Silt Police Chief Mike Kite confirmed to The Denver Post, The Washington Post and The Denver Gazette that police were investigating the incident, which he said took place at Miner’s Claim restaurant in Silt, in western Colorado. Kite declined to provide news outlets with additional details on the incident, but he confirmed the congresswoman and her former husband were involved.

The Daily Beast was the first to report on the incident, which it indicated involved a physical altercation.

The Hill has reached out to Kite and to Boebert's office for confirmation and comment.

Kite said he would review surveillance footage and told The Denver Gazette, “We are treating this case no differently than we would anyone else.”

Boebert filed for divorce in 2023, and it was finalized a few months later. She and her former husband were married for nearly 18 years and have four sons together.

This is not Boebert’s first highly publicized interaction with law enforcement. In September, she was escorted out of a production of “Beetlejuice” at the Denver Performing Arts Center after fellow patrons complained about some of her alleged disruptive behavior.

Late December 2023, Boebert announced she would not be running for reelection in her district, Colorado’s Third Congressional District, but would instead run to replace retiring Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who represents the more conservative Fourth Congressional District.

In doing so, she opted to avoid a tough rematch with Democratic opponent Adam Frisch, who had already announced his campaign for Boebert’s seat. In 2022, the race had become highly nationalized. Boebert ultimately beat Frisch by 546 votes, or less than half a percentage point, and Frisch conceded before the automatic recount was complete.

In her video announcing her intention to run for her neighboring district, Boebert reflected on what she described as a particularly difficult year for her personally, noting her divorce.

“Personally, this announcement is a fresh start following a pretty difficult year for me and my family. I've never been in politics before, and I've never been through a divorce – something I never intended to go through,” Boebert said in the December video.

“I've made my own personal mistakes and have owned up and apologized for them. It's tested my faith, my strength and my abilities both as a mom and a congresswoman. It's been humbling and challenging, but it's also given me perspective and helped me grow. I cannot put into words how grateful I am for everyone who has steadfastly stood alongside of me in the third district and across America.”

Updated at 5:45 pm.

House Republicans are openly pursuing an "H.R. 2 or bust" funding negotiation strategy that leaves Democrats with few palatable options. 

H.R. 2 is a GOP border package approved by the House in May. At the time it was seen as a messaging bill chock-full of politically unviable, hawkish provisions, but it now stands a chance at becoming law. 

That chance lies within the struggle for Congress to fund the government before a partial shutdown on Jan. 19 and a full shutdown on Feb. 2. Republicans, led by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), say they want H.R. 2 or H.R. 2-like provisions in order to play ball on passing a budget. 

On Sunday Congressional leaders announced they had reached a top-line spending deal to fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal 2024, the first step to avoid a partial government shutdown. The deal still has to pass both chambers while some hard-line House Republicans are still calling to force a government shutdown over the border.

Johnson has touted the support of his conference, most recently at a border press conference attended by more than 60 Republican lawmakers, including border representatives from competitive districts such as Reps. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) and Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), in whose district the conference was held. 

H.R. 2 crosses a litany of red lines for Democrats, but they're entering an election year with low poll numbers for President Biden, and they don't want to be blamed if the government does shut down. 

The standoff is reminiscent of two key moments in border policy legislation: the 1996 shutdown threat engineered by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) against then-President Clinton that led to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), and the preelection Senate scramble to pass the 2006 Secure Fence Act. 

Both those bills, rushed through to meet a political moment, are reviled by advocates, who see them as the core of what's broken in the immigration system. 

That view drove opposition to Senate negotiations in December — a rush to hash out border legislation on deadline — and drove a wedge between leadership and immigration advocates on the Hill, led by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC). 

In some ways, finding a common enemy in Johnson's proposals has helped heal that wound, allowing Democrats to focus their fire on the House GOP. 

“House Republicans are now holding American families hostage alongside the critical funding our allies desperately need by threatening to shut down the government to pass extreme immigration policies,” said CHC Chair Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.). 

And while the Senate negotiations meant aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan were held up over border policy, the threat of government shutdown is a significant escalation. 

“Republicans are manufacturing yet another shutdown crisis in order to strong-arm policies that are politically charged, and worse, not effective. They’ve already rejected $14 billion to address the border yet state they want to improve conditions — adding to their hypocrisy,” said Barragán. 

But Democrats are on thin ice. 

Advocates may hate H.R. 2, but the general public has never show much interest in immigration policy minutiae, and Democrats will have to make the case for why stopping the bill is worth a shutdown. 

“If Republicans maintain this stance of H.R. 2 or nothing, the government's going to shut down over this. The question for Dems is are they going to be able to articulate why H.R. 2 would be a policy and political disaster? How are they going to put up a fight that defines H.R. 2?” said a source familiar with the negotiations who asked for anonymity to speak frankly.

The GOP bill would slash asylum, mandate border wall construction, supercharge interior enforcement, decrease legal protections for migrant minors and reinvigorate the E-Verify program. 

Those provisions are toxic among many immigrant communities in large part because similar policies have led to serious human rights violations around the world and because of the chilling effect they can have on immigrants and Latino communities targeted by authorities. 

But it's uncertain how the general public will judge those provisions, and public sentiment is already primed against migrants. 

“The politics are so toxic right now toward new arrivals that even if the policy doesn't happen and the government shuts down, it's not going to set up good political conditions for better policy development later,” said the source familiar with negotiations.

While attrition-fueled xenophobia is likely to bolster the House GOP's position, H.R. 2's most fervent advocates want to strike while the iron is hot. 

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on “The Sean Spicer Show” on Thursday accused Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of "lawlessness" and painted a picture of urgency to approve H.R. 2. 

“So we have to not do this for political purposes. We can’t just say, ‘Oh, we’ll win elections if we just fight, but we’ll figure it out next January.’ No, we have an obligation right now, to actually stop them. So we need to withhold funding and force Biden to the table. There’s no other choice. It’s now or never,” said Roy. 

Restrictionist border and immigration bills, like IIRIRA and the Secure Fence Act, have come at key "moments of inflection" in a longer-term trend of militarization, according to Alexander Aviña, a historian at Arizona State University who focuses on 20th century Mexico. 

"Militarization of the border goes back to the Mexican Revolution of 1910," said Aviña, who is also Ciscomani's brother-in-law and has been sharply critical of the Arizona Republican's positions. 

"This gradual hardening and militarization of the border has been constant," he added. 

Advocates worry that if Democrats cave and enact the Republican proposals hardening the border, there's little evidence that the reforms will reduce migrant arrivals in the long term, creating a lose-lose scenario for the Biden administration. 

“It’s setting the stakes for a very nasty situation where either some Republicans shut down the government or you allow them to move through policies that will likely make conditions on the ground even worse in an election year. We’ve seen this kind of hostage-taking for funding packages before, but this is very significant now, because the politics of the issue has changed so significantly,” said Andrea Flores, vice president for immigration policy at FWD.us.

But Johnson is also in a delicate position, where he can't afford to lose any votes, meaning he has little if any wiggle room to move away from H.R. 2, a package that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has already said is a non-starter in the Democratic-controlled upper chamber. 

Some advocates read into that an intent to seek a shutdown. 

"I just think it's obvious that they are playing politics, they're moving the goal posts and they don't plan to actually really negotiate," said Kerri Talbot, executive director of the Immigration Hub. 

"I think this is all going to lead to a shutdown. You know, and I think that's what Republicans want. They wanted a shutdown; they wanted it in the fall. And now they're going to use the borders as an excuse to shut down the government so they can finger-point, instead of actually legislating." 

Updated at 5:23 pm.

The deal is modeled largely on caps and side spending agreements struck in a debt limit deal last year, which included a side agreement for further budget changes that would allow a plus-up for nondefense dollars for most of 2024. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), though, said Republicans negotiated billions in spending cuts to offset that.

Johnson announced the deal reached with the Senate and the White House in a “Dear Colleague” letter to members Sunday.

“The topline constitutes $1.590 trillion for [fiscal 2024] — the statutory levels of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. That includes $886 billion for defense and $704 billion for nondefense,” Johnson said in the letter.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in a separate statement, though, said the deal secured $772.7 billion for non-defense discretionary funding, while also protecting “key domestic priorities like veterans benefits, health care and nutrition assistance from the draconian cuts sought by right-wing extremists.”

House Republicans have pursued a host of partisan riders in their appropriations proposals, including measures targeting abortion access and diversity efforts. Johnson said that Republicans will continue to seek GOP policy riders.

The deal comes as both the House and Senate are set to return from a holiday break this week ahead of a two-tiered government funding deadline, with the first batch of funding expiring on Jan. 19 and the rest expiring on Feb. 2.

The two chambers had been far apart in how they had marked up regular spending bills, with the House passing bills below Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) levels and the Senate marking up bills above FRA levels. With a top-line agreement, the two chambers can work to reconcile those differences in the underlying legislation and pass appropriations before the funding deadlines.

The topline numbers are separate from a supplemental spending request from he White House on additional aid for Ukraine and Israel. A bipartisan group of senators have been negotiating a deal to pair border and immigration policy changes with aid to Ukraine.

And getting the deal through both chambers comes as some hardline House Republicans are calling to force a government shutdown over the border.

President Biden in a statement gave his stamp of approval to the spending framework.

“It reflects the funding levels that I negotiated with both parties and signed into law last spring. It rejects deep cuts to programs hardworking families count on, and provides a path to passing full-year funding bills that deliver for the American people and are free of any extreme policies,” Biden said.

Democrats say the side deal struck between the White House and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) at the time would have allowed for north of $60 billion in additional funding for non-defense programs.

Democrats and experts say the changes, which included redirecting billions of dollars from funding for the IRS and coronavirus efforts to other non-defense programs, was key to shielding non-defense programs from a significant funding cut.

However, hardline conservatives have been dialing up the pressure on GOP leadership to abandon what Democrats say was the full agreement in pursuit of steeper spending cuts, with the House Freedom Caucus recently accusing leaders entertaining a deal that would “obscure the actual spending numbers with more shady side deals and accounting tricks.”

Johnson addressed those concerns in his letter.

“As has been widely reported, a list of extra-statutory adjustments was agreed upon by negotiators last summer. The agreement today achieves key modifications to the June framework that will secure more than $16 billion in additional spending cuts to offset the discretionary spending levels,” Johnson said.

The Speaker, though, touted that the spending deal “results in an overall $30 billion total reduction from the Senate’s spending plans.”

“While the levels of emergency spending from FY23 will be maintained, no additional emergency funding, or additional no-outlay changes in mandatory programs (CHIMPS), will be included, thus eliminating two of the worst accounting gimmicks included in the FRA framework,” Johnson said. “Unlike other adjustments, which are by nature limited in time or amount, the adjustments described above threatened to become permanent fixtures of the funding baseline as in previous budget agreements. Removing them now could save taxpayers more than $200 billion over the next 10 years.”

Johnson said that there will be an additional $10 billion in cuts to the IRS mandatory funding, bringing the total to $20 billion, and that $6.1 billion will be cut from “the Biden Administration’s continued COVID-era slush funds.”

“While these final spending levels will not satisfy everyone, and they do not cut as much spending as many of us would like, this deal does provide us a path to: 1) move the process forward; 2) reprioritize funding within the topline towards conservative objectives, instead of last year’s Schumer-Pelosi omnibus; and 3) fight for the important policy riders included in our House FY24 bills,” Johnson said.

Updated 4:37 p.m.

News of Austin's hospitalization became public Friday, when the Pentagon announced he was recovering at Walter Reed Medical Center in Maryland after experiencing “complications following a recent elective medical procedure.” The Pentagon said he was admitted four days prior on New Year's Day.

A Pentagon spokesperson on Sunday confirmed to The Hill that Austin remains hospitalized but said they cannot disclose information on his condition or what prompted the visit due to "privacy reasons."

"This has been an evolving situation, in which we had to consider a number of factors, including medical and personal privacy issues," the spokesperson said, adding that Austin was doing "well."

The White House deferred questions about Biden's unawareness to the National Security Council, who declined to comment.

Several reports swirled over the weekend that indicated Austin was admitted to the intensive care unit of the medical center, according to NBC News, and New York Times.

Austin resumed his full duties on Friday from the hospital, the Pentagon said.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, who reports indicate carried out the duties of defense secretary in the first few days of Austin's hospitalization, was also left in the dark about Austin's location until Thursday, CNN reported, citing two defense officials.

Austin transferred “certain operational responsibilities that require constant secure communications capabilities” to Hicks on Jan. 2, a day after he was admitted to Walter Reed, Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder told CNN. Hicks was on vacation in Puerto Rico last week and as of Friday, opted to stay there after Austin resumed his duties.

During the week, Hicks made “some routine operational and management decisions” on behalf of the Pentagon, according to CNN.

Defense officials confirmed to CNN Hicks did not find out about Austin's hospitalization until Thursday afternoon, though Ryder told CNN it is "not uncommon" for the secretary to transfer certain responsibilities without providing a specific explanation.

Soon after the Pentagon's acknowledgement on Friday, various media reports surfaced that the White House, including President Biden, was unaware of Austin's hospitalization for nearly three days — a potentially major breach of protocol as Cabinet secretaries whereabouts are typically closely kept track of from the Situation Room.

It was not until Thursday that Biden was informed of Austin's hospitalization at Walter Reed. That was the same day the Pentagon confirmed the U.S. had ordered a strike in Baghdad targeting a militia leader without disclosing yet that Austin was not acting as defense secretary at the time.

Politico was the first to report the delayed notification. National Security adviser Jake Sullivan and other senior White Houser aides received word about Austin's situation from the Defense Department on Thursday and shortly after the notification, Sullivan informed Biden.

A spokesperson for the National Security Council declined to comment on the timeline of the notification, pointing to the Pentagon for further comment.

As questions swirl about why the information surrounding Austin was kept in the dark for days, several political figures are calling out the lack of transparency.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the situation is "shocking" as the nation's top defense whereabouts have to be known by other officials.

"It's pretty shocking on this because when you're the Secretary of Defense, you need to make everyone aware that you're actually going to be out of pocket," Lankford said an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

Lankford noted the timing of the delay is also important, given the international "turmoil."

Former Vice President Mike Pence on Sunday called the lack of disclosure around the hospitalization a "dereliction of duty."

“Well, first, I wish the Secretary of Defense well, and I’m pleased he’s making a full recovery, but the handling of this by the Secretary of Defense is totally unacceptable,” Pence said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And I believe the American people have a right to know about his medical condition, about the reasons for it.”

Like Lankford, the former vice president pointed to the ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Israel-Hamas war and called on the secretary and the Biden administration to come forward with the information.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) similarly said there was some explaining to do.

"I think that there's a, there's a real difference between public transparency and, you know, alerting the commander in chief to the fact that the Secretary of Defense is in the hospital," Cheney said Sunday during an interview with CBS News's "Face the Nation, adding later, "It's inexplicable. We need to know more about exactly what happened there. But that's not the way the Pentagon ought to be conducting business."

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Sunday pushed back on the argument that the undisclosed information was a "dereliction of duty."

"I don't think it was a dereliction of duty. No, I don't think that at all. I do wish that it had been disclosed, and maybe it was, maybe just not made public. So I don't know all the particulars here," Clyburn said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I do know Lloyd Austin. He is a stand-up guy. He's a great defense secretary. He has been a tremendous military man in this country, and I'm told he is now in charge of things as he was before the illness"

Biden has yet to weigh in publicly on the reports. The New York Times, citing a U.S. official, reported Biden and Austin spoke by phone Saturday night and that another official said the president expressed confidence in his defense secretary.

Austin acknowledged in a statement on Saturday that he could have better informed the public about the hospitalization.

“I also understand the media concerns about transparency and I recognize I could have done a better job ensuring the public was appropriately informed. I commit to doing better," the statement read.

“But this is important to say: this was my medical procedure, and I take full responsibility for my decisions about disclosure,” Austin added.

Harvard President Claudine Gay and University of Pennsylvania (Penn) President Liz Magill both lost their positions after their controversial congressional testimony at the beginning of December, with Gay also facing substantial allegations of plagiarism.  

Republicans say their departures are just the beginning of needed reforms at the schools. 

“This is only among the very first steps on a very long road to recovering or returning to higher education its true and original purposes, which is truth-seeking,” said Jay Greene, senior research fellow in the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation.  

Conservatives cheered the departures, which came after the two, as well as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sally Kornbluth, faced questions on campus antisemitism before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

"Two down. One to go," posted Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a member of the committee. "Accountability is coming."

“The long overdue forced resignations of former Presidents Claudine Gay and Liz Magill are just the beginning of the tectonic consequences from their historic morally bankrupt testimony to my questions,” Stefanik added in a statement to The Hill, mentioning an official probe into the schools that the panel has announced.

“The investigation will address all aspects of a fundamentally broken and corrupt higher education system — antisemitism on campus, taxpayer funded aid, foreign aid, DEI, accreditation, academic integrity, and governance," she said, using an acronym for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.  

In hearings on antisemitism and college campuses, Republicans have followed up with legislation that would put more restrictions on universities, including a bill that would lower from $250,000 to $50,000 the amount of money received from foreign governments that would need to be disclosed to the Department of Education, as well as adding more contingencies on what would constitute a foreign gift.

Republicans have also said they will strip taxpayer funding from universities that they determine are not doing enough to combat antisemitism, including grants and research funding given to private institutions such as Harvard.

But their biggest target recently has been DEI programs, making the case that they have been more harmful than helpful to students.

“One of the ways I think colleges and universities have promoted antisemitic speech and behavior is through their DEI offices,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) said at a hearing.

Stephanie Hall, acting senior director of higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, said she finds it "really concerning" that a congressional committee is attempting to investigate DEI at universities. 

Hall said the Department of Education can handle complaints over civil rights violations at schools and the panel should instead "focus on keeping the government open, keeping federal funds flowing to institutions so they can operate at a level that makes sure your students' needs are being met." 

But the goals of House Republicans are aligned with those who have long argued that higher education is heading in the wrong direction under progressive leadership. 

Greene said he is hopeful “additional people are going to have to be removed, both leaders of universities and their underlings, because they're also significant actors in this. It's not just at the top, but it's kind of throughout these institutions.” 

He also specifically called for the dismantling of DEI efforts on campus and disciplines such as gender studies, another popular GOP target.

Such efforts have been in motion long before the shake-ups at Penn and Harvard.

In Texas, a law banning diversity programs at public universities took effect in the new year. And last year, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) also signed a bill to defund DEI programs at public universities.  

“I think the momentum was already there. Though, I think the results of the hearing, the move by a couple of those presidents to resign after that hearing, that has ramped up the momentum for targeting DEI even further,” Hall said.

A tracker by The Chronicle of Higher Education last year found 40 bills had been introduced in states across the country to try to restrict DEI programs, diversity statements and mandatory diversity training at schools.

Opponents argue the efforts to oust the presidents are politically motivated and fueling distrust among all higher education.  

"What we saw go down with the president at Harvard is something the institution can likely weather and get through because they are Harvard ... [But] it is concerning for what could happen across higher ed in terms of targeting other scholars, targeting other institutional leaders,” Hall said.  

“We've got a vocal minority that's using just bad faith attacks, using the phrase DEI, to attack academic freedom and to really hijack higher ed and undermine public support for it,” she added.  

The justices’ order sets the case up to be heard at a speedy pace, with oral arguments scheduled for Feb. 8 and a decision to follow that could spark Trump’s removal from the ballot in states across the country.

Dozens of challenges to Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment have been filed nationwide, though many cases have been rejected by lower courts.

But two states — Colorado and Maine — last month took the extraordinary step of removing Trump from the primary ballot.

Although those rulings remain on hold until Trump’s appeals are resolved, enabling his name to remain on the ballot in the meantime, the justices’ decision to hear the Colorado case equips the high court to provide a national resolution in advance of the general election.

Trump’s political fate now lies in the hands of the conservative-majority court, which includes three Trump appointees and has never squarely resolved the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.

"We welcome a fair hearing at the Supreme Court to argue against the bad-faith, election-interfering, voter-suppressing, Democrat-backed and Biden-led, 14th Amendment abusing decision to remove President Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot in the state of Colorado,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.

The clause prohibits someone from holding “any office … under the United States” if they “engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath to support the Constitution.

It was ratified after the Civil War and originally designed to keep Confederates from returning to federal office. After falling largely dormant for decades, anti-Trump plaintiffs have contended the then-president’s actions surrounding the Capitol riot amounted to insurrection and should disqualify him from seeking a second White House term.

In Colorado, four Republican and two independent voters backed by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit seeking to remove Trump from the primary ballot.

In a 4-3 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court sided with them and last month became the first to issue a decision that, if allowed to stand, would disqualify Trump from appearing on the state’s ballot.

All parties in the case — Trump, the Colorado Republican Party, the Colorado secretary of state and the plaintiffs who won — agreed the U.S. Supreme Court should take up the case given the significance of the issues, citing a need for a national consensus.

“The Colorado Supreme Court has no authority to deny President Trump access to the ballot. By doing so, the Colorado Supreme Court has usurped Congressional authority and misinterpreted and misapplied the text of section 3,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in court filings.

But they split on how fast the high court should consider the case and what legal questions it should resolve.

In Maine, Trump is appealing in state court Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’s (D) decision that would knock the former president off the primary ballot. The case could reach the justices within weeks.

“President Trump is dominating the polls, and the Biden presidency has failed all Americans,” Cheung said in his statement. “We are confident that the fair-minded Supreme Court will unanimously affirm the civil rights of President Trump, and the voting rights of all Americans in a ruling that will squash all of the remaining ballot challenge hoaxes once and for all.”

Updated at 6:03 p.m.

LaPierre’s resignation, first reported by Fox News, comes as the organization defends itself in a New York civil suit alleging he and other executives spent millions of the group’s funds on luxury vacations and other perks.

“With pride in all that we have accomplished, I am announcing my resignation from the NRA,” LaPierre said in a statement. “I’ve been a card-carrying member of this organization for most of my adult life, and I will never stop supporting the NRA and its fight to defend Second Amendment freedom. My passion for our cause burns as deeply as ever.”

The 74-year-old cited health concerns for his resignation, which will take effect Jan. 31. 

LaPierre has helmed the NRA for more than three decades, leading it through triumph as it gained political clout, controversy after innumerable mass shootings and downfall as the group has run into financial trouble.

"I am proud of the NRA’s advocacy in New York and, through it all, determination to defend the Second Amendment. I can assure you the NRA’s mission, programming, and fight for freedom have never been more secure," he said.

More Business news from The Hill

• Treasury: Nearly 9,000 auto dealers have registered for electric vehicle tax credit
• Maersk says Red Sea diversion will cause major disruptions
• Surprise jobs data gives boost to Biden
• Yellen says US economy is in ‘soft landing’

He first joined the group as an employee in 1977, about the time the group began its transformation from a firearms safety advocacy group into a conservative political powerhouse. 

Under LaPierre, the organization was one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington, able to make-or-break Republican candidates with its endorsements. The group also spent hundreds of million on legal services, challenging gun control measures nationwide.

Major legal victories include last year’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which threw out New York state handgun regulation and started a wave of legal challenges to other gun control measures in dozens of states. The NRA supported the suit.

LaPierre’s exit adds to legal and financial difficulties for the organization.

The group’s fundraising and membership have fallen steeply in recent years, losing about a half-million members from 2021-22, according to gun violence news nonprofit The Trace.

The organization raised $213 million in 2022, about half of its 2016 total, according to the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

The New York suit, brought by state Attorney General Letitia James (D), alleges LaPierre and other senior leaders diverted millions of dollars away from the group’s charitable mission and towards luxury personal benefits.

Following an 18-month investigation, James said the NRA fostered “a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement and negligent oversight,” costing the group $64 million over three years.

The NRA and LaPierre have denied wrongdoing. The case is set to go to trial starting Monday. 

James celebrated LaPierre’s resignation in a statement Friday, while committing to continue the case. One of the demands for the trail was LaPierre’s removal as executive.

“While the end of the Wayne LaPierre era is an important victory in our case, our push for accountability continues. LaPierre's resignation validates our claims against him, but it will not insulate him or the NRA from accountability,” she said. “Our case will move ahead, and we look forward to proving the facts in court.”

Updated 4:06 p.m. Jan. 5.

“The founders of our Constitution were terrified that presidents or other federal officials or members of Congress would sell out the American national interests simply by receiving money from foreign governments and doing their bidding,” Raskin told Mika Brzezinski in comments highlighted by Mediaite. "And Donald Trump has fulfilled the worst fears and nightmares of the founders.”

Oversight Committee Democrats found that the nearly $8 million in payments Trump took in could violate the constitutional prohibition on accepting funds from foreign governments. A majority of the payments, about $5.6 million, came from China and went to Trump’s hotels in Washington and Las Vegas and Trump Tower in New York, their report found.

Raskin cautioned that the total number is likely larger because the report covered only two of Trump’s four years in office, related to only four of Trump’s more than 500 businesses and was able to examine only 20 countries. Still, it shows foreign governments and agents made payments directly to Trump-owned businesses while he was in the White House.

“So this is likely to be just a fraction of what he took,” Raskin said. “But still, the founders of our country would be absolutely scandalized, as would be every other president we’ve ever had in American history.”

“It was a money-making operation from the beginning, and we’re just starting to find the millions and millions of dollars that he collected from governments,” he continued.

Raskin said his Republican colleagues, who have launched an impeachment inquiry into President Biden over his family’s business dealings, are turning a blind eye to the “documented receipts of that taking place during the Trump administration.”

The Maryland Democrat pointed out various times throughout history when presidents received gifts or funds from other countries and turned them down. He called on Trump, the far-and-away front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, to return the $7.8 million.

“And here we have Trump just pocketing millions of dollars directly from some of the most corrupt regimes on Earth that were looking for particular things, and he continues just to go on his merry way,” Raskin said, adding the report outlines how the money from the foreign governments “definitely influenced” what Trump did in respect to China and Saudi Arabia.

Payrolls came in hot in December with 216,000 new jobs added to the economy and the unemployment rate remaining low at 3.7 percent, according to the Labor Department.

The December jobs report was another upside surprise for a labor market that defied economists’ expectations throughout 2023. But the promising state of the economy is hardly a lock in voters’ minds for the president.

Despite ample salesmanship, Biden's economic approval ratings are low. Just 32 percent of Americans gave Biden a thumbs up on the economy in a November Gallup poll.

His overall approval ratings are also weak, with 39 percent of Americans giving him a passing grade in December polling. That’s still a slight improvement from his November rating of 37 percent.

And Biden currently trails former President Trump, his likely Republican opponent, by 2 percent in The Hill/Decision Desk HQ poll tracker.

The state of the economy is likely to be top-of-mind for voters, so 2024 promises to be a year of intense economic rhetoric and argumentation. Here’s how the first jobs report of the year sets the stage.

The airport is 'on the horizon' for the soft landing

FILE - United States Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen speaks at the Atlantic Council Global Citizen Awards, Sept. 20, 2023, in New York. Yellen wants Latin America to trade more with the United States as part of an initiative that so far has failed to disrupt China’s dominance in global manufacturing. (AP Photo/Julia Nikhinson, File)

The December jobs report is boosting confidence among policymakers that the U.S. economy is in a "soft landing," or the rebalancing of the economy toward slow and steady growth from high inflation without a recession.

After the federal government pumped trillions of dollars in stimulus into the economy and inflation took off in 2021, the Fed started raising interest rates in 2022 to slow things down, leading many economists to believe a recession was inevitable.

But despite many wrong predictions, a recession failed to materialize in 2023. The strong jobs numbers from December — along with wage growth of 4.1 percent over the past year — are yet more evidence for the soft landing scenario.

“What we’re seeing now I think we can describe as a soft landing, and my hope is that it will continue,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Friday in an interview on CNN.

“The American people did it,” she added. “The American people go to work every day, participate in the labor market, form new businesses. But President Biden has tried to create incentives that give Americans the tools they need to help this economy grow.”

More Top Stories from The Hill

• Wayne LaPierre resigns as NRA head
• House prepares contempt of Congress resolution for Hunter Biden
• New York AG asks judge to force Trump to pay $370M in fraud case
• Trump attorney says Kavanaugh will ‘step up’ in ballot cases

Yellen's former Fed colleagues have also noted as much.

“The airport is on the horizon,” Tom Barkin, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, said in a speech Wednesday. “Everyone is talking about the potential for a soft landing, where inflation completes its journey back to normal levels while the economy stays healthy. And you can see the case for that.”

Optimism among investors is also percolating.

“Two consecutive positive jobs reports and solid consumer spending amid easing inflation are welcome news both for consumers and investors,” Stephen J. Rich, head of investment firm Mutual of America Capital Management, wrote in a statement sent to The Hill. “A soft landing for the economy appears much more likely.”

Parties battle for control of narrative

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) addresses reporters during a press conference on Tuesday, May 23, 2023 to introduce a social security bill. (Greg Nash)

Democrats were eager to cheer the Friday jobs report as evidence that their policies are working as the party and Biden attempt to flip voter sentiment on the economy.

“Another strong report to round out a year of sustainable job growth, and growing the economy from the bottom-up and middle-out is the new pro-worker, pro-growth strategy,” Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Friday.

“By every measure, it’s working.”

Republicans, however, are keeping the focus on cost increases endured by Americans over the past two years thanks to four-decade-high inflation and the Fed's rapid rate hikes.

“The average monthly mortgage payment has increased by $1,089 and is 96 percent higher than when President Biden took office in January 2021,” Ways and Means Republicans said in a statement.

“Consumer credit debt has reached an all-time high of just over $1 trillion and the number of Americans struggling to pay credit card bills has increased sharply.”

“As the calendar turns to 2024, working families see an administration pushing the same failed policies of ‘Bidenomics’ that have caused such financial and economic struggle, frustration, and anxiety,” Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said.

Inflation is falling and gas prices are easing

President Biden gives a campaign speech on the eve of Jan. 6 attack of the Capitol at Montgomery County Community College in Blue Bell, Pa., on Friday, January 5, 2024. (Greg Nash)

While Americans are still dealing with elevated inflation, Democrats are hopeful that slowing price growth will bolster their pitch to voters.

Inflation has dropped from a 9-percent annual increase in June 2022 to a 3.1-percent increase this past November, according to the Labor Department's consumer price index (CPI).

The dip in inflation comes as wage increases have broadly kept pace, with a 4.1-percent annual increase in average hourly earnings reported Friday by the Labor Department.

For the lowest-paid workers in the economy, their wage increases have outpaced inflation for a net gain throughout the pandemic.

And gas prices, which are some of the costs that consumers feel most acutely, are also on the retreat.

The national average price for a gallon of gas was $3.09 on Friday — a far cry from the $5 peak at the height of inflation.

“Right now, the average driver in America is spending over $100 less than if gas prices had stayed at their peak,” Biden touted in a Friday post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Rate cuts may be delayed as job market holds strong

Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a news conference about the Federal Reserve's monetary policy at the Federal Reserve, Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2023, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Investors had started to price in rate cuts for some time this year in anticipation of inflation returning to the Fed’s 2-percent annual expectation. 

That could lead to an additional boost for the stock market, which is already near record highs, with the S&P 500 index of major U.S. stocks up nearly 600 points since the end of October.

But the strength of the Friday jobs report will likely mean the Fed will push back rate cuts.

The chances of the Fed holding rates steady at its next meeting at the current range of 5.25 to 5.5 percent were clocked by the CME Fedwatch prediction algorithm on Friday at 95 percent.

Strengthening consumer sentiment may also be a tailwind for Biden heading into 2024, with the Michigan Survey of Consumer Sentiment soaring 14 percent in December.

Cárdenas and Bold PAC — the Congressional Hispanic Caucus's (CHC) campaign arm — are throwing their weight behind Rivas, an MIT engineer and Harvard graduate who turned to politics after working at Motorola and founding a nonprofit to encourage young girls to pursue STEM degrees.

“Bold PAC is proud to endorse Luz Rivas in CA-29. Luz has devoted herself to creating opportunities for Latino families. She has helped countless young Latinas pursue careers in technology. And she has fought to help workers advance their careers and take care of their loved ones. In Congress, she will be a powerful voice for our future,” Bold PAC Chair Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) said.

California's 29th Congressional District is a safe Democratic seat. Rivas will compete in a so-called "jungle primary," where all candidates compete against each other in a primary and the top two, regardless of party, move on to the general election.

So far, two other candidates have registered: Angélica María Dueñas, a Democratic progressive who lost the general election to Cárdenas in 2022, and Benito Bernal, a Republican who lost the 2018 general election to Cárdenas.

Cárdenas and Rivas, both electrical engineers, are graduates of the same elementary school in Pacoima, a historically disadvantaged neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley.

"I look at Luz as the new and improved member of the 29th District. She's a lot smarter than me. She's a lot younger than me. She's a proven leader. She puts her heart and her efforts in the right place," said Cárdenas. 

"I mean, you know, she left being an engineer to start a nonprofit from scratch, to help little kids in our community to believe in themselves and to believe that they can go to college, believe that they can be scientists and astronauts and live their dreams."

Although Rivas is 11 years younger than Cárdenas, she attended school only one year behind Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a mechanical engineer who recruited Rivas from Pacoima, Calif., to MIT.

Padilla entered politics as campaign manager for Cárdenas's first California Assembly race in 1996.

"The water [in Pacoima has] always been the same. It's just that we had to finally let everybody know that we know how to take care of our neighborhoods. We don't need other people to do it for us. When Alex ran my campaign in '96 for the State Assembly, that was the first breakthrough," said Cárdenas.

If representation by STEM-educated Pacoima natives is Cárdenas's personal legacy, Bold PAC is his lasting mark on the political landscape.

Cárdenas led Bold PAC over three campaign cycles; he inherited a group that raised just under a million dollars for the 2014 cycle and left it after the 2020 cycle, when Bold PAC raised a little over $18 million.

Bold PAC has since been led by Reps. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Sánchez, both of whom worked with Cárdenas to recruit successful candidates, including CHC Chair Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.).

"I'm gonna miss a lot of things about Washington, DC. I have a soft spot in my heart for Bold PAC but they're in good hands. They're doing amazingly well. Their fundraising is strong. Our numbers are getting better every cycle. We have more and more members of the Democratic Hispanic Caucus — the CHC," Cárdenas said.

Biden, the president’s son, was due to appear last month before investigators from a trio of committees investigating his business dealings. Instead, he spoke on the Senate lawn reiterating his willingness to speak with the panels only in a public setting.

Lawmakers said last month they would hold Biden in contempt of Congress. 

“We’re going to move forward with contempt proceedings. … There’s a process we have to follow, but we plan to do that,” House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Dec. 13.

After the Judiciary Committee votes on the resolution, it must be weighed before the full House.

Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, speaks during a news conference outside the Capitol, Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2023, in Washington. Hunter Biden on Wednesday lashed out at Republican investigators who have been digging into his business dealings, insisting outside the Capitol he will only testify before a congressional committee in public. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Biden attorney Abbe Lowell issued a statement Friday accusing the Republican committee chairs of continuing “to play politics by seeking an unprecedented contempt motion against someone who has from the first request offered to answer all their proper questions.  What are they afraid of?”

While a public rebuke of a sitting president’s son in itself would be extraordinary, a contempt of Congress resolution largely serves as a recommendation to the Justice Department, which can choose whether to bring charges.

That’s a risky proposition for Hunter Biden, who is already facing felony tax charges in California as well as charges in Delaware related to buying a weapon without disclosing drug use.

But in his press conference on the Senate lawn, he nodded to an offer by House Oversight and Accountability Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who prior to the subpoena said he would “drop everything” if Biden wanted to testify publicly, and accused the GOP of reneging on that claim.

More House coverage from The Hill

• Speaker Johnson weighs trying to negotiate border directly with White House
• Scalise undergoes stem cell transplant to treat cancer
• Colorado Republican Lamborn won’t seek reelection
• Raskin: Trump has fulfilled ‘worst fears and nightmares’ of founders with foreign spending at businesses

He also addressed the crux of the investigation into his father.

“For six years, I’ve been the target of the unrelenting Trump attack machine shouting. ‘Where’s Hunter?’” Biden said in a statement to reporters. “Well, here’s my answer. I am here.”

“Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not financially involved in my business. Not as a practicing lawyer. Not as a board member of Burisma. Not in my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not my investment at all nor abroad, and certainly not as an artist,” he said, running through a number of key aspects of the GOP probes.

“There’s no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business, because it did not happen,” Biden added.

The Justice Department in recent years has acted on just half of the contempt of Congress resolutions that have been referred by the House.

It pursued and scored convictions against both one-time White House strategist Steve Bannon and White House adviser Peter Navarro.

But it declined to bring cases against Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows or communications guru Dan Scavino. 

“Hunter Biden’s willful refusal to comply with our subpoenas constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution. We will not provide him with special treatment because of his last name,” Comer and Jordan said in a joint statement.

Democrats hit Comer on Friday for failing to uphold an earlier offer to let Biden testify publicly.

“Instead of taking yes for an answer, Chairman Comer has now obstructed his own hapless investigation by denying Hunter Biden the opportunity to answer all the Committee’s questions in front of the American people and the world," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in a statement.

“Chairman Comer does not want Hunter Biden to testify in public, just as he has refused to publicly release over a dozen interview transcripts, because he wants to keep up the carefully curated distortions, blatant lies, and laughable conspiracy theories that have marked this investigation.  However, the facts and the evidence all show no wrongdoing and no impeachable offense by President Biden.”

Updated at 12:45 p.m. ET

For President Biden, the attack on the Capitol — when supporters of then-President Trump stormed the complex to try and halt the certification of the 2020 election results — serves as a reminder of how fragile U.S. democracy is and the danger Trump poses to it. It is yet another example of the ongoing battle for the soul of the nation, as Biden put it during his 2020 campaign, a theme he has doubled down on as he seeks another term.

Trump, meanwhile, has minimized the events of Jan. 6 to push the narrative that he and his supporters are being unfairly targeted. He has pledged to pardon those charged with crimes in connection to the riots and continues to rail against investigations into that day, as well as his own criminal charges over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The conflicting approaches from the leading White House candidates reflect how, three years after the riots, the events of Jan. 6 have become yet another political tool for elected officials to use to motivate voters.

“I think obviously we’re a couple years removed, but it still seems to be very top of mind for some voters,” said Sarah Matthews, a former Trump White House official who resigned over the events of Jan. 6. “Obviously, Biden has kind of framed a lot of his messaging toward the fact that democracy is at stake, and I think that’s going to be a central theme of his campaign.”

Biden is set to speak in Valley Forge, Pa., on Friday, using a backdrop associated with the American Revolution to discuss the resonance of Jan. 6 three years later.

“This Saturday will mark the three-year anniversary of when — with encouragement from Donald Trump — a violent mob breached our nation’s Capitol. It was the first time in our nation's history that a president tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez told reporters this week. 

“The threat Donald Trump posed in 2020 to American democracy has only grown more dire in the years since,” she added. “Our message is clear and it is simple: We are running a campaign like the fate of our democracy depends on it. Because it does.”

Biden has been preparing for this speech throughout the week; he had lunch Wednesday with a group of scholars and historians about it. The White House said the group discussed “the ongoing threats to democracy and democratic institutions both here in America and around the world.”.

“The president tends to — and he’s done this before, he’s met with historians before — ahead of an important national moment, which we’re about to see certainly as it relates to Jan. 6,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Thursday about the lunch.

Biden’s reelection campaign released its first paid ad of 2024 the day before the speech, which focused on democracy and attacked Trump. The 60-second ad, narrated by Biden, is set to run over the next week in key swing states and argues that Trump has made efforts to “erode American democracy and excuse — and even promote — political violence.”

Friday’s remarks will be Biden’s fifth major speech focused on democracy. His fourth was in the critical swing state of Arizona in September, during which he invoked the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Trump critic and longtime Biden friend.

The president’s other speeches on democracy took place in January 2022 to mark the first anniversary of Jan. 6,  in September 2022 at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and in November 2022 in Washington, D.C., just days before the midterm elections.

“[Biden’s] not known for harsh political rhetoric or pearl-clutching, so when he speaks about threats to our democracy, the public listens. His speech on the anniversary of Jan. 6 isn’t important just because of the political ramifications, it’s important because we can never forget what Donald Trump did,” said Michael Starr Hopkins, a Democratic strategist.

The president increasingly has targeted Trump in recent remarks and in particular during speeches to donors when fundraising across the country.

Biden, while in Philadelphia last month, said Trump poses a threat to democracy and highlighted a notable anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 2026.

“I don’t believe that on our 250th anniversary, this nation will turn to Donald Trump. Folks, imagine, imagine that moment and ask: 'What do we want to be?'” Biden said. “If we do our job in 2024, we will have done something few generations have been able to say they’ve done. We will able to say literally, we saved democracy.”

Trump, meanwhile, is spending the third anniversary Saturday on the campaign trail; he has two events in Iowa planned ahead of the state’s crucial caucuses. He has invoked Jan. 6 during rallies before, most notably during his first 2024 campaign event in Waco, Texas, last April where he put his hand over his heart while a song played sung by a group of inmates that are incarcerated for their role in the attack.

But the events of Jan. 6 have also become a major source of various legal problems for Trump as he seeks the GOP nomination and a return to the White House in 2024.

Trump was indicted in August by federal prosecutors over his efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election, which culminated with the Jan. 6 riots, when his supporters tried to halt the official proceeding to certify the results.

Decisions in Colorado and Maine, if allowed to stand, would remove Trump from the ballot on the grounds that he engaged in an insurrection, barring him from a second White House term under a clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Trump’s campaign is appealing both rulings — and he will remain on the ballot in those states until the cases plays out legally.

The former president for weeks after the 2020 election falsely claimed it was rigged and fraudulent. He later encouraged his supporters to descend on Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, the day Congress was to certify the results, and during a rally that day near the White House, he urged those in attendance to make their voices heard at the Capitol.

Trump has downplayed the events of Jan. 6 while campaigning and framed his prosecution and charges against hundreds of rioters as politically motivated.

“I call them the ‘J-6 hostages,’ not prisoners. I call them the hostages, what’s happened. And you know, it’s a shame,” Trump said at a November rally.

The former president has said he would consider pardoning some of those charged in connection to the Capitol attack, and he spoke earlier this year at a fundraiser organized for Jan. 6 defendants.

Some Trump allies view the focus from Democrats on Jan. 6 as overblown.

“I just think that Democrats wake up every morning … and they look at the calendar, the iPhone says Jan. 6, 2021. The date never changes,” former senior Trump aide Kellyanne Conway said during a recent Fox News appearance. “And then they get into an electric vehicle and go get an abortion. I just described the Democratic Party to you in seven seconds.”

But polling ahead of the third anniversary of the attack suggests Jan. 6 still resonates with a large swath of voters.

A Washington Post-University of Maryland survey published Tuesday found 53 percent of the public say Trump bears at least a “good amount” of responsibility for the attack at the Capitol.

The poll also found 55 percent of Americans say the events of Jan. 6 should never be forgotten, including 86 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents, a sign the issue could effectively turn out the voters Biden will need to win reelection.

But, in a sign of the effect of Trump’s constant claims that the 2020 election was rigged, the poll also found 62 percent of Americans said Biden’s win was legitimate, down 7 percentage points from 2021.

“President Biden has earned the trust of the American people and owes it to them to ensure that we never forget how delicate our democratic experiment can be when left in the wrong hands,” said Hopkins, CEO of Northern Starr Strategies.

DeSantis, who has focused much of his presidential campaign in the Hawkeye State ahead of its first-in-the-nation caucuses, also voiced support for Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R), who has endorsed him, and local law enforcement after the shooting.

“I don't support infringing the rights of law-abiding citizens with respect to the ability to exercise their constitutional rights,” DeSantis said in an NBC News interview. “I know these [regulations] can be used to try to target things, and a lot of the things that are proposed would not have even prevented any of these [shootings].”

The shooting at a high school in Perry, Iowa, injured multiple students and resulted in the death of the gunman, The Associated Press reported Thursday. Students described a traumatic experience at the school.

The Florida governor said lawmakers should focus on mental health in order to combat school shootings, while noting that a motive is unclear in the Perry incident.

“For whatever reason, there are people in our society that really get a kick out of doing this,” DeSantis said. “And you have people that put it online and do all that. And that's an underlying sickness in society. And I think that involves things like mental health.”

“We obviously have a responsibility to create safe environments,” he continued. “Federal government is probably not going to be leading that effort, I think it is more of a local and state issue.”

He pointed to his record in Florida, where he led the state’s legislative response to the Parkland, Fla., school shooting that killed 17 people in 2018.

“One of the things I've done as governor of Florida was respond to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas [High School] shooting that happened before I was governor. We got a recommendations report, and we've done over a billion dollars for school security and involves a lot of different things,” he said. 

“But as the father of three young kids who are in school — first grade, kindergarten and pre-K — all we want is parents to have safety in the schools. So we've put a lot of emphasis on this,” he added.

The shooting comes just over a week before the Iowa caucuses, set for Jan. 15.

“It has been an honor to serve the great people of the Third Congressional District and State of Missouri these past several years. However, after a lot of thoughtful discussion with my family, I have decided to not file for re-election and retire at the end of my term in December,” Luetkemeyer, 71, said in a statement posted on X, formerly Twitter.

“As we tackle the many challenges we face, I hope we remember what someone once said, that ‘the greatness of our country is not found in the halls of Congress but in the hearts and homes of our people,’” Luetkemeyer said. “That assessment is still true today. As we look into the future, I believe if we work hard, stay together, and believe in ourselves our best days are indeed still ahead.”

Luetkemeyer, who joined Congress in 2009, was seen as a top contender to replace retiring House Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who is also retiring at the end of the term. Luetkemeyer is the chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions.

Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), the vice chair of the committee, is seen as another strong contender to be its next chair if Republicans keep the House GOP majority. 

Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District that Luetkemeyer is vacating, which includes areas to the north, south, and west of St. Louis, is a solidly Republican district.

The United States determined North Korea had recently provided Russia with a ballistic missile launcher and several ballistic missiles, John Kirby, a White House spokesperson for national security issues, told reporters. 

Russia used at least one of those missiles in a Dec. 30, 2023, strike against Ukraine, and multiple others during a strike carried out Tuesday, Kirby said.

“We expect Russia and North Korea to learn from these launches, and we anticipate that Russia will use additional North Korean missiles to target Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure and to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians,” he said.

Kirby said the U.S. determined the Dec. 30 missile appeared to have landed in an open field in Ukraine. Officials are still assessing the impacts of the Jan. 2 launch, he said.

“This is a significant and concerning escalation in the DPRK's support for Russia,” Kirby said.

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby addresses reporters during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, January 3, 2024. Kirby discussed the situations in Iran and Israel-Palestine among other topics.

In return for providing Russia with ballistic missiles, Kirby said the U.S. believes North Korea is seeking fighter aircraft, surface to air missiles and other advanced technology to upgrade its own military capabilities.

The White House has for months been warning about a burgeoning partnership between North Korea and Russia as Moscow carries out its war against Ukraine. North Korea in October delivered more than 1,000 containers of munitions and other equipment to Russia.

“Due in part to our sanctions and export controls, Russia has become increasingly isolated on the world stage, and they’ve been forced to look to like-minded states for military equipment,” Kirby said Thursday. “As we’ve been warning publicly, one of those states is North Korea.”

Top Stories from The Hill

• Trump businesses took in nearly $8 million from foreign governments: House Democrats 
• Texas Democrat blasts Speaker Johnson for scoffing at $14 billion in border funds
• Trump pushes to hold Jack Smith in contempt, block further filings in Jan. 6 case
• Trump says GOP always bend the knee: NYT

The escalation by Moscow comes as the White House has acknowledged it has run out of approved funding to provide military aid to Ukraine to defend itself against invading Russian forces.

The Biden administration announced a final round of $250 million in funding in late December to bolster Ukraine’s air defense capabilities and provide other equipment. But White House officials have stressed the U.S. will be unable to approve additional aid without congressional action.

Russia fired some 500 missiles and drones from Dec. 29 to Jan. 2, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as Moscow ramps up its winter offensive. The strikes have killed dozens of Ukrainian civilians and injured hundreds more.

Updated 1:37 p.m.

In the survey, conducted by HarrisX for Deseret News, 64 percent of Republicans said Trump was a person of faith, up from 53 percent in October.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, an evangelical Christian, came in second with Republicans, with 56 percent calling him a man of faith.

GOP respondents were less likely to say Trump is “religious” and pointed to his “support for religious people, not his personal religiosity, as their reasoning for saying he is a man of faith," according to the Deseret News.

Unlike Pence and other prominent Republicans, Trump rarely talks about his religious beliefs. His history is one that would seem, at a glance, to potentially be troubling for Christian conservatives because he has been divorced twice and has faced legal consequences over, among other things, the paying of hush money to a former adult film star to stay quiet about an alleged affair.

Still, the former president has consistently earned the support of social conservatives.

The survey found 24 percent of independent voters think Trump is a person of faith, compared to just 10 percent of Democrats.

Forty-four percent of Republicans said former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, another White House contender, is a person of faith, compared to 34 percent for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie earned 22 percent, the survey found.

The survey notes Haley was raised Sikh but converted to Christianity, DeSantis is Catholic and Ramaswamy is Hindu.

Only 13 percent of Republicans say Biden, a practicing Catholic who regularly talks about his religious beliefs, is a person of faith. Thirty-six percent of independents and 69 percent of Democrats say the same.

The survey was conducted Nov. 21-22 among 1,012 registered voters. Its margin of error is 3.1 percentage points.

The volume of foreign payments during Trump's presidency — the majority coming from China — is detailed in one of the most exhaustive reviews of Trump’s business dealings with foreign governments while in office.

Democrats cautioned the total figure is likely larger, and they blasted GOP leadership they’ve accused of releasing Trump’s accounting firm Mazars from turning over requested documents just four months after a years-long legal battle forced it to comply with a congressional subpoena.

“Critically, even this subset of documents reveals a stunning web of millions of dollars in payments made by foreign governments and their agents directly to Trump-owned businesses, while President Trump was in the White House,” Democrats wrote in their report.

“By pocketing foreign states’ payments, President Trump repeatedly placed his personal financial interest and the interests of foreign wealth and power above the public interest, resulting in precisely the split loyalty between foreign power and the American people that the Framers sought to avoid.”

The lion’s share of the foreign money — some $5.6 million — flowed from China, which, along with other countries, primarily patronized three properties: Trump hotels in Washington and Las Vegas and Trump Tower in New York.

Concerned the billionaire hotelier’s businesses would be a magnet for foreign spending, ethics experts have long sounded the alarm that Trump’s properties would be a route for violating the emoluments clause of the constitution, which prohibits the president and other government officials from receiving profit or gain because of their role.

The report comes as the GOP is seeking to highlight the extent relatives of President Biden, mainly his son Hunter Biden, conducted business with foreign governments, including China.

While Hunter Biden did conduct millions of dollars of business with Chinese companies and investors, the review of Trump’s business ledgers showed income from Chinese government sources like China’s Embassy in the U.S. and the Chinese state-affiliated Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC).

Top Stories from The Hill

• Russia using North Korean missiles in strikes against Ukraine: White House
• Texas Democrat blasts Speaker Johnson for scoffing at $14 billion in border funds
• Trump pushes to hold Jack Smith in contempt, block further filings in Jan. 6 case
• Trump says GOP always bend the knee: NYT

ICBC spent $5.4 million over nearly three years for a lease at Trump Tower.

The report also covers Trump’s business with other Chinese companies that would not trigger emoluments clause violations but that have otherwise been under scrutiny.

The records show that CEFC, a private Chinese energy company that also did business with Hunter Biden, spent more than $5 million on an apartment in Trump World Tower through its subsidiary.

Eric Trump, the former president’s son, cast the report as “a joke” and suggested that donating the profits to their organization resolved the issue.

“What a joke! All foreign government profits, for stays at our hotels and other properties while my father was in office, were voluntaraly [sic] donated to the United States Treasury,” he wrote on X.

While the Trump Organization did donate profits, those disclosures came with few details about the spending or who it came from. 

Former President Donald Trump speaks during a commit to caucus rally, Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2023, in Waterloo, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

And House Oversight Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) argued that was not Trump’s decision to make, noting that presidents must seek the blessing of Congress to accept any foreign profits.

“Your government salary as President is the only thing you're allowed to accept. You don't get to choose to refuse your salary and then take money from foreign governments instead, that totally defeats the constitutional design,” Raskin said, nodding to Trump’s refusal to take his presidential salary.

“The founders were emphatic that the President of the United States be someone who gets his money not from foreign governments but rather from Americans. So you, as a president, must take your salary from the American taxpayers and not from homicidal Saudi monarchs or Chinese communist government bureaucrats.”

Oversight Republicans dismissed the report as part of an “obsession” with Trump.

“Former President Trump has legitimate businesses but the Bidens do not. The Bidens and their associates made over $24 million by cashing in on the Biden name in China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Romania. No goods or services were provided other than access to Joe Biden and the Biden network,” Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said in a statement.

However, a Washington Post fact-check found that within that pool of foreign business dealings, just $7.5 million went to Biden family members, with roughly $7 million going directly to Hunter Biden.

The fact check also said many of those businesses were not shell companies, as Comer claimed, but were organized around legitimate business activities or investments.

Other countries that patronized Trump’s businesses include Saudi Arabia, with more than $615,000 spent at his properties, and Qatar, which spent more than $460,000. 

When Trump was running for office in 2015, he boasted of his good relationship with the Saudis based on his business dealings.

“Saudi Arabia, I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” he said at a campaign rally.

“Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much!”

The payments from the Saudi government and its royal family came as the country was working to secure a $100 billion arms deal with the U.S., spending money at Trump properties the month he signed the May 2019 deal.

“The Trump family essentially was selling not just access, but likely decisions that were being made at the national security level for enriching themselves and their families,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said.

While the report offers significant insights into Trump’s business activities, it notes shortcomings in documenting the larger picture, writing that what was uncovered was likely a fraction of total spending.

“That $7.8 million just scratches the surface of the money that Donald Trump was collecting in his businesses around the world, but I will say, nonetheless, that that $7.8 million figure is totally scandalous in the context of American history,” Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said during a Thursday morning press conference.

Mazars was either never provided or did not retain key records, the report says, while accusing  Comer of releasing the company from providing the records won in a court battle.

House Oversight Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) in March pointed to a letter from Trump attorney Patrick Strawbridge saying, “I do not know the status of Mazars production, but my understanding is that the committee has no interest in forcing Mazars to complete it and is willing to release it from further obligations under the settlement agreement.”

Comer denied that at the time.

“There has been no coordination or discussion with anyone from the committee’s majority with anyone about the Mazars documents,” Comer spokesman Jessica Collins said in a statement to The Washington Post, calling the allegations “completely unfounded and untrue.”

Democrats noted they were not able to get information on several countries that records indicated had accounts at Trump-owned properties: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Namibia, Romania, and Costa Rica.

“I can only imagine how much more information we'd have of the violations of our U.S. constitution if we didn't have the obstruction of the person that is currently serving as the chair of this committee,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), another member of the panel.

The report follows another review earlier this year documenting Trump’s failure to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts from foreign governments.

Updated at 3:11 pm.

Campaign for Accountability said in a release Wednesday that it filed the complaint this week requesting the FEC investigate Phillips’s campaign committee, the super PAC Pass the Torch USA and strategist Steve Schmidt for alleged violations of federal election regulations. 

Schmidt helped launch Pass the Torch USA to support Phillips’s campaign after previously having worked for the campaign itself. 

The complaint alleges that because Schmidt was involved in developing Phillips’s campaign strategy weeks before starting the super PAC, evidence “strongly suggests” that he and Pass the Torch made $450,000 in coordinated communications with the campaign. 

The organization alleged the PAC falsely reported this as independent expenditures, and the campaign did not disclose as an in-kind contribution. 

“Candidates and their committees cannot coordinate strategy with super PACs. When the architect of the Phillip’s campaign suddenly moves over to lead a super PAC supporting Phillip’s candidacy the moment the ink on the blueprint is dry, the coordination is clear,” said Michelle Kuppersmith, Campaign for Accountability executive director.

Axios was the first to report on the complaint. 

The Hill has reached out to the Phillips campaign for comment. 

The campaign told Axios the complaint is “baseless” and does not allege a “single specific example” of coordination. It said the campaign has complied with the law and has not coordinated with Pass the Torch, Schmidt or “any other party.” 

The release states Pass the Torch started running ads echoing the Phillips campaign’s message of “It’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of American leaders” shortly after Schmidt left the campaign to start the super PAC. 

“If the communications by Pass the Torch had been created, produced or distributed after substantial discussions between Schmidt and Phillips, it would constitute a prohibited coordinated communication,” the release states. 

Phillips is mounting a long-shot bid against President Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination. He has so far not gained much traction in polls, mostly staying in the low single digits.

Daines's amici curiae — or friend-of-the-court — brief is part of a broader Republican backlash against the Colorado Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling that Trump violated the Constitution’s insurrection clause, the first time in history it has been used to disqualify a presidential candidate.

Daines, the chair of the Senate Republican campaign arm, argues the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling “breaches” the Constitution’s “bedrock guarantee of American democracy.”

Daines and the NRSC wrote that they have “a unique and profound interest” in the case because they support and seek to uphold the rights of all American citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice, arguing the Colorado court decision deprives Americans of that right.

They argue that even if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment bars Trump from holding office, it does not bar him from appearing on the ballot, and that it is solely the prerogative of Congress to disqualify him from the Oval Office if he wins the election.  

“So even if the Colorado Supreme Court were correct that President Trump cannot take office on Inauguration Day, that court has no basis to hold that he cannot run for office on Election Day and also seek removal for any alleged disqualification from Congress if necessary,” they wrote.

Daines announced last month he would file a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reverse the Colorado court’s decision, which he called “a disgrace to our country and our democracy.” 

He also donated $5,000 from his leadership political action committee to Trump’s legal defense fund.

Daines is the only elected member of the Senate GOP leadership to have endorsed Trump, but the former president is swiftly racking up endorsements in Congress. This week, the No. 2- and No. 3-ranking members of the House GOP leadership, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (La.) and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (Minn.), endorsed Trump.  

Other Senate Republicans have criticized the Colorado court’s decision, including Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.), who is proposing legislation to explicitly give the Supreme Court sole jurisdiction to decide claims of eligibility arising out of section 3 of the 14th Amendment.  

Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso (Wyo.), the third-ranking Senate GOP leader, last month blasted the Colorado Supreme Court as "a liberal activist court" and denounced its ruling as a "blatant, political attempt to silence American voters."

The Senate's top two Republican leaders — Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Senate GOP Whip John Thune (S.D.) — haven't commented on the Colorado court's ruling. 

The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, states that no person shall hold any office in the United States if they, after previously taking an oath to support the Constitution, engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution or gave aid and comfort to its enemies. 

Trump asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to keep his name on the ballot in Colorado and other states, such as Maine, where the secretary of state announced last week that Trump would be removed from the primary ballot.

Trump argued in a legal filing that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision will “likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” noting the Maine secretary of state had already used it as justification “for unlawfully striking” him from that state’s ballot. 

The second superseding indictment — this one accusing him of receiving gifts linked to Qatar — is the latest legal trouble staring down the New Jersey Democrat after he was charged last year with bribery and acting as a foreign agent on behalf of Egypt. 

But the news also deepens the dilemma for Senate Democrats, a majority of whom have called on Menendez to resign but have not taken the more extreme step of calling for his expulsion — even as the New Jersey Democrat shows no signs of backing down. 

“If he was giving the Democratic leadership headaches last year, now we’re moving into migraine territory,” said Jim Manley, a former top aide to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). “It will be interesting to see how the caucus responds when they come back next week.”

Most senators were quiet on the matter Wednesday, and it remains unclear whether the latest accusations will change their public calculus.

After Menendez’s September indictment, more than 30 of his Senate Democratic colleagues called for him to step aside, but Menendez’s refusal has left them with little space to operate in short of calling for his expulsion. 

 Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has been the only Senate Democrat to do so thus far and has remained Menendez’s preeminent agitator in the caucus. An early and consistent supporter of Menendez’s ouster, he lambasted the New Jersey Democrat after news of the new allegations emerged.

“Now, accused of selling his honor and our nation for a $24,000 watch. Accused as a foreign agent for *two* nations,” Fetterman wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “How much more before we finally expel [Menendez]?”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has repeatedly declined to join the pro-resignation ranks despite publicly chastising his fellow tri-state Democrat. He told reporters Wednesday that Menendez’s behavior “is way below the standard of a senator,” adding that the situation is “deeply disappointing and disturbing to me.”

The Senate is set to return Monday, but it remains unlikely that an expulsion groundswell will expand past Fetterman. 

“A lot of members of the caucus are raising concerns, and I assume more will do so when they come back next week. I’m just not sure there’s a serious move afoot to call for expulsion, for better or for worse,” Manley said, adding that Schumer is handling the situation “the way his caucus wants him to handle it.”

The superseding indictment unsealed Tuesday contains no additional charges against Menendez but accuses him of making favorable statements about the Qatari government to help a New Jersey developer secure a lucrative deal there, receiving lavish gifts in exchange. These gifts allegedly included cash, gold bars, potentially a $24,000 watch and a pair of tickets to Formula One's Miami Grand Prix in 2022. 

Menendez was initially accused of accepting cash and gold bars to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in return for political favors to benefit three New Jersey businessmen and Egypt.  

The senator denied any wrongdoing when initially charged and maintained his innocence this week after the fresh allegations. 

“The government does not have the proof to back up any of the old or new allegations … What they have instead is a string of baseless assumptions and bizarre conjectures based on routine, lawful contacts between a Senator and his constituents or foreign officials,” said Adam Fee, an attorney for Menendez, in a statement.

“At all times, Senator Menendez acted entirely appropriately with respect to Qatar, Egypt, and the many other countries he routinely interacts with,” Fee continued. “Those interactions were always based on his professional judgment as to the best interests of the United States because he is, and always has been, a patriot. This latest Indictment only exposes the lengths to which these hostile prosecutors will go to poison the public before a trial even begins. But these new allegations don’t change a thing, and their theories won’t survive the scrutiny of the court or a jury.”

Adding to the headache for Democrats, Menendez has yet to say whether he will seek reelection this year. The filing deadline for him to decide is March 25, with the primary set for June 4 — four weeks after his trial is set to begin. The New Jersey Democrat unsuccessfully sought to delay the trial until July.

The primary race for his seat is shaping up to be a crowded one, and another candidate jumped into the race Wednesday: labor organizer Patricia Campos Medina.

According to an internal poll released by Rep. Andy Kim’s (D-N.J.) Senate campaign last month, Menendez raked in only 6 percent backing from likely voters. Kim led the field with 45 percent support over Tammy Murphy, the state’s first lady, who garnered 22 percent. 

Menendez last month kept the door open to seeking a fourth term in the upper chamber despite the poor polling numbers. 

“Of course I can. It’s all one moment in time, including your contributions to it, of negative stories,” Menendez told CNN. “When we start telling our story in January at the trial through motions ... we will change that dynamic.”

Republicans threw cold water on the slow-going Senate negotiations on migration policy changes and hyped up a coming impeachment effort against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — while a few in the House GOP tease forcing a government shutdown if their border demands are not met.

The GOP border focus comes at the start of an election year, but also as encounters with migrants have hovered at some of their highest levels — as was on display at a House GOP press conference with around 60 members on the border in Eagle Pass, Texas, on Wednesday. A C-SPAN camera captured small groups wading through the Rio Grande from Mexico into the U.S. as Republicans gathered to speak to the press. 

Johnson dug in on his insistence that the Senate, which is in the midst of border policy negotiations as a condition of approving supplemental aid to war-torn Ukraine, should take up a House GOP-passed border bill that Democrats have dismissed as a non-starter. The H.R. 2 Secure the Border Act would, in part, limit asylum protections.

“H.R 2 is the necessary ingredient. Why? Because it has provisions that fix each of these problems, and these things work together,” Johnson said at the press conference. “For example, you couldn't just reform the broken asylum process and allow this parole system to remain broken. It would be a giant loophole that would not solve the issue.”

While the Biden administration has expanded the use of parole powers that allow for the temporary entrance of those who may not otherwise meet immigration requirements, asylum laws require allowing those who pass an initial screening to enter the U.S. to pursue their claim.

Narrowing asylum laws is one of the top demands of GOP senators negotiating with the White House to limit migration.

The stance on H.R. 2 puts Johnson on a collision course with the Senate. Earlier Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) signaled that hard line would sink any border deal.

“The only way we're going to get any of this done is in a bipartisan way. When the House clings to H.R. 2 as the only solution ... We're not going to get a deal,” Schumer said. 

“It’s very nice you go to the border, but the way to get something done is work, as we are in the Senate, on a bipartisan solution to the border crisis,” Schumer said. “I hope the Speaker will realize that if he wants to solve the problem on the border.”

Asked in a CNN interview after the press conference if he would accept any kind of compromise from the Senate, Johnson said he was “not going to answer hypotheticals” and renewed his call for President Biden to take executive actions to stem the flow of migrants on the border. 

The White House, for its part, said the president has done “everything that he can” without congressional action. 

It is not just supplemental Ukraine funding that could be rocked by hard-line stances on the border in the House GOP. With government funding deadlines looming on Jan. 19 and Feb. 2, some rabble-rousing Republicans are threatening to force a shutdown over the border.

“No more money for this bureaucracy of his government until you’ve brought this border under control. Shut the border down, or shut the government down,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) told Fox News from Eagle Pass on Wednesday. 

But Johnson, asked about the possibility of a shutdown, did not go that far.

“We have been working in earnest and in good faith with the Senate and the White House virtually every day through the holiday trying to come to an agreement … And let me tell you what our top two priorities are right now. In summary, we want to get the border closed and secured, first; and we want to make sure that we reduce nondefense discretionary spending,” Johnson said.

But rather than legislation, the biggest activity with a border focus in the House this month could be impeachment. Republicans are pledging to move forward with impeachment proceedings against Mayorkas starting with a hearing next week.

“The greatest domestic threat to the national security and the safety of the American people is Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas,” House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said in the press conference.

Green plans to hold several hearings dedicated to reviewing Mayorkas’s performance ahead of marking up an impeachment resolution that would boot him from office. It will be the first time since the late 1800’s that Congress has seriously mulled removing a cabinet official from their post.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the House GOP “is wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars pursuing a baseless political exercise,” and that there "is no valid basis to impeach Secretary Mayorkas.”

Without citing specifics, Green accused Mayorkas of violating court orders and subverting immigration laws. 

GOP lawmakers have also accused Mayorkas of lying to Congress — accusations largely based on disagreements as members have questioned him on whether the border is secure.

While some Republicans such as Green have claimed Mayorkas is derelict in his duty to manage the border, it’s not clear that is an impeachable offense or even a legal term outside its use in the military. 

Republicans have also claimed Mayorkas has violated the law, failing to meet the standards of the Secure Fence Act, which defines operational control of the border as a status in which not a single person or piece of contraband improperly enters the country. 

During a Tuesday appearance on MSNBC, Mayorkas said he would cooperate with any impeachment effort but stressed he was staying focused on his work, including Senate negotiations.

“I joined the bipartisan group of senators to work on a legislative solution to a broken immigration system. I was on the Hill yesterday to provide technical advice in those ongoing negotiations. Before I headed to the Hill, I was in the office working on solutions. After my visit to the Hill, I was back in my office, working on solutions,” Mayorkas said.

Al Weaver contributed.

Some of President Biden’s top Senate allies are criticizing the administration's moves on Israel, including the latest approval of arms sales to the military that bypassed Congress while also calling on Israelis to wind down months of intense fighting.

Just before the new year, the Biden administration for a second time in a month approved a provision that would transfer weapons to the Israelis without congressional approval. But, top U.S. officials for weeks have publicly called on Israel to ensure civilians remain out of harm's way as the death toll in Gaza rises into the tens of thousands.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, say the transfer of weapons to Israel without congressional oversight undermines transparency, marking the latest rift among Democrats when it comes to the Israel-Hamas war.

“The U.S. must not write a blank check for [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s] war in Gaza and his right-wing government, which has demonstrated a gross disregard for Palestinian civilians,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told The Hill in a statement. “If the Biden administration won’t be transparent with Congress and the American people, Congress should act and close these loopholes for arm sales for Israel.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken approved the more than $147 million sale of equipment including fuses, charges and primers, which are needed for the 155 mm shells Israel already has. The administration announced the sale Friday, using an emergency authority some lawmakers said skirted an essential step.

“Congressional review is a critical step for examining any large arms sale. The Administration’s decision to repeatedly short-circuit what is already a quick time frame for congressional review undermines transparency and weakens accountability. The public deserves answers,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told The Hill.

The Biden administration, which had proposed an aid package that coupled money for Israel and Ukraine that Congress late last year could not advance, defended the sale.

“The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to ensure Israel is able to defend itself against the threats it faces. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives,” a spokesperson for the State Department said in a statement.

The spokesperson added that Congress was notified that Blinken “exercised his delegated authority to determine an emergency existed necessitating the immediate approval of the transfer” because of “the urgency of Israel’s defense needs.”

But the last few weeks has seen a marked increase in pressure by U.S. officials — several of whom have traveled to the region — in calling on Israel to ease up on its attacks in Gaza and focus on targeting Hamas while minimizing civilian casualties. While Biden’s pro-Israel stance has been steadfast since the deadly Oct. 7 attacks, rifts between Netanyahu, Biden and other U.S. officials have spilled into public view, especially when it comes to a post-war Gaza and the intensity of the fighting in the Palestinian enclave.

But, the second arms sale to Israel without congressional approval is making senators question the White House’s strategy and messaging.

The administration did get some key backing Wednesday from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the highest-ranking Jewish official, who indicated to reporters at the Capitol that Israel’s immediate need for the weapons required this action.

“The State Department believes, as I believe, that Israel needs to get the materials it needs to defend itself against Hamas,” Schumer said.

Others on the left, however, have grown increasingly skeptical with the Israelis, especially over their opposition to Netanyahu’s handling of the situation. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday called on lawmakers to withhold more than $10 billion in military funding for the country and argued that it would be used to keep up Israel’s “grossly disproportionate” and “immoral” war in Gaza.

“While we recognize that Hamas’ barbaric attack began this war, we must also recognize that Israel’s military response has been grossly disproportionate, immoral, and in violation of international law,” Sanders said in a statement.

Overall, a handful of Senate Democrats have come out against the arms sale, including Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Van Hollen and Warren. 

Kaine, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested in a statement that the American public needs more information about this sale.

“Just as Congress has a crucial role to play in all matters of war and peace, Congress should have full visibility over the weapons we transfer to any other nation. Unnecessarily bypassing Congress means keeping the American people in the dark. We need a public explanation of the rationale behind this decision — the second such decision this month,” he said in a statement.

Earlier in December, the Biden administration made the first rare move to bypass Congress to approve a weapons sale with an emergency determination. Blinken approved the sale to Israel of about 14,000 rounds of tank ammunition worth more than $106 million.

The first sale was also met with criticism from lawmakers, who argue that Congress typically has the authority to weigh in on weapons transfers and the ability to block them if necessary, leaving critics especially on the left flank of the president’s party piling up over the administration’s handling of the war.  

Biden is also under increasing pressure from progressives and other Democrats to call for a permanent cease-fire, a move that the administration argues would only help Hamas. 

Sanders, in response to the second arms sale, said that Americans “must understand that Israel’s war against the Palestinian people has been significantly waged with U.S. bombs, artillery shells, and other forms of weaponry.” 

He added that “the results have been catastrophic,” referring to reports via the Palestinian health ministry that more than 22,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli strikes, two-thirds of whom being women and children.

Updated Jan. 4 at 6 p.m.

Trump’s petition asks that the Supreme Court agree to take up the case and immediately reverse the Colorado ruling in a summary decision without oral argument. The other parties in the case previously agreed the justices should hear the case on an expedited schedule, so a decision may be issued before most states’ primaries, but they did not suggest the high court forgo the step of holding oral arguments.

The appeal likely sets up an extraordinary battle at the nation’s highest court, which has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That clause, added after the Civil War, blocks anyone who swore an oath to “support” the U.S. Constitution but “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding federal office. 

Read the appeal here:

The appeal likely sets up an extraordinary battle at the nation’s highest court, which has never ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That clause, added after the Civil War, blocks anyone who swore an oath to “support” the U.S. Constitution but “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding federal office. 

“The Colorado Supreme Court has no authority to deny President Trump access to the ballot,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in the petition. “By doing so, the Colorado Supreme Court has usurped Congressional authority and misinterpreted and misapplied the text of section 3.”

Trump’s petition asks that the Supreme Court agree to take up the case and immediately reverse the Colorado ruling in a summary decision without oral argument or extensive briefing. The other parties in the case previously agreed the justices should hear the case on an expedited schedule, so a decision may be issued before most states’ primaries, but they did not suggest the high court forgo the step of holding oral arguments.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in December that Trump engaged in insurrection by inflaming his supporters with false claims of election fraud after the 2020 race and directing them to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, barring him from appearing on the state's primary ballot as he seeks a second term in the White House.

The state’s highest court also notably reversed a trial judge’s finding that the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to the presidency, writing that the presidential oath’s specific language “does not make it anything other than an oath to support the Constitution.”

“We do not reach these conclusions lightly,” the majority opinion reads. “We are mindful of the magnitude and weight of the questions now before us.” 

If allowed to stand, Trump’s lawyers wrote, the ruling “will mark the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major-party presidential candidate.”

Related coverage from The Hill

• Trump, 14th Amendment put Supreme Court on the spot
• Trump campaign urges Supreme Court ‘rejection’ of Colorado ballot ban

The Colorado court had put its ruling on hold until this Thursday, so Trump could seek review from the Supreme Court. Until the justices resolve the appeal, Trump’s name remains on the ballot. 

However, the deadline to finalize Colorado’s presidential primary ballots is Friday. It’s unlikely the Supreme Court will resolve Trump’s appeal before then, meaning he will likely appear on the primary ballots regardless.

Still, any decision by the justices stands to impact Trump’s White House bid in November’s general election — not only in Colorado, but in states nationwide.

“Crooked Joe Biden’s comrades, including the Colorado Supreme Court and CREW, a radical, left-wing activist group, are doing all they can to disenfranchise all American voters by attempting to remove President Trump, the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election, from the primary ballot,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. 

The Colorado Republican Party last week separately appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, writing that if the state high court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it would distort the 2024 race and result in “nebulous accusations of insurrection.” The plaintiffs and the Colorado secretary of state agreed the high court should take the case, albeit only to consider a smaller set of issues.

Similar cases have been brought in states, including Michigan and Minnesota, but most have been unsuccessful in removing Trump’s name from any state’s ballot. 

However, just before the new year, Maine became the second state to disqualify Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballots. Trump appealed that ruling to state court on Tuesday, and the case could similarly reach the Supreme Court within weeks.

“The weight of the evidence makes clear that Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a democratic election, and then chose to light a match,” Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, wrote in her decision.

Zach Schonfeld contributed.

Updated at 5:35 p.m.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) on Wednesday became the last leadership holdout to publicly back Trump.

Some Republicans viewed it as a sign of Trump’s inevitability as the GOP nominee that House leadership had fallen in line behind him — and as a signal there was little incentive to back a rival and draw the former president’s ire.

“Members are going to back the front-runner,” said Doug Heye, a former Capitol Hill aide and ex-spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. “It’s not as if Trump’s opponents have offered any compelling reasons to support them or not support Trump.”

The House leadership endorsements are reflective of where the conference more broadly stands in the GOP primary race. Trump has racked up dozens of endorsements from House lawmakers, dwarfing the handful of members who have backed rivals Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former United Nations Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. In addition to Emmer, Trump snagged endorsements from the remainder of the Minnesota Republican delegation on Wednesday.

The endorsement from Emmer in particular showcases Trump’s ability to dominate the House GOP, even as many Republicans in the Senate are cooler to the former president.

Emmer was the lone GOP leader who did not vote against certifying the 2020 election results. Then, Trump helped derail Emmer’s bid for Speaker in October, charging that the Minnesotan is “totally out-of-touch with Republican Voters” and “spent more time defending Ilhan Omar, than he did me.”

Early last year, Emmer indicated in an interview with The Hill that he might not make any endorsement in the GOP primary. 

But after House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) endorsed the former president on Tuesday, Emmer stuck out as the only member of House GOP leadership from Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) down to National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) to not endorse Trump — and the majority whip followed suit with endorsing Trump a day later.

Trump acknowledged Emmer’s endorsement with a post on Truth Social: “THANK YOU TOM, I WILL NEVER LET OUR COUNTRY DOWN!

It follows a pattern of Trump compelling loyalty from the House GOP’s top brass.

Over the summer, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) during a CNBC appearance said that while he thought Trump could beat Biden in 2024, he did not know if he was the “strongest” to win the election — prompting swift pushback from Trump allies who said that the former president made a mistake in supporting McCarthy for Speaker. 

Hours later, McCarthy cleaned up his comments in a statement to Breitbart News, saying Trump is “stronger today than he was in 2016” and is “Biden’s strongest political opponent.”

Johnson, by contrast, explicitly endorsed Trump soon after becoming Speaker.

The endorsements from Emmer and Scalise come with the Jan. 15 Iowa caucuses fast approaching and the Trump campaign hoping to make a resounding statement about the former president’s status as the party’s likely nominee.

Trump and his campaign are making a significant push ahead of Iowa with the hope that a runaway victory there will stomp out any potential momentum for Haley or DeSantis.

“President Trump never stops working the phones, and the continued stream of endorsements is a testament to that,” senior Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller said in a statement to The Hill. “Also, there’s a recognition that President Trump is going to win the GOP nomination and the general election.”

“President Trump continues to show why he is the choice of the people and that his campaign is not taking anything for granted,” Miller said. “We will run through the tape and make sure we cover every scenario because we want to ensure a Trump victory on January 15th.”

Still, Trump does not have unified support among House Republicans.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who has endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), dismissed the endorsements from GOP leadership for Trump.

"The default position of Republicans is to go to the least controversial landing spot and to go see where the polls are going to go and go, 'OK, I'll land there.' I don't think that's a good way to do things,” Roy told Fox News on Wednesday.

Despite his dozens of criminal charges, Trump is the dominant front-runner in primary polls, leading his rivals by an average of roughly 50 percentage points in national surveys.

The Hill/Decision Desk HQ polling average shows Trump leading the field in Iowa at 51.6 percent support, with DeSantis and Haley at 18 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively. 

The first set of events will take place Thursday. CNN is hosting back-to-back town halls in Des Moines, Iowa, with former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The DeSantis town hall will take place at 9 p.m. EST, moderated by CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins, and the Haley town hall will be at 10 p.m. EST, moderated by anchor Erin Burnett. 

Fox News Channel will host another set of town halls Monday and Tuesday at 6 p.m. EST in Des Moines with Haley and DeSantis. The town halls will focus on women’s issues and be co-moderated by anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. 

Haley will appear at Fox's first town hall Monday, followed by DeSantis’s on Tuesday. 

Haley and DeSantis have been battling for months to be the main alternative to former President Trump for the Republican nomination, and will have the chance to face off against each other one-on-one in a debate just days before the caucuses. 

The two are likely to be the only candidates on stage at CNN’s first GOP primary debate in Iowa at 9 p.m. EST on Jan. 10. Both have met the outlet’s requirements for qualifying for the debate, which includes reaching at least 10 percent in three national or Iowa polls, including one CNN Iowa poll. 

Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, both of whom have participated in all the previous debates, did not meet CNN’s requirements for participation. 

Trump also qualified but will skip the fifth straight debate, having previously pointed to his significant lead in the polls as reasoning for not needing to participate. He will instead participate in a Fox News town hall in Des Moines taking place at the same time, with Baier and MacCallum co-moderating. 

The network has said the town hall will focus on the “leading issues” facing voters ahead of the Iowa caucuses.

All of this leads up to the Jan. 15 caucuses, the first time that voters will weigh in on the Republican presidential field. The Hawkeye State traditionally has a significant role in narrowing the presidential field and helping determine who will eventually be a party’s nominee.

Evacuations and lockdowns were reported at state capitols in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Connecticut and Michigan due to apparent bomb threats. It’s not clear whether or how the incidents might be connected.

The FBI said in a statement to The Hill that it was aware of the multiple threats, urging members of the public “to remain vigilant, and report any and all suspicious activity and/or individuals to law enforcement immediately."

"The FBI takes hoax threats very seriously because it puts innocent people at risk. While we have no information to indicate a specific and credible threat, we will continue to work with our local, state, and federal law enforcement partners to gather, share, and act upon threat information as it comes to our attention,” the agency said in a statement.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear posted on X, formerly Twitter, that the Kentucky State Police (KSP) was investigating a threat and had evacuated the state capitol in Frankfort.

“While everyone is safe, KSP has asked everyone to evacuate the state Capitol and is investigating a threat received by the Secretary of State’s Office,” Beshear posted. “We are aware of similar threats made to other offices across the country.”  

Michon Lindstrom, a spokesperson for Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams, said in a statement that a threat was sent to secretaries of state across the country as a “mass email.” Lindstrom said the building was evacuated between 9 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. local time before reopening at noon.

The threat did not specifically mention certain secretaries, but Lindstrom told the The Lexington Herald-Leader that the email said bombs had been placed in state capitol buildings. 

Another threat was reported at the Georgia state capitol, according to Gabriel Sterling, the chief operating officer for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

“Starting 2024 with a bomb threat at the Georgia State Capitol. Delayed opening until the all clear is given,” Sterling posted on X. “Avoid the area for now.”  

The Georgia Department of Public Safety later said a search was conducted, and an all-clear was given.

The department said an a statement it determined the bomb threat was not credible and was a hoax email sent to an employee Wednesday morning. The building opened just before 9 a.m. local time.

Mississippi Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bailey Martin confirmed a lockdown was underway Wednesday morning in Jackson due to a bomb threat sent to the state capitol building, according to multiple local news outlets. According to a statement posted on the Legislature site, “standard emergency procedures” were being followed.

Martin said in a statement to The Hill that the department concluded that there was no threat of explosives found in the building after a search. 

“The Mississippi Department of Public Safety has successfully cleared the Mississippi State Capitol. The building was thoroughly searched, and no explosives or suspicious equipment were found,” Martin said. “This is an ongoing investigation and there is no further threat to the Capitol or surrounding buildings.” 

Sgt. Jay Nelson of the Montana Highway Patrol (MTP) confirmed that a bomb threat targeting the Montana state capitol was received at 8:30 a.m. MTP troopers evacuated the building and the explosive detection K9 team swept the building.

A reporter for the Helena Independent Record posted on X that staff at the state capitol had been evacuated to nearby state buildings.

A sweep was completed and no credible threat was found, the Montana Department of Administration General Services said, adding the building had reopened to the public.

The Hill has reached out to Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen’s office for more information. 

Connecticut State Capitol Police Lt. Gregory Wimble told The Hill that the state capitol was forced to evacuate just before 8 a.m. Wednesday morning after numerous employees received an email warning them about a bomb threat in the building. He said officers and an explosive-detecting dog were sent in to search the building and found nothing suspicious.

He said the building was cleared shortly before 10 a.m. and that officials will be working with state, local and federal partners to investigate the incident.

In Michigan, State Police said the state capitol building in Lansing would be closed for the rest of the day as a result of a bomb threat, according to a social media post. Police said an email was sent to a general account for the state capitol at about 7:45 a.m. local time on Wednesday.

It also said it was “aware of similar threats” sent around the country. Police said that they determined there “was no threat” but that the building will remain closed.

Updated at 4:05 p.m.

“We’re making progress. We’re closer than we have been, but this is a very difficult issue and there’s still different issues to be overcome with,” Schumer told reporters after opening the Senate for the second half of the 118th Congress. 

“Everyone’s going to have to give something to get this done. No one can just get his or her own way,” he said. 

The negotiators, led by Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), as well as Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and top White House officials, have continued talks throughout the holidays and reconvened in person on Tuesday. 

The group had been hoping to secure an agreement before lawmakers broke for the holiday break, but they were unable to reach a framework deal, let alone complete legislative text in time to vote by then. 

The Senate reconvenes Monday.

Schumer’s remarks came as a group of 60 House Republicans, headlined by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), is traveling to the border near Eagle Pass, Texas, on Wednesday to highlight their concerns about border security. December marked an all-time high in border crossings with roughly 300,000 encounters, the Department of Homeland Security said earlier this week. 

House Republicans passed their border bill last year, H.R.2, which received no Democratic votes. Schumer has called on the House GOP to back off its insistence on including its provisions in a border deal and said a bipartisan bill is the only way to get aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and humanitarian purposes through Congress.

“It’s very nice you go to the border,” Schumer said Wednesday, “but the way to get something done is work, as we are in the Senate, on a bipartisan solution to the border crisis. … I hope the Speaker will realize that if he wants to solve the problem on the border.” 

“When the House clings to H.R. 2 as the only solution … we’re not going to get a deal,” Schumer continued. “We’re willing to meet the Republicans a good part of the way. I think now in the last few days, many Republicans have begun to realize that we are willing to do that and how serious we are about getting this done.”

The Democratic leader declined to discuss how a potential bipartisan bill would move, given that Congress is staring down a pair of government funding deadlines on Jan. 19 and Feb. 2.

“We’ve got to get agreements on each of these and we’ll see how the two fit together if they fit together at all,” he said. 

One person who has not been part of the ongoing border negotiations is Johnson, who Schumer said has been “quite involved” in government funding talks, adding that the onus is on the Senate to get a deal first. 

The House Homeland Security Committee on Jan. 10 will review what it dubs the “havoc in the heartland,” a look at how migration has impacted the Midwest.

The hearing is the culmination of a months-long review of Mayorkas’s leadership at the border, one that committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) kicked off with a July press conference alleging the secretary had displayed “dereliction of duty” in how he’s handled the border.

The announcement of the hearing, first reported by Punchbowl News, also aligns with a House GOP trip to the border Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) first as leader of his conference.

Impeaching Mayorkas has been a rallying cry for the right flank of the party — with one lawmaker introducing a resolution to remove him from office as soon as the GOP overtook the House last January.

But the issue has lingered as Republicans were scattershot over which Biden official to impeach, largely shifting their focus to impeaching President Biden himself.

A November effort from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to force a vote on a Mayorkas impeachment revived the issue.

“Our investigation made clear that this crisis finds its foundation in Secretary Mayorkas’ decision-making and refusal to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and that his failure to fulfill his oath of office demands accountability,” Green, the Homeland chair, said in a statement. 

“The bipartisan House vote in November to refer articles of impeachment to my Committee only served to highlight the importance of our taking up the impeachment process—which is what we will begin doing next Wednesday.”  

Green said in an interview on Fox News last month that articles of impeachment for Mayorkas have already been drafted and would be marked up at the end of the process.

During an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday, Mayorkas said he will cooperate with the inquiry but stressed all the other ways he is remaining focused on his job, including negotiating with the Senate on an immigration package the GOP argues must include restrictions on asylum. 

“I joined the bipartisan group of senators to work on a legislative solution to a broken immigration system. I was on the Hill yesterday to provide technical advice in those ongoing negotiations. Before I headed to the Hill, I was in the office working on solutions. After my visit to the Hill, I was back in my office, working on solutions,” Mayorkas said.

While some Republicans such as Green have claimed Mayorkas is derelict in his duty to manage the border, it’s not clear that is an impeachable offense or even a legal term outside its use in the military. 

Republicans have also claimed Mayorkas has violated the law, failing to meet the standards of the Secure Fence Act, which defines operational control of the border as a status in which not a single person or piece of contraband improperly enters the country. 

But no Homeland Security secretary has met that standard of perfection, something Mayorkas has pointed out as the GOP has grilled him on the law.

“I use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control,” Mayorkas said, touting the resources sent to the border.

The administration’s response has drawn criticism from some segments of the public and led to concern that it could hurt his standing in the polls for the November election, especially with young voters and Arab Americans. 

But polls have shown that Jewish Americans, who largely consider themselves Democrats, overwhelmingly back Biden’s handling of the war in his support for Israel’s right to self-defense and condemnation of the Oct. 7 attack and antisemitism. 

“There could not be a stronger leader more aligned with the interests of the Jewish community than President Joe Biden,” said Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America. 

“He has not only stood by Israel in his unequivocal condemnation of terror, support of Israel’s security and its right to self-defense, but he has also pledged that he supports the American Jewish community as it faces this rising scourge of hate,” she continued. 

Biden has found himself in a difficult situation politically as the war has raged on, as voters express strong feelings for both the Israeli and Palestinian causes.

A New York Times/Siena College poll found only 33 percent of voters approved of Biden’s handling of the war. The results of the poll reveal conflicting sentiments among those who disapprove, with a third saying Biden has been too supportive of Israel and almost the same amount saying he has been too supportive of the Palestinians. 

An NBC News poll from November found just half of Democrats approve of Biden’s handling of the war, while 70 percent of voters age 18 to 34 disapprove. 

But Jewish voters have been an exception, giving the president high marks for his navigation of the war and fight against antisemitism, which has seen a sharp rise since the war began. 

A poll from the nonpartisan Jewish Electorate Institute found in November that nearly three-quarters of Jewish voters support Biden’s handling of the war. An age gap in support still exists, but a slight majority of the youngest Jewish voters said they support his handling. 

Soifer said the way Biden has handled the conflict will “only solidify” what is already a strong base of support for him among Jewish voters. More than 7 in 10 Jewish voters backed Biden in the 2020 election. 

Biden has repeatedly condemned antisemitism throughout his administration and especially since war broke out, pledging to confront it “at every turn.” He has also denounced Islamophobia. 

His administration had previously taken steps to address antisemitism before the war started, launching a national strategy to fight antisemitism in May. 

Biden has also more recently navigated the task of supporting Israel’s right to self-defense while also pressuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on how the country has carried out the war. 

Forty-four percent of Jewish American voters said they are more likely to vote for Biden because of his support for Israel, according to a poll released last month by the Democratic Majority for Israel. 

Tali DeGroot, national political director of the advocacy group J Street, which supports the two-state solution, said the administration is balancing well the “need” for Israel to respond to the Oct. 7 attack while pushing for Israel to do “everything in its power” to protect civilians in Gaza amid a rising death toll. 

Soifer and DeGroot said that while they do not expect the war to be a deciding factor for Jewish voters over “kitchen-table” issues all Americans vote on, they acknowledge it could energize them further. 

“I think the events of the last couple months will inspire folks to want to reelect the president,” DeGroot said. “There’s so much on the line, including foreign policy and domestic issues.” 

But other polling has exposed a rift among Democratic voters in how they view the state of Israel and its handling of its war with Hamas. The Times/Siena poll released last month found 31 percent of Democrats said they sympathized with Israel, while 34 percent said their sympathies lie with Palestinians. Sixteen percent said their sympathies lie with both. 

Some have argued this rift is making Jewish voters less comfortable in the party.

“The divide between Jews, the Democrats, is not new,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist. “It’s been going on for a while. The more observant community left the Democrats a long time ago and now other people are starting to get the message, which is they’re not welcome unless they conform to a particular point of view.” 

That divide is most evident between progressive Democrats and the establishment flank of the party. In November, 22 House Democrats joined their colleagues to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American serving in Congress, over her rhetoric about Israel. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the highest-ranking elected Jewish official in the country, delivered an impassioned speech on the Senate floor condemning rising antisemitism. 

Arguably the most high-profile instance of Democratic divisions came last month on a vote on a GOP-led resolution denouncing antisemitism. The resolution passed with bipartisan support, but 92 Democrats voted present and 13 voted against. 

Opponents pointed to the resolution’s statement considering anti-Zionism to be antisemitism, arguing this conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism. 

But Democratic strategists said a shift has occurred within the party on Israel. 

Democratic strategist Jon Reinish said the divide had been “simmering” before Oct. 7, but bipartisan support for Israel used to be “uniform.” He said the election of members of the Squad, some of the most progressive members of Congress, replaced Democrats who had been more steadfastly behind Israel. 

Tensions have boiled over on numerous college campuses around the country, with some liberal-leaning student groups protesting Israel’s actions in the war in ways some critics have argued lean into antisemitism. 

The presidents of three universities also faced backlash following testimony they gave to Congress last month in which they did not directly state if calling for the genocide of Jews constitutes bullying and harassment on campus. 

The House approved a bipartisan resolution denouncing their testimony, but Democrats were split, with 84 in favor and 125 opposed. 

The Jewish Electorate Institute poll found Jewish voters trust Biden much more than Trump to fight antisemitism by 38 points, but only trust congressional Democrats more than Republicans by 14 points. 

Reinish said progressives’ criticism of Israel in the past had been mostly focused on objecting “strenuously” to Israel's policies. 

“This seems far more sweeping, and it has gone far beyond objecting to national security questions or funding, or certain Israeli ultraconservative government policies,” he said. 

But Reinish noted the party is not as divided as it may appear, saying the sharpest critics of Israel in Congress represent a “fringe” view in the Democratic Party. He said these members, including Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), receive outsized attention because of social media and activities on college campuses, but their views are not as widespread. 

“I think reports of the Democratic Party being really truly fractured on this issue are overblown, and I think the data bears that out,” Reinish said. “If you get off Twitter and you get out of Washington, you see more uniformity.” 

Democrats are skeptical any split will drive Jewish voters toward Republicans, especially with Trump receiving a small number of Jewish votes in 2020 and having low support from them in polls. 

But Reinish said the divide could lead to some progressive members facing serious primary challenges this year. 

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), who voted against the antisemitism resolution, is facing a primary challenge from George Latimer, a Westchester County executive. Latimer has criticized some of Bowman’s statements on the war. 

Similarly, a moderate Democrat who nearly defeated Omar in the 2022 primary is running against her this year. 

“I think all eyes are going to be on, 'Do these members lose their primaries on this issue?’” Reinish said. “And if you see that they do, I think that's going to send a big message.” 

The Trump campaign appealed the Maine ruling Tuesday and is expected to do the same in Colorado, the latter of which especially puts the spotlight on the Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority, which includes three justices Trump nominated during his first term in the White House.

The looming decisions for the Supreme Court risk thrusting the justices into the political spotlight at a fraught time for the nation’s highest court, which has already been forced to confront other matters implicating Trump and the future of the 2024 race.

A battle over Trump’s criminal immunity is expected to soon return to the justices, and they already agreed to weigh in on the scope of an obstruction charge used against Trump and hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants.

But the 14th Amendment issue could distinctively stand out.

Legal experts long anticipated the patchwork of challenges would reach the Supreme Court, which has never squarely resolved the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban, with many observers believing the justices will ultimately keep Trump’s name on the ballot one way or another.

Former President Trump delivers remarks during a campaign rally on December 17, 2023 in Reno, Nevada. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Some state courts tossed lawsuits challenging Trump’s primary ballot listing, kicking the can down the road to the general election. But the Colorado Supreme Court’s extraordinary ruling knocking Trump off the ballot suddenly provided the justices in Washington with a major vehicle to resolve the weighty legal questions soon, rather than closer to Election Day.

The amendment prohibits someone from holding “any office … under the United States” if they “engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath to support the Constitution. Citing Trump’s actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, more than two dozen challenges to his ballot eligibility have been filed across the country.

In Colorado and Maine, the only states to rule Trump ineligible so far, his name will remain on the ballot while he appeals. Both states hold primaries on Super Tuesday, which will fall on March 5.

Trump has not yet appealed the Colorado decision removing him from the ballot, but he is expected to do so imminently. The Colorado GOP’s petition, meanwhile, already landed, urging the justices to take up the case with considerable speed.

“For the first time in American history, a former President has been disqualified from the ballot, a political party has been denied the opportunity to put forward the presidential candidate of its choice, and the voters have been denied the ability to choose their Chief Executive through the electoral process. This unprecedented decision urgently merits this Court’s review,” the state party’s lawyers wrote to the justices.

More top stories from The Hill:

• Democrats worry about backlash over Trump ballot bans
• Haley surpasses DeSantis in national GOP polling average
• Meadows beefs up legal team, asks appeals court to rehear bid to move Georgia charges

The plaintiffs — four Republican and two independent voters, who are backed by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) — agreed the Supreme Court should take up the case, albeit only to weigh a subset of the issues the Colorado GOP wants considered. The Colorado secretary of state took a similar position.

Trump’s name remains on Colorado’s ballot until the high court disposes any appeals. Notably, while the state party asked for an expedited decision before Super Tuesday, the plaintiffs said that proposal “doesn’t go far enough” and urged the Supreme Court to proceed even faster.

The plaintiffs want the justices to consider taking up the case at their closed-door conference this Friday, and assuming they agree to hear the dispute, schedule oral arguments for Jan. 19 and issue a decision before Feb. 12.

The request is aimed at resolving the case before most Colorado voters receive their primary ballots in the mail, and such a timeline would also lead to a decision before the vast majority of states hold their primaries.

“This case is of utmost national importance,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in court papers Tuesday. “And given the upcoming presidential primary schedule, there is no time to wait for the issues to percolate further. The Court should resolve this case on an expedited timetable, so that voters in Colorado and elsewhere will know whether Trump is indeed constitutionally ineligible when they cast their primary ballots.”

In Maine, the dispute is next set to unfold in state court. But that battle, too, could soon reach the justices in Washington.

State law prescribes a speedy timeline that would culminate in a decision from Maine’s top court within roughly five weeks. The losing side could then push the case to the Supreme Court.

Trump on Tuesday formally appealed Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows’s (D) decision. Under state law, the judge is bound to decide the case within 20 days of Bellows’s decision.

In the meantime, the Colorado and Maine rulings have been viewed as a political gift to the Trump campaign. Even some of the former president’s critics have suggested Trump’s fate on the ballot should be determined by voters, while Trump’s allies have seized on the decisions as further evidence that establishment figures are biased against him and want to keep him out of office.

Trump and many other Republicans have expressed confidence the Supreme Court will ultimately rule to keep the former president on the ballot, settling the issue as the GOP primary calendar gets under way.

“Look, if there was any validity about keeping Trump off a ballot, you would see 48 other states trying to do the same thing,” New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R), who has endorsed Trump rival Nikki Haley in the primary race, said Sunday. “Everybody just hopes that the Supreme — U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, overturns what Maine and Colorado are trying to do, make sure Trump's on the ballot in 50 states, and we move on.”

But such a ruling would likely only reinforce the sense among some Americans — Democratic in particular — that the Supreme Court is increasingly wading into political issues.

The court and its conservative majority have in the past two years overturned Roe v. Wade, ended affirmative action and been at the center of questions about its ethics. In the coming weeks, it will also play a role in whether Trump’s criminal trials move forward before the election.

A September Gallup poll found just 41 percent of Americans approve of the Supreme Court’s job performance, near a record low of 40 percent set in September 2021.

“I think that the urgency is for the Supreme Court to act,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said Sunday on CNN. “But I think it's going to be tough for some of them, if they want to keep Trump on the ballot, if they're falling for the argument that this is undemocratic.”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) disqualified Trump last week, making Maine the second state to rule Trump is ineligible under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban.

Trump’s appeal to Kennebec County Superior Court kicks off a speedy timeline, prescribed under state law, to resolve the matter.  

The dispute could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which is already grappling with a 14th Amendment case that kicked Trump off the primary ballot in Colorado.

In Maine, the judge is required to decide the case within 20 days of Bellows’s decision, which was issued Dec. 28. Bellows’s ruling is on hold until then, meaning Trump’s name will remain on Maine’s ballot in the meantime. Maine’s primary will occur on Super Tuesday, March 5.

Former President Donald Trump speaks during a rally Sunday, Dec. 17, 2023, in Reno, Nev. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)

The losing side could subsequently appeal to Maine’s highest court, with state law allotting two weeks for a decision.  

The dispute could then land at the Supreme Court.

“Maine’s Secretary of State went outside of her authority, completely ignoring the Constitution when she summarily decided to remove President Trump’s name from the ballot, interfere in the election, and disenfranchise the voters of her state,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. 

Maine and Colorado have been the only states so far to take the extraordinary step of removing Trump’s name from the ballot, although plaintiffs have filed more than two dozen challenges under the 14th Amendment to Trump’s candidacy nationwide.

The Amendment prohibits someone from holding “any office … under the United States” if they “engaged in insurrection” after taking an oath to support the Constitution.

More coverage from The Hill

• Barr says efforts to boot Trump from primary ballots ‘doomed to legal failure’
• Colorado secretary of state knocks Trump, other Republicans for not condemning ‘rhetoric of violence’
• Former White House ethics lawyer says Trump will ‘very swiftly’ lose immunity claim
• Fate of Trump’s business empire to be decided in new year: What we know

Anti-Trump plaintiffs cite the then-president's actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, contending he incited the riot and is disqualified from returning to the White House. The cases also revolve around several threshold issues, including whether the amendment applies to the presidency and whether state courts and officials have authority to enforce the clause.

“I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection,” Bellows wrote in her decision.

Beyond arguing he didn’t engage in insurrection, Trump’s new filing argues Bellows had no authority under state law to remove Trump’s name, also contending that the clause doesn’t apply to the presidency anyways and would require legislation from Congress to be enforceable.                                  

“Even if Maine law authorized the Secretary to consider challenges to President Trump’s candidacy under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment (which it did not),The Secretary could not properly have considered Section Three and erred as a matter of law in doing so,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the filing. 

Trump and his campaign have broadly attacked the ruling and Bellows herself, with Trump’s lawyers having asked for the secretary of state’s recusal the day before she issued her decision. 

“Make no mistake, the Secretary is a partisan Democrat and former ACLU executive who has decided to abuse the authority of her office to help her preferred candidate, Crooked Joe Biden, steal the 2024 election,” Cheung said in his statement. “President Trump will fight these bad-faith attempts to destroy American democracy and he looks forward to victory both in the state courts and in the presidential election this November. It’s time to Make America Great Again!”

Trump has not yet appealed the Colorado decision, although he is expected to do so imminently. The Colorado Republican Party has already appealed separately.

Updated 5:30 p.m.

Johnson’s office on Tuesday confirmed the congressman’s new official resignation date of Jan. 21, after he was expected to resign to take a job as president of Youngstown State University before mid-March.

The resignation will leave the House with 219 Republicans, 213 Democrats, and three vacancies — meaning Republicans will be able to afford to lose only two votes on any party-line measure, assuming full attendance.

Currently, the Republicans have a three-vote cushion, with the resignation of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Dec. 31 and the expulsion of former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) accounting for the two other vacancies.

More Congress coverage from The Hill

• Massachusetts Democrats call for removing Cuba from terror list
• Scalise, No. 2 House GOP leader, endorses Trump
• Democrats say Republican running for Santos seat was ‘handpicked’ by ‘MAGA extremists’
• House GOP to begin 2024 with focus on border

That razor-thin majority cushion could further complicate the path forward for major legislation and government funding as the clock ticks down to a two-tiered government funding deadline.

Part of government funding is set to expire Jan. 19, and Johnson’s resignation will come before the second Feb. 2 deadline.

An upcoming special election and another expected resignation will further affect the exact House GOP majority number.

A special election to replace Santos is set for Feb. 13. Election analysts at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rated the special election as a “toss-up.” Former Rep. Tom Suozzi (D), who previously represented the district, is facing Republican Mazi Melesa Pilip, a Nassau County Legislator.

And in welcome news for Republicans, Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) is expected to resign from the House in February. He cited his frustration with dysfunction in Congress when he announced his resignation.

In a resignation letter to Ohio Governor Mike DeWine (R) and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Bill Johnson said the residents of his district are disregarded by America’s “elites,” local outlet WFMJ reported.

"These blue-collar communities, like countless others in 'flyover county' were critical in building our great nation and will play a pivotal role in America's future. I am extremely humbled to have been repeatedly elected to serve them," Johnson wrote.

The Hill/Decision Desk HQ polling average shows Trump leading the field in Iowa with 51.6 percent support, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley trail at 18 percent and 17.1 percent, respectively. 

Trump’s status as the party’s de facto incumbent, along with Iowa’s deeply conservative GOP base, create a fertile ground for the former president. Regardless, his campaign isn’t taking any chances, crisscrossing the state for events with and without him. 

The former president notably lost Iowa in the 2016 presidential caucuses, making this year’s event even more critical for him as he looks to wrap up the nomination as soon as possible.

“Trump wants it to be the knockout blow,” said Jimmy Centers, an Iowa-based Republican strategist. “The sooner you can move on to the general and secure the nomination, the better off your campaign will be.” 

Former President Donald Trump reacts to supporters during a commit to caucus rally, Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2023, in Waterloo, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

One of the most telling signs of this strategy came Tuesday, when Fox News announced Trump would be taking part in a town hall on the network as counterprogramming to the CNN primary debate, in which Haley and DeSantis will participate. 

“That should tell you everything you need to know about Iowa,” a Republican strategist said. 

While DeSantis has made Iowa a top priority, and Haley’s presence on the ground in the state was bolstered by her endorsement from the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Trump’s team has seen signs of growing support as it quietly worked to build its operation there over many years.

His campaign has engineered a recruiting strategy down to the precinct captains, making sure they’re prepared for caucus night. The responsibilities of Trump’s precinct captains include delivering a three-minute speech touting the former president and reporting results from their respective precincts. Last year, the campaign brought on former Iowa GOP political director Alex Latcham as the campaign’s early-voting state director. 

“Their [2016] strategy was effectively to park a charter bus that was branded ‘Trump’ on high-visibility corridors and see who just walked up to the bus,” Centers said. “That is not at all what their strategy is [now]. It is a traditional caucus strategy.” 

“It’s truly second-to-none here relative to the other candidates and campaigns. It’s not close,” he said. 

More Election coverage from The Hill

• Democrats fear electoral bloodbath in North Carolina
• Gen Z seeks to grow ranks in Congress
• Democrats argue Biden is underestimated
• Questions about Iowa’s Republican caucus, answered

On top of that, Trump has the advantage of essentially running as an incumbent, given that he’s a former president who remains popular with the Republican primary base. Some recent polls also show him besting Biden in a head-to-head match-up; The Hill/Decision Desk HQ polling average shows Trump leading Biden by 2.2 percent nationally. 

“They want to quiet all of the donors as quickly as possible, and the best way to do that is to have a big win in Iowa, because then essentially New Hampshire will be his for the taking, as well as South Carolina,” said Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist. 

Another reason Trump’s team is working to put a bow on the primary season early is because of his impending court dates in his numerous legal battles set to formally begin this year. 

“They want to make the case that they are the nominee, and therefore with Jack Smith and the [Department of Justice], or whoever does whatever, they can say now it’s truly election interference,” O’Connell said. 

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan set Trump’s federal trial date for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results for March 4, the day before Super Tuesday. 

“The math works out where if he really runs away with it in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, it sets him up to potentially clinch all of the delegates he needs by Super Tuesday or within a week or two — by mid-March at the latest — if he keeps up this momentum,” said Scott Tranter, director of data science at Decision Desk HQ. 

While most strategists acknowledged Trump’s wide lead in Iowa, some still contend there is room for surprises. 

O’Connell noted the mechanics of a caucus make it potentially more susceptible to political curveballs, though he also said Trump’s lead in Iowa is unprecedented. 

“You’ve never had an Iowa lead … in the way that Trump has a lead right now,” he said, referring to recent polling from The Des Moines Register. 

Much of the focus will also be on DeSantis and Haley, who are locked in the battle for second place. DeSantis leads Haley in Iowa by 1 point, according to the polling average from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ. But in New Hampshire, Trump's lead is smaller, at an average of 43.7 percent support. Haley follows in second at 26.7 percent, while former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie comes in third with 11 percent. DeSantis is at fourth place with 8.3 percent. 

“I think the more interesting part of the race is who comes in second and how close the third-place person is to the person in second, and how close the second-place person is to Donald Trump,” Tranter said. “That will set the narrative and the tone.”

The Trump campaign predicted that the news media would take the same tone in a memo to reporters Tuesday. 

“On average, President Trump is at 51 [percent] in Iowa, with DeSanctimonious and Haley tied at 18 [percent] and Vivek at 6 [percent]. The real battle is who will place second – when Nikki Haley’s resources from the pro-China crowd are rising, and DeSanctimonious’ money is drying up. Regardless of how well President Trump finishes in Iowa, the headlines will be about the second-place finisher so the media can make New Hampshire the flavor of the week,” wrote senior Trump campaign advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles. 

“I am proud to endorse Donald Trump for president in 2024, and I look forward to working with President Trump and a Republican House and Senate to fight for those families who are struggling under the weight of Biden’s failed policies,” Scalise wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

In a statement reported by Fox News, Scalise focused on migration issues at the southern border and economic metrics during Trump’s first term in office.

"The economy was strong and interest rates were low — grocery costs were affordable, and families could afford to buy a house and provide for their children," Scalise said in the statement. "The border was secure and crime was down. America had secure energy policies, keeping gas and utility prices low."

And he hit President Biden on border enforcement.

"Fiscal Year 2023 surpassed Fiscal Year 2022 as the worst year at the border with the most migrant encounters on record, 169 individuals on the terrorist watchlist apprehended attempting to enter illegally, and over 27,000 pounds of fentanyl seized by the CPB,” Scalise said. "In Joe Biden’s America, our communities aren’t safe.”

Scalise’s endorsement comes two weeks before the Iowa Republican Caucuses, the first presidential contest in the GOP primary race that Trump is dominating.

He joins fellow House Republican leaders Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) in endorsing the former president.

GOP lawmakers in the state legislature approved a redistricting plan in October that sets the stage for Republicans to pick up at least three seats, and maybe four, in the 14-member delegation — a tally that, by itself, would double the GOP’s slender House majority on Capitol Hill.

The new lines have squeezed more Democratic voters into some blue districts, while carving up several others so that Democratic voters are vastly outnumbered by Republicans — and the incumbent lawmakers have virtually no chance of holding their current seats. 

The impact has been swift and striking: In recent weeks, three Democratic lawmakers — Reps. Kathy Manning, Jeff Jackson and Wiley Nickel — have all announced their retirements at the end of the current term, while a fourth Democrat, Rep. Don Davis, is facing even tougher headwinds in his toss-up run for reelection.

Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.) participates in a photo op for newly elected House members for the 118th session of Congress outside the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, November 15, 2022. (Greg Nash)

The developments have complicated the math problem facing Democratic leaders as they race to win back control of the House in November, even as President Biden’s approval rating is well underwater and the GOP’s focus on inflation and border security has proven effective.

Democrats have decried the political gerrymandering that’s generated the North Carolina shake-up, but the retiring lawmakers say they were given no choice. 

“There is no question that the way they have drawn these maps, they’ve made it impossible for three of us Democrats to win our seats again,” Manning said. 

More Election coverage from The Hill

• Bannon predicts ‘big fight’ over Haley as possible Trump VP pick
• Gen Z seeks to grow ranks in Congress
• Democrats argue Biden is underestimated
• Questions about Iowa’s Republican caucus, answered

Manning won her Greensboro-based district by a comfortable 9-point margin in 2022, but the new lines lump much of Greensboro with 10 rural counties to the west, all the way to the Tennessee border. The result, she said, is an insurmountable 26-point swing.

“I have looked at the map every which way to see if there is any way possible to win, and you cannot overcome a 16-point advantage,” she said. 

For North Carolina, a lopsided delegation would hardly be a reflection of the state’s politics. The Tar Heel State is a true battleground, featuring almost even numbers of registered Democrats (43 percent) and Republicans (41 percent). And that split is reflected in the current delegation: Of 14 House seats, seven are currently held by Republicans, and seven by Democrats. 

That symmetry had been secured by the Democratic majority of the state Supreme Court heading into the 2022 elections, when the justices struck down a map drawn by GOP state legislators, which heavily favored Republicans. 

Since then, Republicans have won control of the state Supreme Court. And in a rare move this year, the new GOP majority revisited the earlier case and reversed the previous verdict, empowering Republican legislators to adopt a voter ID law and put the new map into effect for 2024.

Supporters of that decision hailed it as a commonsense verdict ensuring that the voices of voters were reflected through their elected state legislators. 

North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore (R) said the court “ensured that our constitution and the will of the people of North Carolina are honored.” And Phil Berger (R), the state Senate leader, accused the previous court of subverting democracy for specific policy ends. 

"For years plaintiffs and activist courts have manipulated our constitution to achieve policy outcomes that could not be won at the ballot box,” Berger said at the time. “Today's rulings affirm that our constitution cannot be exploited to fit the political whims of left-wing Democrats."

Opponents of North Carolina’s redistricting — including civil rights groups, voting rights advocates and Democrats — see something much more sinister, accusing Republicans of abusing their powers to silence voters. 

“The outcomes of all of these elections are basically being decided in advance by the state Legislature that drew the map,” said Jackson, who is now running for state attorney general.

“I don't know if voters fully appreciate yet the amount of power that's been taken out of their hands, and the extent to which all of these elections have been decided in advance essentially for the rest of the decade.” 

Manning offered a similar critique, accusing Republicans of playing naked power politics. 

“The thing that’s so shameful is that the court of its own will pulled back the case that they had decided in the last term — same facts, same law — and decided, ‘Oh, we were wrong. Political gerrymandering is OK in North Carolina,’” she said. “I mean it’s obvious, the only thing that changed was the political composition, the political parties, of the justices.”

Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., speaks during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, July 19, 2022. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

Manning noted that North Carolina’s redistricting effort extended far beyond the state. The battle for the majority of the state Supreme Court attracted the attention — and millions of dollars — from interest groups across the country last year. And it was also on the radar of GOP leaders on Capitol Hill. 

“The only time I’ve ever talked to [former Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)], I was asking him for something that I wanted to participate in, and he looked at me and he said, ‘I need three seats in North Carolina.’ Couldn’t have been more clear,” Manning said, referring to the former Speaker. “And he won’t get it, because he’s leaving. But that’s what the resulting gerrymandering is going to give them: Three seats in North Carolina where, if the maps were fairly drawn, we’d have seven and seven.”

The redistricting has triggered a series of federal lawsuits challenging the legality of the new lines, the most recent of which was filed Tuesday by the NAACP and Common Cause, who accuse state Republicans of diluting the voice of Black voters. But those cases are not expected to be resolved in time to impact the current cycle. 

The overall effect on the 2024 election outcome, of course, remains to be seen. Republicans currently hold a razor-thin, three-seat advantage in the House, and the chamber is up for grabs at the polls. The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan election handicapper, lists 74 seats that are contested to some degree, 25 of them “toss-up” districts representing the most vulnerable lawmakers. Fifteen of those seats are currently held by Republicans, and 10 by Democrats. 

Given those numbers, many Democrats like their odds of flipping control of the House, saying the party will compensate for the expected losses in North Carolina with gains in states including California, New York and even Alabama. 

“We can still pick up seats in other states,” said Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.), whose district was made more safely Democratic by the GOP redistricting. “If we win these court cases, and I think we should, we would see the benefits of them in 2026. But I still believe the House has plenty of pickup opportunities in 2024.”

Manning, for one, said she would “absolutely” run again if the federal courts scrap the new map heading into the 2026 cycle. 

In the meantime, those who were pushed out by the process are taking a few shots of their own on their way out the door.

“I don't think there's any ethical defense for using redistricting to advantage one party or the other,” Jackson said. “It seems like as ethically clear cut as bank robbery. The only people who can defend it are the ones who are in on it."

Mychael Schnell contributed to this report. 

After enduring a year with two drawn-out Speaker fights and other battles that spilled out onto the House floor, the slim House GOP majority is showing no signs of disciplining the rabble-rousers. And even as the hard-line Republicans at the center of the fights stand by their moves, members known for their behind-the-scenes productivity are heading for the exits.

The frustration, while no longer as prominent as during flashpoints over the last year, lingers.

“For a body that creates laws for the American people to live by, Congress lives in a lawless society to where members can do whatever they would like that goes against conference rules, and still have the ability to maintain the committee assignments — to still get, you know, whether it's fundraising or extra dollars from leaders wherever it may be,” Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) said.

Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) arrives for a House Republican Conference meeting to select the next candidate for Speaker of the House on Wednesday, October 11, 2023. (Mattie Neretin)

During the three weeks in October when frustrated Republicans struggled to elect a new Speaker, calls swirled to remove from committees or the GOP conference the eight Republicans who joined with Democrats to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). So did a discussion about changing the rule that allowed any one member to force a vote on ousting the Speaker.

Seven of the eight at one point offered themselves up to be punished if holdouts against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) voted to make him Speaker. 

But as Republicans sought to move forward from the dysfunction under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), talk of imposing punishment fell off. 

And in the weeks that followed, actions on the House floor showed that some Republicans, having just gone through a historic Speaker fight, still had no fear of upending their party’s schedule or plans.

More Congress coverage from The Hill

• Massachusetts Democrats call for removing Cuba from terror list
• Scalise, No. 2 House GOP leader, endorses Trump
• Democrats say Republican running for Santos seat was ‘handpicked’ by ‘MAGA extremists’
• House GOP to begin 2024 with focus on border

They forced votes through privileged resolutions to formally reprimand other members and to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Hard-line conservatives pushed their colleagues to adopt aggressive amendments on must-pass spending bills and torpedoed votes on legislation if they were not considered.

“When you discipline people, they learn from their mistakes. I mean, it's called life. And if you don't discipline people and members of Congress, you're gonna get this result, which is privileged resolutions being brought to the floor every day, taking cabinet secretaries down to $1 — I mean, this isn't helping the American people,” Miller said.

Even one of the eight Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy acknowledged that his party does not naturally impose discipline.

“Democrats are good at carrot and the stick — you know, we reward you with the carrot or we hit you with the stick. We're not very good at that as Republicans,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said. “We're independent. We go out to do our thing.” 

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) addresses reporters during a press conference on Thursday, November 30, 2023 to discuss accessibility to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena information. (Mattie Neretin)

Sometimes, Burchett says, “that creates a problem” with finding consensus.  

“But I don't think it was supposed to be some rah, rah, cheering section,” he said.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), another one of the eight, disagreed with characterizing 2023 as chaotic for House Republicans, as many of his colleagues have.

“It might have just been a little bit more public … There might be bruised egos, bruised feelings,” Biggs said, noting that tense internal dramas aren’t uncommon — they just usually play out behind closed doors.

“I remember [Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)] almost didn't get elected Speaker by the Squad because ... she had to have the Squad’s vote and cut a last-minute deal.”

Some GOP members frustrated with their conservative colleagues point to social media and television providing perverse incentives for House members — privately scoffing at those who are ever-present on TV and phone screens while many of those behind substantive lawmaking are largely unseen.

“It's always a small group of people that do all the tough things, right? That's life, that's everywhere. It's more dramatic here,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), a senior appropriator.

But that dynamic has been exacerbated, Diaz-Balart said, by cable news.

“The folks that you see on TV all day are the ones that don't get anything done. They're on TV all day,” said Diaz-Balart. 

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a McCarthy ally and the chair of the House Financial Services Committee who is leaving Congress at the end of his term, blamed social media for exacerbating the difficulties in the House.

“The goal here is to be a legislator. If you want to be a social media star, just go do that,” McHenry said in December. “But if you want to hold office, whether it's the Senate, the house, the White House, you want to be about effectuating a better outcome for the Americans, and the way you do that is change public law.”

House Financial Services Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) speaks during a hearing to discuss the semi-annual report of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from Director Rohit Chopra on Wednesday, November 29, 2023. (Mattie Neretin)

The problem, McHenry suggested, is partly that Congress has not effectively adapted to the change in technology and incentives.

“Right now our institutions are in flux because we have this massive, fast change. And our institutions haven't adapted fast enough,” McHenry said. “We have to have people that are going to be focused on the work, not the externalities of the work.”

On the flip side, hardliners point to a lack of will among enough rank-and-file and moderate Republicans to play hardball — risking lapsed deadlines or a government shutdown in order to get what they want.

Those tactics appear likely to continue into 2024.

Another one of the eight lawmakers who voted to oust McCarthy, Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), has been elevated to be the chair of the House Freedom Caucus — the influential hard-line conservative group whose members are often at the center of public interparty disputes and rebellion against GOP leadership. 

His election did not come without some internal drama, though. Fellow Freedom Caucus member Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) resigned from the group’s board in part because of Good’s election. He wrote in a letter reported by Axios that he was concerned the group relies too much on hard power and “too little on influence with and among our colleagues.”

Good, by contrast, is leaning into the hard-line tactics the group is known for — saying before the holiday break that Republicans have to be “willing to withstand a potential partial government shutdown to try to force the Democrats to negotiate.”

To some of the hard-liners, peeving their colleagues is a necessary consequence of exerting pressure to achieve their goals.

“Change can be very disquieting and uncomfortable. Are people upset by that? I think so,” Biggs said.

Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) became Congress’s first member belonging to Gen Z — the age bracket considered to begin with people born in 1997 or later — after 2022's midterms.

Now, at least two fellow Gen Z Democrats are vying to join Frost this year as they look to broaden their generation’s presence in the House, where the median age of voting members is around 58 years.

“Young people, as we’ve gotten more and more involved, are frankly devastated that this is the state of government that we are inheriting — and that we have to really pick up this work and try to put the pieces back together,” said Cheyenne Hunt, a 26-year-old Democrat and attorney running in California’s 45th District. 

Hunt cited concerns about the climate crisis, democracy and women’s rights as “existential threats” that older generations in power aren’t addressing with the urgency younger Americans feel.  

“Young people are keenly aware of this situation and are jumping in at unprecedented rates because we know we can’t afford to wait,” she said. 

Hunt will likely go up this year against incumbent Republican Rep. Michelle Steel (R), who won reelection in 2022 by just a few points. If she wins, Hunt would become the first female Gen Z member of Congress.

And after hitting “a myriad of barriers to young women in politics” as she campaigns, Hunt says she’s not surprised that more women in her age bracket aren’t jumping into the arena. 

“Trying to be the first and being the only of anything is always a really difficult experience. And it’s been really frustrating, frankly,” Hunt said, citing gender bias she’s seen along the campaign trail that’s been exacerbated by her youth. “I have seen folks really hesitate to support me and had conversations after the fact that exposed that a big part of that is internalized sexism.”  

Hunt, who boasts more than 93,000 followers on the video-sharing app TikTok, said she’s also trying to break apart assumptions about young people as some resist taking the demographic seriously in politics. 

"You can be a young woman, and have social media, and be more than just an influencer,” Hunt said.  

Across the country, in Maryland, state Del. Joe Vogel (D) is running to become the first openly LGBTQ member of Gen Z elected to Congress.  

Vogel said he initially got into politics after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, “frustrated by the inaction” on issues such as gun violence, which has directly impacted many young Americans’ experience at school in recent years.  

"I think our entire generation is having this moment where we're channeling that energy and channeling that urgency into having more political representation in terms of the issues,” said Vogel, who is also 26 years old.  

Vogel made headlines when he was elected to his state’s General Assembly as one of the first Gen Z members in the Legislature. Now, he’s attempting to jump into the House to succeed Rep. David Trone (D-Md.), who is running instead for the Senate. 

If elected, Vogel would be just the 14th openly LGBTQ person to serve in either chamber. 

Arguing for the importance of younger perspectives in elected office, Vogel pointed to projections of the catastrophic climate consequences that could hit by around 2050. 

“By 2050, I'm still going to be younger than your average member of Congress,” he said. “So that is a perspective that I think is desperately needed in the halls of Congress.” 

Hunt and Vogel both just barely make the constitutional age cutoff for the House, which requires representatives to be at least 25 years old.  

The House has gotten slightly younger across the last few sessions of Congress, according to Pew Research, but baby boomers and members of the Silent Generation — together, people born in 1964 or earlier — still make up roughly half the body.  

In the Senate, where the minimum age is 30 years old, boomers and members of the Silent Generation make up nearly three-quarters of the chamber.  

Millennials make up just around 12 percent of the House, according to the Pew data, with Frost as the only Gen Z member.

But although there’s a minimum age to work in Congress, there’s no upper limit — a fact that’s come under heightened scrutiny amid discourse about the age and health of lawmakers and other leaders.  

That issue took center stage in recent months due to growing concerns about the 81-year-old Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the recent death of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at age 90 after three decades in the Senate.

Polling suggests most Americans support the idea of a mental competency test for politicians over 75, as well as an age cap for presidential candidates.  

“America’s government is run as a gerontocracy, and young people are wildly underrepresented,” said Juan Ramiro Sarmiento, national press secretary at Run For Something, a progressive group focused on recruiting progressive candidates up and down the ballot. 

Under current economic and social strains, young people are experiencing a “vastly different” America than their older counterparts, Sarmiento said. 

“We need people that are closer to the problem,” Sarmiento said. “And they’re closer to the solutions.” 

President Biden’s 2024 reelection bid has been plagued by concerns about his age as he tries for four more years in the White House. At 81, Biden is the oldest sitting president in history — while 77-year-old former President Trump, the top GOP contender, is not far behind him.  

But Vogel swung to Biden’s defense, arguing the incumbent is the best option on the table to represent younger voters’ values in 2024.  

“President Biden's experience and his record of delivering for young people ... I'm excited to see him reelected. Because the alternative is one that is really a doomsday scenario for our generation: reelecting Donald Trump,” Vogel said.  

Frost said at the White House back in September that Biden “wants to be and is a president that understands the power of young people.”

The politically active demographic has been seen as a linchpin for Democrats in recent cycles, and younger voters helped usher Biden to victory in 2020, when roughly 6 in 10 of the under-30 voter group cast their ballots for him, according to AP VoteCast.

But in addition to pushing for people in power to take action on the issues that matter to young Americans, many are putting themselves in the ring to represent their generation.  

“We have seen some growing interest from young people in running for office,” said Alberto Medina, spokesperson for Tufts University's Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.  

Economic and social barriers to entry may be more impactful on Gen Z and millennials thinking about a campaign than on an older candidate, though, Medina noted — and there are racial and gender inequities that may be compounding reluctance to run. 

But issues such as climate change and abortion are “really the driving force” for young Americans’ engagement in politics, Medina said.  

A 2022 Tufts study found that the rate of young people seeking elected office had gone up in the previous decade to more than 20 percent of youth who said they'd consider running for office. 

That’s why even as some data suggests younger Americans are trending away from party affiliation, 57 percent of Americans aged 18-34 say they’re “extremely likely” to vote this year, according to Tufts research from late November.  

Among those extremely likely to cast a ballot, 51 percent say they’ll back the Democratic candidate. 

“There is an appetite. There's a hunger from folks of all generations ... for a new generation of leaders, not just because we're younger, but because we offer a new style of politics,” Vogel said. 

"At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how old you are. The status quo is holding everyone back,” he added. 

Over the past year he contended with health troubles, a challenge from the right and former President Trump becoming the favorite to be the GOP presidential nominee again.

McConnell has long faced queries about when his record-setting tenure as party leader will come to an end, but never more so than over the past year.

He easily swatted away an attempt by conservatives to oust him from the post, but the mere presence of the first challenge to his leadership signaled trouble and dovetailed with a rightward turn and increasing dissatisfaction from that group of lawmakers.

Perhaps more worrisome were the questions about his health. McConnell was sidelined last year with a concussion and a broken rib, prompting speculation about his future that only intensified after he noticeably froze twice in front of reporters over the summer.

Both the questions about his health and his ability to remain in his post — if he chooses to — have dissipated as McConnell has rebounded, several Senate Republicans and sources have told The Hill in recent months, helping him keep a strong hold on the conference. 

“He is the recognized leader. He is still the strategist that sees the long game, and he is the guy who is putting the strategy out in front of us right now. That has not changed,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). “What I’m seeing has been a leader who has been on top of it.”

One Senate Republican predicted that if leadership elections had been held last month, McConnell’s support would be at a similar level to what it was last year when 11 members backed Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) challenge. 

But what McConnell chooses to do next remains a major question, and colleagues’ predictions are mixed.

The Senate Republican told The Hill on the condition of anonymity that they believe it is “baked” that 2024 will be McConnell's last year in charge. 

“I think it’s just more a function of how many sunrises and sunsets he’s observed and how long he’s been in politics,” the member said.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said he would be “surprised” if McConnell ran again and pointed to past conversations they’ve had “about how he wants to leave [the] conference.” 

“I personally would be surprised if he ran again for leader,” Mullin said. “But I will tell you, I don’t think anybody challenges him or beats him if he decided to run.”

Others believe McConnell’s plans could depend on who wins the presidency in November, given the bad blood between him and Trump and his long-standing relationship with President Biden.

"Who's the president?" Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said in November when a reporter asked if McConnell seeks another term as leader.

McConnell and his team are well known for playing their cards close to the vest, and this situation is no different. He has maintained that he will serve out the next year as leader and the remainder of his Senate term, which runs through 2026, but has declined to delve any deeper. 

“Anybody who tells you they know is kidding themselves,” one senior Senate GOP aide said.

The “will he or won’t he” chatter comes as the Senate stares down what will be an arduous start to the year. Lawmakers will try to nail down a border deal in order to unlock Biden’s $111 billion supplemental and aid for Ukraine in their war against Russia, and race to fund the government. 

While he has been one of the Senate’s foremost Ukraine advocates, McConnell has received some plaudits in the conference, including from some conservatives, for stepping back from that push once funds didn’t make it into the stopgap spending bill in September and he realized a border deal would be the only solution. 

“I think it suggests that Mitch heard the conference pretty loud and clear,” Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) said. 

The push to pass a border deal will likely come during the beginning of the GOP presidential primaries, where Trump is the overwhelming favorite to become the party’s choice for a third time, potentially creating issues for McConnell as there is no love lost between the two. 

That sore spot cropped up just as the Senate left town when McConnell took a shot at the former president after Trump told supporters that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” 

Some lawmakers have indicated that the possibility of Trump winning the White House again coupled with Senate Republicans staying in the minority could be more than enough to convince McConnell to call it quits in leadership. 

“It seems to me spending your last couple of [years] taking on someone who’s going to be an adversary — ” Cramer said, cutting himself off before finishing his thought. “I just don’t know what Mitch’s tolerance for misery is.”

But some members believe McConnell’s approach to the ex-president will remain unchanged. According to the anonymous Senate Republican, McConnell “is not the least bit worried about Trump” and remains “unfazed” by the barbs thrown his way by the former president.

However, Trump’s influence is creating headaches in other ways for the leader, especially as the composition of the conference has shifted away from those of McConnell’s ilk to those with views more similar and sympathetic to the former president. Vance, an ardent Trump backer, is a prime example as he replaced former Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who was part of McConnell’s leadership team before he departed. 

Despite the questions surrounding McConnell’s future, there is little jockeying underway to replace him.

Senators said that while there is some taking place at the conference level and on the 2024 political scene among the “Three Johns” — Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) — it has by no means burst into the open. All three are considered McConnell allies, but each has their strong suits if they were to seek the top spot. 

“No one’s jockeying for it openly … No one’s aiming at it. No one’s trying to undercut him,” Mullin said, comparing the situation with the years-long simmering battle in the House as former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and his team were always wary of maneuvers by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). 

“There was always a little bit of … a contest between McCarthy and Scalise. There’s none of that between McConnell and Thune,” said Mullin, a friend of McCarthy who also serves as the freshman class’s representative on Thune’s whip team. 

But for the next year at least, the conference is solidly with the Kentucky Republican, just as it has been since the mid-2000s. 

“I don’t think he had any problems in the first place,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the only senator who has served for longer than McConnell. “And I haven’t seen any difference in the 17 years he’s been in that position.”

The president’s poor approval numbers, and polling showing him trailing former President Trump, his likely opponent in 2024, have created frustration and anxiety within the party, with some wondering if Biden is leading Democrats into a disastrous election that could cost them the White House and Senate. 

But a number of Democrats are criticizing the critics, arguing Biden should get more credit for an improving economy and positing his fortunes are likely to brighten in the months leading up to the election.

“Biden faces challenges going into 2024, but I’m baffled by seemingly smart political people writing his chances off,” said Jim Kessler, co-founder of the centrist think tank Third Way.

Those defending the president’s chances argue that the choice will be clear once voters are actually faced with Trump on the general election ballot — a long 10 months away.

“I’m very bullish on President Biden’s reelection in 2024. The economy is strong, we’ve recovered from COVID, and we are once again respected in the world. Most importantly, he’s restored a sense of normalcy after four years of President Trump’s chaos,” said David Thomas, a former aide to Vice President Al Gore. 

“Does work remain? You bet,” added Thomas, a partner at Mehlman Consulting. “But if you ask the question in November: ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ I believe a majority of Americans will answer a resounding yes.”

Negative commentary around Biden’s chances has notably come from former President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod, who said last month that new polling showing Biden’s approval rating hitting 37 percent is “very, very dark” for his reelection campaign. 

He also recently suggested Biden step aside and that he has a “50-50 shot” of winning in 2024.

Meanwhile, the aggregation of polls kept by Decision Desk HQ and The Hill shows Trump with a lead of 1.9 percentage points over Biden.

“Elections are about choices. The American people don’t want a return to Trump’s chaos and aren’t looking for an authoritarian leader who admires dictators like [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told The Hill. “President Biden has a strong record of accomplishments from bringing our economy back from the brink to passing historic legislation to standing up for Americans’ rights, and the difference in choices couldn’t be more clear.”

Former Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) called it “unfortunate” that Democrats aren’t all rallying around Biden yet.

“If the shoe was on the other foot, Republicans would not be behind the scenes poking needles into the back of their nominee, especially as a presidential incumbent. And that’s unfortunate we see that happening right now with Democrats,” he said. “At the end of the day, people need to come home to Joe Biden, and I think they will.”

Although the economy has defied expectations and avoided the recession that experts were predicting a year ago, Biden hasn’t received much credit for it. The U.S. economy is on track to finish 2023 with low unemployment, steady economic growth and significantly slower inflation. But Biden’s attempt to sell his economic agenda and tout it as a success is falling flat with voters.

Allies argue the economy will end up being an asset for him in 2024, even if it doesn’t look like its attracting voters now.

“If projections are correct, he will have an economy that elects incumbents. Inflation is largely in the rearview mirror, [gross domestic product] is positive, interest rates are falling, and the entire country has a job,” Kessler said.

His approval rating is consistently below 40 percent, and frustration has built around him that he’s still trailing Trump, despite his successes.

Biden’s reelection campaign and the White House have largely dismissed polls as being meaningless this far away from the election while noting pundits have previously counted out Biden only to see him rise to victory.

Allies also point to the fact that Biden has long been underestimated and is known to pull off a comeback. 

“I think he’s made a life in politics of being underestimated. Everyone underestimated Joe Biden [in] 2020 and I think things have changed dramatically since then,” Crowley said. “The legislation that was passed — whether it’s the infrastructure bill or the CHIPS Act — bills that haven't been fully implemented yet and the effects of them haven’t been fully felt yet, we’re going to see more of that in 2024.”

In the 2020 Democratic primary, Biden’s campaign was considered to be over, but a win in the South Carolina primary, largely attributed to a key endorsement from Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), turned it around. 

In the 2022 midterms, a so-called red wave was predicted, and pundits were preparing for a Republican-led Congress. Instead, Democrats had better-than-expected results, held onto the Senate, and kept GOP control in the House by very tight margins.

“Biden has been historically underestimated. At this point in the 2020 primary, he was left for dead and Mike Bloomberg was going to ride to the rescue. He not only won the primary, he mopped the floor with his opponents. Mike Tyson took longer to win half of his fights,” Kessler said.

Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, who wrote about his optimism for Biden’s reelection in a recent MSNBC opinion piece, argued that Democrats’ nervousness about 2024 is misplaced because Biden is a good president and Trump is “the worst candidate.”

“I think Democrats have to be better about not psyching themselves out,” he told The Hill. “We are on a very good run as a party and we need to start from a place of understanding that we are strong and Republicans are weak and that we’re united and they’re divided. Joe Biden has been a good president and Donald Trump is a dangerous political figure.” 

Democrats are also quick to note that Trump is entangled in a number of legal troubles, although that hasn’t hurt his lead over the other candidates competing in the GOP primary. 

The former president faces a slew of criminal indictments on federal and state levels involving the potential mishandling of classified documents and election interference.

Rosenberg argued that with time, Trump’s criminal charges will make it difficult for him to actually win an election. 

“The negatives that we have on Trump are unlike any negatives [we] have ever had. And the notion that these things aren’t going to degrade him and weaken him once they started getting aired, it’s wishful thinking on the Republican side,” he said.

“This notion that Trump is somehow strong and in a strong position to win the election I think is among the most ridiculous things that I’ve ever heard in all the years I’ve been in politics,” he added.

Under the stopgap bill passed in November, Congress is staring down two cutoff dates in January and February to keep the government funded.  

But with less than a month to go until the first deadline on Jan. 19 — when funding is set to lapse for various parts of the government — lawmakers are clashing over next steps amid deep divides over spending.  

Here’s a few ways the fight could shake out in January. 

Congress passes its annual funding bills 

While some conservatives remain hopeful that they’ll be able to pass their individual government funding bills for fiscal 2024, many are signaling openness to passing a minibus as work lags on the 12 annual funding bills. 

“It's going to be very difficult to get all of the appropriations bills we have to get done in time if we don't have the [top-line] number, and we don't have the number right now,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who heads the House subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bills for the departments of Transportation (DOT) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “So, we're going to have to make some tough decisions in early January.” 

The House has passed seven GOP-crafted spending bills while the Senate has passed a so-called maxibus of three bills. But the bills passed look vastly different between chambers, which means both chambers have their work cut out for them as leaders work to reach an agreement on a top-line level and eventually craft bipartisan bills that can pass the GOP-led House and the Democratic-led Senate. 

While some spending cardinals say they’ve begun having discussions with their counterparts in the other chambers around what the bills could look like, they also acknowledge the limitations they face in conferencing their bills without knowing their subcommittee's respective allocations. 

There’s also concern about the status of a handshake deal struck between the White House and House GOP leadership that could mean additional funding for nondefense programs under new Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), particularly as hard-line conservatives urge him to abandon the side agreement. 

Congress passes another stopgap 

The prospect of Congress having to pass another stopgap funding bill to prevent a shutdown becomes more likely the longer lawmakers fall behind in their annual spending work.  

Appropriators were already worried about the lack of a top-line agreement between leadership from both parties before leaving town for the holidays. 

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), head of the Senate subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill for HUD and DOT, said last month that he thinks Congress has until closer to the “end of the calendar year” to strike a top-line funding deal in time for them to conference and pass funding legislation to meet the January deadline. 

If Congress resorts to another stopgap, also known as a continuing resolution (CR), it will be the third CR that lawmakers have had to pass since September to prevent a shutdown and buy more time for spending talks. 

But there is some uncertainty as to what kind of stopgap bill could even notch the necessary bipartisan backing for passage. 

Leadership is already having a hard time striking a bipartisan top-line deal in the aftermath of a legislative agreement Congress passed back in spring that suspended the debt ceiling, along with setting budget caps for appropriators to work from when crafting the fiscal 2024 funding bills. 

However, experts warn that, under the limits of the debt ceiling law, Congress could face even more headaches if it tries to pass a stopgap measure in the new year.  

That includes potentially steeper cuts than lawmakers previously bargained for in the event of a full-year stopgap plan — an idea that some House Republicans have called for if Congress needs more time to finish their appropriations work in January.  

But that idea has faced staunch opposition from Democrats, and even Senate GOP leadership. 

Johnson has said he will not push through another short-term stopgap. 

“A CR is simply unacceptable for a year,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said before the Senate left for their end-of-year recess. “It's devastating, particularly for defense, and we've got all of these wars going on. So, we need to reach an agreement on the top line and get about getting an outcome as soon as possible.” 

Parts of the government shut down 

Lawmakers risk a partial government shutdown on Jan. 20 if they fail to pass legislation in time to extend funding. 

As part of the two-tiered stopgap bill that Congress passed in the fall, lawmakers agreed to extend funding for four of its 12 annual spending bills through mid-January. That includes funding for offices including the HUD, DOT and the Department of Agriculture. 

That also leaves Congress staring down an even bigger batch of work to handle when the deadline for the other bills comes up two weeks later on Feb. 2 — which is when funding for agencies including the departments of Defense, Labor and Health and Human Services faces a lapse. 

Asked before the holiday break if Congress is on track to meet the January deadline, Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), another appropriator, said: “If we don't really get our act together and start working together and figuring these things out, it's going to be difficult to do.” 

Congress passes an omnibus 

Republicans have long railed against omnibus spending packages, even as they’ve become the norm. 

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), during the fight for the gavel in January, promised conservatives he wouldn’t resort to a single massive spending package, and Speaker Johnson backed that vow, telling reporters in November that they "broke the omnibus fever — we call it the ‘omni fever.’” 

But with no clear direction on funding, a cool reception to a yearlong stopgap and a ticking clock, it’s an option that some Republicans say they’re still concerned about. 

“I think we're going to end up with one of two things: either an omnibus or a yearlong CR,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), an appropriator, said. “And I'm not sure that an omnibus that would be put together by [Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)] and his team will get 10 Republican votes.” 

“If I were betting between the omnibus and the CR, I would bet on the CR right now,” he said. “Now, that doesn't mean that’s what I prefer, but if you asked me the odds, I would say, if it comes down to omnibus [or] CR, CR wins.” 

Mike Lillis contributed. 

The relentless Houthi attacks on merchant vessels and commercial boats pushed several of the world’s largest shipping companies to cancel transits through the Red Sea. Oil-producing giant BP also decided to avoid the shipping lane.

Now, merchant boats are forced to take the long way around, circling Africa and the Cape of Good Hope to reach their destinations. 

Nick Childs, a senior fellow for naval forces and maritime security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), said the Red Sea threat has the potential to damage the global economy in the long term, adding the conflict points to a more unstable world that must be addressed. 

“Economies have to absorb the increased costs and that will have an impact, not just on the maritime industry, but [also on] economic health more generally,” he said. “There has to be more attention paid to maritime security and maritime domain awareness.” 

“But there is another problem,” Childs continued. “Navies are a lot more busy doing other things as well, including worrying about Russia-Ukraine, worrying about what may or may not be happening in the Indo Pacific.” 

The Red Sea is a major shipping lane route, facilitating roughly 10 percent of the world’s commerce each year. 

Sailing through the Suez Canal and down the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden offers a shortcut connecting Europe to Asia and the Pacific region; it is used by about one-third of global shipping companies. 

Rerouting all the way around Africa adds some 3,000 nautical miles and up to two weeks of travel, and shipping companies are now adding the extra costs as a transit disruption surcharge or a war risk surcharge, as referred to by Israeli shipping company ZIM. 

“Diverting vessels around the Cape of Good Hope to mitigate the ongoing risks of sailing through the region is a necessary step in the interest of safety, but it has ultimately brought about increased costs for carriers,” said Danish shipping giant Maersk in an advisory. 

The reroutes affect 17 percent of global shipping traffic, and cargo costs for carriers are expected to soar 15 to 20 percent, according to the American Journal of Transportation. 

If the problem persists, the impact on the global economy will be measurable and could trickle down to the average consumer, said Alan Deardorff, a professor emeritus of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan.  

Still, Deardorff added the greater cost will be on shipping companies and their suppliers. 

“They’re going to be hurt by it, absolutely,” he said, but noted there would be a limit in how much that could trickle down. “The effect on average price and the effect on inflation might be measurable, but I don't think it's going to be something people will correctly notice.” 

The Houthis, who are backed by Iran, say they are targeting Israel-based ships or vessels headed to Israel. They are attacking ships as they cross the strait of Bab el-Mandeb, connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. 

The Red Sea hostilities are part of a pattern of Middle East attacks from Iranian-backed groups against the U.S. and Israel in response to the Israel-Hamas war. With Israel vowing to continue fighting against Palestinian militant group Hamas until it is destroyed, the Middle East region is expected to remain unstable. 

More than other Iranian-backed groups, the Houthis have carried out bold tactics, sending in a helicopter team to seize a commercial boat in November and damaging another ship earlier this month with rockets. They have often launched a barrage of drones and missiles to target ships and U.S. naval assets.

The U.S. announced a new task force last week involving several nations to deter the Houthis from carrying out the attacks and protect merchant ships. But the task force simply builds on an existing team under the multinational Combined Maritime Forces, which is already deployed to the Red Sea. And the Houthis have promised to continue the attacks.

“We will make American battleships, interests, and navigation the targets of our missiles, drones and military operations,” said Houthi leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi in a late December speech shared on an Iranian resistance group Telegram page.

The Houthis have also taunted the U.S. for firing expensive missiles to counter cheap drones in the Red Sea. 

Pentagon press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters last week that the task force, called Operation Prosperity Guardian, will serve as a “highway patrol” in the Red Sea that will pressure the Houthis. 

“It's a defensive coalition meant to reassure global shipping in mariners that the international community is there to help with safe passage,” he said. “The Houthis need to stop these attacks. They need to stop them now.” 

“And they really need to ask themselves if they've bitten off more than they can chew when it comes to taking on the entire international community and negatively impacting billions and billions of dollars in global trade, economic prosperity and international law,” Ryder continued. 

Even if it fails to stop Houthi attacks, the task force could at the very least give merchant boats the protection they need to safely cross. 

After announcing it would no longer transit the Red Sea, Maersk now plans to send more ships through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, according to Reuters. 

And French company CMA CGM Group is also increasing the number of ships it is sending through the Red Sea, according to a company notice this week. 

But German-based shipping company Hapag-Lloyd said in an update it was frequently monitoring the situation and will resume normal transit when “it is deemed safe for our vessels, crews and your cargo on board.”

Swedish company MSC, which recently had one of its vessels attacked by the Houthis, has also not announced a change in plans, along with other companies that have paused Red Sea transits. 

Childs, the expert from the IISS, said the region is facing its most persistent maritime threat since the Somali pirate threat about a decade ago. 

But Childs said shipping companies were able to deter pirates by bolstering security.

The Houthis, he said, are displaying new tactics, firing anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, and they are a state actor, as opposed to non-state actors like Somali pirates.

“It's a much more sensitive and complicated political arena that they're operating in at the moment,” he said of the U.S. and its allies. Childs raised doubts of whether the new task force will deter a long-term security threat in the region. 

”The question that is growing in people's minds is you can't be on the defensive in perpetuity if it's not having any effects that reduces your deterrence,” he added. “So what are the alternatives?” 

Greene arrived on Capitol Hill in 2021 as a conservative firebrand who quickly emerged as a nuisance for top lawmakers. That changed when former Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) mended fences and embraced Greene on his way to the Speakership, turning the outspoken instigator into a leadership ally.

But as McCarthy’s ouster drifts farther into the past, the old Greene is coming back to shore.

In an extensive interview with The Hill, Greene did not hold back when asked about Johnson’s early Speakership record — “terrible” — or his need to earn her trust.

“He went from having a voting record to literally a month later … going against his own voting record and being Speaker of the House,” Greene later added. “Literally all of a sudden talking about doing things that he had literally voted against only a month before that. And, you know, that was unacceptable to me, and it still is.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) speaks with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) as House and Senate Armed Services Committees’ go to conference for the FY 2024 National Defense Authorization Act on Wednesday, November 29, 2023.

In the first two months of the Johnson era, Greene moved to force votes on a pair of politically prickly issues that split the Republican conference, hurled sometimes explicit insults at GOP colleagues who opposed those efforts, and frequently criticized the Speaker’s strategy on major issues including government funding, Ukraine aid and the annual defense policy bill.

While the role of rabble-rouser is nothing new for Greene, her reversion to that position has exacerbated the problems facing Johnson as he works to unite the GOP conference through a series of legislative landmines.

Greene maintains that despite her dramatic change during the McCarthy era, she is still the same antagonist deep down. 

“I wasn’t a team player. I wasn’t even involved. I was a regular American, a very successful business owner, a mom who raised my kids, and a Republican voter who felt let down by Republicans in Washington, D.C. So that’s who I am, and I’m still that person,” Greene said.

“I’m not the Republican team player; I never have been,” she added.

Outcry over key issues

US. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Mike Johnson (R-LA), Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Daniel Webster (R-FL) listen as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) speaks at a news conference after the House passed H.R.2 - the Secure the Border Act of 2023 at the Capitol, May 11, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Greene has dialed up her criticism of Johnson since he won the gavel on Oct. 25, sharply critiquing his strategy on a handful of policy pushes — including his call to pair Ukraine aid with border security.

As a growing contingent of Republicans oppose support for Kyiv, Johnson said any assistance must be coupled with substantive border security policy, a move that was viewed as an attempt to find common ground between Ukraine allies and conservative skeptics. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a top supporter of Ukraine, got behind the play.

But Greene said the proposal was a “bad strategy.”

More Congress coverage from The Hill

• Boebert switches congressional districts to one more favorable to Republicans 
• GOP suggests President Biden may have obstructed justice in son’s defying subpoena
• GOP seeks upper hand as prospect of automatic budget cuts stirs fears
• GOP points fingers after disappointing year

The Georgia Republican also slammed Johnson’s decision to put a “clean” two-step continuing resolution (CR) on the floor to avert a government shutdown — which largely mirrored the decision McCarthy made that marked the beginning of the end of his Speakership.

“Mike Johnson comes in and first thing he starts talking about is passing another CR, and I’m like, wait a minute, what? You just voted against it. That was the whole reason why Kevin McCarthy got ousted, was working with Democrats and passing a clean CR. And you know, for me I was like, what a hypocrisy,” Greene told The Hill.

“And then the next thing he starts immediately talking about is funding Ukraine, that shocked me,” Greene later added. “I was like, why would he even be talking about that? He voted against it.”

But Johnson had told GOP lawmakers in a “dear colleague” letter hours before his election as Speaker that he would put a short-term stopgap bill on the floor if needed to avert a shutdown — and Greene supported his candidacy despite that plan.

Greene also knocked Johnson after congressional leaders released the final version of the annual defense bill that, she said, was completed without input from conferees. 

That critique was more personal: McCarthy had appointed her to the conference committee, and the final product omitted conservative provisions she had championed. She wasted no time taking shots at the new Speaker.

“Speaker Johnson worked with [Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)] to cut a deal that removes all abortion and trans surgery prohibitions we passed under Speaker McCarthy,” Greene wrote this month on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “No member of the NDAA conference had any influence on this process. It was done in secret meetings with no input from conferees,” she continued, referring to the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The criticisms might be easily dismissed coming from another second-term lawmaker. But Greene has quickly made herself into a national brand — a fundraising juggernaut and close ally of former President Trump, who leadership can ignore only at their own peril. 

Greene and Johnson have spoken on several occasions, according to various news reports, and a spokesperson for Johnson said the Louisiana Republican weighs the concerns of everyone in the party.

“Speaker Johnson takes into consideration the input of each and every one of the members across the Conference,” the spokesperson told The Hill.

Forced votes and public confrontations

This combo image shows Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Feb. 18, 2022, left, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., May 18, 2023, right. The House is expected to consider resolutions that would censure Tlaib and Greene in a partisan tit-for-tat over inflammatory rhetoric. (AP Photo/File)

Greene has also wielded procedural tools to influence the House’s agenda, forcing Johnson into making politically difficult decisions and exposing fissures within the GOP conference.

Roughly 24 hours after the House elected Johnson, Greene moved to force a vote on censuring Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for her criticisms of Israel following Hamas’s unprecedented attacks. The move compelled the newly minted Speaker to act on the measure that, controversially, accused the Michigan Democrat of “leading an insurrection.”

Twenty-three Republicans joined with Democrats in voting to table the resolution, torpedoing the legislation and dividing the GOP conference at a time when showcasing unity was a key leadership priority.

Greene put the 23 GOP lawmakers on blast — especially Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who got in a public back-and-forth with the Georgia Republican after he called her censure resolution “feckless” and “deeply flawed.”

“Oh shut up Colonel Sanders, you’re not even from Texas, more like the DMV. Chip Roy’s career [consists] of working for politicians, working for campaigns for politicians, and being a politician himself,” Greene wrote on X.

Next, Greene moved twice to force votes on impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorka is sworn in before the House Judiciary Committee during a hearing on Oversight of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 26, 2023. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

The House shelved the first resolution after eight Republicans voted with Democrats to refer the measure to the Homeland Security Committee, again dealing a blow to one of Greene’s procedural gambits and teeing up a public spat between her and another GOP lawmaker — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) — who criticized her and her effort.

The back-and-forth included a post on X from Greene’s campaign account directed at Issa, which shared an abridged clip of former President Trump saying “she said he’s a pussy.”

Greene yanked her second attempt after she said Johnson “guaranteed that we’ll be moving forward with impeachment” for Mayorkas. But the episode did not conclude without Greene taking a clear shot at Johnson.

“It’s still early in his Speakership, so I have given him — I’ve been patient, but the honeymoon’s over,” Greene said of Johnson minutes after she moved to force a second vote. “So at this point, yes, I’m frustrated.”

GOP lawmakers say the public spats are counterproductive.

“It weakens us,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said of Greene criticizing Johnson in public. “And you know, we got a three-seat majority, we got to respect that.”

“I don’t know how that helps,” another House Republican, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive topic, said. “I truly don’t see how that helps.”

Running the same playbook? ‘Not necessarily’

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., look at vote totals during the roll call vote on the motion to adjourn for the evening in the House chamber as the House meets for a second day to elect a speaker and convene the 118th Congress in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2023. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Greene insists she is “not necessarily” running the same playbook with Johnson that she used to land herself in McCarthy’s corner — “Going on that basis would mean that I have only one playbook, and that that’s the only one I know how to follow, and that’s not true about me at all” — but there are similarities.

Greene was shrouded in controversy when she was sworn into office in January 2021, drawing headlines for comments supporting the QAnon conspiracy theory, which posed early headaches for GOP leadership.

Only a month into her tenure, 11 Republicans joined with Democrats to strip Greene of her committee assignments because of her endorsement of conspiracy theories, racist dogma and violence against Democratic politicians.

Greene said conservatives told her at the time that McCarthy was responsible for her being booted from committees, which fueled her opposition to the then-GOP leader and sparked her public campaign against him.

“He was an enemy in my mind, that that had happened, and I attacked him all the time. Like, it was all the time,” Greene told The Hill.

Following her committee ouster, Greene reposted — then deleted — a social media post that called McCarthy a “feckless c**t,” and, later in the year, declared that the then-minority leader “doesn’t have the full support to be Speaker.”

“When I came in as a freshman member of Congress, I was majorly, you know, anti-leadership,” she said.

Greene said she sought a “reset” after former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told her that McCarthy was not behind the effort and had rather fought to keep her on panels. She then began meeting with McCarthy in earnest. 

In September 2022, as the House GOP was on its way to reclaiming the majority, she appeared at a rollout event for McCarthy’s midterm campaign platform after helping craft the priorities, an early sign of support. That November, Greene backed McCarthy’s Speakership bid, breaking from others in the right flank and culminating her transformation from leadership adversary to ally.

And in a sign of her evolution from outsider to insider, news broke in July that the House Freedom Caucus voted to remove Greene from its ranks in part because of her cozy relationship with McCarthy. The striking move came shortly after the Georgia Republican split from many of her conservative colleagues to support the debt limit bill McCarthy struck with President Biden.

‘I would love to help Mike Johnson be successful’

FILE - Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., speaks at the Capitol in Washington, Nov. 29, 2023. The House is pushing toward a vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden formally. This comes as Republicans rally behind the charged process despite lingering concerns among some in the party that the investigation has yet to produce evidence of misconduct by the president. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Despite the rocky start with Johnson, Greene is extending a hand to the top lawmaker in what could be seen as a bid to join the inner circle.

”I would love to help Mike Johnson be successful, but so far I can’t support the decisions that he’s made,” she said.

But she took a shot at Johnson’s leadership style.

“He's got to earn it. But would I help him? Of course I would. If he listened,” Greene said. “See, there’s a difference. Kevin McCarthy would listen. Kevin McCarthy would, you know, he would take ideas, he would take suggestions, he would take help because he was willing to take it, and he didn’t try to do everything on his own.”

A third House Republican, who also requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter, suggested that the onus is on GOP leadership to forge a relationship with Greene — like McCarthy did — so she can advocate for her priorities privately rather than publicly.

“Legislators have to be developed here, and people, you know, you have to have trusted allies to help you build how to be effective here. And Kevin helped a lot of members channel their goals into an effective process, and he was very, very open about it. That was his power, enormous strength that he doesn't get much credit for,” the GOP lawmaker said. 

“She's a good example of how she had influence and was highly effective. And she was able to do that behind closed doors. Now, in order for her to get the same effect, she has to do it publicly. Same set of goals. This is stuff that she's worked on. So I don't I view that as you know, no one in current leadership having an effective relationship with her, how it's more a statement of our current leadership than it is about a change in her,” the lawmaker added.

For now, Greene would not outwardly say that she trusts Johnson, and she made clear that she would be keeping an eye on the Speaker moving forward.

“Trust is earned and that’s based on actions, not on promises or intentions or saying, ‘I’m brand-new here,’” Greene told The Hill. “Honeymoon is over; it’s all about actions from here on out.”

Mike Lillis contributed.

The White House's push is straining relations with Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who played a key role in implementing former President Trump's most stringent border policies under threat of tariffs.

López Obrador, who met in Mexico City this week with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and homeland security adviser Liz Sherwood-Randall, is negotiating from a position of strength because border security has grown into a major U.S. electoral issue ahead of 2024.

"[President Biden] is definitely hoping that Mexico will do something that pushes the numbers down for a few months at least," said Adam Isacson, director of defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America.

Border encounters are reaching all-time highs: In December, the Border Patrol is on track to process a record number of migrants who have crossed the border between ports of entry.

FILE - President Joe Biden and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador chat prior to having the official photo taken during the North America Summit, at the National Palace in Mexico City, Jan. 10, 2023. President Joe Biden and Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador are two strong allies who don't always get along personally. On Friday, they will meet to talk migration, fentanyl trafficking and Cuba relations.(AP Photo/Fernando Llano, File)

In the first 27 days of the month, Border Patrol processed 225,000 migrants — its highest count ever — according to a report by CBS News.

That's despite the Biden administration ratcheting up measures intended to deter future migrants from coming to the United States. In its annual report issued Friday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) touted a 19.5 percent jump in arrests of noncitizens, a majority of whom weren't accused of criminal actions.

Border crossings stuck to an upward trend even though ICE conducted 170,590 arrests, 96,768 of which were purely administrative, meaning the detainees had no criminal convictions or charges, and conducted 142,580 removals of foreign nationals.

And U.S. border officials are running on fumes, dealing with those record numbers without extra funding the Biden administration requested from Congress, which would have added 1,300 Border Patrol jobs and 1,600 asylum officers.

That funding was included in a supplemental budget request paired with aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan that ultimately petered out in Senate negotiations ahead of Christmas because of disagreement over border policy changes requested by Republicans and opposed by many Democrats.

More stories from The Hill

• Marjorie Taylor Greene creates multiple headaches for new Speaker
• 5 things that could tank Biden in 2024
• GOP rep warns House has final say over election after states deem Trump ineligible for ballots
• Republicans hit Biden over St. Croix trip during border crisis

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who along with Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) is leading the talks, said Friday the group has been meeting virtually and will return to the table in the new year, according to a report by Politico.

But those talks are in danger of becoming embroiled in the larger budget fight, as Congress stares down dual government shutdown deadlines in late January and early February.

That gridlock has left Biden with few levers to pull to quickly reduce the number of migrants presenting themselves at the border, a metric for border enforcement success that the administration adopted to the chagrin of immigrant advocates.

Enter López Obrador.

The Mexican president, a loud advocate of addressing the root causes of migration, has nonetheless been a key enforcer of migration controls for the Trump and Biden administrations.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) arrives for a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing to review of the National Security Supplemental Request on Tuesday, October 31, 2023.

Mexico's National Guard, a militarized police force created by López Obrador, has turned its focus away from the country's organized crime crisis and toward migration controls.

"Root causes is a long-term solution, it's not going to do anything really between now and, say, 2028 at the very earliest. So in the short term, yeah, he's using deterrence just like everyone else — all these checkpoints, all those National Guard controls," said Isacson.

According to an analysis of Mexican government data by national newspaper El Economista, the National Guard's criminal arrest rates dropped 60 percent from 2021 to 2022, while migrant "rescues" grew 432.5 percent in the same period.

Mexican officials dating to previous administrations use the term "rescue" for interactions between migrants and law enforcement; those interactions can include literal rescues from smuggling organizations or physically dangerous situations, but they almost always involve a review of migrants' documents and can result in deportations.

Through the National Guard and controls at its southern border, Mexico has some influence over the volume of migrants reaching the United States, but López Obrador's sharpest tool is his ability to decide whether or not he'll take third-country deportees or expellees from the United States, cooperating on policies such as Title 42 and "remain in Mexico." 

In a sign of the kind of deterrence Biden can expect from López Obrador, Mexican immigration officials bulldozed a migrant encampment in Matamoros, a city across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas, as Blinken and company met with López Obrador almost 500 miles away in Mexico City.

Mexican officials said the camp, which once housed about 1,500 people, was empty, though the migrants dodging the bulldozer said about 200 people remained, according to an Associated Press report.

Neither the Mexican nor U.S. governments offered details about the negotiations between López Obrador and Blinken, instead issuing an almost-boilerplate joint communiqué about the visit that itself created some friction between the two sides.

After Mexico published its version of the joint statement, the White House published a nearly identical version, except that it included the phrase "democratic decline" as a root cause of irregular migration.

By diplomatic protocol, joint communiqués are agreed to word-for-word after negotiation on language.

At the table, U.S. officials did not ask to include "democratic decline" — a phrase Mexico's opposition understood as a reference to López Obrador's practices — and uploaded a corrected version of the statement, without the offending phrase, hours later.

A National Security Council spokesperson attributed the gaffe to a “version control issue.”

The diplomatic faux pas highlighted the areas of disagreement between the two countries — mainly on democracy and relations with Cuba and Venezuela — and how far the Biden administration is willing to bend on those issues to get its desired results at the border.

But if those results come through asylum or transit restrictions, whether they're produced through Mexican collaboration or policy changes forced by Congress, they're unlikely to have a lasting impact.

Large U.S. border policy shifts tend to drive down border crossings for a period, as was the case in June, when migrant apprehensions dropped significantly after the end of Title 42, but usually bounce back.

And those asylum and transit restrictions can have permanent effects on the migrants on the receiving end.

"There's nothing here that is better policy. It's going to hurt people. Six to eight months after it happens, it'll be a wash anyway, as migrants and smugglers find new ways around it," said Isacson.

"All this will do — and you've seen this repeatedly — is push the numbers down for a few months. Buy a little breathing space."

The voter who asked the question, which came during a town hall Wednesday, called Haley out after she failed to mention slavery in her response.

Haley has sought to clarify her remarks since, saying Thursday that “of course the Civil War was about slavery” and arguing that the voter who asked the question was a “Democrat plant.”

But the moment has led to criticism from across the political spectrum, including from top GOP rivals. And while Republican strategists are doubtful the blunder will be a decisive factor for her campaign, they acknowledge it’s a distraction that doesn’t help.

“What it does is it’s an unnecessary fumble for her at a time when she doesn’t need something like this,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean.

Democrats were quick to seize on her comments, with President Biden sharing a clip of the exchange on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, saying, “It was about slavery.”

Leading voices of color have also rebuked Haley’s comments. 

Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison said in a statement that he is “disgusted” but “not surprised,” calling her comments a “slap in the face to Black voters.”

“This isn’t hard: condemning slavery is the baseline for anyone who wants to be President of the United States, but Nikki Haley and the rest of the MAGA GOP are choking on their words trying to rewrite history,” Harrison said.

But it wasn’t only Democrats who criticized the former South Carolina governor. Republicans — including primary rivals such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and allies of former President Trump — also hit her for the comments.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), who has endorsed Trump for the GOP nomination, slammed Haley on X.

“1. Psst Nikki... the answer is slavery PERIOD,” he posted. “2. This really doesn't matter because Trump is going to be the nominee. Trump 2024!”

DeSantis said the moment demonstrated that Haley was “not a candidate that’s ready for prime time,” calling her response to the question an “incomprehensible word salad.” And a super PAC supporting Trump blasted out a statement that included headlines about the blowback.

Haley drew further criticism Thursday on her efforts to clean up the comments. While she said “of course” the Civil War was about slavery, she also accused the person asking the question of being a “Democrat plant.”

That remark drew a swift rebuke from operatives on both sides of the aisle.

“McCain knew he’d get an ‘Obama is a Muslim’ or ‘Obama is an Arab’ question,” tweeted Republican strategist Liz Mair. “And he knew how to handle it.”

The controversy comes at an awkward time for Haley, who has been on the rise for weeks in GOP polling, especially in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire. She reached 30 percent in one poll for the Granite State from earlier this month and only trailed Trump by 4 points in another.

She has also regularly turned in strong debate performances and avoided any notable mistakes on the campaign trail until now.

Bonjean said Haley was “definitely caught off guard” by the question Wednesday and seemed to somewhat acknowledge that in the moment. He argued Haley made the right comments in her clarification from Thursday morning, but noted that she should have fixed it sooner.

He added that this type of mistake can become amplified during the holidays when not much else is going on.

“When you're running for the highest office of the land, you open yourself up to all kinds of questions,” Bonjean said. “And you have to be very nimble, and she usually is.”

Republican strategist Rina Shah said she believes Haley’s hesitation to mention slavery in her original answer came because she was “in her own head” and worried about how her answer may alienate the far-right faction of the party she needs to appeal to. She added that Haley may also have been thinking of the voters who like actions that DeSantis has taken on African American studies and how slavery is taught in Florida.

“She is backpedaling because she realizes what a misstep that was,” Shah said.

But Shah also argued that while it was a “serious mistake,” it likely wouldn’t tip the scales in the primary.

The moment comes as Republicans have sought to broaden their coalition to include more voters of color, especially Black voters. Though Haley, who is Indian American, has sought to avoid focusing on identity politics, she is seen as part of a new generation of younger, more diverse GOP candidates who the party hopes can reach a wider swath of the electorate.

For Democrats, the moment underscores the challenges the GOP still faces in reaching Black voters.

“Black folks may be pro-value and trending to be anti-institution, but although they may not be over the hill embracing the Democratic Party, people are smart enough to know who's on their side, and that traditionally and in modern history has been [the] Democratic Party,” said Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright. “They also know who's against their core values and what they need, and that continues to trend to be the Republican Party.”

Haley joins a growing list of Republican candidates who have stumbled in their messaging on issues regarding race.

DeSantis this year faced outrage after approving a school curriculum that requires teachers to instruct students that slavery was beneficial, allowing slaves to develop skills that “in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

Seawright said these actions, including Haley’s comments, are attempts to whitewash history by the modern Republican Party.

“It's also, I think, reflective of the current political environment on the Republican side in particular: Say anything to get to anywhere, and it doesn't have to mean that it's true,” he said. “I think you’ve seen that lead coming from the former president of their party, and now other candidates are dancing with that on the dance floor.”

The comments are not the first time Haley has waded into the issue. While running for South Carolina governor in 2010, she said during an interview that the Civil War was a conflict between “tradition” and “change” and argued that the Confederate flag was not “racist,” according to The Associated Press.

Haley shifted her stance on the flag in 2015 after a white gunman killed nine Black church members who were attending Bible study in Charleston, saying the flag had been “hijacked” and pushing to remove the flag from the state Capitol.

Seawright said Democrats have a chance to capitalize on Haley’s — and the GOP’s — struggles to take a solid stance on race and race relations.

“We have to do a better job of amplifying who we're up against and what we’re up against, because they all want to do the same thing: Trumpism or extremism,” Seawright said. “That means acting like slavery was a job training program that somehow was another benefit to Black people and having no interest in telling the truth about the Civil War, which was about slavery.”

Meanwhile, Shah, the Republican strategist, said that the controversy likely wouldn’t have a major impact on GOP voters, who she argued wouldn’t dwell on the issue.

“They're the people who are going, ‘Well, just let it go. It's fine. You know, she answered it the way she answered it,’” Shah said.

Despite widespread fears at the beginning of the year that a recession was on the way, the U.S. economy is on track to finish 2023 with low unemployment, steady economic growth and significantly slower inflation.

These remarkable topline numbers, however, have done little to help Biden’s standing with voters or their views on the economy. 

“You don't expect sentiment and economic fundamentals to always track perfectly, but they are really, really off,” said Matt Darling, senior employment policy analyst at the Niskanen Center, a nonprofit think tank.

PUEBLO, COLORADO - NOVEMBER 29: US President Joe Biden speaks about Bidenomics at CS Wind on November 29, 2023 in Pueblo, Colorado. CS Wind, the largest wind turbine tower manufacturer in the world, recently announced they were expanding operations as a direct result of the Inflation Reduction Act. (Photo by Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images)

Biden’s approval rating has fallen to a record low of 34 percent, according to a Monmouth University poll released last week, with nearly 70 percent of respondents disapproving of his handling of inflation. More than half of respondents disapproved of Biden’s record on jobs, even as he presides over a historically strong labor market.

The November unemployment rate of 3.7 percent is just 0.2 percentage points above its pre-pandemic level, which marked a five-decade-low in joblessness. The annual inflation rate also plunged last month to 3.1 percent from a high of 9.1 percent in June 2022, according to the Labor Department’s consumer price index (CPI). 

U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is on track to rise at nearly pre-pandemic levels, far faster than the minimal or even negative growth projected by scores of economists. And the economy posted these strong topline numbers in the face of rapid Federal Reserve rate hikes, which bank officials admitted could tank the economy into a recession.

Biden and his allies have kept the economy front and center in the president’s reelection campaign, which will likely end with a rematch against former President Trump, the front-runner for the GOP nomination. Biden currently trails Trump by 2 percentage points, according to The Hill/Decision Desk HQ poll tracker. 

The Biden administration and campaign have tried to reverse the trend by touting the benefits of “Bidenomics” — a loosely defined phrase focused on the president’s enactment of trillions of dollars in stimulus and economic relief, and how those packages have benefited the economy.

“When President Biden took office, he inherited an economy from Donald Trump that was rigged for the ultra-rich and left in shambles. But thanks to President Biden’s leadership, the U.S. economy has consistently defied expectations, with millions of jobs created, inflation at its lowest level in more than two years, and costs coming down for the American people,” campaign spokesman Kevin Munoz said last week after another strong inflation report.

They have also largely waived off criticism of the president’s economic record, accusing Republicans and the media of drumming up discontent for self-serving reasons.

In brief Saturday remarks, Biden expressed confidence in the economy while ripping reporters for how they've covered it.

“All good. Take a look. Start reporting it the right way,” Biden said when asked about his economic outlook for 2024, according to a transcript released Sunday by the White House.

More Business coverage from The Hill

• Mortgage rates fall for ninth straight week
• Jobless claims rose for second straight week after ticking up before Christmas
• Treasury slaps sanctions on alleged funding network for Houthis
• Top 5 misconceptions about the economy in 2023

But experts warn that touting strong economic data in the face of growing frustration with the economy risks backfiring on Biden and deepening the backlash.

“People's individual experiences in the economy should not be considered incorrect just because they're at odds with macroeconomic statistics,” said Kathryn Ann Edwards, an independent economic policy consultant.

“The economy is doing well, and people don't feel like they're doing well. Well, put a name to that: It's being left behind and it's being told over and over again, ‘You're being left behind.’”

Most economic experts pin much of the frustration on the stubbornness of high inflation. While inflation has eased, it is still well above the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. Many Americans have also been feeling the frustration of rising prices for years.

The steep spike in food and energy prices, much of which is driven by the war in Ukraine, also put a serious burden on lower-income households that spend nearly all income on essential goods.

“People can understand over time that houses go up in value, cars go up in value,” said Gordon Gray, vice president for economic policy at the American Action Forum, a right-leaning research nonprofit.

“But at the end of the day, with eggs and gasoline, people kind of want to pay what they have always paid — or at least close to it.”

The pandemic also deepened the decadelong housing affordability crisis in the U.S. as construction screeched to a halt and federal stimulus fueled a homebuying frenzy. After months of record home price and rent growth, Fed rate hikes jacked mortgage rates up above 7 percent for the first time since before the 2007-08 recession.

“Inflation allows a lot of people to name frustrations that come from a lot of sources. And we've known for a while that there are there are lots of people who have almost no financial cushion,” Edwards said.

While Biden and his allies acknowledge the toll of high inflation, they are quick to note how much higher prices rose in other countries with even weaker economies. Wages also grew rapidly for most of Biden’s time in office, particularly for workers in lower-paying industries and those his hard by the pandemic.

“There are some industries we're seeing very big wage increases, both because of how tight the labor market got and how employers needed to compensate workers for jobs that became relatively unattractive and were less flexible,” said Julia Pollak, chief economist at ZipRecruiter.

While millions of workers may have ended up with higher wages relative to before the pandemic, Pollak said the legacy of its disruption may be shaping feelings about the economy.

“We've just had this massive whiplash reversal, so everyone has experienced good times and bad times since the start of the pandemic,” Pollak said. “When you have a situation where everyone has experienced bad times, everyone is feeling grumpy and angry at somebody.”

Some Americans lost jobs they loved or businesses they ran, only to find less-fulfilling sources of income down the road. Many struggling families experienced financial security for the first time in their lives as a raft of federal rescue programs kept them afloat, but left them drowning when aid expired. Nearly every industry was reshaped by the pandemic  — for better or worse — and amid new complications created by COVID-19.

“This is the best we could ever expect the U.S. labor market to do and there are so many things it is not doing,” Edwards said.

“It is not creating sick days for every American worker. It is not creating paid leave for every American worker. It is not regulating or improving the shifts of people in retail and service sector work. It is not helping people who have a felony conviction get a job.”

Biden could struggle to sell voters on the economy as the scars of COVID-19 linger for millions of Americans, but there are early signs that 2024 could make that pitch easier.

Fed officials expect to make a series of interest rate cuts next year that will ease pressure on the economy and could boost spending. Several surveys of consumer sentiment rebounded in December as the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit new records and gas prices dipped below $3 per gallon in some places shortly before Christmas. And a wave of new rental housing should lower rents across the U.S., giving relief to cash-strapped families seeking affordable homes.

“We have more work to do, but we’re on the right path and making progress executing President Biden’s agenda, a sharp contrast with Congressional Republicans’ plans to cut taxes for the wealthy and big corporations while raising health care and prescription drug costs for hardworking American families,” said Jared Bernstein, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, in a statement.

Some experts remain skeptical Biden can turn the economy into a selling point after years of high inflation, even if the U.S. can bring inflation down without hitting a full recession.

“They’ll have to focus on other things that contrast with the former president, because a legacy of inflation is an unpopular irreducibly, and they're gonna swim uphill on that and pointing to aggregate statistics can't wish that away,” Gray said.

But as Biden looks for an edge on Trump, Pollak argued he could use his rival as inspiration.

“Trump was always talking up the economy and for better or worse that changed people's perceptions of that labor market,” she said. “Politics is the art of claiming credit and avoiding blame. I think Trump on the economy did that better.”

The 82-year-old Sanders, said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, he was experiencing “minimal” symptoms and will continue to isolate while working from his home in Vermont.

"I am glad to be fully up to date with the vaccine," Sanders wrote.

The Senate finished its legislative business for the year last week and won’t be returning for votes until Jan. 8. 

The U.S. is seeing elevated levels of respiratory illness this winter, and the Northeast is experiencing the highest levels of viral activity, according to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wastewater data.  

Nationally, the wastewater viral activity level for COVID-19 is the highest it's been since the omicron surge in 2022.  

According to data from before Christmas, JN.1 is now the dominant variant. For the two weeks ending Saturday, JN.1 is expected to account for 39 percent to 50 percent of all variants, CDC said. 

"JN.1's continued growth suggests that the variant is either more transmissible or better at evading our immune systems than other circulating variants. It is too early to know whether or to what extent JN.1 will cause an increase in infections or hospitalizations," the CDC said, adding that existing vaccines, tests, and treatments still work against JN.1. 

Emergency department visits for all respiratory viruses — COVID-19, flu, RSV — are now showing the biggest acceleration since last year, though the most COVID-related visits are among people 65 and older. 

"Of course the Civil War was about slavery," Haley said in a New Hampshire radio interview. "We know that. That's the easy part of it. What I was saying was what does it mean to us today? What it means to us today is about freedom. That's what that was all about."

She later accused the voter who asked her about the cause of the Civil War of being a "Democrat plant," the New Hampshire Journal reported.

Haley, a former governor of South Carolina and United Nations ambassador, came under fire Wednesday night after a video of her exchange with a voter in New Hampshire circulated on social media.

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley speaks during a town hall, Friday, Dec. 8, 2023, in Sioux City, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Pressed by the Granite State voter over the cause of the Civil War during the town hall in Berlin, N.H., Haley said, “Well, don’t come with an easy question, right? I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.”

Haley said it “always” comes down to the role of government, telling the crowd, “We need to have capitalism, we need to have economic freedom."

More Election 2024 coverage from The Hill

• Trump PAC blasts Haley over Civil War response: ‘Clearly not ready for primetime’
• Trump hits Biden over handling of border in new ad
• Christie says Trump will ‘burn America to the ground’
• Biden hits Haley over Civil War response

The voter responded it was "astonishing" that she did not mention slavery while discussing the Civil War.

“What do you want me to say about slavery?” she asked.

“You answered my question. Thank you,” the voter responded.

The speed with which Haley moved to correct her remarks indicated their danger to her campaign. Haley has been closing in on former President Trump in polls of New Hampshire, and criticism of her earlier remarks was leading cable newscasts and making headlines.

The Decision Desk HQ/The Hill’s polling index shows Trump with a 17-percentage-point lead over Haley in New Hampshire, but the size of the gap has fallen markedly in the last month. On Dec. 6, Haley trailed Trump by 27 percentage points.

Republicans and Democrats had slammed Haley's initial Civil War comments, with Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), a supporter of Trump, writing on X, formerly Twitter, that the answer was "slavery, period." Donalds said Haley's comments wouldn't ultimately matter because Trump would be the GOP presidential nominee.

Fellow White House hopeful, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s campaign, posted the video of Haley online with the word, “Yikes.”

President Biden reposted a video of the exchange, writing, "It was about slavery.”

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.) on Thursday called Haley's remarks a "sad betrayal of her own story."

"Nikki Haley's father, like mine, came to the US in the late 1960s because of the civil rights movement and the 1965 Immigration Act. Haley's refusal to talk honestly about slavery or race in America is a sad betrayal of her own story. To what end?" Khanna wrote on X.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) addresses reporters during a press conference on Thursday, December 14, 2023 with union members calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Haley on Thursday in seeking to address the matter said the "lesson" is that "freedom matters and individual rights and liberties matter for all people," her campaign told The Hill.

"That’s the blessing of America. That was a stain on America when we had slavery," she continued. "But what we want is never relive it. Never let anyone take those freedoms away again.”

Haley and DeSantis are neck-and-neck for second place behind Trump when it comes to national polling. As of Thursday, Trump leads the national polls with 63.1 percent of the support, followed by Haley with 10.8 percent and DeSantis close behind with 10.6 percent, according to Decision Desk HQ and The Hill’s polling index.

This story was last updated at 11:40 a.m.

Reposting a video of Haley's response during a Wednesday town hall in New Hampshire, Biden offered a response on X, formerly known as Twitter: "It was about slavery."

The video captured the exchange between Haley, a former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, and a New Hampshire voter who asked the White House hopeful about the cause of the Civil War.

“Well, don’t come with an easy question, right,” Haley said during Wednesday's town hall in Berlin, N.H. “I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.”

Haley said it "always" comes down to the role of government, telling the crowd, “We need to have capitalism, we need to have economic freedom. "

“We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way," she added.

The Granite State voter then pressed Haley on her answer, saying it was "astonishing" that she did not mention slavery in a discussion about the Civil War.

“What do you want me to say about slavery?” she asked.

“You answered my question. Thank you,” the voter said.

Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison also slammed Haley's response, calling it “a slap in the face to Black voters.”

“This isn’t hard: condemning slavery is the baseline for anyone who wants to be President of the United States, but Nikki Haley and the rest of the MAGA GOP are choking on their words trying to rewrite history,” Harrison said in a statement.

Haley has seen an uptick in support in New Hampshire in recent weeks, though former President Trump continues to hold his lead in the early voting state, along with national polls. The Hill/Decision Desk HQ polling index shows Trump with a 17 percentage point lead over Haley in New Hampshire.

As for the national polls, Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are neck and neck for second place behind Trump. As of Thursday, Trump leads the national polls with 63.1 percent of the support, followed by Haley with 10.8 percent and DeSantis close behind with 10.6 percent, according to the polling index.

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union in 1860. In the state’s proclamation, the government's reasoning for seceding names slavery and points to the “increasing hostility” of non-slaveholding states to the “institution of slavery.”

Haley was pressed on the war's origin during a 2010 interview, where she described the war as between two disparate sides that were fighting for “tradition” and “change,” The Associated Press reported.

She said then that the Confederate flag was "not something that is racist," the news wire added.

Five years after that interview, Haley urged South Carolina lawmakers to remove the Confederate flag from the Capitol after nine Black churchgoers were killed in a mass shooting in Charleston.

The Hill reached out to Haley's campaign team for comment.

Haley, a former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador, said during a town hall in the early voting state that the cause of the war came down to the role of government.

“Well, don’t come with an easy question, right,” Haley said to the crowd at the event in Berlin, N.H. “I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do.”

Haley, who has made significant strides in the Granite State ahead of the Jan. 23 primary thanks to several strong debate performances, added that it “always” comes down to the role of government.

“We need to have capitalism, we need to have economic freedom,” she said. “We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”

The voter criticized her answer and said it was "astonishing" that in 2023 she did not mention slavery when discussing the cause of the Civil War.

“What do you want me to say about slavery?” she asked.

“You answered my question. Thank you,” the voter responded.

“Next question,” Haley said, as the crowd applauded.

Haley, who served as South Carolina’s governor for six years, trails former President Trump for the Republican presidential nomination but has seen her support rise in recent weeks, especially in New Hampshire.

Trump currently has a 17-point lead over Haley in New Hampshire, based on The Hill/Decision Desk HQ polling index.

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union in 1860. The state’s proclamation for seceding mentions slavery and points to the “increasing hostility” of non-slaveholding states to the “institution of slavery.”

It’s not the first time Haley has been pressed on the war’s origin. In a 2010 interview she described the war as between two disparate sides that were fighting for “tradition” and “change,” The Associated Press reported.

In the interview, she said the Confederate flag was “not something that is racist.” Later, in 2015, Haley pressed local lawmakers in the Palmetto State to remove the Confederate flag from the Capitol after nine Black churchgoers were killed in a mass shooting in Charleston.

Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison criticized Haley’s encounter with the New Hampshire voter on Wednesday, calling it "a slap in the face to Black voters."

“This isn’t hard: condemning slavery is the baseline for anyone who wants to be President of the United States, but Nikki Haley and the rest of the MAGA GOP are choking on their words trying to rewrite history,” Harrison said in a statement.

Fellow GOP contender Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's campaign posted the video of Haley online with the word, “Yikes.”

The Hill has reached out to the Haley team for comment.