House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      McCarthy’s Exit May Create Even More Headaches for the Tiny G.O.P. Majority

      by

      The former speaker’s decision to leave his seat a year early could affect control of the House, the legislative agenda and his party’s efforts to keep its majority in the 2024 election.Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s announcement that he would leave Congress came as little surprise to his closest colleagues, but his decision to do so a year before the end of his term poses challenges for his party. It will shrink Republicans’ already razor-thin majority in the House as they face a number of issues in the coming months that will require near-unanimous party support.The departure of Mr. McCarthy, who was his party’s strongest fund-raiser in the House and spent two election cycles helping to build the Republican majority, also could put a dent in the G.O.P.’s ability to rake in campaign cash, although he has said he wants to continue to play a role in politics.Here’s how Mr. McCarthy’s departure could affect the House and his party.A slim majority will get even slimmer.Republicans started the year acknowledging that one of their biggest challenges would be keeping their party unified as their midterm victories delivered a tiny majority. They had 222 members while Democrats had 213, leaving little room for defectors and making it easier for a small number of disgruntled Republicans to influence policy and vote outcomes.They could afford to lose no more than four votes on any bill if all Democrats showed up and voted against them. Any more than that would doom G.O.P. legislation.With the expulsion last week of former Representative George Santos of New York, Republicans now have only 221 members, meaning their four-vote margin has shrunk to three. Any more defections than that would result in a 217-to-217 tie or give the Democratic side more votes than the Republican one.With Mr. McCarthy gone, Republicans will enter the new year with 220 votes, leaving the same margin since they could still lose three votes and be ahead of Democrats, 217 to 216.A special election for Mr. Santos’s seat is set for Feb. 13, and Democrats hope to recapture the politically competitive district, which President Biden won in 2020. That would further erode the Republicans’ edge.A winter shutdown showdown could become even more unmanageable.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California will have 14 days after Mr. McCarthy’s final day to call a special election, which must take place about four months later. The Bakersfield-anchored district is solidly Republican, meaning that a G.O.P. candidate is likely to win the race to serve out the remainder of his term. But that won’t happen before mid-January, when lawmakers face the first of two deadlines for funding the government.Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, has struggled to push critical legislation through the House, and a slimmer majority would probably empower the rebellious hard-right wing of his party to double down on its policy demands ahead of the deadlines, the second of which is in early February.The smaller majority could also affect the fight over an emergency national security spending bill to fund the war in Ukraine, along with help for Israel in its war against Hamas and border security funding.On Wednesday, Republicans blocked the measure in the Senate. The bill would face an uphill battle in the House, where Republican support for Ukraine’s war effort is dwindling.Republicans will lose their best House fund-raiser.For years, Mr. McCarthy has traveled to hundreds of districts across the country, bringing in millions of dollars in campaign cash for candidates and helping Republicans win control of the House in 2022. He has said he planned to remain engaged in Republican politics.“I will continue to recruit our country’s best and brightest to run for elected office,” Mr. McCarthy said in announcing his plans to leave the House in The Wall Street Journal. “The Republican Party is expanding every day, and I am committed to lending my experience to support the next generation of leaders.”During his time as speaker, Mr. McCarthy brought in $78 million for his colleagues’ re-election efforts, more than 100 times the amount of money Mr. Johnson had collected before becoming speaker.His support of new candidates will be aided by a campaign account with more than $10 million at his disposal. Even after leaving office, Mr. McCarthy can use the campaign funds to establish a political action committee or directly support other campaigns. He has signaled that he would like to play a substantial role, and many lawmakers and aides believe he may intervene in party primaries to target the far-right Republicans who led the push to oust him from the speakership.Republicans are holding their breath for more exits.More than three dozen incumbents from both parties in both chambers have said they will not seek re-election. If even a handful more House Republicans leave in the coming months, it could wipe away their majority before a single vote is cast in the 2024 election. Another Republican, Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio, has announced that he will leave Congress in several months to become the president of Youngstown State University, though he has not said precisely when.Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, and one of Mr. McCarthy’s strongest allies, expressed her frustration over the eroding majority in a post on social media, saying, “Hopefully no one dies.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans set to block advancement of Ukraine-Israel aid bill

      by

      The Senate will hold a key procedural vote on whether to advance a supplemental funding bill that includes financial aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as provisions aimed at bolstering border security.The vote, which will be held on Wednesday afternoon, is expected to fail due to opposition from Senate Republicans, who have demanded stricter border regulations in exchange for their support.The vote comes one day after Senate Democrats formally unveiled the $111bn supplemental security bill, reflecting the funding request that Joe Biden issued in October to provide assistance to the US’s allies abroad.Ahead of the vote, Biden delivered an address to urge Congress to pass the bill, warning that a failure to act would only benefit Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, in the war against Ukraine.“Who is prepared to walk away from holding Putin accountable for this behavior? Who among us is really prepared to do that?” Biden said. “I’m not prepared to walk away, and I don’t think the American people are either.”Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, addressed leaders of the G7 group of nations and called on them to confound Vladimir Putin by winning “the battle of motivations” and not showing weakness.The G7 leaders met by video at short notice in a show of solidarity with the Ukrainian leader that included trying to breathe new life into the sanctions against Russia.Zelenskiy thanked G7 leaders for their support, and warned that Moscow was counting on collapse of western support for Ukraine. “Russia believes America and Europe will show weakness and will not maintain support for Ukraine at the proper level. Putin believes the free world will not fully enforce its own sanctions and the Russian elite mocks the world’s doubts about using Russian assets to compensate for damage from Russian aggression,” he said.“All these are part of a much broader issue – what can freedom do and what can dictatorships do. We must answer these questions together.”Although the bill includes a number of border security measures, Republicans in both chambers have insisted the legislation must go further in restricting migrants’ asylum and parole applications. Those proposals are a non-starter for many Democrats, making it unclear how a supplemental bill can pass the divided Congress.Biden said on Wednesday that he was willing to make “significant compromises on the border,” but he accused Republicans of taking an all-or-nothing approach to the immigration talks.“This has to be a negotiation,” Biden said. “Republicans think they can get everything they want without any bipartisan compromise. That’s not the answer.”Those tensions spilled over on Tuesday night, when a classified Senate briefing on Ukraine erupted into a shouting match. Zelenskiy was scheduled to speak at the briefing, but he was forced to cancel due to a “last-minute” issue, according to the Democratic Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer.The briefing still occurred despite Zelenskiy’s absence, but Schumer then accused Republicans of having “hijacked” the meeting to discuss border security. Republicans then criticized Schumer for refusing to address the crucial issues that created the current standoff.“Republicans are just walking out of the briefing because the people there are not willing to actually discuss what it takes to get a deal done,” Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican of Utah, said.With no resolution in sight, Senate Republicans are expected to successfully filibuster the supplemental security bill, blocking it from advancing. The impasse increases the likelihood that Congress will fail to approve more aid for Ukraine before the end of the year, as the White House has warned that Kyiv is desperately in need of more financial assistance.“I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Shalanda Young, the director of the office of management and budget, wrote in a letter to congressional leaders on Monday.“There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money – and nearly out of time.”Even as Republicans have raised serious concerns about the border provisions of the bill, the $10bn allocated for aid to Israel has sparked criticism from Bernie Sanders . In a letter sent to his colleagues on Tuesday, the progressive Vermont senator warned against providing a “blank check” to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, as the death toll in Gaza continues to climb.“No, I do not think we should be appropriating $10.1bn for the right-wing, extremist Netanyahu government to continue its current military strategy,” Sanders wrote. “What the Netanyahu government is doing is immoral, it is in violation of international law, and the United States should not be complicit in those actions.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Bowman Is Latest House Democrat to Face a Primary Over Israel Stance

      by

      George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, told The New York Times he would run against Mr. Bowman, a rising star of the Democratic left, next year.After months of public deliberation and prodding from donors aligned with Israel, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, said on Wednesday that he would mount a Democratic primary challenge against Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York.The decision set the stage for a potentially explosive contest next year that promises to test not only the growing Democratic divide over the war in the Middle East but the durability of the party’s progressive wing.In an interview, Mr. Latimer drew sharp contrasts between himself and Mr. Bowman, one of left’s most vocal critics of Israel. He dismissed the incumbent’s calls for a cease-fire as premature and called a recent protest outside the White House, where the congressman accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, a political stunt.“It’s about results, not rhetoric,” said Mr. Latimer, who has deep ties to the Democratic establishment. “So much of politics has turned into that sort of showmanship — how you look in front of the cameras.”He was expected to officially begin his campaign with a video announcement later on Wednesday, just days after returning from a wartime visit to the region.The nascent contest echoes primary fights breaking out from Pittsburgh to Detroit since Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack, as pro-Israel Democrats try to oust members of the House “Squad” pushing for a cease-fire. Like the other challengers, Mr. Latimer is expected to benefit from millions of dollars in outside spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other special interest groups.The race in the New York City suburbs, though, may be uniquely complex. It pits a charismatic Black progressive with a growing national profile against an old-school white liberal with deep local support. And it will play out in a district that is both home to one of the country’s most influential Jewish communities and also nearly half Black or Latino.Mr. Latimer said he shared many of Mr. Bowman’s progressive priorities but would avoid the incumbent’s “showmanship.”Gregg Vigliotti for The New York TimesMr. Latimer tread carefully around many of those fault lines as he outlined his candidacy this week, insisting that he was preparing for a campaign that would go well beyond the issue of Israel.Mr. Latimer, in his second term as county executive, urged voters not to judge him on his age, 70, or the color of his skin. Citing his four decades in elected office, he said would continue many of the progressive priorities on housing, climate change and transportation that Mr. Bowman has championed. And he avoided outright attacks on the incumbent beyond charging that Mr. Bowman was more interested in making his name than tending to his district.“If you ignore that turf because you’re a national figure and more interested in being on the national stage, then you are neglecting the needs of that community,” Mr. Latimer said.The challenge comes at a moment of profound political vulnerability for Mr. Bowman, 47, and not just because of his stance on the war. The congressman is still dealing with the repercussions of pleading guilty in October to pulling a false fire alarm in a House office building. And he has just $185,000 in his campaign account, according to recent filings.AIPAC, which privately offered Mr. Latimer its support months ago, could easily swamp that amount on its own. Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the group, declined to discuss the group’s spending plans this week but denounced Mr. Bowman as a representative of “the anti-Israel extremist fringe.”Mr. Bowman’s advisers and allies say defeating him may be far more difficult than his foes anticipate. Some of the left’s most influential figures were already lining up to fight back, determined to show the staying power of their movement three years after they first helped Mr. Bowman, a former middle school principal, topple a powerful three-decade incumbent, Eliot L. Engel.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Mr. Bowman’s best-known ally, circulated a fund-raising appeal on his behalf. Left-leaning groups, including New York’s Working Families Party and Justice Democrats, have pledged resources. For now, each appear to see value in framing the primary as a conflict as one with pro-Israel special interests, not the county executive.“It’s not a surprise that a super PAC that routinely targets Black members of Congress with primary challenges and is funded by the same Republican megadonors who give millions to election-denying Republicans including Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz have recruited a candidate for this race,” said Emma Simon, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bowman’s campaign.The primary battle is one Democrats had wished to avoid. The party already hopes to flip six Republican-held swing seats in New York next year, which is key to taking back the House majority. Some Democrats have expressed concern that a pro-Israel advertising blitz against Mr. Bowman would inadvertently tarnish the party’s candidates in competitive races in neighboring districts to the north and west.Now that the matchup is underway, though, it poses a quandary for Democratic leaders, particularly Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Mr. Jeffries, the top House Democrat, has said he would continue the party’s longstanding policy of supporting incumbents like Mr. Bowman, even if his own views on Israel are more conservative. But Mr. Latimer said he had not received a call from Mr. Jeffries asking him not to run, and the House leader may soon have to decide how hard to fight to protect Mr. Bowman.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.His allies argue that there is good reason to believe many voters agree with his views, but that for many, Israel will not be a decisive issue when they cast their primary ballots next June.About half of voters in the district, which stretches from the north Bronx through many of Westchester’s liberal suburbs, are Black and Latino, according to census data. The figure is even higher among Democratic primary voters. By comparison, about 10 percent of all voters and about 20 to 25 percent of Democratic primary voters are Jewish.Mr. Bowman has repeatedly said he is standing by his position on Israel for a simpler reason: He believes in it.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesHe summarized his views outside the White House last week, where he joined protesters calling on President Biden to support a bilateral cease-fire. He used terms that most Democrats have objected to, including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” in describing Israel’s deadly bombardment of Gaza, which has killed some 15,000 people, according to the local health authorities. He accused the United States of “being complicit” in those deaths. But he also condemned those targeting Israelis or Jews and repeated his earlier denunciations of Hamas.“Calling for cease-fire does not mean we support Hamas, does not mean we support the killing of Israelis or Jews, does not mean we support antisemitism,” he said. “We are calling for cease-fire because we don’t want anyone else to die.”In the interview, Mr. Latimer said he, too, was eager to see the bloodshed in Gaza end, but only after Hamas returned the remaining Israeli hostages it abducted on Oct. 7 and agreed “to step aside from violence.” Anything short of that would amount to unilateral disarmament by Israel, he argued.Mr. Latimer said he did not “know enough” to judge whether Israel’s counteroffensive had violated international law. “I’m not a secretary of state,” he said.He also rejected Mr. Bowman’s proposal for the United States to place conditions on the billions of military aid it provides to Israel. “That is a matter that I think is best left to the presidential administration,” Mr. Latimer said.He was more pointed about attempts by Mr. Bowman and his allies to build public pressure on Mr. Biden through protests and media appearances. Mr. Latimer called Mr. Bowman’s appearance outside the White House “the classic response of somebody who has been in government a couple of years.”“If you want to influence the policy of the president, you begin with the dialogue you have with your other members of Democratic Caucus,” he said. “When you have a consensus movement, that becomes more impressive to an executive.” More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Patrick McHenry, Former Interim Speaker, Will Leave Congress

      by

      The North Carolina congressman, who leads the House Financial Services Committee, said he would join the growing ranks of lawmakers exiting Congress amid intense dysfunction.Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, who made history as the first interim speaker of the House after Republicans ousted their own speaker and struggled for weeks to agree on a successor, said on Tuesday that he would leave Congress at the end of his term.The announcement by Mr. McHenry, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, added him to the growing ranks of lawmakers who have announced that they will depart the House and the Senate, many of them citing the historic dysfunction of Capitol Hill.“This is not a decision I come to lightly,” Mr. McHenry said in a statement. “But I believe there is a season for everything and — for me — this season has come to an end.”The bow-tied and bespectacled Mr. McHenry, 48, arrived in Congress as an unruly bomb thrower in 2005 and has matured into one of the more sober-minded leaders in a Republican conference whose actions are more often driven by the attention seekers. He was named speaker pro tempore after Republicans deposed Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican who is Mr. McHenry’s close ally.Mr. McCarthy is also expected to announce in the coming days that he will not seek re-election, and many of his colleagues do not expect him to finish out his term after he has discovered the life of a rank-and-file member to be a painful existence.Mr. McCarthy’s brutal ouster prompted the House’s first invocation of a post-9/11 crisis succession plan that requires the speaker to secretly designate an interim stand-in should the post become unexpectedly vacant. Those plans never envisioned that the crisis that would lead to a vacancy would be that members of the party controlling the House would choose to overthrow their own speaker.As Republicans struggled for three weeks to coalesce around any candidate to replace Mr. McCarthy and the House remained paralyzed, Mr. McHenry was under intense pressure to take on more power and interpret his role more broadly.But he steadfastly refused, even as members asked him to bring to the floor an uncontroversial resolution in support of Israel after the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack in which about 1,200 people were killed and hundreds taken hostage. And when Republicans floated a plan to hold a formal vote to allow Mr. McHenry to preside over legislative business, he let it be known he was against it.Mr. McHenry argued that interpreting his role as anything more than simply convening the House to take a vote for a new speaker would only create more incentive for the Republican feuding to drag on and even grow worse. He made it clear that he harbored no ambition of becoming the speaker himself, and in fact was actively hostile to the idea.Mr. McHenry had chosen not to run for any leadership position during this Congress, in part because he believed that the most effective way to wield power in the House was to not allow anyone to have leverage over him. But Mr. McCarthy had a way of roping him back in.During Mr. McCarthy’s tenure as speaker, he cut out the official leadership structure, whose members he distrusted, and relied heavily on Mr. McHenry as his handpicked adviser to help handle debt ceiling negotiations with the White House and avert a government shutdown.Mr. McHenry’s departure from a seat in a solidly Republican district was not expected to have much impact on the race for control of the House, where his successor was all but certain to be another Republican.His decision not to seek re-election may have had as much to do with his own future prospects in the House as it did with overall dysfunction. Mr. McHenry will be term-limited out of his chairmanship at the end of next year.In announcing his decision not to seek another term, Mr. McHenry tried to play down any narrative that the spate of retirements and exits was due to the House becoming ungovernable.“There has been a great deal of hand-wringing and ink spilled about the future of this institution because some — like me — have decided to leave,” he said. “Those concerns are exaggerated. I’ve seen a lot of change over 20 years. I truly feel this institution is on the verge of the next great turn.”He added: “Evolutions are often lumpy and disjointed but at each stage, new leaders emerge. There are many smart and capable members who remain, and others are on their way. I’m confident the House is in good hands.” More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Whatever it takes’: Liz Cheney mulls third-party run to block Trump victory

      by

      Liz Cheney, a leading Republican critic and antagonist of Donald Trump, has said she is considering mounting her own third-party candidacy for the White House, as part of her effort to thwart the former president from returning to the Oval Office.In her most explicit public statements to date on a potential presidential run, Cheney told the Washington Post on Tuesday she would do “whatever it takes” to block a Trump return.Cheney, the daughter of former Republican vice-president Dick Cheney, has previously floated the idea. But she had never explicitly stated if she was thinking of running as a semi-moderate Republican party candidate or would run as an independent.“Several years ago, I would not have contemplated a third-party run,” Cheney said in the interview. “I happen to think democracy is at risk at home, obviously, as a result of Donald Trump’s continued grip on the Republican party, and I think democracy is at risk internationally as well.”Cheney echoed that sentiment in remarks with USA Today. She said: “I certainly hope to play a role in helping to ensure that the country has … a new, fully conservative party. And so whether that means restoring the current Republican party, which looks like a very difficult if not impossible task, or setting up a new party, I do hope to be involved and engaged in that.”Cheney added that she would make decision in the next few months, describing the threats facing the US as “existential”. She the country needed a candidate to “confront all of those challenges”, adding: “That will all be part of my calculation as we go into the early months of 2024.”The former Wyoming congresswoman was speaking as part of a book tour promoting Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning, which calls on the US to back pro-constitution candidates against what she describes as Trump enablers in Congress.“Every one of us – Republican, Democrat, independent – must work and vote together to ensure that Donald Trump and those who have appeased, enabled, and collaborated with him are defeated,” she wrote, calling it “the cause of our time”.With Trump 40 points ahead of 2024 Republican presidential primary challengers, she told the Post, the “tectonic plates of our politics are shifting”, upending conventional wisdom about third party candidates.The primary system process that produces a single Republican and Democrat presidential nominee, Cheney added, is “pretty irrelevant, in my view, in the 2024 cycle, because the threat is so unique”.If Cheney decides on a third-party run, she will join Robert F Kennedy Jr, Cornel West and Jill Stein. Other potential candidates include West Virginia’s soon-to-retire senator Joe Manchin, the former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, and ex-Maryland governor Larry Hogan.In a Harvard CAPS-Harris survey in November, Kennedy led the declared pack in terms of favorability at 52%. Kennedy scored higher than the runner-up Trump, at 51%, and Joe Biden, at 46%.“Robert Kennedy has positioned himself to appeal to members of both parties, though it is unclear how much of his ratings are from in depth knowledge of Kennedy versus his popular family name,” Mark Penn, co-director of the Harvard Caps-Harris Poll, told the Hill.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAgainst a backdrop of warnings that third-party candidates may only succeed in helping Trump win a second term in the White House, and others that it would do the opposite, polling suggests that a year out from the election voters are open to alternatives to the two-party lock-up.According to a Gallup poll in October, 63% of US adults currently agree with the statement that the Republican and Democratic parties do “such a poor job” of representing the American people that “a third major party is needed”.According to Pew Research in September, Americans’ views of politics and elected officials are unrelentingly negative. Elected officials are widely viewed as self-serving, ineffective and locked in partisan warfare. And a majority said the political process is dominated by special interests as well as campaign cash.On Monday, efforts to oppose No Labels and other third-party presidential bids ramped up with a $100,000 political advertising campaign funded by Citizens to Save Our Republic, a bipartisan group that has warned that any effort to upset democratic norms will play into Trump’s hand.“We are worried about any third party. We realize it is a free country. Anybody can run for president who wants to run for president,” former US House minority leader Richard Gephardt told reporters on Monday. “But we have a right to tell citizens the danger they will face if they vote for any of these third-party candidates.” More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US ‘out of money’ to help Ukraine: six key things to know about aid budget standoff

      by

      The White House issued an urgent warning to Congress on Monday, predicting that Ukraine will soon lose ground in its war against Russia without another infusion of financial aid from the US.“I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Shalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in her letter to congressional leaders.“There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money – and nearly out of time.”In October, the White House asked Congress to approve a $106bn supplemental funding bill that would provide assistance to Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Indo-Pacific while also strengthening border security. However, bipartisan negotiations over that bill have now stalled.Although previous funding packages for Ukraine have won widespread bipartisan support in Congress, the issue has become increasingly contentious in the Republican-controlled House.Given hard-right Republicans’ entrenched opposition to additional Ukraine aid, the new House speaker, Republican Mike Johnson, must walk a fine line in his negotiations with the Senate.Here’s everything you need to know about the path forward for Ukraine aid:How much additional aid has the White House requested?The supplemental funding request that the White House outlined in October included roughly $60bn in additional aid for Ukraine. Although Congress has already appropriated more than $111bn to bolster Ukraine’s war efforts, Young warned in her letter to congressional leaders that resources are quickly running out.According to Young, the defense department has already used 97% of the $62.3bn it received, while the state department has none of its $4.7bn remaining. Noting the global stakes of the war in Ukraine, Young stressed that Congress must act immediately to prevent disaster.“This isn’t a next year problem. The time to help a democratic Ukraine fight against Russian aggression is right now,” Young said. “It is time for Congress to act.”Where do negotiations over the bill stand now?Bipartisan negotiations to craft a supplemental aid package that can pass both chambers of Congress appeared to stall over the weekend. House Republicans have pushed to include harsher immigration policies in the bill, particularly on the issues of asylum and parole applications, but those proposals are a non-starter for many Democrats.One of the lead Democratic negotiators in the talks, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, told Politico on Monday that hard-right Republicans wanted to “essentially close the border” in exchange for supporting more Ukraine funding.“Right now, it seems pretty clear that we’re making pretty big compromises and concessions and Republicans aren’t willing to meet us anywhere close to the middle,” Murphy said.Why do hard-right Republicans oppose additional aid?As more members of the Republican party have embraced Donald Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy, more rightwing lawmakers have grown suspicious of providing funding to Ukraine.They have argued the US should not be sending so much money to Ukraine when those funds could be better used to address border security, even though US assistance to Ukraine represents less than 1% of the nation’s GDP.But many prominent Republicans, including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, continue to support funding for Ukraine, and that division has caused a growing rift in the party.The issue drew increased attention in October, when the hard-right congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida accused the then speaker Kevin McCarthy of cutting a “a secret side deal” with Joe Biden to provide additional funding to Ukraine. McCarthy rejected that characterization, but Gaetz’s charge underscored how the speaker’s support for Ukraine had become a wedge issue between him and the hard-right flank of his caucus.McCarthy was then removed as speaker, after Gaetz and seven other House Republicans joined Democrats in supporting a motion to vacate the chair.How has the new House speaker navigated the negotiations?Although Johnson initially expressed support for Ukraine following the Russian invasion in February 2022, his stance has since shifted. The group Republicans for Ukraine gave Johnson a grade of “F” on its congressional scorecard, noting that he has repeatedly voted against measures aimed at strengthening US support for Ukraine.Last week, Johnson said he was “confident and optimistic” that Congress would approve aid for both Israel and Ukraine, but he has suggested the two priorities should not be linked in one bill. Responding to Young’s letter on Monday, Johnson reiterated his demand that any aid for Ukraine must be tied to stiffer border policies.“The Biden administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference’s legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers,” Johnson said on X, formerly Twitter.“House Republicans have resolved that any national security supplemental package must begin with our own border. We believe both issues can be agreed upon if Senate Democrats and the White House will negotiate reasonably.”Can Congress still pass another aid package before the end of the year?That remains highly unclear, as the two parties currently appear far apart in their negotiations. But one of the lead Republican negotiators, Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, voiced confidence on Monday that lawmakers would ultimately reach a consensus.“We continue to work to find a solution that will protect our national security, stop the human trafficking, and prevent the cartels from exploiting the obvious loopholes in our law,” Lankford said on X. “That is the goal [and] we will continue to work until we get it right.”What are the potential consequences if a deal fails?In her letter, Young predicted that the loss of US financial support would “kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories”.Such a scenario could cause the war to spill over into a broader regional conflict involving America’s other European allies, Young warned, and that perilous situation may endanger US troops abroad.“I must stress that helping Ukraine defend itself and secure its future as a sovereign, democratic, independent, and prosperous nation advances our national security interests,” Young said. “The path that Congress chooses will reverberate for many years to come.” More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US House close to vote on Biden impeachment inquiry, speaker says

      by

      The US House speaker Mike Johnson signaled on Saturday that Republicans are nearing holding a formal vote to launch an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden.“I think it’s something we have to do at this juncture,” Johnson said during a Saturday appearance on Fox and Friends Weekend.Republicans have spent months investigating Biden and his son Hunter’s business dealings, hoping to find improprieties they could use as the basis for impeachment. The full House has not yet voted to formally authorize an impeachment inquiry, as some Republicans have publicly expressed doubts about whether there is enough evidence to justify such action.The White House has rebuffed GOP efforts to force it to turn over information in part by citing a 2020 opinion from the justice department’s office of legal counsel citing the need for a full House vote before a House committee could force the production of documents or interviews.“We conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony in support of the House’s ‘sole Power of Impeachment’,” the memo says.Johnson, who appeared with the GOP conference chair, Elise Stefanik, expressed confidence that there were enough votes to authorize an inquiry and said it was a “necessary step” to obtain information from the White House.“Elise and I both served on the impeachment defense team of Donald Trump twice when the Democrats used it for brazen, partisan political purposes. We decried that use of it. This is very different. Remember, we are the rule-of-law team. We have to do it very methodically,” he said.The Republican investigation thus far has not resulted in several misleading claims, but nothing substantial. At a September hearing, several of the expert witnesses called by Republicans said they did not believe there was enough evidence to justify impeachment.Hunter Biden has also offered to publicly testify before the committees investigating his business dealings. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘To hell with this place’: George Santos sharpens attacks after expulsion

      by

      George Santos, the disgraced New York Republican who was expelled from the US House on Friday, spent his first hours as a former congressman railing against his former colleagues and saying he would file ethics complaints against four of them on Monday.Santos told reporters after his expulsion he was done with Congress.“Why would I want to stay here? To hell with this place,” he told reporters outside the US Capitol after the vote.By Friday evening, he was tweeting about his colleagues. He wrote on X that he would file an ethics complaint against three fellow Republicans from New York – Mike Lawler, Nicole Malliotakis and Nick LaLota – who had long pushed to oust him from Congress. He offered no proof of wrongdoing against any of the three.He also wrote that he would file a complaint against Representative Rob Menendez, whose father, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, has been criminally charged with acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Egypt. Santos, again, didn’t offer specific accusations of wrongdoing.Any person can file a complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics, but that does not mean it will result in an investigation.He also urged a Republican in Congress to have the “testicular fortitude” to move to expel Jamaal Bowman, a New York Democrat, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a fine for setting off a fire alarm in a congressional office building.Santos spent the week leading up to his impeachment vote railing against colleagues, accusing them of having affairs and missing votes because they were hungover.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSantos became just the sixth person to ever be expelled from Congress after a bipartisan 311-114 vote on Friday. His expulsion came shortly after a report from the House ethics committee detailed how he spent campaign funds on luxury goods, cosmetics and an OnlyFans subscription. He also has pleaded not guilty to a 23-count federal indictment related to his use of campaign funds.After being elected to Congress to represent Long Island and Queens last year, Santos quickly earned a reputation as a prolific liar. Among other things, he lied about working on Wall Street, that his mother died during 9/11, and that he was a volleyball star in college. More