Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United, a liberal campaign finance reform group, said in an interview Thursday. “This big outside money is directly undercutting the power of small-dollar donors that are investing in candidates.”

The GOP only needs to flip two seats to guarantee control of the Senate, and they are favored to do so. But party leaders have been openly warning for weeks that their cash deficit with Democrats could lead to them losing winnable seats. And in some states, the disparities between the two parties have only grown more stark as Senate Democrats raise tens of millions of dollars from small-dollar donors in the final months.

The party committees can direct donors toward these joint fundraising committees, which can accept much larger checks. They benefit candidates who raise more from large donors and make attracting small donors less necessary.

In the FEC’s Thursday meeting, Democratic commissioners expressed concern that allowing joint fundraising committees to run advertisements with short advertising solicitations would encourage them to push the boundaries with ads that have no plausible fundraising benefit.

“There’s no end limit here, right? Like, somebody could put up a QR code for a quarter of a second and have it be completely transparent, and then I don’t know how my colleagues would vote in an enforcement matter,” said Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum, a Democrat.

The continued practice could have implications far beyond this election cycle as campaigns and their joint fundraising committees get more creative.

Those were among the concerns of campaign finance advocates ahead of the FEC’s decision. Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center, was one of those who had submitted comments urging regulators to say that the tactic should be impermissible.

“As much as this appears to be kind of a technical issue and kind of in the weeds of campaign finance, I think the ramifications could actually be quite huge,” Ghosh said.

Hurricane Milton’s rampage is not swaying House Republican leaders who oppose returning to Washington to approve billions of dollars for disaster assistance.

President Joe Biden on Thursday said lawmakers should return to Capitol Hill “immediately” from their preelection recess, echoing pleas from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers from the afflicted states.

But despite questions about the solvency of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster fund, House Speaker Mike Johnson and top appropriators insist the agency can manage just fine — for now — with the $20.3 billion that Congress freed up for it late last month. That money is for the fiscal year that ends next Sept. 30.

“To be clear: Congress will act again upon its return in November to address funding needs and ensure those impacted receive the necessary resources,” Athina Lawson, a spokesperson for Johnson, said in a statement to POLITICO’s E&E News on Thursday.

“In the meantime, the Administration needs to focus on getting the existing and sufficient disaster relief out to the millions of Americans in dire need and work to assess the extent and nature of the damage,” Lawson said. “Until the Administration does the work to provide an assessment, any action by Congress will be premature.”

The administration itself has been sending mixed messages. Asked Wednesday on CNN if Congress needs to reconvene early to address disaster aid, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, said that “FEMA has what they need right now.”

Biden has largely backed statements from FEMA officials saying the agency has the resources needed to support recovery efforts after Helene and Milton.

Even in a letter he wrote to congressional leaders on Friday, sounding the alarm about the looming disaster aid cliff and urging lawmakers to step in, Biden’s request was for action “after the Congress comes back into session on November 12th.”

Biden sounded a different theme Thursday, saying that “I think the Congress should be coming back and moving on emergency needs immediately, and they’re gonna have to come back after the election as well.” He said lawmakers should at least provide more money now for the Small Business Administration’s disaster loans program, which is also close to exhaustion after multiple calamities.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have stayed relatively quiet on whether Congress should reconvene before the post-election lame-duck session.

Two Senate Democratic leadership aides have said they do not expect Congress to reconvene unless there are urgent disaster needs before the election.

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell told reporters Wednesday that the agency is able to “support all of the needs of everyone that was impacted by Helene and Milton.”

‘Burning the remaining dollars’

Milton made landfall in Florida late Wednesday night as a Category 3 storm. With Floridians still reeling from Helene’s hit last month, forecasts of Milton’s destruction drew bipartisan concern that the storm would wallop federal disaster relief accounts.

Even before Congress allowed FEMA to tap $20.3 billion with last month’s funding stopgap, the agency had a backlog of $9 billion that it had to withhold from older rebuilding projects.

Criswell said Wednesday that FEMA has “gone through about $9 billion already” and noted that “there’s just over $11 billion in the Disaster Relief Fund.”

“I’m going to have to evaluate how quickly we’re burning the remaining dollars,” she said.

Biden spoke with Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday morning and said the administration would provide any support the state needs for a quick response and recovery.

DeSantis told Biden that state officials are assessing damage and thanked him for the federal support before and after landfall, according to a White House pool report.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), DeSantis’ former emergency management director, indicated on Fox Business on Thursday that he was concerned about FEMA’s disaster balance despite assurances from congressional leaders and the Biden administration.

“They have the funds to respond,” he said. “If there’s another hurricane, they probably won’t have the funds to respond, and they probably also don’t have the funds to deal with all of the reimbursement that cities and counties put out to respond and clean up during these disasters.”

Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.), chair of the House State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, said he feels Congress can address disaster funding in a fiscal 2025 funding package or another funding extension later this year.

“The president of the United States says we have enough money. … If that changes, we’ll have to go back, but right now, from what I’ve seen, if the money’s there, we don’t have to come back before we have to finish the appropriations bills,” Díaz-Balart said.

He added, “Obviously if the money won’t be there all of a sudden, I’ll be the first to demand that we come back.”

‘We can pass this immediately’

Still, the calls for more urgent action are piling up.

Moskowitz has introduced two bills to provide a total of $20 billion in supplemental disaster funding for FEMA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s disaster block grant program, and the Small Business Administration’s disaster loans program.

SBA Administrator Isabel Casillas Guzman said in a statement over the weekend that her agency was likely to run out of disaster assistance loan funding “before the end of October.”

The agency said Wednesday that it had just $100 million remaining for new loans as applications for that money continue to pile up. Hours later, a group of 63 House Democrats sent a letter to Johnson calling on him to reconvene Congress this month to approve new aid, including for SBA loans.

Thursday morning, as Floridians were awakening to catastrophic damage, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the only Republican to co-sponsor Moskowitz’s supplemental funding bill for FEMA, said she spoke with Biden about the funding request.

“Just spoke with @POTUS Biden — he’s personally ensuring FEMA doesn’t cause delays with debris removal and supports the $15B in FEMA funds specifically for hurricane victims,” she posted Thursday on the social media platform X.

“If Congress holds a special session, we can pass this immediately,” she added. “@SpeakerJohnson, let’s make it happen!”

Emma Dumain and Thomas Frank contributed to this report.