House Republicans got into a protracted floor fight with Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, who refused to take back comments he made about former President Donald Trump’s ongoing criminal trial in New York.

“Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he’s not a king,” McGovern, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, said on the floor. “We have a presumptive nominee for president facing 88 felony counts, and we’re being prevented from even acknowledging it. … And yet, in this Republican-controlled House, it’s OK to talk about the trial, but you have to call it a sham.”

That prompted Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) to demand that McGovern’s words be “taken down,” which means they would be effectively stricken from the record. McGovern declined to withdraw them, prompting an extended face-off on the House floor Wednesday afternoon.

After nearly an hour of delay, Rep. Jerry Carl (R-Ala.) — who was presiding over the floor at the time — ruled the words were “a breach of order” by referring to the presumptive GOP nominee in “personally offensive” terms. He ordered them stricken from the record.

McGovern did not object, so the chamber moved on to its regularly scheduled debate.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday advanced a bill that would let Congress force the Biden administration to transfer stalled arms to Israel.

The new bill, which is a narrower rebuke of President Joe Biden than the bill that the House passed last week, won a handful of Democratic votes. Though it’s unlikely to receive consideration in the Democratic-led Senate, it represents another vehicle for the House GOP to pressure Biden and split Democrats.

The final tally was 33-13.

Background: It follows the White House’s decision to pause shipments of 2,000- and 500-pound unguided bombs out of fear that they could be used in an Israeli invasion in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians were sheltering.

Republicans argue the administration is thwarting the will of Congress after lawmakers passed more than $14 billion in funding to help Israel in its fight against Hamas. The bombs Biden paused were funded prior to the recent spending bill, however.

Partisan clash: After the White House threatened to veto the earlier House-passed bill and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he has no plans to take it up, Foreign Affairs Chair Mike McCaul (R-Texas) has said he hoped this new bill would have a better shot.

“This bill is intended to … restore the trust and transparency that has historically existed between our coequal branches of government when it comes to Israel,” McCaul said during a committee markup.

But ranking member Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), opposed the bill, saying it mischaracterizes the administration’s position and “continues the GOP’s unfortunate politicization of the United States-Israel relationship.”

Comparing the bills: The earlier House-passed bill would slash budgets for the offices of the defense secretary, secretary of state and National Security Council if Biden doesn’t deliver the stalled heavy bombs. McCaul’s new bill would give lawmakers a new tool to override such delays.

Before pausing an arms sale to Israel that was approved and paid for by Congress, a president would have to give 15 days’ notice to lawmakers, and also describe the equipment on hold, explain why and what it would take to lift the hold, and detail the hold’s effect on Israel’s qualitative military edge. Lawmakers would be able to bring up a joint resolution of disapproval to override the hold.

The panel agreed Wednesday to an amendment from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) that softened the new McCaul bill’s language about Biden’s actions and listed cases of past presidents pausing security assistance to other allies.

GOP blasts Biden: During the markup, McCaul and other panel Republicans cast Biden’s decision to withhold the heavy bombs as wavering in his support for a close ally and upending Congress’ intent.

“This decision was made without consulting Congress. We had to learn about it from the media,” McCaul said.

Meeks pushes back: Most panel Democrats voted against the bill after Republicans, in a party-line vote, defeated an amendment from Meeks that would have broadened the scope of the bill to apply to any allies or presidential administration.

Meeks pointed to former President Donald Trump’s freeze on military aid to Ukraine while asking Ukrainians to find scandal fodder about his enemies. Meeks argued that Congress should have a tool to avert a repeat.

“Y’all know this is not a hypothetical. We’ve had a former president by the name of Trump take such actions,” he said.

Democrats split: Among Democrats who voted for the McCaul bill on Wednesday, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said he was doing so to register disagreement with the administration’s pause on the heavy bombs and to keep pressure on Hamas for a cease-fire and the release of Hamas’ hostages. Moskowitz also voted for the House-passed bill last week.

“For me, I think the way the pause on the specific weapon was announced became a message to the world that there was now daylight [between the U.S. and Israel], releasing pressure on Hamas,” Moskowitz said in a brief interview.

Sen. Joe Manchin demurred when asked about a new report that he’s being encouraged to run for governor — but didn’t rule it out.

West Virginia MetroNews reported on Monday that some Republicans are encouraging Manchin (D-W.Va.) to run for governor, his old job, against Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who Manchin defeated in a 2018 Senate race. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams is the Democratic nominee in the state’s gubernatorial election.

“I heard that this morning, the rumors. I’ve supported my friend Steve Williams, we’ve known each other for 40 years … he’s a good person. I don’t know what’s going on. So basically I’ll just wait until I go home,” Manchin said on Monday evening.

Manchin has often flirted with running for governor — or other offices — only to eventually reject the possibility.

When reporters pressed him to rule it out, he gave a typically noncommittal answer and suggested he’s eager to get away from Washington. “I’m not involved in anything right now except for running for the border of West Virginia so I can enjoy my life,” he quipped.

Senate Democrats are united in condemning the upside-down U.S. flag flown at Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s home. They’re split, though, on where to go from there.

Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who could greatly influence those next steps by Democrats, said his panel wasn’t prepared to hold a hearing on the matter, after the justice told The New York Times his wife briefly flew the flag amid a dispute with neighbors without his knowledge.

But Durbin and his Democratic colleagues were unequivocal that the episode — involving a symbol used by supporters of former President Donald Trump in making false claims about the 2020 election won by President Joe Biden — underscored the need for Supreme Court ethics reform and the need for Alito to recuse himself.

“I don’t think there’s much to be gained with a hearing at this point,” Durbin, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, said Monday. “I think he should recuse himself from cases involving Trump and his administration.”

Not all Democrats feel that way about a hearing, though. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of Durbin’s committee, said he would like to see an investigation into Alito’s conduct.

“There’s no way he was unaware,” Padilla said, referring to Alito’s statement to The New York Times that the flag was briefly displayed by his wife without his knowledge.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a senior member of the panel, agreed in a statement to POLITICO. “Supplying strange excuses to Fox News is not a substitute for a real investigation into whether Justice Alito needs to recuse from insurrection cases.”

Whitehouse said the episode underscored the need to pass his legislation overhauling ethics and transparency requirements for the Supreme Court, which passed the committee in July 2023 on a party-line vote despite fierce GOP opposition.

A group of 45 House Democrats also urged Alito to recuse himself from all Jan. 6 and 2020 election-related cases in a Tuesday letter led by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.).

One point of Democratic agreement: Alito’s explanation for the flag flap was unconvincing.

“I don’t think [Alito] has a thing for gold bars,” said Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), referring to the ongoing corruption case of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who has also cast blame on his wife for some of the alleged conduct. “But I don’t ever think throwing your wife under the bus is ever going to be a great strategy for anything.”

Durbin agreed: “I’ve been in this business for a few years and I want to tell you: Pointing to your wife is never a good defense.”

But for Judiciary member Sen. Peter Welch, (D-Vt.), the Alito flag episode was just another moment from a justice who has become a top foil for Democrats, particularly after authoring the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

“This is so incidental to all the bad stuff he’s done,” said Welch. “This is terrible. Was it him? Was it his spouse? Who knows? Does it really make a difference? Not to me. What makes a difference to me is his terrible decisions and shooting off his mouth. He’s just a terrible justice.”

Larry Hogan is taking to the airwaves in his latest attempt to neutralize Democratic attacks on his abortion-rights record.

The former Maryland governor had declined to fully elaborate exactly where he stood on the issue during his state’s Senate GOP primary. And in the week since Hogan won his party’s Senate primary, he’s repeatedly sought to clarify his stance, directly addressing abortion in his first major speech as the nominee, in interviews — and now on TV.

Hogan’s first general election ad is set to air Wednesday, and it’s entirely about abortion. In it, the former governor goes direct-to-camera as he endorses codifying the abortion protections the nation had under Roe v. Wade.

“With Roe overturned, many have asked what I’ll do in the United States Senate,” he says in the ad. “I’ll support legislation that makes Roe the law of the land in every state, so every woman can make her own choice.”

The 30-second spot, shared first with POLITICO, is part of a more than $1 million buy and will air on cable, broadcast and digital platforms in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C., media markets. It’s the latest move in a bid by Hogan to defang abortion-rights-centered attacks that Democrats have wielded against Republicans since the fall of Roe.

Hogan will face Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, who won a contentious Democratic primary. Alsobrooks and her allies have already begun attacking Hogan’s record on abortion, pointing toward his gubernatorial veto of a law that would have expanded access to the procedure in the state.

Their goal is to nationalize the race, reminding voters that Hogan would caucus with the GOP and vote to confirm judges who could determine the future of abortion.

Hogan faces the daunting task of winning the Senate seat while sharing a ballot with former President Donald Trump, in a state the former president lost handily in 2020 and is expected to lose again this year. To do so, Hogan will have to both distinguish himself from Trump and appeal to Maryland’s more liberal-leaning electorate.

Democrats have already excoriated him for what they describe as political expediency. In a video last week, Alsobrooks’ campaign cut tape of Hogan saying he would caucus with Republicans in the Senate and of him dodging questions on federal abortion policy.

Asked by Axios in March if he would be willing to codify Roe, Hogan promised he would “take a look at that as we move forward” — an answer that he himself described as not “a yes or no.”

With the primary behind him, Hogan is far more willing to specify his policy preferences and positions, and he’s focused on abortion.

“To the women of Maryland, you have my word — I will continue to protect your right to make your own reproductive health decisions,” he said in his primary victory speech.

Two days later, he outlined his new position in an interview with The New York Times, in which he also described himself as “pro-choice.” Hogan has said that his position evolved as the abortion landscape has changed.

In the spot airing Wednesday, he reminds voters that as governor he kept his word to “uphold Maryland law on abortion while providing over the counter birth control covered by insurance.”

GOP senators on Tuesday largely pleaded ignorance about a social media post from former President Donald Trump that invoked a potential “unified reich” if he wins a second term, though several condemned his team for using language that suggests empire-building and carries a connection to Adolf Hitler’s control of Nazi Germany.

“I don’t know why you would say such a thing,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a staunch Trump ally.

The Trump campaign has attributed to the post a staffer’s error, and Graham added that the aide who posted the image “should be dealt with.”

He wasn’t alone. “To use that term in this day and age is simply inappropriate, and it’s got to be corrected,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

Trump’s account shared the post referencing a “unified reich” on Monday as he stands trial in New York on criminal charges connected to alleged hush-money payments to porn actor Stormy Daniels. The term “reich” is broadly associated with empires but commonly known via the “Third Reich” regime of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler during World War II.

The former president ignored a question about the post outside a New York courtroom on Tuesday.

Beyond Graham and Rounds, a number of Republican senators returned to a familiar line from Trump’s first term in office — saying they simply hadn’t seen the divisive post when informed of its contents. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), when told POLITICO wished to ask a question involving Trump, replied simply: “No, thanks.” (He has made clear he won’t support Trump this fall.)

Others saying they weren’t aware of the post included Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), John Kennedy (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Dan Sullivan (Alaska).

“I don’t comment on stuff I don’t see and don’t know about,” Sullivan said.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) conceded that the invocation of the World War II-era “reich” term was problematic but said there were other contrasts between Trump and President Joe Biden to highlight.

“I just don’t know what to make of it, but there’s enough real to talk about,” he said in a brief interview.

The office of Speaker Mike Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Just add it to the list of reasons why I won’t vote for him,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a frequent Trump critic.

Burgess Everett and Daniella Diaz contributed to this report. 

Senior Senate Democrats are bracing for new defections from their side of the aisle in their latest push for another vote on February’s bipartisan border deal.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is planning a Thursday vote on a standalone version of the immigration proposal that Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) negotiated earlier this year. A previous version of the deal that was tied to aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan failed to advance by a 49-50 vote.

Five Senate Democrats voted against the bill back then. But now that foreign aid is no longer attached to it, Democrats expect their support could dwindle even further — even as they remain confident that the doomed-to-fail vote would help shore up their vulnerable incumbents’ standing ahead of the election and portray Republicans as obstructionist.

“I suspect there are a couple Democrats who voted yes on that bill because of the Ukraine money,” Murphy said. “My guess is there will be more Democrats voting against it.”

The existence of Democratic opposition, he argued, is “proof that it’s a bipartisan bill. If we had 51 votes for it, that would not suggest it’s a bipartisan compromise.”

And on the Republican side, Lankford himself has already said he will vote against the agreement he helped shape. Only four Republicans voted for the package last time — and the number could easily shrink to zero this time around.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said he is undecided but called the vote “an entirely political ploy.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said “it’s hard to determine whether this is a genuine attempt to deal with border security.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said plainly: “I think the whole thing is dumb.” All three previously supported the legislation.

“The other side is now going to use it in a way to perhaps make some of their troubled incumbents in a better place,” Murkowski said. “But they don’t really think that they can pass it. So it’s just messaging on their side.”

Still, she suggested that her support for the bill hasn’t wavered: “I thought it was good enough to vote for before. The policy hasn’t changed.”

The bill would impose an automatic shutdown of the border if crossings surpass certain thresholds and strengthen asylum standards. No one expects it to get 60 votes to open debate, and few are predicting it can get a majority. Republicans said they’ve given little consideration to advancing the bill and offering potential amendments.

Which leaves campaign-trail politics as the leading factor in the maneuver. Both parties are looking to weaponize border issues in Senate races in Montana, Ohio and elsewhere, and the Democratic and GOP campaign arms have already begun messaging on the upcoming vote.

Even if it somehow miraculously passed, the legislation has no chance at floor time in the Republican-controlled House.

Still, Senate leaders both made their case on the renewed border vote on Tuesday.

“Democrats are doing this because we believe in fixing the border,” Schumer said, adding that the border bill is the “only real bipartisan bill negotiated by both sides with a real chance of passing and being put on the president’s desk.”

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has lamented the way the bill fell apart over the winter. But on Tuesday he countered that Senate Democrats’ border effort is an “attempt to try and convince the American people that they’re concerned about this when they caused it.”

House lawmakers will tackle a bipartisan measure aimed at establishing comprehensive regulatory structures for the cryptocurrency industry Wednesday.

Votes on consideration of the bill, known as the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, are slated to begin at about 2 p.m. The final margin could offer a barometer of sorts for the industry’s current Capitol Hill support.

Another one to watch: The House Foreign Affairs Committee will mark up legislation expanding congressional oversight of any changes to weapons sales to Israel, which comes as the Biden administration held back on a delivery of heavy bombs.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken testifies before an Appropriations subcommittee at 10 a.m.

And: Kenyan President William Ruto will be on Capitol Hill on Wednesday afternoon, meeting separately with Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate leaders.

Over in the Senate, lawmakers will spend the day moving through several judicial nominees, as well as the nomination of Melissa Dalton to be undersecretary of the Air Force. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) holds an event at noon to mark the confirmation of President Joe Biden’s 200th judge since taking office.

House GOP leaders will begin whipping their Republican members on holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt this week, according to two Republicans familiar with the matter, amid some skepticism they can get the near-unanimity required to pass it on the floor.

With Republicans expecting no help from Democrats, Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) is expected to begin gauging if they can keep intra-party opposition to near zero, according to the two Republicans, who spoke on condition of anonymity. One of those Republicans said the whip effort could begin as early as Wednesday.

Two contempt resolutions against Garland passed out of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees on a partisan basis last week, leading to a highly contentious hearing in the latter panel last Thursday that involved name-calling and alleged drinking.

But the timing for the actual vote remains unclear. While the temperature check shows GOP leadership is moving quickly to determine internal standing on the matter, the second Republican said the vote is not expected this week. And the House is in recess next week for the Memorial Day holiday.

Republicans moved to hold Garland in contempt after the Justice Department declined to comply with GOP subpoenas that sought audio from former special counsel Robert Hur’s interviews with President Joe Biden. The DOJ previously turned over transcripts of the interview, but the Justice Department has pushed back against releasing the recordings, arguing that it risks deterring cooperation in future probes.

Even if the House manages to pass a contempt resolution against Garland, it’s unlikely he’ll face charges since Biden asserted executive privilege over the audio of the interview last week. Hur’s report piqued Republican interest due to his saying that jurors could see Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

Republicans on both panels have also heavily hinted that they will sue for access to the tapes.

New comprehensive presidential ethics legislation in the House has an unlikely, bipartisan duo behind it: House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.).

Among other provisions, the legislation would require the president and vice president to disclose tax returns for two years preceding office, any foreign payments received, family members accompanying them on official travel and conflicts of interest.

Read the legislative text.

Those officials would also have to disclose gifts valued at more than $10,000 from or by immediate family members.

“By creating this bipartisan legislation to provide greater transparency to the financial interactions related to the office of the president and vice-president, we can ensure that moving forward American presidents, vice presidents, and their family members cannot profit from their proximity to power,” Comer said in a statement.

Comer and the committee he leads have investigated the foreign activities of Biden family members and loans repaid to the president.

And Democrats aggressively looked into foreign investments of Trump family members, as the former president additionally refused to release his tax returns. This isn’t Porter’s first foray this year into presidential matters, either: During her unsuccessful run for California Senate, she endorsed exploring age caps for all elected officials even as she praised President Joe Biden’s record.