Senators voted 77-13 to send the funding measure to President Biden’s desk for his signature, just hours after the House voted overwhelmingly to pass the bill 320-99 and just a day before a tranche of government funding was set to expire.

GOP Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Mike Braun (Ind.), Ted Budd (N.C.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ted Cruz (Texas), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mike Lee (Utah), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Tommy Turberville (Ala.) and J.D. Vance (Ohio) voted against the measure.

The stopgap bill will maintain funding for the departments of Agriculture, Interior, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Energy, Justice, Commerce, Energy and other offices through March 8.

Lawmakers will have until March 22 to wrap up fiscal 2024 funding for the Pentagon, the legislative branch and foreign operations, as well as the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, State and Homeland Security.

The passage comes a day after Senate and House leaders announced the bipartisan funding patch, which marks the fourth stopgap Congress has had to pass for fiscal 2024.

The stopgap bought lawmakers more time to come to an agreement on full-year funding, but hurdles remain.

House GOP leadership confirmed Thursday that bill text for the first package of six bills will come out over the weekend, as top appropriators have indicated negotiators are close to wrapping up loose ends on the forthcoming minibus.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters Thursday that “no poison pills” made it into the funding package, referring to the laundry list of partisan legislative riders Republicans were pursuing in funding talks. 

Those proposed riders had included measures targeting abortion access, the Biden administration's orders on diversity and gender identity, and a host of others that have drawn the ire of Democrats.

While hard-line conservatives have been ramping up calls for GOP leadership to secure partisan policy changes in the bills amid spending talks, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has tempered expectations for Republicans that were expecting “grand slams.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has called on Johnson multiple times to disregard the hard-liners in his party who wanted him to fight for additions that could have jeopardized an agreement. 

“As I said directly to the Speaker over and over and over again, the only way to get things done here is with bipartisanship, and this agreement is another proof point,” Schumer said on the floor earlier Thursday. “I hope this sets the stage for Congress to finish the appropriations process in a bipartisan way very soon.”

The exclusion of those policy riders has angered conservatives. And while spending cardinals are optimistic about the coming March 8 deadline, some have indicated more work is needed to wrap up the remaining six bills that come due March 22.

Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), chair of the subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, told reporters Thursday that negotiations around the coming plan are still being “hashed out.” 

He noted the difficulty appropriators face in trying to craft what are considered some of the tougher measures after both parties headed into negotiations with drastically different funding proposals.

“Some of the dollars that we were appropriated are going to [securing] the border, more detention beds, better use of technology, while Democrats have leaned more towards NGOs and facilitating processing folks at the border and asylum claims,” he said. “Therein lies a little bit of a dilemma.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who heads the subcommittee that handles the IRS funding bill, said Thursday negotiators are still “working through the numbers that are not finalized.” But he added GOP-backed riders are still holding up efforts to put a bow on the measure.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), who heads the same committee in the House, also noted negotiators have still “got a few issues" that they're divided on as they continue talks, but signaled optimism about strides made so far. 

“This has been a slog. It's kind of worn people down a little bit, and I think there's enough in these bills for us not to give up on,” he said.

Shortly before Thursday's final passage, senators voted on four amendments. Among those were proposals by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would prevent the Federal Reserve from buying states’ debt, and by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on H.R. 2, the House’s border security bill. 

Leadership could not afford for any of them to be attached to the funding bill as it would have forced the House to pass the final package again. The House adjourned for the week earlier in the day. 

The split-screen moment with Biden and Trump in locations hours apart offered the most glaring preview of how they will handle the hot-button issue of immigration and compete over other matters in 2024.

Biden visited Brownsville, Texas, where he met with Border Patrol agents and chastised congressional Republicans who fell in line behind Trump to oppose a bipartisan border security deal, which was later scrapped from a larger aid bill.

Trump, meanwhile, was joined in Eagle Pass by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and local law enforcement.

Here are five takeaways from the dueling trips.

2024 election preview

Thursday’s competing visits served as a preview of the general election campaign that will occupy the next eight months, with Biden and Trump on track to square off in November.

Fox News showed a literal split screen at one point of Biden chatting with Border Patrol agents while Trump received a briefing from the governor and local law enforcement.

For Trump, the visit to the border was on more comfortable terrain. Cracking down on immigration has been part of his agenda and speeches since he ran for the White House in 2016. He made multiple trips to the border during his time in office, and polling has shown voters trust him more than Biden on the issue of immigration and border security.

For Biden, it was a chance to try and flip the script on a political liability. The president visited the border last year, but immigration is shaping up to be a significant election year issue, and Democrats believe he is better off confronting it head-on than ignoring it.

“We hope this is just the beginning of many more visits to our region, not only in this presidency, but in the next,” Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) said.

Blame game

Both Trump and Biden accused the other of being responsible for the state of the southern border, where there have been record levels of apprehensions in recent months and a backlog of court cases for those waiting for hearings.

For Trump and his allies, the surge in migration and a spate of recent high-profile crimes involving migrants were a sign of Biden’s failed policies.

“This is a Joe Biden invasion. This is a Biden invasion,” Trump said, claiming the U.S. was being “overrun by Biden migrant crime.” He specifically pointed to the death of Laken Riley, a University of Georgia student who was killed last week. Police charged a Venezuelan migrant in the case.

Brandon Judd, the president of the Border Patrol union, said Biden’s policies “continue to invite people” to come across the border.

Biden, meanwhile, bemoaned that Trump had discouraged Republicans from backing a bipartisan border security bill that had the support of the Border Patrol union, the Chamber of Commerce and The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Congressional Republicans fell in line behind Trump to tank the legislation.

“The truth is, Donald Trump doesn’t want to secure the border. He prefers chaos and cruelty because he’s betting it helps him politically,” Biden campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodriguez said in a statement. “Last time he was in office, kids were held in cages, families were ripped apart, and violent crime skyrocketed. It’s a bad bet — one that he will pay for at the ballot box this November.”

But Biden did strike a different and more conciliatory tone at one point as he looked for a path forward.

“I understand my predecessor’s in Eagle Pass today,” the president said. “So here’s what I would say to Mr. Trump: Instead of playing politics with the issue, instead of telling members of Congress to block this legislation, join me, or I’ll join you in telling the Congress to pass this bipartisan border security bill. We can do it together.”

Eagle Pass vs. Brownsville

Trump chose to travel to Eagle Pass with Abbott to highlight an area experiencing an influx of migrants that has been the epicenter of issues between state officials and the Biden administration.

The border crossing in Eagle Pass has led to state troopers filing the area, as well as long lines of migrants, buses, razor wire and a lack of U.S. Border Patrol agents. 

Texas officials blocked Border Patrol out of parts of Eagle Pass and took control of a riverfront park earlier this year. The Texas National Guard prevented private citizens, city officials and Border Patrol officers from entering the park.

Abbott accused Biden of visiting a “sanitized location” that did not give the president a clear picture of the situation.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas explained the decision for the president to travel to Brownsville on Thursday, saying the location “provides a very good glimpse of how dynamic and challenging the migration phenomenon is.”  

He said in April and May of 2023, approximately 30 percent of all border crossings were in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, which includes Brownsville. He said now those numbers have been reduced, which he attributed to enhanced law enforcement in Mexico. 

Mayorkas added that because Biden spoke to the Mexican president, Mexico has renewed their enforcement efforts. 

Impeached Mayorkas joins Biden

Mayorkas traveled from Washington, D.C., to Texas with Biden on Thursday, just two weeks after he was impeached by the House over GOP opposition to his handling of the border.

He flew on Air Force One with the president, spoke to reporters and stood by Biden’s side throughout the visit and during his remarks.

“Though Congress has not yet provided the resources we need, [the Department of Homeland Security] will continue to enforce the law and work to secure our border,” Mayorkas said in Brownsville.

The House impeached Mayorkas on Feb. 13 in a narrow 214-213 vote after their first effort failed. It was the first impeachment of a Cabinet official since the 1870s. After that, the White House insisted Mayorkas would go forward with business as usual and that the impeachment wouldn’t impact his work.

The Senate is now eying an impeachment trial after Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Whip John Thune (S.D.), the top GOP leaders, earlier this week called for the upper chamber to conduct a full trial, but one has not yet been put on the Senate calendar.

No executive actions announced

Biden didn’t use his visit to Texas to make an announcement about a unilateral move to curb the influx of migrants at the border.

Biden had been wrestling with whether to take executive action on how asylum claims are handled at the southern border, a move that would take some of the blame off of him for the situation. But, reporting that Biden is considering that option already angered progressives, and such executive action would likely be hit with legal challenges.

During his visit, he steered clear of any policy announcements and instead pushed House Republicans to take up the Senate-negotiated and White House-endorsed bipartisan border deal.

Mayorkas suggested on the way to Texas that Biden wouldn’t be announcing any unilateral new actions while in the state.

“There will not be any executive actions announced today,” Mayorkas told reporters. “The legislation is what we need; it is the enduring solution. Actions taken outside of legislation are often met with litigation challenges in court.”

Speaking to reporters about migration, Johnson touted H.R. 2, the House-approved GOP border bill that includes many elements of former President Trump's policies.

"How do you reduce the flow? The answer is simple. You reinstate Remain in Mexico, that alone would reduce the flow by 70 percent — that’s their estimate," Johnson said.

"I told the president that at the White House again. He acted as though he had never heard that, didn't understand, said he couldn't do it. I said, 'That's not true.'"

"‘Well, Mexico doesn't want that,’" said Johnson, relaying his account of Biden's response.

"Mr. President. We're the United States, Mexico will do what we say, OK. President Trump did it. Why can't you do it?"

Johnson's statement comes amid tensions between Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and U.S. administration officials, stoked by a series of news stories about investigations into financial ties between drug cartels and López Obrador aides.

Over the past week López Obrador has dropped a range of accusations of foreign intervention, particularly after a New York Times report found U.S. officials had begun — and quickly scrapped — investigations into drug money connections to his victorious 2018 presidential campaign.

Ahead of that story, López Obrador doxed The New York Times's bureau chief in Mexico, Natalie Kitroeff, projecting and reading aloud her phone number, and over subsequent days defended his actions, alleging presidential liberty trumps Mexico's strict privacy laws.

The country's independent transparency agency opened an investigation into López Obrador the day after the incident.

His anger over the story has not subsided, and he has threatened to skip the upcoming North American Leaders' Summit, where he is scheduled to meet Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

López Obrador on Thursday added Canada's reinstatement of visa requirements for Mexican nationals to the list of reasons why he won't attend the summit.

Still, the Mexican president remains a key player, painstakingly courted by the Biden administration, in controlling migrant flows toward the U.S.-Mexico border.

López Obrador's office did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

While Remain in Mexico has been discounted by many border experts as a dangerous and inefficient way to reduce border crossings, Johnson's recounting of its implementation was accurate.

In 2019, Trump threatened to impose tariffs if Mexico did not agree to receive third-country nationals awaiting asylum processing in the United States, and he quickly obtained López Obrador's acquiescence.

"That, among other things, is the tone and the muscle memory left by the way in which López Obrador folded — and how he did it — with Trump in March of 2019," tweeted Arturo Sarukhán, Mexico's former ambassador to the United States.

As part of its delay for existing gas plant rules, the agency said it will eventually propose a rule that covers the entire fleet — as opposed to just a fraction that would have been covered under its initial proposal.

But, in the meantime, it will only finalize climate pollution limits for existing coal plants and new gas plants, it announced Thursday. It is expected to finish the climate rule for new gas and existing coal power soon.

“This stronger, more durable approach will achieve greater emissions reductions than the current proposal,” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan said in a written statement. 

While regulating the entire fleet of existing gas-fired power plants, instead of just some of them, would likely result in more climate benefits, whether the EPA is able to do so could ultimately depend on who wins the presidency this fall.

If former President Trump wins and takes office before any additional restrictions are finalized — his administration is virtually certain not to complete them. 

In his statement, Regan said that the EPA will “immediately” begin discussions with stakeholders on the new proposal. 

Power plants may not be the only area where the administration is delaying contentious climate action ahead of this year’s election. News outlets reported earlier this month that the administration’s push for electric cars could also see delays.

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which lobbies on behalf of power providers, expressed appreciation for the EPA’s move. 

“While EEI has not seen the final rules, we appreciate that EPA has acknowledged our concerns with the proposed regulations for existing natural gas,” the group said. 

The move got at least some Democratic pushback; Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) said the rule that’s expected in the coming weeks needs to cover existing plants. 

“Making a rule that applies only to coal, which is dying out on its own, and to new gas power plants that are not yet built, is not how we are going to reach climate safety. Failing to cover the plants responsible for the vast majority of future carbon pollution from the power sector makes no sense,” Whitehouse said in a written statement.

But some environmental advocacy organizations expressed support, saying they are pleased the administration could eventually take on the entire existing gas fleet.

“EPA’s planned approach will protect people from toxic pollution while meeting the climate imperative to deliver clean power,” Earthjustice President Abigail Dillen said in a written statement.

“This more ambitious strategy will enable EPA to consider technologies that were not considered in its initial proposal and ensure that new standards do not shift pollution to dirty, uncontrolled plants and the communities they pollute,” Dillen added. 

— Updated at 5:43 p.m.

In an interview with The New York Times a day earlier, the Democratic leader had suggested that “a reasonable number” of Democrats in his caucus would cross the aisle to keep Johnson in power in the face of a coup — if the Speaker agreed to consider legislation providing aid to foreign allies, including Ukraine.

On Thursday, Jeffries emphasized that he wasn’t stating his own position, but was simply making an assessment based on “observations” of the members of his caucus. 

"The comments that I have made on this issue speak for themselves,” Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. “The only comments that I have made on this issue are observations, but not a firm declaration."

Johnson, since taking the Speaker’s gavel in October, has said he supports more military aid for Ukraine. But former President Trump has come out against the assistance, and Johnson is under heavy pressure from conservatives in the GOP conference to keep any such bill off the floor. 

Amid the fight, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has vowed to force a vote to remove Johnson from power if he does stage a vote — a threat with teeth since the new House rules stipulate that a single lawmaker can bring such a motion.

Democrats are scrambling for ways to get the Ukraine bill to the floor, and a number of them have already emerged to say that they’d help Johnson survive a motion to oust him if he agrees to certain conditions, such as considering the Senate-passed foreign aid package. 

“Just like I told McCarthy: Talk to Hakeem, and there are some of us that can support you,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said last month, referring to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was booted from his leadership post last year at the hands of disgruntled conservatives. "I'll say the same thing [to Johnson]." 

More recently, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) delivered a similar message. 

“If we get a vote on the appropriations bills and we get a vote on the supplemental, there’ll be enough Democrats that Johnson will not be removed as Speaker,” Smith said. “That’s just my view.”

In his interview with the Times, Jeffries said he hasn’t overlooked that message being sent by members of his party. 

“It does seem to me, based on informal conversations, that were Speaker Johnson to do the right thing relative to meeting the significant national security needs of the American people by putting it on the floor for an up-or-down vote, there will be a reasonable number of people in the House Democratic Caucus who will take the position that he should not fall as a result,” Jeffries told the Times on Wednesday. 

The debate is evolving differently than the one that preceded McCarthy’s removal in early October. In that case, a number of Democrats had also offered their support, but a defiant McCarthy rejected the help, expressing confidence that he’d “hold on” despite a slim majority. 

The strategy backfired, with every Democrat voting to remove him.

The controversial incident — during which Austin was in the hospital for days to treat complications from an earlier cancer surgery before the White House was made aware — has called into question the line of communication between the Defense Department and the White House as the U.S. supports two major wars.

“This is a matter of national security, and someone needs to be held accountable,” House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said at the start of the panel’s heated hearing, Austin’s first public appearance on Capitol Hill since his hospitalizations.

“I find it very concerning that the secretary could be hospitalized for three days without anyone else in the administration even noticing ... even while military operations were ongoing in the Middle East,” Rogers continued.

“Who will be held accountable for this, this embarrassment?” Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) asked more pointedly, adding he was “surprised” President Biden didn’t call for Austin’s resignation.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who hammered Austin on the timeline of his situation, was in disbelief when he said he could not say when his own staff became aware of his hospitalization.

“You don't know when you told your staff that you were at the hospital? Are you kidding me?” Mace asked.

And Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) said even his teenage daughter “knows to tell her supervisor if she’s not going to work,” accusing Austin of poor judgement.  

“The American people ‚ truck drivers, bartenders — know they have to tell their boss or they get fired. But you’ve held yourself to a different standard, and that’s unacceptable,” Waltz said. 

Austin entered the hospital the evening of Jan. 1, when he was whisked to Maryland's Walter Reed National Military Medical Center via ambulance. He stayed for two weeks to treat an infection stemming from a Dec. 22 surgery to treat prostate cancer.

But he did not inform the White House or his deputy Kathleen Hicks of the situation until Jan. 4, even though he had transferred his duties as Defense secretary to her Jan. 2.

Congress and the public did not learn of Austin’s hospitalization until the late afternoon of Jan. 5.

Austin had also not informed the White House, other top Pentagon officials or his staff of his early December cancer diagnosis and subsequent surgery.

Earlier this week, the Pentagon released a brief, unclassified summary of a 30-day review that found no attempt to hide Austin’s hospitalization but also that processes could be improved. The report effectively absolved officials of any wrongdoing, a finding that Republicans have criticized. 

“The chain of command doesn't work when the commander in chief doesn't know who to call,” Rogers said. “That's why we want to know who made the decision to withhold that information from the president.”

Republicans also pointed to the three-day gap Austin was in the hospital before Biden was made aware, calling into question his influence on the nation’s national security decisions.

“Either the president is that aloof, or you are irrelevant,” Banks said. “Which one is it?”

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) zoned in on a U.S. strike on Iranian proxies in Iraq on Jan. 4, which occurred before the White House was notified of Austin’s hospitalization, though he had given prior approval of the strike before being admitted.

“The president of the United States was not aware that you were not in the chain of command. So God forbid there was a retaliatory strike, that would have caused potential delays,” Stefanik said. “Do you understand why this is unacceptable to the American people and to those military families?”

Austin spent the hearing walking a careful tightrope of deflecting responsibility for the incident away from himself and his staff, none of whom have been fired for the communications breakdown. He reiterated that the situation was mishandled.

“Again, we did not handle this right,” Austin said. “And I did not handle this right.”

But that high-wire act proved tricky, and more than once he appeared to lay culpability at the feet of his staff, whom he said he did not instruct to withhold information of his hospital stay from the White House.

“I was the patient, and so I expect that my organization would do the right thing,” Austin said. 

He also stressed that there was no gap in Pentagon leadership throughout the entire timeline and said the building had made changes to ensure senior officials are notified of a transfer of duties.

“I'm also taking responsibility for some institutional changes to make sure that this cannot happen again,” he said.  

The bill, formally titled the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2024, passed in a bipartisan 401-19 vote Thursday. It will extend the FAA’s funding authorities until May 10 and give lawmakers more time to hammer out a long-term reauthorization of the FAA. 

It must now go to the Senate for a vote, then to President Biden's desk for his signature.

The agency’s funding authority was slated to expire on March 8 under a temporary extension passed by Congress in December. The FAA’s last five-year authorization expired at the end of fiscal 2023, on Sept. 30.

Without the extension, the FAA would no longer have the authority to collect revenues from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.

The House in July passed its full reauthorization bill that would uphold the FAA’s funding authorities over the next five years. 

But the Senate has yet to pass its own version of the bill amid disagreement about the language regarding pilot training requirements.  

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation earlier this month advanced its five-year FAA reauthorization bill, which tackles accessibility and foreign aviation safety measures. It also agreed to add five extra slots for long-distance flights to Reagan Washington National Airport, despite opposition from local lawmakers who argued it would increase delays at the airport.

The full Senate has yet to consider the bill. Once it does, lawmakers in both chambers can work toward hammering out the differences between the two versions. 

The House’s version of the bill authorizes $4 billion per fiscal year for the Airport Improvement Program, directs the FAA administrator to develop a plan to expand the agency’s ability to train air traffic controllers, clarifies language on ticket refunds and addresses safety on runways.

“He simply asks the Court to ‘trust me’ and offers, in a case with an $83.3 million judgment against him, the court filing equivalent of a paper napkin; signed by the least trustworthy of borrowers,” Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer, wrote in court papers. 

The new filing responds to Trump’s demand that his trial judge delay enforcing the eight-figure sum as the former president attempts to get the verdict reduced or eliminated entirely in post-trial motions. In the alternative, Trump asked the judge to allow him to post bond in a “substantially reduced amount.” 

Opposing those demands, Carroll pointed to the more than $454 million judgment in Trump’s civil fraud case, which only grows in interest each day it’s left unpaid.  

"To begin, recent developments give rise to very serious concerns about Trump’s cash position and the feasibility (and ease) of collecting on the judgment in this case,” Carroll’s lawyers wrote. 

Trump on Wednesday offered to post a $100 million bond in the fraud case while he appeals, writing in court filings that the eye-popping judgment made it “impossible” to secure a bond in the full amount. 

Former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, right, leaves federal court with her lawyer Roberta Kaplan, Thursday, April 27, 2023, in New York. Donald Trump's lawyer sought Thursday to pick apart a decades-old rape claim against the former president, questioning why accuser E. Jean Carroll did not scream or seek help when Trump allegedly attacked her in a department store.(AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

A New York judge in the trial court’s appellate division ruled that enforcement of the multimillion-dollar judgment would not be paused unless Trump could post a complete bond but did pause the enforcement of two penalties regarding the former president’s ability to seek loans and serve in top leadership positions of his and other New York companies.  

If Trump posts the full judgment, the financial penalties will be immediately paused. If he doesn’t, under the Wednesday ruling, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) can begin to collect the full amount — a process that could mean selling famed properties or other assets.  

A federal jury in New York awarded Carroll the $83.3 million after Trump was ruled to have defamed the advice columnist by denying her sexual assault claims in 2019, when Carroll came forward publicly. 

Trump has insisted that Carroll made up the story to sell her book. A separate jury last year found Trump liable for sexual abuse. 

Top Stories from The Hill

• House passes short-term funding bill to avert shutdown
• Head of Freedom Caucus bashes funding deal, vows shutdown fight
• Ex-divorce lawyer’s testimony complicates Willis, Wade controversy
• White House demands Fox News retract coverage of bribery allegations against Hunter Biden, president

The Hill has reached out to Trump’s legal team for comment.

Trump’s net worth is famously obscure, but estimators like Forbes and Bloomberg have placed his wealth between $2.6 billion and $3.1 billion. In a deposition with James’s office last year, Trump said he has “substantially in excess of $400 million in cash.”  

But between the $454 million judgment in the fraud case and the $83.3 million verdict in Carroll’s case, it’s unclear the former president has the cash to pay up. 

Carroll on Thursday also noted the 91 charges across four criminal cases that could “end his career as a businessman permanently.” 

Trump’s first criminal trial over a hush money deal during the 2016 election is scheduled to begin next month in New York. He also faces federal prosecutions in Washington, D.C., for alleged election interference and in Florida for his purported mishandling of classified documents, plus charges in Georgia he interfered in the state’s election.  

“Moreover, by the time the post-trial motions (or the appeal) are fully resolved, Trump may be in a very different position,” Carroll’s lawyers wrote. 

“He could then be President of the United States; he could then be a convicted criminal serving time behind bars; or, given his advanced age, Carroll may be forced to reckon with his estate. Any of these developments could substantially complicate collection efforts here.” 

The legislation — which cleared the chamber in a 320-99 vote — kicks the two government funding deadlines to March 8 and March 22, buying lawmakers more time to hash out their differences on spending bills and push them over the finish line.

Trouble, however, could loom ahead.

While lawmakers say they have a deal on the six appropriations bills due next week, disagreements remain on the other half-dozen measures, which include more controversial pieces of legislation funding agencies like the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.

“Clearly the second group of bills could be difficult and problematic, especially as Republicans in the House continue to insist on policy riders that erode women's reproductive freedom,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chair of the Democratic Caucus, said shortly before the vote.

In the near-term, the continuing resolution keeps the government running and lends a small victory for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) who is fighting to avoid a shutdown, which would be blamed on House Republicans who have demanded controversial policy additions to funding bills.

But it puts him on thin ice with members of the right flank, who abhor short-term spending bills and are becoming fed up with his propensity to put continuing resolutions on the floor that pass with Democratic support — as was the case Thursday.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) addresses reporters after a closed-door House Republican Conference meeting on Thursday, February 29, 2024. (Greg Nash)

Only 113 Republicans voted for the bill, compared to 207 Democrats, though slightly more than half the GOP conference voted in favor. Only two Democrats — Reps. Jake Auchincloss (Mass.) and Mike Quigley (Ill.) — voted no.

Thursday’s vote marked the fourth stopgap bill the chamber has cleared this Congress, and it's the third under the Louisiana Republican’s leadership. 

To bypass the conservative opposition, Johnson brought the legislation to the floor under suspension of the rules, a fast-track process that requires two-thirds support for passage but eliminates the need to approve a procedural rule, which conservatives likely would have tanked.

It’s a maneuver that helped lead to the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — who lost the gavel in September after passing a short-term spending bill with help from Democrats. 

But Johnson’s job appears safe for the time being. Conservatives were quick to voice their opposition to the spending bill Thursday, but would not go as far as to vow retribution for the top Republican.

“Here we are again, kicking the can down the road,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said on the House floor Thursday. “Buy more time so we can spend more money that we don’t have.”

Asked earlier in the day if Johnson should face consequences for moving the short-term spending bill, Roy responded: “I’m not gonna talk about that,” adding “consequences are gonna be that people are gonna lose faith in the Republican Party.”

Top Stories from The Hill

• E. Jean Carroll expresses ‘very serious concerns’ Trump won’t pay $83M judgment
• Head of Freedom Caucus bashes funding deal, vows shutdown fight
• Ex-divorce lawyer’s testimony complicates Willis, Wade controversy
• White House demands Fox News retract coverage of bribery allegations against Hunter Biden, president

Under the agreement congressional leaders struck this week, the six appropriations bills that fund military construction, water development, the Food and Drug Administration and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Energy, Interior, Veterans Affairs, Transportation and Housing and Urban development are due March 8.

The remaining six measures — funding the financial services, general government, the legislative branch, state and foreign operations and the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Labor and Health and Human Services — are due March 22.

Leadership said negotiators have an agreement on the six bills coming down the pike next week, and Johnson said Thursday the package will be made public this weekend to give members enough time to review the text ahead of a vote next week.

But senior appropriators have signaled there could still be some loose ends to iron out before text is released.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters Wednesday evening that “there’s still one or two pieces” to hammer out, including unresolved items in areas like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, as well as gun-related snags.

Conservative Republicans are pushing to include a host of conservative policy priorities in the funding bills, but GOP leadership has sought to temper expectations ahead of the rollout, warning members not to expect any “home runs.” 

In remarks to reporters Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), top Republican on the subcommittee that hashes out dollars for the Department of the Interior and the environment, said “there were a couple final remaining things” on her subpanel’s bill that top negotiators “were dealing with.”

“But I can tell you that the vast, vast, vast majority, the overwhelming majority of the riders that the House had wanted to try to advance, we just weren't able to accommodate,” Murkowski told reporters Thursday. “We’re trying to get a bill.”

Some of the measures Republicans sought as part of their Interior funding bill could create more opportunities to drill offshore and on public lands, while also targeting the Biden administration’s environmental rules. 

The party’s initial proposal also included language taking aim at the administration’s executive orders on diversity, as the party has pressed for a list of riders in thorny areas like abortion and critical race theory — an academic framework evaluating U.S. history through the lens of racism that has become a political catch-all buzzword for any race-related teaching — that have drawn the ire of Democrats. 

But that doesn’t mean rank-and-file Republicans are holding their breath for major conservative policy wins.

“We’ll get text with enough time to read it. We’ll get the 72 hours cleared, but I'm not anticipating any big wins,” Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) said Thursday. “So, I anticipate probably 100 Republicans voting against.”

Mike Lillis contributed.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said the supporters of that plan are “well-meaning" and "thoughtful" lawmakers.

"But I just don't think this is the solution that is in front of us," Aguilar told reporters in the Capitol. 

The Ukraine-border package was introduced earlier in the month in an effort to break the impasse over military aid to Kyiv, which has been held up by opposition from House conservatives. And the supporters of the legislation are already seeking support for a discharge petition to force their proposal to the floor, according to Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a lead sponsor. 

But many Democrats have hammered Fitzpatrick’s proposal both for provisions it includes, like a “remain in Mexico” policy governing would-be migrants, and for those it leaves out, like humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza. 

And Aguilar made clear that Democratic leaders prefer a Senate-passed foreign aid bill, which includes new funding for Ukraine, Israel and humanitarian aid in Gaza — but no border security provisions — and will continue pressing Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to bring it to the floor. 

"The solution is incredibly clear. It is the bipartisan solution that has 70 votes out of the United States Senate,” he said. "Getting the Senate to take up anything new would be weeks or months. So the importance of passing this national security supplemental is the focus and the priority of House Democrats. And we believe Speaker Johnson should put this on the floor." 

Former President Trump, however, opposes any new aid to Ukraine. And his influence has been conspicuous on Capitol Hill, where most Senate Republicans opposed the foreign assistance bill earlier in the month, and House conservatives are lining up in opposition, as well. 

One of those conservatives, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), has threatened a vote of no confidence against Johnson if he even brings the aid bill to the floor.  

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is seen during a press conference on Tuesday, February 6, 2024 to discuss a new resolution to state that former President Trump did not engage in a insurrection. (Greg Nash)

Johnson, so far, has sided with Trump and his right flank, refusing to bring the Senate bill for a vote. He’s demanding that any foreign aid package also include tougher border security measures like those passed by House Republicans last year in their partisan border bill, H.R.2. 

The Fitzpatrick bill incorporates some of the border provisions from that GOP bill, including the “remain in Mexico” policy that was put in place previously under Trump — and remains a non-starter with liberals in Aguilar’s caucus. 

The impasse has caused Democratic leaders to begin seeking alternative strategies for bringing the Senate bill to the House floor, including the possibility of pushing their own discharge petition, which would force a floor vote if 218 lawmakers sign on. 

Invoking other Democratic leaders, including Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), Aguilar on Thursday said they’re not ruling anything out. But as they weigh their strategy, they’ll continue to press Johnson to stage a vote on the Senate package.

“Every option is available,” Aguilar said. “Any procedural step will take time. The most important thing, the fastest thing that we can do, is for the Speaker to put this bill on the floor.”

Top Stories from The Hill

• House passes short-term funding bill to avert shutdown
• Head of Freedom Caucus bashes funding deal, vows shutdown fight
• Ex-divorce lawyer’s testimony complicates Willis, Wade controversy
• White House demands Fox News retract coverage of bribery allegations against Hunter Biden, president

Addressing the issue shortly before Aguilar spoke, Johnson said GOP leaders are also in discussions about how to move a foreign aid package through the House. But he maintained his insistence that it must include tough border provisions along the lines of those featured in H.R.2. And he cautioned that the lower chamber will prioritize several government spending bills to prevent a shutdown — a debate that’s expected to run until at least March 22.

“The House is actively considering options on a path forward, but our first responsibility is to fund the government,” Johnson said at a press conference in the Capitol. 

Some Democrats, however, are already warning that the situation in Ukraine — where Russian forces are advancing and Ukrainian soldiers are short on ammunition — is too urgent to wait that long. 

“We don’t have that kind of time,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), the senior Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, said Thursday morning. 

Mychael Schnell contributed reporting. 

“The House is actively considering options on a path forward, but our first responsibility is to fund the government,” Johnson said at a press conference when asked about the future of foreign aid, referring to the effort to stave off a partial shutdown by Friday’s deadline.

When pressed on the topic of Ukraine after the press conference, Johnson told reporters that “the House is looking at all available options right now, and we’ll address that as soon as the government is funded.” 

Johnson huddled with Biden and top congressional leaders — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) — at the White House on Tuesday to discuss efforts to fund the government and pass the stalled foreign aid package.

The meeting, according to participants, grew “intense” at some points, with Schumer saying the discussion about Ukraine “was one of the most intense” Oval Office meetings he has been in. Biden, Schumer, McConnell and Jeffries have all been vocally supportive of sending additional aid to Ukraine, underscoring that the beleaguered U.S. ally needs immediate assistance.

The Senate approved a $95 billion bill earlier this month that includes aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, but conservatives and Johnson have thrown cold water on the legislation, criticizing it for a lack of border security policy.

Johnson for months has said any aid for Ukraine must be paired with border security, arguing that the U.S. should address its own border and national security before sending assistance overseas. But earlier this month, he rejected a Senate bill that included a bipartisan border security agreement, saying it was dead on arrival in the House because the border provisions did not go far enough.

During an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity on Wednesday, Johnson said he agreed with news reports that said participants at the White House meeting ganged up on him.

“Their reports are pretty accurate. They said that I was on an island by myself, and it was me versus everyone else in the room,” Johnson said, adding that he “reminded the president and all involved that the No. 1 issue in America is that open border, the catastrophe we have that President Biden himself designed.”

On Thursday, the Speaker reiterated his position that the U.S. must first address the situation at the border before sending more aid to Ukraine.

“Our primary, overriding responsibility has been for the last three years ... to secure the border,” Johnson said.

“If we're gonna fix everything around the world, we got to fix America first, we got to focus on America’s security,” he later added. "And I don't think there's an American out there who disagrees with that. It is inexcusable. The president has not taken action on the border, and we're gonna continue to insist on that every single day.”

Republicans have hounded the Senate to take up their border bill, H.R. 2, which the chamber approved last year. Senate Democrats, however, have declared it dead on arrival. They have also called on Biden to use his executive authority to address the situation at the southern border.

Asked on Thursday if he is being too strident by demanding action on H.R. 2, Johnson laid out the specific policies he wants to see enacted, including Remain in Mexico, reforms to asylum and the parole process and building a wall.

“It doesn’t matter to me what you call the legislation, H.R. 2 was the measure that we passed 11 months ago, right. It’s the components of H.R. 2 that matter,” he told reporters.

“The reason the components of H.R. 2 were so important is because … they’re like interlocking pieces,” he added. “You need multiple pieces of this or you will not stop the flow.”

He later said, “I’m not wed to H.R. 2, it’s the components that are going to fix it. That is the problem.”

Johnson said Republicans are “so insistent, doggedly determined to get those provisions through.”

“We’re looking at all options, every option. We’re gonna continue to press this,” he added.

Thune told reporters Thursday that he is talking to fellow Republican senators about succeeding Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2025 and he’s emphasizing his record of crafting the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a signature achievement of the Trump administration.

“I’m having lots of conversations with our colleagues, and so getting inside input from them about where they see the future headed and what they want out of the next Senate Republican leader. They’re great conversations,” Thune said.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) was spotted leaving Thune’s office shortly before he made those comments.

Asked about Cornyn's Thursday announcement that he will run to become the next Senate GOP leader, Thune said he expected his Texas colleague would bid for the job.

“I think these are the worst-kept secrets in Washington right now,” he said, chuckling.

GOP senators have long expected Thune and Cornyn would run against each other to become next Senate Republican leader whenever McConnell announced he would relinquish the post.

They say Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso (Wyo.) may also run for the top leadership job.

McConnell sounded the starter’s gun when he announced on the Senate floor Wednesday that he wouldn’t run for another term as Senate Republican leader and would formally hand over the reins of power in January of next year.

Thune noted Thursday that he spoke to former President Trump before he announced his endorsement of the Republican presidential front-runner Sunday.

He is emphasizing his record of helping Trump enact his landmark tax package and later helping confirm Trump-appointed judges after becoming Senate majority whip in January 2019.

“I have not talked about the race with him. I think others have, but the point I guess I would simply make is: I worked closely with him when he was president last time,” he said. “I was one of the key negotiators in the Senate Finance Committee on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. We put through, I want to say, 154 judges when I was the whip on the floor under his administration.

“We’ve got a record of accomplishment of getting things done for the American people. So, as I’ve said before, I try to be able to work with anybody. We got people who have lots of different points of view in our conference, and part of it is being able to pull it together and effectively get results,” he said.

Cornyn, Thune’s chief rival in the race, also highlighted his collaboration with Trump in a statement announcing his intention to run for Senate Republican leader.

“As the Republican Whip, I helped President Trump advance his agenda through the Senate, including passing historic tax reform and remaking our judiciary — including two Supreme Court justices,” he said Thursday morning.

Cornyn’s office noted the Texas senator has voted with Trump more than 92 percent of the time and endorsed him in the 2024 GOP presidential primary.

A spokesman for Thune confirmed the South Dakota Republican “is reaching out to each of his colleagues directly to discuss the future of the Senate Republican Conference and what they would like to see in their next leader.”

“He looks forward to having substantive conversations over the next few days and week about the future, but he intends on keeping those conversations private,” the spokesman added.

Al Weaver contributed.

“Hope springs eternal,” Biden said Thursday when asked if he expects a cease-fire by Monday. 

“I was on the telephone with people in the region,” he added. “Probably not by Monday, but I’m hopeful.”

Biden also said he didn’t have “an answer yet” on news of civilian deaths in Gaza.

More than 100 Palestinians in Gaza City were killed Thursday while trying to get humanitarian aid, according to the Hamas-run Palestinian Health Ministry. The ministry also said 30,035 people have died since the war between Israel and militant group Hamas began in early October.

When asked if he thought the civilian deaths could complicate negotiations over a hostage deal, the president replied: “I know it will.”

On Monday, Biden had said the cease-fire could start before next week and stressed that talks involving Israel, the U.S., Egypt, Qatar and Hamas are close to reaching a deal. The president’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Sunday he was hopeful there will be an agreement in the coming days on a deal.

The Biden administration has been involved in months of negotiations for a temporary pause in fighting of about six weeks to release the remaining hostages taken during Hamas's deadly attacks Oct. 7.

Biden has faced growing pressure to back a permanent cease-fire, especially from progressives. More than 100,000 voters cast a ballot for “uncommitted” in Michigan’s Democratic primary Tuesday as part of a concerted effort by activists to send Biden a message about their anger over his handling of the war.

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) has led the charge among the far-right lawmakers urging Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to fight for scores of conservative policy riders to accompany the 2024 spending bills. Absent that, those Republicans want the Speaker to champion a stopgap bill, known as a continuing resolution (CR), to extend government funding at current 2023 levels through the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends Oct. 1.

The latter strategy would trigger an automatic, 1-percent cut to federal programs of all types beginning May 1 — a stipulation of last summer's bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) designed to encourage lawmakers to reach an agreement on 2024 spending or face reductions to popular programs.

Good said that 1-percent cut is far preferable to the deal Johnson endorsed with the leaders of both parties and both chambers, which adopts higher spending caps established by those same leaders in January. He's also calling for a series of policy changes, including tougher border security measures and a scaling back of the government's spying powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

"I would do a CR through Sept. 30 that triggers the FRA caps that would cut about $100 billion from the deal," Good said Wednesday evening in the Capitol.

"I'd attach border security to it. I would attach [the] Israel pay-for. And I'd attach FISA ... reforms. That's what I'd like to see happen. And we ought to be willing to have a shutdown fight to force it to happen."

Good isn't the only conservative voicing his disapproval.

Reps. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) were among the conservatives who said Thursday they wouldn't vote for a stopgap measure.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said he prefers a yearlong CR to the one announced Wednesday night.

“I’m for the long-term CR; that’s the only way you can get leverage,” he said. “That’s not what the direction looks like now.”

Reps. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) return from a lunch break in the deposition of Hunter Biden as a part of the impeachment investigation into his father President Biden at the O’Neil House Office Building in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, February 28, 2024. (Greg Nash)

And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) made clear she's unhappy with the direction the party is headed.

“Remember the big fight earlier this year about no CR's and rules and no omnibuses and no minibuses? Well, everything talked about in conference this morning was a CR, another CR, a weeklong CR,” she said. “And then you’ve got the most conservative members of Congress standing up wanting a one-year CR. I don’t know what to say.”

It's unclear how much power conservatives like Good hold to force such a shutdown. The spending deal unveiled Wednesday features two legislative packages scheduled to receive two separate votes over the next month.

The first package is expected to hit the House floor before March 8; the second is slated to follow by March 22. The House will vote Thursday on a CR to prevent a shutdown before those two deadlines, with the Senate expected to follow suit.

The conservatives could block those packages if Johnson chooses to bring them to the floor under regular order, which would require the passage of a rule beforehand — a rule the conservatives could sink.

The more likely strategy would be to bring the funding bills up by a procedure known as the suspension calendar, which bypasses the rule requirement but heightens the bar for passage; a two-thirds majority would be needed to send the bills to the Senate.

Top Stories from The Hill

• House passes short-term funding bill to avert shutdown
• E. Jean Carroll expresses ‘very serious concerns’ Trump won’t pay $83M judgment
• Ex-divorce lawyer’s testimony complicates Willis, Wade controversy
• White House demands Fox News retract coverage of bribery allegations against Hunter Biden, president

That's the likely route GOP leaders will choose, and given the early support from bipartisan leaders, it's expected to be successful.

But for Johnson, there are dangers in that strategy, as well. His predecessor, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), had brought a CR to the floor last September under the suspension calendar. It prevented a government shutdown but also triggered a vote to remove his gavel. 

Within days, McCarthy had been toppled from power. 

Mychael Schnell and Nick Robertson contributed.

“I am asking my Republican colleagues to give me the opportunity to succeed Leader McConnell,” Cornyn said in a statement. “Throughout my time I’ve built a track record of listening to colleagues and seeking consensus, while leading the fight to stop bad policies that are harmful to our nation and the conservative cause.”

Cornyn pointed to his work in leadership as whip and atop the Senate GOP campaign arm, as well as his recent stretch outside of leadership.

The Texas Republican added that the Senate is “broken” and that he could play a “major role” in putting it back together.

“From experience, I have learned what works in the Senate and what does not, and I am confident Senate Republicans can restore our institution to the essential role it serves in our constitutional republic,” he said. “We will improve communication, increase transparency, and ensure inclusion of every Member’s expertise and opinion. We will restore the important role of Senate committees and reestablish the regular appropriations process, rather than lurch from one crisis to another."

McConnell's announcement Wednesday that he would step down as leader in November sent shockwaves across the Capitol and left Republicans preparing their first open leadership election in nearly two decades.

Cornyn is the first to make his bid for leader official, but he is widely expected to face off against Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) for the post. One Senate Republican told The Hill that Thune and Cornyn were “burning” up the phones of members Wednesday afternoon as they laid the groundwork for a run.

The Texas Republican is considered a formidable candidate for the position, having served as one of McConnell's top allies in the upper chamber. 

Thune told reporters shortly after McConnell’s announcement that he would have more to say in the coming days.

Barrasso maintained that his focus is on the upcoming presidential election and helping to flip the Senate majority after the GOP’s four-year hiatus in the minority. He added that he would talk to members about the direction the conference should head in.

The Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics/The Hill survey found Schiff at 28 percent, Republican Steve Garvey at 20 percent, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) at 17 percent, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) at 8 percent and all other candidates at less than 5 percent each. A separate 17 percent are undecided.

When undecided voters are asked which candidate they’re leaning toward, Schiff's polling moves to 31 percent, Garvey sits at 22 percent, while Porter sits at 20 percent and Lee receives 11 percent.

California holds a jungle primary, in which all candidates running for the same office are listed on the same ballot regardless of party affiliation. The two candidates who receive the most votes move on to compete in the general election.

The California Senate candidates are running for the seat left open by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D), who died in September. Sen. Laphonza Butler (D) is serving out the rest of Feintstein’s term but not seeking a full term in the role.

A similar survey released earlier this month showed Schiff still at 28 percent and Garvey at 22 percent, Porter receiving 16 percent and Lee was sitting at 9 percent; another 17 percent said they were undecided.

"Both Garvey and Porter are within the poll's margin of error for second place in a race where a top-two finish would place them on the ballot in November,” Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, explained in a press release.

“Among those who have already voted, 47% supported Schiff, 19% Porter, 18% Garvey, and 10% Lee. Among those who have yet to vote but are likely to do so, 30% support Schiff, 22% Garvey, and Porter 20%.”

The Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics/The Hill survey was conducted Feb. 24-27 among 1,000 likely voters and people who had already voted. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The court’s decision likely means a delay in the start of the trial until summer or beyond — a scenario that could see Trump spending the final weeks of what’s expected to be a heated general election campaign sitting at a federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. 

The timing also increasingly puts the future of special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution in doubt as the race against the Election Day clock comes down to the wire. If the trial is delayed beyond November and Trump retakes the White House, he could pardon himself, fire Smith and end the case all together.

“This could well be game over,” Richard Hasen, an election law expert and director of UCLA Law School’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, wrote in a blog post.

Though he has not specifically tied it to the upcoming election, Smith has aimed to take Trump to trial quickly. The indictment charges Trump with four felonies that accuse the former president of conspiring to subvert the 2020 election results. He has pleaded not guilty.

The trial was originally scheduled to begin in Washington on March 4, but Trump has gotten the date sidelined by first appealing his immunity claims, in which he argues his actions while serving as president are protected from prosecution.

The Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday to take up the appeal carved out a middle ground between the two sides.

“The gray area of the timing is what’s going to create a lot of drama,” Nixon White House counsel John Dean said on CNN.

The order did not hand Trump everything he wanted, as the former president desired to first exhaust his appeal options in a lower court to further run out the clock. But the court’s timeline also strikes a blow to Smith by further delaying Trump’s trial proceedings for months.

“A President has to be free to determine what is right for our Country without undue pressure. If there is no Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will ‘no longer exist,’” Trump wrote Wednesday on Truth Social, thanking the court for taking up the case.

Initially, Smith had attempted to keep the trial timeline on track by skipping over a lower appeals court and going straight to the justices late last year. The high court declined to take the case at that point.

When it returned to their docket this time, Smith urged the justices to stay out of the and let the appeals’ court ruling unfavorable to Trump stand.

“Why on god's green earth did the [Supreme Court] not take the case earlier when the Special Counsel sought review directly from the District Court? They have really played into Trump's hands,” Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Smith did tell the justices this round that, if they were now inclined to take up the case, they should consider it at warp speed and hear oral arguments in March.

Instead, the justices scheduled arguments for the week of April 22, the court’s final week of regularly scheduled arguments this term.

Former federal appeals court judge Michael Luttig, an influential conservative jurist who has opposed Trump’s immunity claims, called the Supreme Court’s announcement a “momentous decision” and said it means a trial is “much more unlikely” to occur before the election.

“There was no reason in this world for the Supreme Court to take this case,” Luttig said on MSNBC.

Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who closely follows the Supreme Court, wrote on X that “two different things can be true."

The court “*isn’t* moving as fast as it possibly could/as fast as many folks want it to in resolving Trump’s immunity appeal,” Vladeck wrote, “and SCOTUS *is* moving much faster than Trump wanted it to *and* much faster than it does in virtually all of its cases.”

It remains unclear exactly how fast the court will rule, though the justices typically release all their opinions from the term by the end of June. 

Some of Trump’s critics are calling for the justices to move with haste, invoking how the high court quickly resolved the landmark case that enabled George W. Bush to ascend to the presidency in 2000. A decision was issued one day after oral arguments.

“When they want to move, they can move, and they can make things happen in a matter of days,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor who served on the House Jan. 6 committee, said on CNN.

“And so, I would like to see some Bush v. Gore-style speed here to get to their ruling so we can actually see that justice go forth.”

But so far, the justices haven’t moved quite that fast. They sat on the case for about two weeks before deciding how to proceed, and although the April argument is speedier than normal, it still is slower than justices took in Trump’s ballot disqualification case.

If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, no matter the timing, the decision on whether to schedule Trump’s trial before the election ultimately falls to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Obama.

Chutkan has long been insistent she won’t yield to Trump’s campaign calendar, but as the window has narrowed until the election, legal experts are increasingly casting doubts that a trial is practically possible.

It could mean that Trump’s first criminal trial — scheduled to begin in less than a month in New York on hush money charges — will also be his last.

While a shadow campaign has been going on for years throughout McConnell's record-setting tenure as leader, jockeying by potential successors has begun in earnest and is set to burst into the open. 

Republicans, for the most part, are looking at the trio of Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) as the leading contenders to take over for the longtime Republican leader, with a possible conservative challenger mixed in.

On Thursday, Cornyn became the first of the three to formally announce his bid.

“I am asking my Republican colleagues to give me the opportunity to succeed Leader McConnell,” he said in a statement. “Throughout my time I’ve built a track record of listening to colleagues and seeking consensus, while leading the fight to stop bad policies that are harmful to our nation and the conservative cause.”

With almost nine months of runway for auditions and maneuvering, Senate Republicans are preparing for an open leadership election the conference hasn’t seen in nearly two decades. 

“This is going to be a roller coaster ride,” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said.

All three top contenders were deferential to McConnell after his announcement Wednesday caused shock waves across Capitol Hill. But the signs point to them looking toward a run for the top spot. 

Thune, the No. 2 Senate Republican, declined to say definitively that he is running, but added he would have more to say in short order. 

“He leaves really big shoes to fill. We’ll give you more insight into what we’re thinking here in the near future,” Thune said. 

Thune’s allies are already preparing for him to take the plunge. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a member of Thune’s whip team, told reporters that he is “pretty sure he is going to run.” 

“I think it’s pretty clear he’s going to run,” Mullin said, arguing Thune is the right person for the job. “[He brings] experience. He brings in stability. He’s bringing proven leadership.”

Mullin added that he thought Thune proved his mettle last year when McConnell was absent from the Senate for more than a month after suffering a concussion and broken rib. 

“You didn’t see Thune trying to take advantage of that,” he said. “You saw Thune being very cautious, being a good leader. He was very methodical on moving forward and helped navigate some really difficult situations at the time.” 

Both Thune and Cornyn are already moving fast in the wake of the Kentucky Republican’s announcement. One Senate Republican told The Hill that the two are “burning” up the phones of members. 

“I don’t think you can let things like this lie,” a second Senate Republican said. “You’ve got to jump on them.”

Barrasso largely declined to wade into the leadership waters on Wednesday, saying he is focused on winning back the White House and the Senate majority. 

“I’m going to talk to members of the conference, hear what they have to say, listen to them in terms of what direction that they want to take with the conference,” said Barrasso, the earliest of the three to endorse former President Trump. 

Some in Senate GOP circles have noted Barrasso would have an easy landing place if he were to falter in his run, as he is the only one of the three who would be able to serve as Republican whip. Thune’s third term in the post ends at the end of the year, while Cornyn was Thune’s predecessor.

Whoever takes over as leader will be filling a major void atop the conference. McConnell has held the reins since 2007, establishing him as the longest serving party leader in Senate history. 

But Republicans are expressing confidence in whoever the chosen replacement is.

“All three have more than adequate talent and experience to do the job,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. “The gift Mitch has given us is the runway to actually really contemplate it and have them audition for it, do the performance evaluations thoroughly, ask the questions and get the right answers.” 

McConnell has been in the position so long, in fact, that precious few in the conference have experienced an open Senate leadership fight. Only eight sitting Senate Republicans were in office when McConnell ascended to replace then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). 

“It’s uncharted for a lot of folks,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who has only known the Senate GOP under McConnell’s stewardship. “There will be time to figure all that out.” 

There are wild cards at play in the fight to replace McConnell. One of them is Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who ran and lost to the Kentucky Republican in November 2022 and did not rule out a potential second bite at the apple. Scott maintained that he is focused on his reelection bid. 

“I thought we should have change in leadership,” Scott said when asked about a second leadership bid. “I think there’s a better way to run the Senate, so we’ll see what happens in the future.”

McConnell defeated Scott at the time, 37-10. 

Another potential wild card is Trump, the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination. 

Leadership elections usually take place in November, shortly after the general elections, meaning that he could have already booked a second term in the White House and gained increased influence over the Senate GOP leader.

While Republicans are largely hesitant to air grievances about the current leadership team, one complaint from some circles stems from the lack of a relationship McConnell has with Trump. The two have been estranged ever since the latter’s 2020 election loss. Some Trump supporters believe his successor must be prepared to work with the ex-president if he wins in November. 

“It’s important. President Trump’s going to be our Republican nominee. We know this,” Mullin said, noting that the “Three Johns” have all thrown their weight behind the former president. 

However, others believe this will be a Senate decision, and a Senate decision only. 

“As far as I know, he doesn’t have a vote,” Cramer said. “So, not much of [a role] … And he shouldn’t.”

—Updated at 1:14 p.m.

More than 100,000 Michiganders cast a protest vote against Biden for an “uncommitted” ballot option in Tuesday’s primary, underscoring the frustration many Americans feel toward the administration amid growing calls for a cease-fire.

Now activists are pushing for similar protest votes in states including Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Washington as they seek to dial up pressure on Biden to heed their calls or risk losing their votes.

“What is clear is that our president has a choice before him,” Dearborn, Mich., Mayor Abdullah Hammoud said Wednesday in a press conference for the “uncommitted” push. “He has the choice to continue supporting and aligning himself with a war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu, in the most tyrannical government in Israel's history. Or he has the choice to heed the concerns of residents … not only in the state of Michigan, but across this country, from coast to coast.”

Organizers for Listen to Michigan, the campaign behind the “uncommitted” vote this week, said they have heard of similar efforts in other state looking to send a message of warning to the president that he could lose their votes in November if he doesn’t change his position on the Gaza conflict.

"We are going to be talking to other states that are looking for a unifying vehicle to send the same message to Joe Biden,” Layla Elabed, campaign manager for Listen to Michigan, said during a Wednesday press call. “This issue of Gaza is not just a Michigan issue, it is an issue across the United States. So our plan is to work with other coalitions like Listen to Michigan.”

Biden easily won Michigan's Democratic primary Tuesday, ending the night with more than 80 percent of the vote, according to the latest projections from Decision Desk HQ. But “uncommitted” came in second place, surpassing Biden’s long-shot challengers to reach around 13 percent and win two delegates.

The efforts are the product of deep anger from Arab Americans and progressives over the Biden administration’s handling of the war, which began after the Palestinian militant group Hamas attacked Israel in October, killing some 1,200 and taking more than 200 hostage. Israel responded violently, and the conflict has since resulted in more than 29,000 deaths in Gaza, according to United Nations numbers.

“Last night’s uncommitted vote exceeded our expectations,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, a progressive political organizing group originally founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that got behind the Michigan effort. “Such a strong showing indicates the depth of anger within the Democratic party base, in particular among key constituencies: young people, voters of color, progressives.”

The pressure is intended to change policy, Geevarghese said, but it’s also giving “political advice” to Biden amid the conflict in the Middle East.  

Biden has expressed “unwavering” support for Israel, and the U.S. hasn’t acted on loudening calls for a cease-fire, though the White House has said it wants Israel's operation to be more targeted to protect civilians. Biden said before Tuesday's primary that a cease-fire could come as soon as next Monday, but the Palestinian militant group Hamas suggested that was premature.

In a statement on Tuesday’s primary results, the president made no direct mention of the “uncommitted” effort but thanked “every Michigander who made their voice heard today.”

The push isn't expected to have an impact on Biden's cruise toward the nomination, but it could prove a warning sign as the race heads to the general.

“The Biden campaign needs to understand that if they don't change course on Gaza, it is going to be difficult for progressive groups like Our Revolution to get out the vote,” Geevarghese said. 

But if there’s “real, meaningful movement” from the administration, “it’s easier for us to join forces to defeat Trump in the general,” Geevarghese said, noting, “we of course do not support Trump.”

The Listen to Michigan campaign claimed victory with their turnout Tuesday. Elabed said she’s seen a “small shift in language” from Biden after the campaign’s pressure, but that “his words are not enough.”

“We're looking to you, President Biden. Michigan has made its move. We've participated. Over 100,000 of us want to know what you will do to engage us,” Abbas Alawieh, spokesperson for Listen to Michigan, said in the Wednesday press conference.

Meanwhile, a separate movement, Abandon Biden, is urging voters to reject the incumbent altogether.

“When we say ‘abandon,’ it truly and without any trepidation implies ‘abandon.’ We completely abandoned him because he abandoned us,” said Hassan Abdel Salam, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a founding organizer of the #AbandonBiden National Coalition.

For Abandon Biden, it’s not about “sending a mini-signal” with primary votes — but about getting the incumbent to lose the election in order to send a punishing message. 

“He could call a cease-fire today … and we will take every single action and path thing that we can to ensure that he loses the election on Nov. 5,” Salam said.

Though many Arab and Muslim Americans “suffered” under former President Trump, who notably enacted a “Muslim ban” in his term, Salam said he sees Biden’s actions as inexcusable even against the possibility of a second Trump term.

Now, the Abandon Biden campaign has noted efforts in more than a half-dozen other states to continue putting primary pressure on the president over the war in Gaza. 

Abandon Biden campaigns launched earlier this month in Minnesota, which votes on Super Tuesday next week; Arizona, which votes in mid-March; and Pennsylvania, which votes in late April. The movement also has its eyes on New Jersey and North Carolina, Salam said.

“What happened in Michigan sets a precedent that could galvanize even a write-in campaign with ‘uncommitted.’ … In any state where there is ‘uncommitted,’ we would want to pursue that in an aggressive way,” Salam said.

But with “uncommitted” an option in just a few other states — including Washington, Maryland, Kentucky and Tennessee — the Great Lakes State's results will be hard to replicate, said Democratic strategist Eddie Vale.

That’s because it’s typically easier to coordinate a vote for an existing option than organize a write-in. There was a push in New Hampshire’s primary last month to write in “cease-fire” as a protest vote against Biden, but the movement drew little traction, garnering just 1,500 votes, according to data from the Granite State’s secretary of state.

Michigan also boasts a unique landscape with its significant Arab American population and an “uncommitted” option to protest through — setting the stage for a strong showing, Vale said.

Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at the center-left think tank Third Way, said Michigan’s “uncommitted” results are “not insignificant” for Biden as he tries for reelection but argued it was also a “freebie vote” largely without consequences.

“You could just register some displeasure without having to turn the election over to a tyrant like Donald Trump,” Kessler said.

As long as voters feel frustration with the administration over the issue at hand, “it’ll continue to get some votes,” Kessler said of the "uncommitted" effort. But whether voters in other states accomplish big protest vote movements or not, they’ll have to decide they also want to take a stand in the general, and risk hurting Biden in what’s likely a match-up with Trump in November.

Matt Duss, a former senior foreign policy adviser to Sanders, said he thinks voters understand the stakes of the general, and that most will confine their protest votes to a primary exercise.

“They’re using the primaries as a way to send a message to the president, but they want to win,” Duss said. “They understand the stakes of another Trump presidency. But at the same time, I think they’re using a very appropriate mechanism for signaling disagreement and, in fact, outrage at the way this war has been handled by the administration."

The president’s strategy has been focused on supporting Israel while also pushing for a temporary cease-fire and looking to provide more humanitarian aid for civilians. But some voters in the U.S. have made clear that’s not enough and want the president to pivot to backing a permanent cease-fire before November.

More than 100,000 voters cast a ballot for “uncommitted” in Michigan's Democratic primary as part of a concerted effort by activists to send Biden a message of discontent with his base. While the president earned more than 80 percent of the total vote, the sheer volume of uncommitted votes could prove problematic in a general election if those voters back another candidate or decide to stay home; Biden carried Michigan in the 2020 general election by about 155,000 votes.

A Biden campaign official acknowledged the numbers, saying they are going to work hard to earn every vote and that the president is working tirelessly for peace in Gaza. Both Biden and Vice President Harris, in their respective statements on the Michigan results, didn’t mention the protest votes.

“We understand that this is a painful situation for a lot of people. People have every right to make sure their voices are heard in this moment,” Biden campaign communications director Michael Tyler said on a call with reporters. “The president shares the goals of many of the folks who were involved in the uncommitted movement, which is an end to the violence and a just and lasting peace.”

Tyler said the campaign will continue to work to earn the votes of “every single American” and to remind those skeptical of Biden of the “extremism, the xenophobia, the incompetence, the racism, the damage and the harm that we saw under Donald Trump.”

White House and Biden campaign officials have for weeks insisted they understand the passion of protesters and those outraged over the president’s handling of the situation in Gaza.

Both the campaign and the White House dispatched officials to Michigan in the weeks leading up to the primary to meet with Arab American community leaders, discuss their concerns and outline the administration’s actions. Biden himself did not meet with Arab American officials during his own trip to the Detroit area earlier this month.

The White House said officials will continue to hear from Arab and Muslim Americans in the weeks to come, as well as push for a temporary cease-fire with the goal to release the hostages being held by Hamas and to get aid into Gaza.

“He understands how painful this moment is to many people. He gets that,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Wednesday. “This is why he is continuing to work on securing a hostage deal. … And if we do that, which is going to be accompanied by a temporary cease-fire, that is going to be important.”

But pressure is growing on Biden from advocates to go further than that strategy.

Our Revolution, a progressive political organizing group that reached out to Michiganders to encourage them to pick the uncommitted option, said voters have sent a “resounding message” to Biden to “change course.”

“Enough is enough. As tonight’s results in Michigan make plainly clear, in order for Democrats to defeat Donald Trump in November, Biden must realign with his voter base and listen to the diverse, progressive voices urging him to change course in Gaza,” executive director Joseph Geevarghese said Wednesday.

Michigan is a vital swing state and has a Senate race on the ballot as well in November. Biden has made concerted outreach to Black voters and union voters in the state, but Michigan also has a high concentration of Arab American votes.

Polling averages from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ show Trump leading Biden in the state by nearly 4 percentage points.

After the primary results, the campaign pointed out that the uncommitted movement in Michigan has been strong in the past, for various reasons against Democrats. The last time an incumbent Democratic president ran in a Michigan primary, which was former President Obama in 2012, the “uncommitted” movement got more than 10 percent of all votes cast.

Meanwhile, pressure is growing beyond Michigan for Biden to call a cease-fire. Other states with large Arab and Muslim American populations will head to the ballot box for their primaries, including Minnesota on Super Tuesday next week, Illinois on March 19 and Pennsylvania on April 23.

The “Abandon Biden” organization, which sees no way Biden can fix the situation and gain back its support, has launched its movement in Pennsylvania and Chicago and has a presence in Minnesota as well.

Advocates were outraged by the U.S. veto last week at the United Nations against a resolution calling on Israel to implement a cease-fire. The U.S. was the only permanent member of the Security Council to use its veto power to kill the resolution, which was proposed by Algeria.

The Biden administration introduced a different resolution at the U.N., an alternative text that calls for a temporary cease-fire and the release of more than 100 Israeli hostages held by Hamas. After months of negotiations over a hostage deal, Biden this week said a cease-fire could start before next week.

Some Biden allies and Democrats were less concerned about Tuesday’s results.

Multiple Democrats pointed to Biden’s overall strength in the Democratic primary so far, including a win in South Carolina with 96 percent of the vote and winning 64 percent of the vote in New Hampshire when the president was not on the ballot.

Jim Kessler, vice president of policy at the left-leaning think tank Third Way, argued the uncommitted option in Michigan amounted to a “free vote” to register discontent with Biden with minimal consequences before November.

“I think he needs to pay attention to that, but there’s 100,000 people who didn’t vote for him yesterday in Michigan, and there’s 300,000 people who didn’t vote for Trump on the Republican side,” Kessler said.

Suozzi won a special election in New York’s 3rd Congressional District earlier this month to replace former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in the House and win back his old seat after the GOP lawmaker was expelled following a federal indictment and a scathing report from the Ethics Committee.

Suozzi’s swearing in brings the total number of lawmakers in the House to 432 — 219 Republicans and 213 Democrats — narrowing the GOP conference’s razor-thin majority. On any party-line vote going forward, Republicans will only be able to afford to lose two of their members and still see their priorities pass if all members are present and voting.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) administered the oath of office to Suozzi on the House floor during Wednesday evening’s vote series. He was surrounded by members of the New York delegation.

Suozzi represented New York’s 3rd Congressional District in the House from 2017-23, leaving Washington to mount an unsuccessful bid for governor of the Empire State. On Wednesday, he discussed his unexpected return to the House.

“I never thought I’d be back here,” Suozzi said in a speech on the House floor following his swearing in, prompting laughs in the chamber.

Suozzi beat Republican Mazi Pilip in the Long Island district to take back his seat, winning 53.9 percent to 46.1 percent.

His victory flipped a key GOP seat blue, dealing a blow to Johnson and his conference. Johnson brushed off the party’s loss in the district, arguing the race was “in no way a bellwether” for the November elections and claiming Suozzi ran “like a Republican.”

Suozzi, however, rejected that statement Wednesday.

“Mr. Speaker, after my recent election you said something I must gently take exception to. You said Tom Suozzi ran like a Republican. Now I know you meant that as a compliment. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, I’m a true blue, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat,” he said.

Suozzi leaned into the issue of immigration and border security on the campaign trail, which has emerged as the top issue among voters this election cycle. He urged Johnson to bring compromise legislation to the floor that addresses the situation at the border and aids U.S. allies abroad.

“I know compromise is hard in this town, Mr. Speaker, but bring a bipartisan compromise to the floor and I guarantee it will pass,” Suozzi said. “All of the issues we face in this country are complicated — every single one of them. And you can’t solve anything in an environment of fear and anger.”

Judge Tracie Porter in Cook County, Ill., issued her lengthy ruling Wednesday, ordering the state election board to remove the former president from Illinois’s March 19 primary ballot. 

The decision is paused until March 1 to allow Trump’s legal team to appeal the decision in Illinois state courts, per the ruling shared with The Hill. He has already appealed similar ballot challenges in Colorado and Maine.

The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court decision, which similarly invoked the 14^th Amendment’s insurrection ban to kick the former president off the ballot.

A court in Maine ruled late last month Trump can remain on the state’s ballot until the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision.

Porter pointed to the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, calling its rationale “compelling.”

“This Court shares the Colorado Supreme Court's sentiments that did not reach its conclusions lightly,” she wrote in her ruling. "This Court also realizes the magnitude of this decision and it impact on the upcoming primary Illinois elections.”

Colorado was the first state to boot the former president from the ballot last December by invoking the Constitution’s insurrectionist clause. The state’s high court concluded Trump participated in an insurrection through his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack and intended to incite political violence that day.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung on Wednesday railed against Porter’s ruling, vowing to “quickly” appeal the decision. 

"The Soros-funded Democrat front-groups continue to attempt to interfere in the election and deny President Trump his rightful place on the ballot,” Cheung said. “Today, an activist Democrat judge in Illinois summarily overruled the state's board of elections and contradicted earlier decisions from dozens of other state and federal jurisdictions. This is an unconstitutional ruling that we will quickly appeal.”

Porter’s decision is a reversal from the Illinois State Board of Elections, which unanimously voted late last month that Trump could remain on the state’s primary ballot. The eight-member state board — which includes four Republicans and four Democrats — said at the time it did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the matter.

The challenge in Illinois was filed by national nonprofit Free Speech For People, which has filed numerous ballot challenges in several states, including Minnesota, Michigan, Massachusetts and Oregon.

The Hill reached out to the nonprofit for comment.

Story updated 8:45 p.m.

Yet if Republicans were hoping to dig up the elusive evidence of financial wrongdoing to back their allegations, they didn’t seem to find it in the nearly seven hours of closed-door questioning with the president’s son.

Instead, a defiant Hunter Biden defended his various business dealings, amplified previous assertions that his father had no hand in those pursuits and turned the inquiry back onto Republicans by invoking the foreign business ventures of Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Trump, who secured a huge investment deal from Saudi Arabia shortly after leaving the White House. 

“One of his most powerful lines was when he made it very clear that none of the business dealings that he ever had were with any government entity. And he pointed out: unlike Jared Kushner, who received $2 billion from the Saudi Arabian government as soon as he left office, when he was the point person on Middle Eastern policy,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.). 

Republicans are already eyeing another chance to confront the president’s son. 

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, left Wednesday’s marathon testimony saying it was “a great deposition for us” and promising to bring Hunter Biden back before the panel — this time for a public hearing. He said he hopes to “clear up some discrepancies” between statements made by the president’s son and previous witnesses.

“There are also some contradictory statements that I think need further review, so this impeachment inquiry will now go to the next phase, which will be a public hearing,” he said.

Asked when the hearing would take place, Comer responded, “The sooner the better.”

Wednesday’s testimony marked the latest in a long series of closed-door depositions conducted by Republicans on the Oversight and Judiciary committees as they scramble for proof to back their allegations that the president’s family conducted shady overseas business deals that leaned heavily on the powerful Biden name. 

Hunter Biden leaves a deposition as a part of the impeachment investigation into his father President Biden at the O’Neil House Office Building in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, February 28, 2024. (Greg Nash)

Hunter Biden has denied those allegations publicly, and he did so again during the private deposition. 

“I am here today to provide the committees with the one incontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never,” he said during his opening statement.

That message was echoed by President Biden’s Democratic allies on the Oversight and Judiciary committees, who have accused Republicans of conducting a witch hunt against the president to diminish his chances of winning reelection in November. 

"It has been a comedy of errors from the beginning,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), senior Democrat on the Oversight panel who led the second impeachment of former President Trump. 

Republicans, however, cast doubt on Biden’s testimony, criticizing his demeanor and questioning the veracity of his answers, which they said veered, at times, from other witness statements.

“They’re not sitting in the same hearing that I am,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), a member of the Oversight Committee, said of the Democrats.

Mace, rather, said Hunter Biden was “defiant and also dishonest” after the first hour of his testimony and accused him of making statements “in direct conflict with other witnesses,” including Devon Archer, a former business associate of Hunter Biden.

“The transcripts will be out. I won’t go into detail, you’ll be able to see it for yourself,” Mace said.

Top Stories from The Hill

• Supreme Court agrees to weigh Trump’s criminal immunity in historic case
• The Memo: McConnell gets swept away by rising Trump tide
• Congressional leaders strike deal to avert shutdown this week
• Republicans block bill to protect access to IVF

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), a fierce Biden critic, called the president’s son “a liar.”

“The theme that we heard in the room was Hunter Biden is a liar,” Greene told reporters after the deposition. “The Biden family has no product and no service.”

“You can’t show one single thing that Hunter Biden has ever sold, or a product or a service except for his own father,” she later added.

Greene accused Hunter Biden of lying when he said he was not involved with Blue Star Strategies, a lobbying firm that did work for Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company he sat on the board of. She said Republicans presented an email thread — which he was a part of — that discussed connecting Blue Star Strategies with Burisma.

When Republicans pressed him, Greene said, Hunter Biden referenced his previous struggle with addiction.

“He went from denying any involvement until we put evidence right in front of his face that he was, in fact, involved. And then when pressure was placed on Hunter Biden, he swung back to being, you know, a poor, pitiful addict. And then when he wanted to brag about things, well, he was the smartest and most successful businessman in the room.”

Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden’s attorney, told reporters afterwards that Republicans “wanted to spend more time talking about my client’s addiction than they could ask any question that had anything to do with what they call their impeachment inquiry.”

A source with direct knowledge of the deposition told The Hill that Hunter Biden “discussed his addiction at length.”

At one point, according to the source, the president’s son discussed a controversial WhatsApp message he sent in 2017 to a Chinese business associate claiming he was “sitting here with my father.” He then pressed the associate to fulfill an unspecified “commitment” — or risk angering the Bidens. Joe Biden was not serving in office at the time.

Republicans have seized on the communication throughout their investigation as evidence of influence peddling. It was unearthed in testimony from IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley.

Hunter Biden, however, told lawmakers Wednesday that he was high or drunk when he sent the message, that he sent it to the wrong person and was embarrassed by the communication, according to the source. He also confirmed that he was not sitting with his father at the time, something that President Biden himself has said.

Comer argued that Wednesday’s deposition helped move the ball forward in the GOP’s impeachment inquiry, despite the alleged discrepancies. The chairman said Hunter Biden “proved several bits of our evidence that we’ve been conducting throughout this investigation.”

“All in all, I am very optimistic, very excited about this deposition,” he later added.

Despite Comer’s rosy assessment, Hunter Biden’s lackluster testimony appeared to be the latest setback in the House GOP’s floundering impeachment inquiry, which has struggled to present evidence substantiating various claims of financial misconduct by the president and his family.

The biggest blow to the probe came earlier this month when the Justice Department indicted an FBI informant who was central to the GOP’s key claim — that Joe and Hunter Biden each received a $5 million bribe from Burisma.

Authorities said the informant, Alexander Smirnov, fabricated those allegations, and he later told investigators he received information from “officials associated with Russian intelligence.”

Other GOP witnesses are also facing their own legal troubles — a dynamic that wasn’t overlooked by Democrats seeking to discredit the Republicans’ case. 

“They've got nothing ... One of their witnesses has been indicted for working with Russian intelligence; another witness has been indicted for working with Chinese intelligence; another witness is serving a 14-year felony sentence,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said. 

“This is fourth and 20 on their own 10, and they don't have Patrick Mahomes.”

But Biden’s testimony was not enough to deter Republicans from barreling ahead with their investigation — and vowing a public hearing that will put them face to face, again, with their star witness who failed to provide the highly sought smoking gun.

“There’s a lot more to come,” Greene told reporters. “We need to continue our investigation ... and we need to have a public hearing.”

Nick Robertson contributed.

Under the deal announced Wednesday, leaders have agreed to extend funding for six full bills covering the departments of Agriculture, Justice, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development through March 8.

The deal would also extend funding for the remaining six annual funding bills, which cover the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, the Pentagon and other offices, through March 22.

“We are in agreement that Congress must work in a bipartisan manner to fund our government,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in a joint statement on Wednesday, along with the heads of the appropriations committees in both chambers.

“To give the House and Senate Appropriations Committee adequate time to execute on this deal in principle, including drafting, preparing report language, scoring and other technical matters, and to allow members 72 hours to review, a short-term continuing resolution to fund agencies through March 8 and the 22 will be necessary, and voted on by the House and Senate this week.”

Leaders say negotiators have come to agreement on all six measures due March 8, but a senior appropriator signaled on Wednesday that there could still be some loose ends.  

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters on Wednesday that “there’s still one or two pieces” to iron out when asked about the first batch of bills. That includes unresolved items in areas like WIC and SNAP benefits, as well as guns.  

House Republicans expect to vote on stopgap bill on Thursday. DeLauro said she expects text for a package containing the first batch of six bills to come out this weekend.

The new deal sets up a battle in the House, where Johnson faces a tough challenge in getting through another short-term stopgap measure, particularly as conservatives have pressed a for a full-year stopgap.

“I don't think it's the right move but you know the Speaker’s got to make a decision that he thinks is best,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said on Thursday. 

“I think, like most conservatives, I'm disappointed and I'm wondering when we're gonna fix the border,” Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), another member of the caucus, said.  

Experts have warned a full-year stopgap could trigger steep cuts to government funding, and members on both sides of the aisle have rejected the idea amid concerns over how it would impact defense and nondefense programs. But conservatives have continued to fight for the proposal in pursuit of lower overall funding levels and stronger border security.  

Under the current stopgap spending bill, funding for four of the 12 full-year spending bills is set to expire Friday, while funding for the remaining eight bills is up on March 8.

The latest agreement comes as spending cardinals in both chambers have signaled more time may be needed to complete their funding work after weeks of tense bipartisan negotiations.

“I think we possibly could have been ready for next week and gotten it done. But it takes a while to process bills in both houses right now,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who chairs the subcommittee that crafts funding for the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, told The Hill on Wednesday.

Baldwin’s forthcoming bill is among the eight currently scheduled to lapse March 8. Often a battleground for fights over abortion-related policies, her bill is seen as one of the tougher measures to craft.

“I think that that will give us enough time to conclude, but I think we're at a point where most remaining issues have been resolved,” she said when asked about the prospect of a stopgap through March 22 earlier on Wednesday.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), the top Democrat on the House subcommittee that oversees Homeland Security Department funding, also said Wednesday that he and other negotiators are still working on hashing out spending for various programs under the subpanel’s umbrella and “working on riders.” 

House Republicans pursued a laundry list of riders Democrats have decried as “poison pills” during spending talks, as the party seeks to secure conservative policy wins. However, Republican negotiators have acknowledged they won’t get everything they’ve asked for as both sides seek to put a bow on fiscal 2024 funding.  

“I understand that we're not going to get all the riders, but I'm hoping that there are maybe a couple that we can get some wins out,” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), the spending cardinal for the subcommittee that crafts funding for the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, said on Wednesday. 

Updated at 8:15 p.m.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) sought to pass the bill by unanimous consent, which meant that any one senator could object and scuttle the effort.

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) objected, saying the legislation is an overreach full of "poison pills" that would go far beyond ensuring access to IVF.

"It would legalize human cloning. It would legalize commercial surrogacy, including for young girls without parental involvement. It would legalize gene edited designer babies and lift the federal ban on the creation of three parent embryos," she said.

Duckworth said Hyde-Smith was misinterpreting the bill.

"It does not force anyone to see reproductive technology. It does not force anyone to offer it. It does not force anyone to cover it. It simply says you have a statutory right should you choose to pursue assisted reproductive technology," Duckworth said.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., center, speaks about a bill to establish federal protections for IVF as, from left, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of N.Y., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., listen during a press event on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2024, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Republican senators said this week they support access to IVF, but they don't want to interfere in a state issue and don't feel there needs to be federal protections for IVF.

"In this nightmarish moment, it's nowhere near enough to send out a vaguely worded tweet claiming you care about women's rights, despite your voting record to the contrary," Duckworth said on the Senate floor.

The lack of a formal roll call vote could give cover to Republicans, who have been publicly declaring their support for IVF in the wake of the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling declaring frozen embryos are children. As a result, several clinics in Alabama halted IVF treatments, which can involve discarding nonviable or excess embryos as part of standard practice.

Top Stories from The Hill

• Supreme Court agrees to weigh Trump’s criminal immunity in historic case
• The Memo: McConnell gets swept away by rising Trump tide
• Congressional leaders strike deal to avert shutdown this week
• Defiant Hunter Biden defends business moves, invokes Kushner deals

But Democrats blame the entire Republican Party for the Alabama ruling and are eager to use it as a campaign issue to hang around the neck of former President Trump, the front-runner for the GOP nomination. 

Duckworth said Wednesday she would ask Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for a roll call vote to put Republicans on record, even though it would likely take up weeks of floor time.

The justices’ order keeps Trump’s Jan. 6 criminal trial proceedings on hold, for now, handing an initial blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith, but keeping alive a pathway for his prosecution to reach a jury before the 2024 presidential election.

Trump had urged the justices to slam the brakes on his trial but hold off on taking up his immunity claims on the merits until the former president first exhausts his appeal options in a lower court.

That process would’ve lasted weeks, if not months, which would’ve aided Trump in further running out the clock, thereby giving him a chance at returning to the White House and ending the prosecution before a jury could hear the case.

At Smith’s suggestion, the Supreme Court instead opted to hear the former president’s immunity claims now, though the justices refused Smith’s primary ask to simply stay out of the case and allow the trial to immediately move forward.

The high court’s order establishes an expedited schedule, setting up oral arguments during the week of April 22 and likely enabling the landmark decision to be handed down by the end of June or sooner.

If the conservative-majority court ultimately sides against Trump, as many legal observers expect, it would then allow Smith’s prosecution to move forward, providing Trump’s judge with a window to still schedule the trial before November’s election.

John Roberts, chief justice of the US Supreme Court, during a State of the Union address at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2023. President Biden is speaking against the backdrop of renewed tensions with China and a brewing showdown with House Republicans over raising the federal debt ceiling. Photographer: Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg via Getty Images

It would only add to Trump’s first criminal trial that is set to begin on March 25 on hush money charges in New York. The Supreme Court battle over Trump’s immunity is set to take place in the midst of that trial, and the outcome could impact the former president’s remaining three criminal cases.

In Washington, D.C., Trump asserts immunity from four federal felony charges that accuse him of conspiring to subvert the 2020 presidential election results, but he has also made similar arguments to defend against his Georgia election interference and classified documents indictments. Trump pleaded not guilty.

The justices’ decision to hear his immunity claims marks the first time that the Supreme Court, which includes three Trump appointees, will take up any of the former president’s criminal cases since he was charged.

Trump reacted to the news on Truth Social, writing that legal scholars are “extremely thankful” for the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case.

“Without Presidential Immunity, a President will not be able to properly function, or make decisions, in the best interest of the United States of America,” Trump wrote. “Presidents will always be concerned, and even paralyzed, by the prospect of wrongful prosecution and retaliation after they leave office. This could actually lead to the extortion and blackmail of a President.”

A spokesman for the special counsel’s office declined to comment.

Top Stories from The Hill

• McConnell to step down as Senate GOP leader
• The Memo: McConnell gets swept away by rising Trump tide
• Congressional leaders strike deal to avert shutdown this week
• Republicans block bill to protect access to IVF

The case only adds to another historic Trump dispute already on the justices’ docket. The high court is reviewing a Colorado ruling kicking Trump off the state’s ballot under the 14th Amendment’s insurrection ban, and the justices at oral arguments appeared ready to side with Trump. A decision could land as soon as in the coming weeks.

Trump is now headed back to the Supreme Court, with his criminal defense lawyers this time in the limelight as they argue Trump’s federal election subversion indictment should be tossed because he has absolute presidential immunity from the criminal prosecution.

It’s a claim rejected so far by both Trump’s trial judge and a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the D.C. Circuit panel wrote in its 57-page decision earlier this month.

“We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment,” the decision continued.

Regardless of the outcome, the appeal has handed Trump a victory in delaying his original March 4 trial date in the case.  

To keep the schedule on track, the special counsel has sought to resolve Trump’s immunity claims as quickly as possible. Late last year, Smith made a rare request of asking the Supreme Court to leapfrog the D.C. Circuit entirely and immediately take up the case, but the justices declined to step in that early.

This round, after Trump demanded the Supreme Court delay his trial proceedings, Smith responded by telling the justices they should reject the request. Alternatively, Smith told the justices that, if they were inclined to review Trump’s immunity claims on the merits at some point, they should not wait any longer.

“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former President for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the Presidential election, including through the use of official power,” Smith’s office wrote in court papers.

Trump, meanwhile, told the justices to hold off on taking up the case now. To eat up more time, the former president sought to first take his appeal to the full D.C. Circuit bench. 

The Supreme Court’s order declines to give Trump that opportunity, instead siding with Smith in placing the case on their docket now.

Although Smith has long pushed for a speedy trial, Trump’s lawyers have attacked prosecutors for refraining from explicitly tying the goal to the upcoming presidential election.

“As before, there is no mystery about the Special Counsel’s motivation,” Trump’s lawyers wrote to the justices. “Commentators across the political spectrum point to the obvious — the Special Counsel seeks to bring President Trump to trial and to secure a conviction before the November election in which President Trump is the leading candidate against President Biden.”

Updated at 6:11 pm.

“The President feels well and this year’s physical identified no new concerns. He continues to be fit for duty and fully executes all of his responsibilities without any exemptions or accommodations,” Dr. Kevin O'Connor wrote in a memo shared with reporters.

The president’s health was not significantly changed from his last physical exam in February 2023, O'Connor wrote. Biden noted he had increased discomfort in his left hip, and an exam revealed “mild arthritic changes.”

The White House is likely to point to the results to brush aside concerns about Biden’s age and fitness for office as he seeks reelection. Biden is 81 and would be 86 at the end of a potential second term.

Polling has shown many voters, including some Democrats, think Biden is too old to run again, and Republicans have constantly seized on his verbal gaffes or his stiff gait to argue he isn’t up to the job.

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted earlier this month found that 86 percent of Americans believe he is too old to serve in office. That poll was conducted days after a special counsel report cleared Biden of wrongdoing in his handling of classified documents but made repeated references to his poor memory.

Biden’s likely opponent, former President Trump, is 77, and has had his own verbal slips in recent weeks. Trump has said Biden is not too old to run again, but that he is “incompetent.”

Trump last November released a note from his doctor that asserted the former president was in “excellent health,” though it provided very few specifics about his most recent physical exam.

Biden, meanwhile, suggested in an interview Monday with late night host Seth Meyers that the real issue was not the candidates’ ages, but “how old [their] ideas are.”

“You got to take a look at the other guy, he’s about as old as I am, but he can’t remember his wife’s name,” Biden said.

Justice Anil Singh temporarily denied the former president’s request to stay the enforcement of the more than $454 million in penalties a different New York judge ordered him to pay for conspiring to alter his net worth to receive tax and insurance benefits.  

Trump had offered to post a $100 million bond while the appeals process plays out, writing in court filings that the staggering judgment made it “impossible” to secure a bond covering the full amount. Posting a bond in the full amount would automatically halt enforcement of the penalties.  

However, Singh did grant a temporary pause on two other elements of Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling earlier this month: that Trump and his co-defendants can’t serve in top leadership positions in any New York business, and that the defendants cannot apply for loans from any New York financial institution. 

Trump’s lawyers raised concerns earlier Wednesday that Engoron’s ruling could preclude them from seeking a surety bond for the full judgment amount. Otherwise, Trump would have had to come up with the cash himself — a feat that might have required selling properties or other assets.  

“The exorbitant and punitive amount of the Judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a nearly 1,800-page court filing. 

Top Stories from The Hill

• Supreme Court agrees to weigh Trump’s criminal immunity in historic case
• The Memo: McConnell gets swept away by rising Trump tide
• Congressional leaders strike deal to avert shutdown this week
• Republicans block bill to protect access to IVF

Lawyers with New York Attorney General Letitia James’s (D) office argued earlier Wednesday that there was “no merit” to defense arguments that a full bond is unnecessary.  James (D) has said she would seize some of Trump’s assets if he’s not able to cover the cost of the judgment.

“Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment; defendants would need ‘to raise capital’ to do so,” state lawyer Dennis Fan wrote. 

Singh’s ruling is only temporary, until Trump’s motion to put a pause on paying up goes before a full panel of New York 1st Judicial Department Appellate Division justices.  

He asked GOP lawmakers about foreign investments secured by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Trump, shortly after he left the White House, according to Democrats participating in the closed-door deposition.

“He drew the distinction between what he has done in a business world with independent businessmen, versus foreign governments, which he did not do any business with — unlike Jared Kushner,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said during a break in the testimony.

Among other roles, Kushner oversaw Middle East policy in the Trump White House, and he raised plenty of eyebrows when he secured a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia six months after leaving public service. 

The scrutiny mounted further when The New York Times reported that the advisory panel for the Saudi sovereign wealth fund had recommended against investing in Kushner’s newly launched private equity firm, citing “the inexperience of the … management.” The advice was overruled by a larger board led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a close ally of the Trump administration.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the questioning throughout the morning has been largely cordial, but Hunter Biden became “assertive” when invoking the Kushner episode.  

“He may be a little bit frustrated by some of the double standards relating to Jared Kushner and money that’s just been openly pocketed by Donald Trump in office,” Raskin said. “And Jared Kushner of course brought back $2 billion from Saudi Arabia. And all of that has been a part of the conversation, and he was assertive about that.”

When Democrats controlled the House, they opened an investigation into Kushner’s deal with Saudi Arabia. It was dropped when Republicans flipped the chamber and Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) took the reins of the Oversight and Accountability Committee, which is now leading the impeachment investigation into Biden. 

Still, Democrats said there appeared to be agreement among at least some Republicans when Hunter Biden brought up Kushner’s Saudi deal. 

"There's no cameras in there, [so] Donald Trump ain't watching, right?” said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.). “For the first time Republicans said they do have a problem with that. But they should do something about it." 

Top Stories from The Hill

• Supreme Court agrees to weigh Trump’s criminal immunity in historic case
• The Memo: McConnell gets swept away by rising Trump tide
• Congressional leaders strike deal to avert shutdown this week
• Republicans block bill to protect access to IVF

Comer and the other Republicans in the room have largely declined to comment during breaks throughout Wednesday's deposition, including on the topic of Kushner's overseas business ventures.

Hunter Biden's appearance on Capitol Hill has been long anticipated and comes months into House Republicans' impeachment inquiry into President Biden. That multipronged probe has centered on the younger Biden's business activities, alleging he used his father's influence to orchestrate a web of shady overseas business ventures.

In his opening statement, Hunter Biden refuted the allegations.

“I am here today to provide the committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never,” Biden said during his opening statement.

The justices appeared divided as to whether the government lawfully prohibited the devices, used in one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, by classifying them as machine guns.

”I can’t understand how anybody could think that those two things should be treated differently,” said liberal Justice Elena Kagan.

Several conservative justices, however, appeared wary of the ban, expressing concerns about how bump stock owners can newly be criminally prosecuted — and face up to 10 years in prison — without even knowing their devices are unlawful.

For years, the government considered bump stocks legal. The Trump administration at the time then told owners of the devices nationwide to surrender them after a gunman in 2017 used a bump stock to kill 58 people and wound hundreds of others at a music festival in Las Vegas, the deadliest shooting in U.S. history.

“That will ensnare a lot of people who are not aware of the legal prohibition,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed the government.

Fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito also noted the possibility and similarly said, “Isn’t that disturbing?”

Wednesday’s case came about after Michael Cargill, an Austin-based gun store owner, challenged the bump stock ban after surrendering two in 2019.

It marks the second gun rights dispute at the Supreme Court this term, though the case does not implicate the Second Amendment. Instead, it asks whether the Trump-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) could lawfully issue the ban by considering bump stocks as machine guns. 

Congress for decades has prohibited the transfer and possession of machine guns, defined as weapons that fire “automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.” 

Much of the 90-minute argument focused on the mechanics of bump stocks, with the justices and lawyers repeatedly making finger guns and other gestures as they debated whether the decades-old statute applies to the device, which was invented in the early 2000s. 

Bump stocks enable a shooter to continuously fire if they keep their trigger finger stationary on the finger rest and use their other hand to apply constant forward pressure on the rifle’s barrel. It can enable a gun to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, mimicking the output of a fully automatic weapon.

The justices sparred over whether that continuous firing is only a “single function of the trigger.” 

The liberal justices expressed sympathy with the government that it is, focusing on the shooter’s perspective and noting a person’s trigger hand remains stationary as dozens of bullets are fired. 

Jonathan Mitchell, Cargill’s attorney, focused on the perspective of the firearm, noting the gun’s assembly — and the trigger itself — still slides back and forth for every shot, insisting each is a separate function.

“It has nothing to do with the shooter or what shooter does that trigger, because the shooter does not have a function,” said Mitchell, who also represents former President Trump at the high court in his ongoing ballot disqualification case.

“The statute is concerned only with what the trigger does.”

The argument garnered sympathy from several conservatives, including Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“You liken it to stroke of a key, or a throw of the dice, or swing of the bat. Those are all things people do,” Gorsuch pressed the government. “A function of the trigger, do people function triggers?”

“I thought, maybe somewhere in fifth-grade grammar, I learned that was an intransitive verb,” Gorsuch joked. “And people don’t function things. They may pull things, they may throw things — they don’t function things.”

Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher pushed back on the notion.

“Our view is that those subsequent movements of the trigger aren’t functions of the trigger, because they’re not responding to separate acts, separate pulls or anything else by the shooter,” said Fletcher, who represents the Biden administration.

The administration is backed by gun control advocacy groups like March for Our Lives and Everytown for Gun Safety, which wrote friend of the court briefs warning that enabling people to own the devices again would make Americans less safe. 

The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, meanwhile, are seeking to invalidate the ban.

It is the second gun case at the Supreme Court this term and one of multiple implicating the power of federal agencies.

In the fall, the justices heard arguments about whether a federal ban on gun possession for people under domestic violence restraining orders is constitutional.

A decision in that case as well as the one heard Wednesday, Garland v. Cargill, is expected by the end of June.

“I’m here today to stop ATF from overstepping its proper authority. ATF’s bump-stock ban turned law-abiding citizens into criminals even though they were compliant with the statute. That’s not right, and the Supreme Court should condemn it once and for all,” Cargill said in a statement following the arguments.

Updated at 2:16 p.m.

McConnell, who turned 82 this month, announced the decision in a speech on the Senate floor.

“One of life’s most underappreciated talents is to know when it’s time to move on to life’s next chapter. So I stand before you today … to say that this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate,” McConnell announced on the Senate floor shortly after noon Wednesday, catching many of his colleagues by surprise.

McConnell said he plans to serve out the remainder of his term, which ends in January 2027, and will continue to work hard leading his conference through this year’s election.

“I’m not going anywhere any time soon. However, I will complete my job my colleagues have given me until we select a new leader in November and they take the helm next January,” he said.

McConnell said he began reevaluating his career plans after his sister-in-law, Angela Chao, died in a car accident earlier this month.

“When you lose a loved one, particularly at a young age, there’s a certain introspection that accompanies the grieving process. Perhaps it is God’s way of reminding you of your own life’s journey to prioritize the impact of the world that we will all inevitably leave behind,” he said, noting his recent birthday. “I turned 82 last week. The end of my contributions are closer than I’d prefer.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., leaves a Republican luncheon Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2024 at the Capitol in Washington, after announcing that he will step down as Senate Republican leader in November. The 82-year-old Kentucky lawmaker is the longest-serving Senate leader in history. He's maintained his power in the face of dramatic changes in the Republican Party. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

McConnell revealed his plans Wednesday morning to a small group of allies, several of whom attended his speech on the Senate floor.

One of his closest friends, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), sat at her desk immediately behind McConnell while he spoke.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), former Senate GOP Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) were also spotted on the floor, solemnly listening to his remarks.

Members of McConnell's staff stood at the back of the chamber to hear his emotional remarks.

The veteran Kentucky lawmaker marveled at his remarkable political career that began when he was first elected to the Senate 40 years ago, when he was in his early 40s.

“I have the honor of representing Kentucky and the Senate longer than anyone else in our state’s history. I just never could have imagined — never could have imagined that happening when I arrived here in 1984 at 42,” he said, his voice full of emotion and his eyes rimmed with red.

“I’m filled with heartfelt gratitude and humility for the opportunity,” he said.

Collins stood up on the floor to thank McConnell for his service at the conclusion of his speech.

“I just want to very briefly recognize my good friend the Republican leader for his extraordinary service not only to our caucus but more importantly to the Senate as an institution and our country,” Collins said. “His tenure as leader will be remembered not just for its historic longevity but also for his unparalleled devotion to this great institution, which he has always defended.”

Top Stories from The Hill

• Supreme Court agrees to weigh Trump’s criminal immunity in historic case
• The Memo: McConnell gets swept away by rising Trump tide
• Congressional leaders strike deal to avert shutdown this week
• Republicans block bill to protect access to IVF

McConnell surpassed late Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) in January 2023 as the longest-serving Senate party leader in history.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) shook McConnell’s hand and appeared to exchange warm remarks after the GOP leader finished speaking.

McConnell's retirement from leadership sets the stage for an intense competition to replace him, with Thune, Cornyn and Senate Republican Conference Chair John Barrasso (Wyo.) expected to vie for the top job.

Other senators more aligned with the conference's conservative wing may also take a shot at running.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who's up for reelection this fall, challenged McConnell after the 2022 midterm election, winning 10 votes despite making a late entry into the leadership race.

The announcement caught some Republican senators by surprise.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said he saw the news flash across a TV screen while he was in a meeting.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) learned of the decision while she was waiting in the Senate Republican cloakroom and quickly stepped on the floor to witness the momentous development.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was meeting with constituents in one of the Senate office buildings when he heard The Associated Press break the news that McConnell would soon announce his retirement from leadership.

“Good. It’s time,” Hawley said, reacting to the development.

The senator praised the decision as one that would give the Senate Republican Conference a fresh start after weeks of bitter infighting over a proposal to provide military aid to Ukraine and reform the nation’s border security and immigration laws.

“This is a good decision and will be a chance to start fresh,” he said.

Al Weaver contributed.

Updated at 1:40 p.m. ET

“I am here today to provide the committees with the one uncontestable fact that should end the false premise of this inquiry: I did not involve my father in my business. Not while I was a practicing lawyer, not in my investments or transactions domestic or international, not as a board member, and not as an artist. Never,” Biden said during his opening statement.

“My testimony today should put an end to this baseless and destructive political charade,” he later added. “You have wasted valuable time and resources attacking me and my family for your own political gain when you should be fixing the real problems in this country that desperately need your attention.”

Hunter Biden — appearing behind closed doors before the House Oversight and Judiciary committees — slammed the GOP’s investigation into the president, accusing Republicans of trying, but failing, to prove “baseless and MAGA-motivated conspiracies” about his father.

“For more than a year, your committees have hunted me in your partisan political pursuit of my dad. You have trafficked in innuendo, distortion, and sensationalism — all the while ignoring the clear and convincing evidence staring you in the face,” he said. “You do not have evidence to support the baseless and MAGA-motivated conspiracies about my father, because there isn’t any.”

Hunter Biden’s deposition comes months into the GOP’s multi-pronged impeachment inquiry into the president that has looked into the younger Biden’s business activities and personal life, probing alleged “influence peddling” from when his father was vice president.

Republicans, however, have failed to provide any clear evidence that the president is guilty of an impeachable offense, despite poring over piles of financial evidence and interviewing a litany of witnesses.

GOP lawmakers will be under pressure Wednesday to find a smoking gun when Hunter Biden, their most crucial witness yet, appears for questioning.

“We’re deposing Hunter Biden because he’s a key witness in our investigation of President Joe Biden,” House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) told reporters ahead of the deposition.

Hunter Biden’s deposition, however, comes after the Republican-led investigation faced a series of setbacks that call into question the legitimacy of the GOP’s case against the president.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department indicted an FBI informant that provided information that was at the heart of the GOP’s key allegation against the president. Authorities said the informant, Alexander Smirnov, fabricated his claims, and he told the Justice Department after his arrest that he learned the information from “officials associated with Russian intelligence.”

Hunter Biden in his opening statement said Republicans “have built your entire partisan house of cards on lies” told by their witnesses, including Smirnov, who he said “has made you dupes in carrying out a Russian disinformation campaign waged against my father.”

“Rather than follow the facts as they have been laid out before you in bank records, financial statements, correspondence, and other witness testimony, you continue your frantic search to prove the lies you, and those you rely on, keep peddling. Yes, they are lies,” Biden added.

The president’s son recognized that he has “made mistakes in my life” and “squandered opportunities and privileges that were afforded to me,” but he said those errors were the fault of his own, and not the president.

“I am responsible for that. And I am making amends for that. But my mistakes and shortcomings are my own and not my father’s, who has done nothing but devote his entire life to public service and trying to make this country a better place to live,” he said in his opening statement.

The younger Biden reflected on his relationship with his father.

“During my battle with addiction, my father was there for me. He helped save my life. His love and support made it possible for me to get sober, stay sober and rebuild my life as a father, husband, son, and brother,” Hunter Biden said. “What he got in return for being a loving and supportive parent is a barrage of hate-filled conspiracy theories that hatched this sham impeachment inquiry and continue to fuel unrelenting personal attacks against him and me.”

Hunter Biden’s deposition before the GOP-led committees comes after a bitter battle between Republicans on the panel and his legal team over the terms of his appearance.

Republicans insisted Biden sit for a closed-door deposition before speaking at a public hearing, but Hunter Biden’s team said he would only testify publicly, due to concern that GOP lawmakers would selectively leak or misconstrue his remarks.

Republicans issued Hunter Biden a subpoena in November that he defied, instead delivering a statement on the Capitol complex in which he declared, “My father was not financially involved in my business.”

Republicans launched contempt of Congress proceedings against Hunter Biden as a result of his defiance, advancing the resolution in January. Hunter Biden’s team, however, acquiesced before the full House voted on the measure, saying he would sit for a closed-door deposition if Republicans reissued their subpoena — which they did.

Updated at 3:15 p.m. ET

In a letter sent Tuesday to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the lawmakers expressed concerns that Israel’s strict limitations on press freedom in Gaza — combined with the physical dangers inherent in covering the conflict — have left the world with a narrow view of what’s actually happening in the region. 

They’re asking Blinken to work with leaders in Israel and Egypt to do more to protect reporters and civilians from physical harm, while granting journalists more freedom to roam the region and report their findings. 

Such protections are vital, they said, to ensure "accurate reporting on the full scale of the war."

“With more journalists killed in three months than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year, we remain concerned that not enough steps have been taken to safeguard the lives of the civilian population in Gaza, including journalists,” the lawmakers wrote.

“We are grateful for your continuous work to address the unbearable conditions and high number of civilian casualties including by ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid to Palestinians,” they continued, “but more must be done to address the unique challenges journalists in Gaza face.”

The letter is spearheaded by Reps. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and endorsed by 23 other House Democrats, including Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the Oversight and Accountability Committee; Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Rules Committee; and André Carson (D-Ind.), one of just three Muslims in Congress. 

The letter arrives almost five months after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel left roughly 1,200 people dead and saw hundreds more taken hostage. Democrats in both Congress and the White House have been virtually united in endorsing Israel’s right to defend itself in the wake of the attack.

But the ensuing hunt for Hamas militants has led to more than 29,000 deaths in Gaza — most of them women and children, according to Gazan and U.N. officials — and the ever-rising figure has fueled increasing calls from liberals on and off of Capitol Hill for a cease-fire. 

In their letter, the Democrats noted at least 88 members of the media have been killed in the war — including two Israelis, three Lebanese and 83 Palestinian journalists — representing a vast majority of all reporter deaths across the globe over the last year, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

 Blinken has addressed the issue directly, writing in December that the administration will “underscore” to Israel and others “that journalists must be protected from harm.” 

"We stand unequivocally for the protection of journalists during armed conflict and mourn those who have been killed or injured," he wrote at the time. 

But the Democrats say more must be done. They’re urging Blinken to press partners in Israel and Egypt to adopt a series of specific steps to ensure those promises are translated into action. 

That list includes assurances that foreign journalists have the freedom to enter and exit Gaza at will, not just under escort by the Israeli military; a commitment that all members of the press, including Palestinians already in Gaza, have access to protective gear; and vows to protect communications infrastructure, whenever possible, to ensure the free flow of information in and out of the region. 

“At the heart of every democracy, there is a right to free expression and journalists are allowed to do their jobs without interference,” the lawmakers wrote. 

The war has become a huge political headache for President Biden, who has urged Israeli leaders to take greater steps to protect Gazan civilians while stopping short of insisting on the cease-fire many liberals in his party have demanded. Those tensions were on full display Tuesday during primary voting in Michigan, where Biden’s position on the Israel-Hamas war is deeply unpopular with the state’s sizable Muslim population. 

In Tuesday’s voting, exasperated liberals sought to send the message that they’re no rubber stamp in supporting Biden for reelection in November unless the president takes immediate steps to end the fighting in Gaza. More than 100,000 voters cast ballots for “uncommitted” — a significant number in a state Biden carried by roughly 150,000 votes in 2020.  

Biden had steered clear of Michigan heading into the contest. But one of his most vocal supporters, the liberal Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), had visited with the president’s disgruntled detractors to mend fences. The takeaway, Khanna told The New York Times, was that Democrats “cannot win Michigan with status quo policy,” and that a new approach to Gaza had better happen in “weeks, not months.” 

Khanna was among the 25 Democrats to endorse this week’s letter calling for more press protections in the region.

Republicans on the Oversight and Judiciary committees have placed Hunter Biden at the very center of their impeachment inquiry, alleging he engineered an elaborate web of lucrative, overseas business ventures that leaned heavily on his father’s international influence — and that the president himself has benefited financially from those shady arrangements.

At the heart of their case were allegations from an FBI informant that Hunter and Joe Biden had each received a $5 million bribe from Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company the younger Biden sat on the board of.

Yet their case suffered a blow earlier this month with the arrest of that informant, Alexander Smirnov, on charges that he fabricated those very allegations. 

Republicans have sought to downplay the significance of the arrest, maintaining the Smirnov claims were only a small part of the broader pattern of corruption and influence peddling they’ve accused the Biden family of employing.

But Republicans have yet to offer any clear evidence to substantiate their allegations, raising the already high stakes surrounding Hunter Biden’s appearance behind closed doors Wednesday.

GOP investigators will be under the gun to locate the damaging proof that’s so far eluded them.

Top Republicans say they are ready to go head-to-head with the witness.

“The House Oversight, Judiciary, and Ways and Means Committees have unearthed a record of evidence revealing Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ his family sold to enrich the Bidens. Joe Biden knew of, participated in, and benefited from these schemes,” House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said in a statement.

“Our committees have the opportunity to depose Hunter Biden, a key witness in our impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden, about this record of evidence,” he added.

Democrats, on the other hand, have amped up their criticism of the impeachment inquiry in the wake of Smirnov’s arrest. Last week, Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said the GOP’s probe “essentially ended” after Smirnov was indicted and told the Justice Department after his arrest that “officials associated with Russian intelligence” played a role in devising his false claims.

At the core of the Republicans’ investigation are allegations that members of the Biden family erected a complex network of corporate accounts and “third-party associates” who could field wire transfers from foreign sources — companies and individuals alike — thereby insulating the family from receiving the payments directly. Republicans say these associates then channeled the funds to “various Biden family members in incremental payments over time.”

The president, they contend, was among the beneficiaries.

GOP lawmakers have highlighted transactions between Joe and Hunter Biden that, they claimed, are evidence of the president’s involvement in his son’s foreign business dealings — charges the younger Biden’s legal team has denied.

Republicans, for example, have called attention to three wire transfers — each priced at $1,380 — that were sent between a Hunter Biden business account and his father, contending the elder Biden was associated with his son's business entanglements.

Hunter Biden’s legal counsel, however, said those transfers were meant to repay Joe Biden for helping his son finance a truck purchase when he was unable to secure credit. 

Republicans have also argued that the president was aware of his son’s business dealings, citing testimony from Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s foreign business partner, who told lawmakers about calls and dinners involving the president and his son’s business associates.

Archer, for example, told the Oversight Committee that Joe Biden dined with him, Hunter Biden and Ukrainian Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi at Cafe Milano, a posh Washington, D.C., restaurant, in April 2015. The group, Archer said, “talked about the world, I guess, and the weather.” The White House had previously said the dinner did not take place.

Archer also told lawmakers that Hunter Biden would sometimes put his father on speakerphone when he was with foreign business partners for conversations that were limited to brief pleasantries.

He testified, however, that he was not aware of any wrongdoing by the president, telling members of the Oversight Committee he had “no knowledge” of Biden, when vice president, altering any U.S. foreign policy to benefit his son.

Hunter Biden, 54, has rejected allegations that his father was involved in his business dealings, telling reporters at the Capitol complex in December: “My father was not financially involved in my business.”

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

James Biden, the president’s brother, also testified last week that the president was not involved in his business dealings.

James Biden’s testimony was meant to be another opportunity for Republicans to turn the heat on a Biden family member but was overshadowed by Smirnov’s arrest days earlier.

Wednesday’s deposition marks the culmination of the House GOP’s months-long effort to drag Hunter Biden before the Oversight and Judiciary committees as part of their impeachment inquiry into the president, a battle that brought the younger Biden to the brink of being held in contempt of Congress.

Republicans issued Hunter Biden a subpoena in November, requesting he sit for a closed-door deposition in December. Biden’s lawyers, however, had insisted their client testify publicly rather than privately, expressing concerns that the panels would selectively leak and twist his statements.

GOP lawmakers refused to give in to the demands — despite Comer previously saying he would “drop everything” if Hunter wanted to appear before the panel — prompting the president’s son to buck his subpoena. Instead of appearing for his deposition, Hunter Biden delivered a statement to reporters at the Capitol complex, denying that his father had any involvement in his business dealings.

Republicans, as a result, launched contempt of Congress proceedings against Hunter Biden, advancing a resolution targeting the first son in January. But before the full House could vote on the measure, Hunter Biden’s team said he would testify privately if the committees reissued the subpoena, arguing the initial one was invalid because it was sent before the chamber voted to formally authorize the probe.

The Republican-led committees acquiesced, setting the stage for Wednesday’s hearing.

The closed-door deposition, however, is unlikely to be the last act in the GOP’s inquiry, with Comer vowing more witnesses.

“This deposition is not the conclusion of the impeachment inquiry. There are more subpoenas and witness interviews to come,” Comer said Tuesday. “We will continue to follow the facts to inform legislative reforms to federal ethics laws and determine whether articles of impeachment are warranted.”

In New York and Wisconsin, Democrats are looking to get more competitive House maps in states that could prove pivotal in November. Meanwhile, in Louisiana, a lawsuit has been filed by minority voters seeking to block the state’s adoption of a new congressional map that created a second majority-Black district.

Meanwhile in North Carolina, Republicans are expected to gain several seats, as they passed a House map last year that offers a more favorable terrain for the party, though several lawsuits against congressional lines could see them being redrawn.  

Here’s a look at several key redistricting battles and where they stand ahead of November.  

New York 

Democratic state lawmakers will be introducing their own House map after both chambers voted Monday to reject a set of congressional lines proposed by the bipartisan Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC).  

The IRC was required to offer new congressional lines for the state after Democrats won a lawsuit late last year ordering the bipartisan commission to get a second try at drafting up a House map after deadlocking last cycle.  

The IRC’s map offered changes to a limited number of seats, tilting Rep. Pat Ryan’s (D-N.Y.) seat in the 18th Congressional District and Rep. Brandon Williams’s (R-N.Y.) seat in the 22nd Congressional District more Democratic, while tilting Rep. Marc Molinaro’s (R-N.Y.) seat in the 19th more Republican.  

The state GOP endorsed the IRC’s map, but it was met with blowback from state Democrats — fueling uncertainty over what the makeup of the House districts in the Empire State will look like, how it could impact gathering signatures for candidates and whether the primary date might be changed for a second election cycle in a row.  

The redistricting battle is a critical one to watch because New York will play a key role in determining the House majority this fall. Democrats lost a handful of seats in the Empire State during the midterms after the IRC deadlocked on offering a set of maps for the election and Democrats who drew their own map quickly saw their lines struck down by a court.  

That prompted a court-appointed special master to draw lines that were used during the midterms that led to a handful of Republicans winning seats in the state, creating the GOP’s narrow majority in the lower chamber.  

But state lawmakers will have to proceed with caution in creating a new House map, lest it get struck down again over gerrymandering. 

Wisconsin 

Democrats won a major victory last year when the state Supreme Court ordered the state Legislature’s maps to be redrawn. Now the party is looking to use the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s opinion in that case as reason to consider redrawing the state’s congressional map, too. 

Democrats asked the state’s high court last month to reconsider Wisconsin’s House map, pointing out that the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote in their decision ordering new state Legislature maps that they would not be considering a “least change” approach. “Least change” refers to the idea of offering as few changes to the current map. 

“With the ‘least change’ approach that justified the map’s adoption overruled, the map now lacks any basis in Wisconsin redistricting law or precedent,” wrote lawyers from the progressive elections firm Elias Law Group in seeking to have the state Supreme Court reconsider the congressional map. 

Gov. Tony Evers (D) last week pressed the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reconsider the map, though it’s unclear if the high court will take up the request. 

“Given that the maps the Governor submitted in Johnson were grounded in that ‘least change’ approach, the Governor urges the Court to review its decision and stands ready to participate in any future proceedings the Court may order,” Assistant Attorney General Anthony Russomanno wrote to the high court.  

The congressional delegation in Wisconsin includes six Republicans and two Democrats, though the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel notes that the 1st and 3rd Congressional Districts are battleground seats in the state.

North Carolina 

Republicans scored a win during the November midterms when the GOP was able to flip control of the state Supreme Court from a liberal majority to a conservative one. That ultimately allowed the state’s high court to reverse a decision made by the then-liberal state Supreme Court that had struck down Republicans’ congressional map as a gerrymander. 

The state’s current House delegation is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans at 7-7, but Republicans passed a new set of House maps last year that created a more favorable terrain for the GOP, including 10 seats that favor Republicans, three that favor Democrats and one competitive seat. 

Democratic Reps. Kathy Manning, Jeff Jackson and Wiley Nickel have said they are not seeking another term in light of the new maps, though the Republican maps are facing several lawsuits, which have been filed over the congressional lines. It remains unclear if challenges to those lines would be addressable before November.

Louisiana

Louisiana, along with Alabama, recently approved a new map that creates a second district that is almost majority Black after the previous map was found to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The decision was seen as a huge victory for voting rights advocates, as well as Democrats, who are favored to win in the new district due to its demographic makeup.

However, a group of 12 minority voters in the state have sued over the new map, arguing it violates the 14th and 15th Amendments.

“The State has engaged in explicit, racial segregation of voters and intentional discrimination against voters based on race,” the lawsuit alleges.

The case will be heard by a three-judge panel and could potentially impact the November election.

The problem for the president was not the token opposition from Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) but, rather, the push for a protest vote over Biden’s vigorous support for Israel during its assault on Gaza.

The protest campaign, advocating for people to vote “uncommitted,” had a solid night. By 11:30 p.m. EST, it had racked up more than 50,000 votes, or about 14 percent of all ballots cast.

Those numbers are sure to grow, with most votes in Wayne County — home to Detroit and Dearborn — still to be counted.

On the Republican side, former President Trump won as expected. Trump had 67 percent of the vote at 11:30 p.m., compared to 27 percent for his last remaining rival, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley.

Here are the main takeaways from the primaries.

A warning sign for Biden

The Democratic primary was not a catastrophe for Biden — he got about 80 percent of the vote, after all — but it was worrying.

In a battleground state where his margin of error in November will be slim, he bled tens of thousands of votes.

There was also chatter Tuesday evening about activists in other states trying to replicate what the “Listen to Michigan” campaign pulled off in the Wolverine State.

That could be an uphill climb in places where Arab Americans are not such a large share of the population. In Michigan, there were also prominent voices — most notably Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud (D) — calling for an “uncommitted” vote.

The White House has been seeking to persuade voters it is at least hearing their concerns.

Earlier Tuesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre acknowledged the conflict in Gaza was “deeply painful” for many Arab Americans and said the president “cares about what that community is feeling very deeply.”

But other voices emphasize how dissent over Biden’s policies extends beyond Arab Americans.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) told CNN on Tuesday evening that the ranks of the discontented included young people who “are watching innocent civilians being killed.”

Biden has a politically difficult challenge on Israel and the Palestinians, an issue that splits his party down the middle.

And the Michigan result made the gravity of the problem crystal clear.

Trump registers a solid win, but questions remain

There’s no doubt at this point that Trump will be the GOP nominee, barring some truly stunning turn of events.

He was projected as the winner as soon as the final polls closed in Michigan at 9 p.m. EST.

The Trump train rolls on — but the result here was not entirely overwhelming.

Haley’s performance, likely earning somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the vote when all ballots are counted, showed how many Republicans remain resistant to Trump, despite his apparent inevitability.

Yes, Trump’s victory was bigger in Michigan than in South Carolina on Saturday.

But South Carolina is Haley’s home state, where she twice won election as governor. In Michigan, she campaigned in-person for one day, Sunday.

Trump, in brief remarks, contended “the numbers are far greater than we even anticipated.”

It’s hard to imagine that’s true, given that polls were predicting a victory of almost 50 points.

It looks like Trump will fall short of that benchmark.

Haley staying in the game

Haley insists she is staying in the GOP contest at least until Super Tuesday, March 5.

The Michigan result makes that easy to do. 

Haley isn’t going to win, but she can keep making the argument, as she did to CNN’s Dana Bash, that Trump is “not bringing people into the party — he’s pushing people out of the party.”

Asked by Bash to confirm she would stay in the race until Super Tuesday, Haley responded “absolutely.”

The former U.N. ambassador is scheduled to be in Utah on Wednesday, Virginia on Thursday, and Washington D.C., North Carolina, Massachusetts and Vermont in the following days.

She is also keeping up a solid schedule of media appearances — much to the irritation of Team Trump — and her campaign manager, Betsy Ankney, recently announced a seven-figure ad buy ahead of Super Tuesday, when 15 states will hold GOP contests.

The Michigan result lets Haley hang on as a standard-bearer for non-Trump Republicanism.

Be wary of general election predictions

In 2020, Biden won Michigan by roughly 150,000 votes — or slightly less than 3 percentage points.

In The Hill/Decision Desk HQ polling average, Trump leads by almost 4 points in a hypothetical match-up in the state this year.

Tuesday’s result underlines Biden’s problem in the state over the Middle East question.

But that being said, it’s highly implausible that the uncommitted voters Tuesday are going to transfer their allegiance to Trump in November.

Biden’s defenders also note that the last time an incumbent Democratic president ran in a Michigan primary — President Obama in 2012 — “uncommitted” got more than 10 percent of all votes cast.

Obama went on to defeat GOP nominee Mitt Romney, whose father was once governor of Michigan, by almost 10 points in the state that November.

Likewise, in Trump’s case, the votes for Haley could easily return to his column in a general election.

Tuesday’s primaries exposed vulnerabilities for both leading candidates.

But it’s just not certain exactly how those weaknesses shake out in November.

Voters turned out, even when the results were obvious

No one seriously doubted that Biden and Trump were going to win Tuesday, but voters showed up in strong numbers anyways.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) noted Tuesday evening that more than 1 million Michigan citizens “had cast their ballots before any polls opened today.”

Benson also emphasized she was pleased with the turnout “given that this was a primary election where arguably the contests on either side of the aisle were not as competitive as they have been in years past, comparatively.”

The final numbers will take some time to come in, but — despite the oft-mentioned weaknesses of the leading candidates — Michiganders came out in force. 

Julia Mueller contributed.

Trump won the Great Lakes State’s presidential preference primary just days after beating Haley in her home state of South Carolina, clearing the last major contest before the dozen-plus primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday next week.

Polls showed the former president boasting a massive lead over Haley heading into Tuesday, with Decision Desk HQ/The Hill’s polling average for the primary putting Trump up a staggering 48 points over the former U.N. ambassador.

Trump ultimately fell below those expectations. As of Tuesday night, he was leading Haley by under 40 points.

In remarks to the Michigan GOP after the race was called, Trump said the numbers were "far greater than we even anticipated" and pointed toward the general election in November.

"We win Michigan, we win the whole thing," Trump said.

After her Palmetto State loss Saturday, Haley re-upped her promise to stay in the race even as she continues to trail Trump, pointing toward Super Tuesday, March 5. She didn’t heavily invest in Michigan’s contest, leading observers to see the state as all but sealed for Trump.

Haley's camp framed the Michigan results as a "warning sign" for Trump the general election.

“Joe Biden is losing about 20 percent of the Democratic vote today, and many say it’s a sign of his weakness in November. Donald Trump is losing about 35 percent of the vote. That’s a flashing warning sign for Trump in November," the campaign's national spokesperson, Olivia Perez-Cubas said in a statement. She noted Michigan Republicans lost control of the state Legislature and the governor's mansion in recent years, and that the state party has been embroiled in turmoil.

“Let this serve as another warning sign that what has happened in Michigan will continue to play out across the country. So long as Donald Trump is at the top of the ticket, Republicans will keep losing to the socialist left,” Perez-Cubas said.

Only some of Michigan’s 55 delegates will be allocated based on the night’s results, amid a new nominating setup and ongoing confusion in the state’s leadership.

A majority of the delegates are set to be allocated Saturday, when the state party holds a convention. Recent discord within the Michigan GOP, however, led to confusion after two figures claimed the top leadership role and slated two separate conventions for the weekend. 

A faction led by former Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who’s been backed by the national party and by Trump to take the reins of the Michigan GOP, has plans to host one convention — while Kristina Karamo, who had insisted she was still in charge of the state party after her ouster last month, made plans to host a rival convention on the same day.

But a judge ruled Tuesday that Karamo was removed from the party chair position back in January and that any of her actions since “purporting to be taken on behalf of the Michigan Republican State Committee are void and have no effect.”

Trump affirmed Hoekstra in his post-race remarks Tuesday, saying he'll be a "fantastic chairman, one of the best ever."

Trump now appears set to head into Super Tuesday with a string of early-state wins after beating Haley in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as well as snagging all the delegates available in Nevada. He also won the U.S. Virgin Islands' GOP caucus earlier this month.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic ticket in Michigan, President Biden is dealing with a push for a protest vote amid frustration from progressives over the administration's actions around the war in Gaza.

Trump flipped the state out of Democrats' hands in 2016, but Biden won in 2020 — setting the state up to be a key battleground in 2024. 

Biden won Michigan in 2020 in both the primary and general elections, but has seen recent pushback from progressives and Arab Americans in the state over his administration’s actions surrounding the Israel-Hamas war.

An option on the ballot for voters to pick “uncommitted" had so far garnered more than 100,000 votes, far exceeding the relatively modest goal of 10,000 votes the campaign's organizers had set for themselves.

The organizers of the “Listen to Michigan” campaign, backed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), urged voters to select the "uncommitted" option in order to send the president a message of dissatisfaction about the war in Gaza.  

“It's ... important to create a voting bloc, something that is a bullhorn to say, 'Enough is enough,'” said Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress, in a video shared by Listen to Michigan. “We don’t want a country that supports wars and bombs and destruction. We want to support life. We want to stand up for every single life killed in Gaza.” 

Also on the primary ballot were Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) and Marianne Williamson, who has dropped out of the running. 

Back in 2008, then-candidate Hillary Clinton won her party’s Michigan primary with 55 percent of the vote — but with rival Barack Obama left off the ballot, 40 percent picked “uncommitted,” according to results tallies from The New York Times.  

Polling showed Biden with a massive lead over Williamson and Phillips heading into Tuesday's primary, and he scored a major endorsement from United Auto Workers (UAW), which is headquartered in Detroit.  

The incumbent has so far won the Democratic primaries in South Carolina and Nevada, plus a victory as a write-in candidate in New Hampshire. His Michigan win adds to his early-state record and further cements his strength as the likely Democratic nominee.

But the campaign is seeing warning signs in its reception from the state’s significant Arab American communities as the race revs toward the general election. Top Biden administration officials visited Michigan in February to outreach with community leaders amid the frustration.

In a statement on Tuesday's results, Biden made no direct mention of the "uncommitted" effort but thanked "every Michigander who made their voice heard today." 

"Exercising the right to vote and participating in our democracy is what makes America great," Biden said.

He touted his work in the state and pointed toward the general election, stressing the danger of another term of former President Trump. 

“Donald Trump is threatening to drag us even further into the past as he pursues revenge and retribution,” Biden said. "Now, Donald Trump wants to ban abortion nationwide – including here in Michigan."

With former President Trump leading the Republican primary battle, the race appears headed toward a rematch of the 2020 race between Biden and Trump. Polling averages from Decision Desk HQ/The Hill show Trump with a 2.6-point lead in a hypothetical head-to-head between the current and former presidents in Michigan.

Updated Feb. 28 at 7 a.m. ET

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) emerged from the meeting, which participants described as “intense” and “passionate,” feeling somewhat reassured that Johnson heard their pleas.

“It was a productive and intense meeting,” Schumer said outside the White House. “We made it so clear that we can’t have the shutdown because it hurts so many people in so many different ways.”

Schumer said “the Speaker did not reject” the warning and “said he wants to avoid a government shutdown.”

Jeffries said after the meeting that the atmosphere was “intense” as leaders in the room, which included President Biden and Vice President Harris, emphasized “the need to avoid a government shutdown and to fund the government so we can address the needs of the American public.”

He said negotiators are making “real progress” on the appropriations bills for federal departments and agencies that will see their funding lapse after March 1 without congressional action. Those bills include funding for military construction and the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

“I’m cautiously optimistic that we can do what is necessary in the next day or so to close down these bills and avoid a government shutdown,” he said.

But he also warned that Congress may have to pass another stopgap spending measure to give negotiators more time to reach a deal to fund the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and other agencies that will see their funding lapse after a second March 8 deadline.

A Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss internal strategy for avoiding a government shutdown said the objective of the White House meeting was to pile pressure on Johnson.

“When you can demonstrate it’s kind of three against one, you can kind of pressure or influence someone, and I hope that’s what he senses,” the senator said.

“This is a bipartisan effort to ensure that we’re doing the right thing and keeping the government open, and it’s okay for him to have a bipartisan vote” to pass funding legislation to avoid a shutdown, the senator added.

The other leaders in the room also presented a unified front to Johnson on the need to pass a Senate-approved foreign aid package that includes $60 billion for Ukraine.

McConnell was the first person in the meeting to lay out the reasons to Johnson for not waiting longer to pass military aid for Ukraine, which faces losing ground to Russia because of dwindling supplies.

Speaking to reporters afterward, McConnell said he hoped Johnson would bring the foreign aid package up for a vote.

“What I hope is that the House would take up the Senate bill and let the House work its way,” he said. “If they change it and send it back here, we have further delay. Not only do we not want to shut the government down, we don’t want the Russians to win in Ukraine.

“And so we have a time problem here. And the best way to move quickly and to get the bill to the president would be for the House to take up the Senate bill and pass it,” he added.

The Republican senator conceded that Johnson could face a motion to vacate the Speaker’s chair if he angers House conservatives but warned there’s no chance he can pass legislation to keep the government funded without Democratic votes.

A Senate Republican aide warned a government shutdown would be “dumb on policy and political grounds” and acknowledged that GOP senators aren’t sure how Johnson will react to pressure from House conservatives who are pushing to add policy riders that are a non-starter with Democrats, who control the Senate and White House.

The aide compared Johnson to a pendulum swinging from one position to another on how to handle the government funding bills.

Johnson told reporters after the White House meeting that he is “very optimistic” about avoiding a shutdown.

“We have been working in good faith around the clock every single day for months and weeks, and over the last several days, quite literally around the clock to get that job done. We’re very optimistic,” he said. “We believe that we can get to agreement on these issues and prevent a government shutdown, that’s our first responsibility.”

While Johnson told fellow congressional leaders at the White House that he wants to avoid a shutdown and has passed two previous stopgap funding bills with help from Democrats, he has yet to show he’s willing to get into a battle with members of the House Freedom Caucus that could wind up costing him his leadership job.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday that the policy riders Freedom Caucus conservatives are trying to add to the spending bills are threatening to derail the legislation before the March 1 and March 8 deadlines.

“The biggest obstacle right now has been Republican poison pills that were never truly on the table. They were always going to be non-starters,” she said.

“But we have made really good progress on the first few bills, and we can get them done if extreme demands are pushed aside. We cannot let a few far-right extremists derail the basic functioning of government,” she added.

Top Stories from The Hill

• Speaker Johnson: ‘Very optimistic’ Congress will avert shutdown
• Trump’s victories overshadow weaknesses in reelection bid
• Michael Steele warns of GOP being ground ‘into the dust of nothing’ over Trump support
• Katie Porter says Georgia killing ‘shouldn’t shape our overall immigration policy’

Senate Democrats and Republicans — as well as House Democrats — have become increasingly concerned about Johnson’s ability to avoid a shutdown in light of how much difficulty he’s faced passing legislation this and last year.

The low point for the Speaker came earlier this month when he miscalculated the vote count for two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, which initially failed by a vote of 214 to 216 after three Republicans opposed the measure.

Then right after that failure, Johnson couldn’t get the votes to pass an $18 billion Israel aid bill, which he tried to advance with a maneuver that allowed him to get around opposition to the bill in his own conference but required two-thirds support.

The Speaker was also forced to pull several bills off the House floor last year when it became clear he couldn’t muster enough votes in the GOP conference to overcome a procedural hurdle. 

McConnell warned House Republicans this week that a government shutdown would only hurt their party politically.

“Shutting down the government is harmful to the country. And it never produces positive outcomes — on policy or politics,” he declared on the Senate floor Monday.

He argued that “a shutdown this week is entirely avoidable.” 

After meeting with Johnson at the White House, McConnell expressed cautious optimism a shutdown would be avoided this week.

“I think it’s pretty safe to say we all agree we need to avoid a government shutdown. The Speaker was optimistic that they’ll be able to move forward first with the four bills,” McConnell said.

“Under no circumstance does anybody want to shut the government down, so I think we can stop that drama right here before it emerges. We’re simply not going to do that,” he insisted.  

The three-day poll, completed Sunday and published Tuesday by Reuters/Ipsos, found 21 percent of respondents said "political extremism or threats to democracy" is their top worry, followed by 19 percent who picked the economy and 18 percent who picked immigration.

Concerns were split among party lines, with Democrats calling extremism their No. 1 issue, while Republicans picked immigration, according to the poll, which was shared with The Hill.

Extremism was also independents' biggest concern, with almost a third of those respondents selecting it, followed by immigration, which was picked by about one-fifth of independents, pollsters found. The economy came in third for independent voters.

The poll's findings provide an insight into the issues weighing most heavily on voters' minds ahead of November's election. It further suggests the lasting impact of the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection, in which pro-Trump rioters stormed the building in an attempt to block the certification of President Biden's victory, which may have fueled voters' concerns over political violence.

Former President Trump, the current front-runner in the GOP White House primary by a wide margin, has repeatedly claimed the 2020 election was stolen and that the four separate criminal cases and 91 total charges he is currently facing are politically motivated.

Experts have expressed fears his rhetoric could prompt more political extremism and violence from his supporters in the future.

The Democratic firm Navigator in December found 83 percent of people were concerned about the threat of political violence in the U.S.

In a separate poll from Gallup released Tuesday, respondents listed immigration as the most important issue currently facing the U.S.

GOP concerns about the southern border and immigration have so far stymied ongoing negotiations to fund the government ahead of multiple looming deadlines.

The Reuters/Ipsos survey used a nationally representative sample of 1,020 adults and had a margin of error of approximately 3 percentage points.

“These Ukrainian soldiers on the front, I mean, they're making some real tough decisions about what they're going to shoot at and what they're going to shoot at it with. And they're running out of bullets … So the situation is very dire,” White House national security communications adviser John Kirby told reporters at Tuesday's briefing.

“I'm not in a position to put a time stamp on it and say, you know, by such and such date, they'll lose the war," Kirby added of Ukraine, "but they are certainly beginning to lose territory — territory that they had clawed back from the Russians. And now they have to give it back to the Russians because they can't — they can't fight them off."

Russian forces captured the key Ukrainian city of Avdiivka earlier this month as the war entered its third year — and as lawmakers are locked in a heated battle over sending more aid for Kyiv.

"We need it now. I won't even begin to speculate what would be too late. We're already in some ways too — too late," Kirby said.

"They lost the town Avdiivka, because of — literally because of ammunition. So in some ways, it's already having a dramatic effect on the battlefield."

The comments come after Biden met with House and Senate leaders to discuss a funding measure to avoid a looming government shutdown, as well potential Ukraine funding and border measures to go along with it.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) suggested the meeting was productive, but both characterized the talks on Ukraine as “intense.” 

Schumer said that during the meeting he underscored Ukrainian President Volodymy Zelensky's warning that "if they don't get aid quickly, that Ukraine could fall."

The Senate has approved a package that would include billions for Ukraine, but Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was also at the Tuesday meeting, has indicated the legislation will not be brought for a vote in the lower chamber.

“We have been working in good faith around the clock every single day for months and weeks, and over the last several days, quite literally around the clock to get that job done. We're very optimistic,” Johnson told reporters on the White House lawn. “We believe that we can get to agreement on these issues and prevent a government shutdown, and that's our first responsibility.”

“We will get the government funded and we'll keep working on that,” he later added.

The positive outlook comes three days ahead of Friday’s partial government funding deadline, when four of the 12 annual spending bills are due. Without congressional action this week, a slew of programs and agencies will shut down. The remaining eight bills will lapse March 8.

Congressional leaders had hoped to unveil the compromise spending measures over the weekend, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) informed members in a Sunday letter that negotiators had not yet reached an agreement on the legislation.

Schumer blamed House Republicans for the holdup — ”it is clear now that House Republicans need more time to sort themselves out” — while Johnson said the delay was because of “new Democrat demands.”

Johnson has been under intense pressure from his right flank to push for a number of controversial policy additions to annual spending bills, including provisions related to the border, abortion and language that would eliminate the salaries of various Cabinet officials. Those requests, however, have been soundly rejected by Democrats.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) addresses reporters outside the White House in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, February 27, 2024 after meeting with President Biden, Vice President Harris and Congressional leaders to discuss the first deadline to fund the federal government and to prevent a shutdown. (Greg Nash)

Democrats and Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are pressing lawmakers to work in tandem to avert a shutdown by Friday’s deadline. Schumer on Tuesday, before the White House meeting, said lawmakers can keep the lights on in Washington if both parties “work together,” while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) a day earlier said “the task at hand will require that everyone rows in the same direction: toward clean appropriations and away from poison pills.”

Schumer said Johnson “unequivocally” told attendees at Tuesday’s meeting that he does not want the government to shut down. The New York Democrat also reported “good progress” in the funding efforts despite some disagreements.

“There was a little back-and-forths on different issues that different people want, but I don’t think those are insurmountable,” Schumer said. “The fact that we made it so clear that we can’t have the shutdown because it hurts so many people in so many different ways, even for a short period of time, was very apparent in the room.

“And the Speaker did not reject that,” he added. “He said he wants to avoid a government shutdown. So that was very heartening.”

The lack of substantial progress days before the deadline is fueling chatter that another short-term stopgap bill will be needed to keep the lights on and give negotiators more time to hash out their differences.

Schumer told reporters after the White House meeting “we made it clear that that means not letting any of the government appropriations bills lapse, which means you need some CRs to get that done.”

That, however, could run into trouble in the House, where conservatives are staunchly opposed to short-term funding bills and Johnson himself said last month “I think we're done with that” when asked about the prospect of another stopgap.

Hardline GOP lawmakers staged a revolt on the floor in January after Johnson worked with Democrats to pass a short-term funding bill and keep the government open. In October, a band of Republicans voted to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) after he put a continuing resolution on the floor that passed with Democratic support.

Top Stories from The Hill

• Tensions over Ukraine, border overshadow shutdown at White House meeting
• Trump’s victories overshadow weaknesses in reelection bid
• Michael Steele warns of GOP being ground ‘into the dust of nothing’ over Trump support
• Katie Porter says Georgia killing ‘shouldn’t shape our overall immigration policy’

Instead of a short-term stopgap bill, some conservatives are pushing for a continuing resolution for the rest of the fiscal year — through September — that would trigger a one percent cut across the board, a mechanism included in last year’s debt limit deal as a way to incentivize Congress to complete the appropriations process through regular order.

“What we ought to do is do a, and this is a low, this is setting the bar really low, but we ought to do the, at least the continuing resolution through Sept. 30. That would kick in the [Fiscal Responsibility Act] caps that were put in place a year ago,” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), the chair of the House Freedom Caucus, told Fox Business Network on Monday.

Updated at 2:35 p.m.

“We are making good progress. We made it very clear. The Speaker said unequivocally he wants to avoid a government shutdown,” Schumer told reporters outside the White House after he and other top congressional leaders met with President Biden. 

“We made it clear that that means not letting any of the government appropriations bills lapse, which means you need some [continuing resolutions] to get that done, but we’re making good progress and we're hopeful we can get this done really quickly,” Schumer said. 

Schumer met with the president alongside Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). 

Returning to the Capitol, McConnell told reporters, “We talked about keeping the government open, which I think we all agree on.”

Schumer said there are “little back-and-forths on different issues that different people want,” but he said he didn’t think those matters are “insurmountable” — calling it “heartening” to hear Johnson say he wants to avoid a shutdown. 

At the same time, Schumer called the talks — during which the so-called Big Four talked government funding, Ukraine aid and the border — among "the most intense” he’s encountered in the Oval Office. 

Jeffries said the meeting was “intense” and “productive.” 

“We are making real progress on the appropriations bills that are scheduled to lapse on March 1, and I'm cautiously optimistic that we can do what is necessary within the next day or so to close down these bills and avoid a government shutdown,” the House Democratic leader said. 

Jeffries also floated the idea of extending the pending expiration of eight additional bills that are scheduled to lapse on March 8 "so that good faith, tough negotiations can continue in the absence of a government shutdown.”

“I think whenever we’re dealing with violent crime, there is a sense of outrage, of sadness and loss,” Porter, who’s running for Senate in California, said during an interview on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.”

“But I think the important thing to focus on is any one instance shouldn't shape our overall immigration policy, which has so many different facets, including economic choices about what workers to allow and how to create prosperity in America,” she added.

The killing of 22-year-old nursing student Laken Riley, who was found dead Thursday after her roommate reported she didn’t return from a morning run on the University of Georgia campus, has sparked outrage and further amplified calls for immigration reform.

The suspect in Riley’s death, Jose Ibarra, 26, is a Venezuelan citizen who U.S. authorities say crossed into the U.S. unlawfully in 2022, The Associated Press reported. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said he was detained when the crossed the border and then released for further processing.

ICE said Ibarra was later arrested in New York by local police and charged with acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 and a motor vehicle license violation, the AP reported. ICE said Ibarra was then released before it could intervene and ask New York police to hold him until immigration officials could take him into custody. New York officials, however, said they have no record of the arrest, according to the AP.

Some Republicans have used the killing as an opportunity to attack President Biden and Democrats on immigration.

Porter cautioned against doing so.

“The situation is tragic, and it's a loss, and it's important to acknowledge that, but also to recognize all the other how all the other parts of immigration policy fit together,” she said.

Days after former President Trump trounced Republican rival Nikki Haley in her home state of South Carolina, he’s expected to score another win in Michigan, where Haley hasn’t heavily invested. And President Biden is the clear Democratic front-runner, though he faces a surge of calls for Michiganders to cast protest votes over the administration’s actions around the war in Gaza. 

The Tuesday race could give observers hints about how the general election could play out later this year in the battleground state, which went to Trump in 2016 and flipped back to Biden in 2020.

Here’s what to watch in the primary:

How does Biden do? 

Biden has cleared his long-shot challengers in the early states so far, but he faces growing opposition in the Great Lakes State amid anger from some Democrats over the Israel-Hamas war. 

Recent pushback from progressives and Michigan’s significant Arab American population are elevating concerns as the state heads toward what looks like a tight general election race in November. 

As both Trump and Biden appear poised to win their parties’ respective nominations, a Decision Desk HQ/The Hill average of polls out of Michigan shows Trump 3 points ahead of Biden in the state, which the incumbent won in 2020. 

As anger over the administration's actions around Gaza grows, Biden can’t afford to alienate any coalition of voters. The incumbent is on track to win Michigan, but the results could reveal frustrations that could hurt him later on. 

“This is a really unique presidential primary, because the results are really not the story. We know who’s gonna win. But the political swirl that is around both political parties’ process is the most interesting aspect of this,” said David Dulio, a political science professor at Michigan’s Oakland University.

The Democratic front-runner will appear on the party’s ballot alongside challengers Rep. Dean Phillips (Minn.) and Marianne Williamson, who has dropped out of the running — as well as an “uncommitted” ballot option that some are pushing for as a protest vote.

How successful is the ‘uncommitted’ Biden protest vote? 

Listen to Michigan, a campaign urging voters to vote “uncommitted” on the primary ballot in protest against Biden’s policies toward the Israel-Hamas war, has gradually been gaining steam over the past several weeks.

“We don’t want a country that supports wars and bombs and destruction,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, said in a recent video. “We want to support life. We want to stand up for every single life killed in Gaza.”

Tlaib is among those backing the campaign, which also recently garnered support from former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. 

In Michigan, the “uncommitted” choice on primary ballots “indicates the voter is exercising a vote for that political party but is not committed to any of the candidates listed on the ballot,” according to the secretary of state’s rules. 

If enough voters cast “uncommitted” votes the party can send noncommitted delegates to the national convention. That could be a big warning sign for Biden from the state’s progressives as the race revs toward the general election. 

“If we can demonstrate our political power and discontent through thousands [of] 'Uncommitted' votes in the Michigan Democratic primaries, then Biden would feel more at risk of losing Michigan in the general election, prompting a potential reassessment of his financing and backing of Israel’s war in Gaza,” according to the Listen to Michigan site.

A broader Abandon Biden effort is encouraging voters in swing state primaries across the country to hold off from supporting the president. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) said Sunday that she’s “not sure” what will happen with the effort Tuesday.

“If uncommitted gets more of their sort of normal share of the vote, I think it’s a signal, and yes, it can carry over to the general,” Dulio said of the Michigan effort. “The folks that are going to vote that way — heavy Arab American population here, heavy Muslim population — what is Biden going to do to get them back?”

What’s the GOP race margin?

After months of speculation over how Haley might fare in her home state, Trump easily bested her in South Carolina over the weekend — extending his winning streak in the GOP race as he continues to lead Haley in Super Tuesday polling. 

But the former United Nations ambassador has promised to “keep fighting” despite her Palmetto State loss.

“I’m not giving up this fight when a majority of Americans disapprove of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden,” Haley said in remarks Saturday. 

But the Great Lakes State appears “predetermined” for Trump, said Michigan-based Republican strategist Jason Cabel Roe, who argued “there’s no math” that shows Haley surging to take the state.

The Hill/Decision Desk HQ’s polling average for the primary shows Trump up a whopping 48 points over Haley. 

“This is not about who’s going to win this primary,” Dulio said, arguing Haley is “nowhere near the conversation” for the GOP race. Instead, it’s about what hints the primary might give about a potential Trump-Biden head-to-head in November.  

In 2016, Trump was the first Republican White House contender in two decades to take the Great Lakes State — but Biden flipped it back in 2020. 

“The results are just playing second fiddle to the other stuff surrounding these contests,” Dulio said, pointing to the “uncommitted” effort — as well as ongoing discord in the state Republican party. 

How does Michigan GOP chaos play in? 

The Michigan state Republican Party has been fraught with turmoil in recent weeks after Kristina Karamo was ousted as chair of the group last month, only to insist she’s still in control. 

The Republican National Committee (RNC) officially weighed in on the discord earlier this month to recognize former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) as the new state party leader. Trump, too, threw his backing behind Hoekstra, though he’d previously endorsed Karamo in her midterm bid for Michigan secretary of state. 

But Karamo has continued to resist her ouster, throwing the state party into a power struggle. 

Michigan is hosting its presidential preference primaries Tuesday — but on Saturday, both the Hoekstra and Karamo factions of the state GOP are planning to host dueling conventions. 

Hoekstra will hold his in Grand Rapids, while Karamo is planning her own across the state in Detroit, according to the Detroit Free Press. 

“Michigan GOP ready to turn the page and move towards November. That’s good news. Remember to vote for your presidential preference tomorrow, Tuesday. See you in GRR on Saturday where your votes do count,” Hoekstra wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

Karamo’s team, meanwhile, is calling the Grand Rapids convention “fake” and “lawless,” according to a release under the Michigan GOP name. 

But even with the convention confusion, Michigan’s Republican race seems set for the former president, Roe said. 

“Even if they have two conventions, both of them are going to overwhelmingly approve Trump,” he said. 

The state’s convention is aimed at allocating 39 of Michigan’s 55 presidential delegates, the rest of which will be allocated based on the results of the Feb. 27 primary. 

The matter of the warring state GOP factions is now before the courts, and it’s possible that a judge could weigh in before the March 2 convention date. The Detroit Free Press reported last week that a ruling could come as soon as Tuesday. 

The group said hundreds of its members took over the lobby of 30 Rockefeller Center, where the show is filmed. Photos show protesters donned in black shirts reading “cease fire now” alongside signs calling for a cease fire. One sign reads, “Jews to Biden: Stop Arming Genocide.”

“President Biden’s deadly foreign policy has expedited weapons sales to Israel, ignored the World Court’s determination that Israel is committing genocide, suspended funding to UNRWA, and vetoed three UN ceasefire resolutions,” the group wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

“The President needs to start answering to the American people – not the far-Right Israeli government indiscriminately bombing the people of Gaza, destroying 70% of infrastructure, including hospitals, universities and the electricity and water grids,” the group continued.

Pressure has mounted on President Biden to back a full cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war, which he has so far refused. Biden has instead pursued short-term pauses in the conflict. He said Monday that he hopes the two sides will be able to agree to a six-week pause by this week.

Progressives have driven much of Biden’s opposition among Democrats regarding the conflict, with a coalition of pro-Palestine voters expected to carry out a protest campaign during the Michigan primaries on Tuesday. 

Moderate Democrats have also raised questions about the amount of military support for Israel amidst its ground invasion of Gaza. 

Over 30,000 Palestinians have died in the conflict, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, with nearly all the region’s 2.3 million population displaced and needing food, according to the United Nations.

The Biden administration has pressured Israel to step back its military operations, to little effect. President Biden has especially opposed an expected ground invasion of Rafah, one of the last remaining settlements in southern Gaza and host to an estimated 1.4 million people.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that an invasion of Rafah “has to be done.”

Congressional leaders failed to unveil the long-awaited compromise appropriations bills over the weekend, blowing through a Sunday target date floated last week and, as a result, leaving members wondering about a path forward just days ahead of the looming deadline.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said House Republicans were responsible for the holdup, writing in a letter to colleagues Sunday that conservatives in the lower chamber “need more time to sort themselves out.” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), however, dismissed his “counterproductive rhetoric,” saying that new requests from Democrats had delayed the process.

The blame-game preview comes as hard-liners are pressuring Johnson to use the appropriations process to extract policy concessions from Democrats after the Speaker cut two previous spending deals with lawmakers across the aisle, which incensed members of the right-flank.

At the same time, Democrats, Senate Republicans and the White House are pushing for a bipartisan deal to keep the lights on in Washington, a message that will ring loud and clear for Johnson on Tuesday when President Biden hosts the top four congressional leaders to discuss government funding.

Those dynamics are thrusting the Speaker into a familiar — yet difficult — decision: Cave to conservatives and force a shutdown that would be politically perilous for Republicans, or break from GOP hard-liners and work out a spending deal with Democrats that risks sparking a rebellion on the right.

Prominent lawmakers are imploring him to choose the latter.

“It is my sincere hope that in the face of a disruptive shutdown that would hurt our economy and make American families less safe, Speaker Johnson will step up to once again buck the extremists in his caucus and do the right thing,” Schumer said Sunday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who on Monday said a shutdown would be “harmful to the country” — called for full cooperation among lawmakers in the sprint to avert a funding lapse.

“We have the means — and just enough time this week — to avoid a shutdown and to make serious headway on annual appropriations. But as always, the task at hand will require that everyone rows in the same direction: toward clean appropriations and away from poison pills,” McConnell said.

Congress enacted a stopgap bill last month that extended funding through March 1 for programs and agencies covered by four of the 12 annual spending bills, including military construction, water development and the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. Funding for the remaining eight bills will run out on March 8.

Senior negotiators in both chambers had been hopeful Congress could meet the March 1 deadline as lawmakers signaled some progress in spending talks in recent weeks. Johnson was also looking to move a package of the first four bills this week to stave off a partial shutdown, a source familiar told The Hill over the weekend.

Concerns, however, are already bubbling up that Congress is headed for another short-term funding patch as hard-liners dial up pressure on the Speaker to secure conservative policy wins in areas like abortion and the border.

Some on the right flank say they are willing to shut down the government absent any conservative wins.

“The government shutdown is not ideal, but it's not the worst thing,” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), the chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said on Fox Business Network Monday. “It would be worse to exacerbate the problem, to further increase our debt and our spending, to make our fiscal situation, which is unprecedented as it is, as you know, to continue to fund a government that's facilitating the border invasion.”

“We shouldn't be joining hands with Democrats just to show we can govern or we can get things done, no matter how harmful to the American people,” he added.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), a member of the right-leaning group, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday he "will not be voting for any funding if the border is not secured.”

“Anything I vote for has to secure our border. And the president should agree to that,” he added. “That's common sense for a nation like America.”

The House Freedom Caucus sent a warning shot to Johnson last week, demanding an update on their laundry list of policy requests and cautioning that if the priorities are not included in funding measures, he should not count on the bills receiving widespread GOP support in the chamber.

They are demanding policies that would eliminate the salaries of controversial Cabinet officials, target transgender- and abortion-related issues and gut the Biden administration’s climate initiatives, among other hot-button matters.

At the same time, Republicans are pointing the finger at Democrats, who have been pressing for increased funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — referred to as WIC —to address a shortfall for the program.

As part of the spending talks, a House aide said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), a spending cardinal for the subcommittee that oversees funding for the program and other agencies, is pressing for changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the food stamp program. Those changes include ensuring that recipients are using benefits to buy “nutritional” foods, the aide said, while also limiting access to items like “soda, candy [and] certain snacks.”

Other areas of funding that top appropriators identified as problem spots earlier this month included the FBI, IRS and election security assistance, as both chambers work to conference their drastically different funding bills into bipartisan measures that can pass a divided Congress.

Conversations about next steps will come to a head Tuesday, when President Biden is set to host the top four congressional leaders — Johnson, Schumer, McConnell and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) — for a meeting at the White House to discuss government funding.

Biden is also expected to press leaders on the need to pass an emergency defense and foreign package that includes assistance for Ukraine and Israel, as well funding to replenish U.S. weapons and munitions. The Senate approved a $95 billion package earlier this month that has been pushed aside by House Republicans, throwing the future of foreign aid into question.

“We also want to see that the government does not get shut down, it is a basic, basic priority or duty of Congress is to keep the government open,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday when asked about the gathering. “So that’s what the president wants to see, he’ll have those conversations.”

Buck’s resolution relies on a report released this month by special counsel Robert Hur, which cleared Biden of criminal wrongdoing for his handling of classified information after he left the White House in 2017. 

“The Hur report officially addressed what many Americans have long witnessed with their own eyes — that President Biden is no longer fit to successfully discharge the critical duties of his office,” Buck wrote in a statement to The Hill. “Numerous instances were articulated in the report, and have played out in full public view, showing President Biden’s apparent cognitive decline and lack of mental stamina.”

In his report, Hur said that Biden struggled to remember dates and important events, and described the president as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” Biden strongly denounced the characterization.

“The societal challenges and security threats our country faces are innumerable and require a chief executive with both strong mental and physical faculties,” Buck continued. “The time has come for the vice president and the Cabinet to put our country first and move forward on invoking the 25th Amendment.”

The 25th Amendment enables the Cabinet, led by the vice president, to remove the president from their duties if they determine they are unable to perform them. The power has never been used, but it was floated by Trump critics after the Jan. 6 Capitol riots and by Republicans in recent months regarding Biden. 

Multiple Republicans have floated the use of the 25th Amendment to remove Biden following the Hur report, but Buck’s resolution is the first official effort in Congress to encourage action from the Cabinet.

Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) previously called on Biden's Cabinet to consider such a measure. Trump himself floated the idea last September.

The Hill has reached out to the White House and the Biden campaign for comment.

The justices invoked everything from how the law could impact the handmade craft online marketplace Etsy, and whether Google-owned Gmail could delete the accounts of Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow, in arguments that spanned nearly four hours. 

The justices signaled unease with handing the two states the right to control which speech social media platforms host, sharply questioning the practical application of the laws and the broad reach they could have. 

But the high court, with its conservative majority, also raised concerns about regulating powerful companies and gave indications they may not block the state laws in full.

The laws, which seek to bar platforms from banning users because of their political views, were passed in 2021 amid Republican backlash over bans and suspensions of conservative figures who violated the platforms’ policies. If allowed to stand, they could transform free speech in the digital age.  

The laws were spurred in part by outrage following former President Trump’s blocking from Twitter, now known as X, and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Trump regained access to X under Elon Musk’s leadership and rebranding  in November 2022, and Meta lifted its ban on the former president last January. 

Justice Elena Kagan used the changes to X to press Florida Solicitor General Henry Whitaker on how the companies express editorial control in their content moderation methods. 

“Twitter users one day woke up and found themselves to be X users and the content rules had changed and their feeds changed and all of a sudden they’re getting a different online newspaper, so to speak, in a metaphorical sense, every morning,” she said. 

While reviewing the Florida law, Justice Samuel Alito asked Paul Clement, a lawyer for the tech industry groups, if it could cover Gmail, the email platform operated by Google. Clement said the Florida law indeed could.

“Does Gmail have a First Amendment right to delete, let's say Tucker Carlson's or Rachel Maddow's Gmail accounts if they don't agree with his or her viewpoints?” Alito asked. 

Clement said Gmail “might be able to do that” but it is not in the “square focus of this litigation.”

He added that if the statute did apply to Gmail, as a service provided by Google, it also raises concerns about how competing email providers are regulated. 

Although the states argued the laws are crafted in a way to apply to major social media platforms, questions were raised about how they may impact a range of internet companies, including Gmail, Etsy and Uber. 

“This is such an odd case for our usual jurisprudence,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said while questioning Florida’s solicitor general. “It seems like your law is covering just about every social media platform on the internet.”

Small and midsized tech companies that are often on opposing sides of issues that target tech giants, filed amicus briefs to the court in support of NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association's (CCIA) case, arguing it could disproportionately impact them. 

Conflicting rulings in federal appeals courts have left the decision about the laws’ constitutionality up to the justices. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sided with NetChoice and CCIA, the tech industry groups that challenged the legislation, and upheld a block on major provisions of the Florida law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit aligned with the state of Texas. 

The laws aren’t identical. The Florida law says political candidates cannot be deplatformed, while in Texas, the law bars platforms from removing content based on users’ viewpoints. 

Questions over purported censorship quickly slipped into the debate. 

Whitaker argued in his opening remarks that the First Amendment is designed to “prevent the suppression of speech, not to enable it.” But Justice Brett Kavanaugh sharply pushed back on the implication that the companies are not themselves protected from government overreach. 

“You left out what I understand to be three key words in the First Amendment, or to describe the First Amendment: ‘by the government,’” Kavanaugh said. “Do you agree ‘by the government’ is what the First Amendment is targeting?” 

Alito later quipped that deeming what he called “censorship” as “content moderation” lends into an “Orwellian temptation to recategorize offensive conduct in seemingly bland terms.”

Justices across the ideological spectrum interrogated the potential chilling effect both laws could have on social media platforms’ editorial judgment.

Clement argued that if social media companies were blocked from moderating at their discretion, the ugliest content — like hate speech and misinformation — would rear its head.

In the case of the Texas law, being “viewpoint-neutral” would force the companies to open the floodgates, he said. 

“That means that if you have materials that are involved in suicide prevention, you also have to have materials that advocate suicide promotion, or, if you have materials on your site that are pro-semitic, then you have to let on materials onto your site that are antisemitic,” he said. “And that is a formula for making these websites very unpopular to both users and advertisers.”

He also said that social media platforms should be treated more like publishers — like newspapers — than “common carriers,” enterprises that transport goods for a fee but are open to the public. 

Probing Whitaker on the issue, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that, when it comes to traditional social media platforms, “it all turns on editorial control.”

“These social media companies are hosting speech,” Barrett said. “So why isn't that more like a newspaper?” 

Unlike newspapers, Whitaker countered, social media companies don’t review every piece of content that appears on their platform. 

“It is a strange kind of editor, your honor, that does not actually look at the material that is going on its compilation,” Whitaker said.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche moved to block testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-fixer, and two women he paid to stay quiet about affairs they alleged with Trump: Porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Trump’s reimbursements to Cohen are the thrust of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) prosecution of Trump, who denies the affairs and pleaded not guilty to his 34 charges of falsifying business records.

The 47-page motion attacks the witnesses’ credibility at length, casting Cohen as a “liar” and suggesting Daniels would offer “false” and “salacious” testimony. 

Trump’s lawyers also took aim at how prosecutors have described the hush money payments as a “catch-and-kill” scheme to quash negative information about Trump in advance of the 2016 presidential election.             

The Hill has reached out to Bragg’s office for comment.

Trump’s lawyers also asked to block the notorious 2005 Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump is caught on a hot mic disparaging women, and evidence from close confidants at the time of his alleged crime, including Rudy Giuliani and ex-Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg. 

Monday’s filing came soon after prosecutors filed their motion to block Trump from introducing certain testimony at trial, including claims he is being selectively prosecuted and Justice Department filings that would cast doubt on Cohen’s credibility.

Blanche said the state hoped to use “improper” and “inadmissible” evidence to bolster their “listless ‘zombie’ case” meant to interfere with Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign.

The defense attorney pointed to testimony from Cohen in Trump’s civil fraud trial, which ended last month, as a reason to exclude him from the upcoming trial. Cohen testified in the fraud trial that he and Weisselberg “reverse-engineered” Trump’s assets to reach a number the former president liked, but on cross-examination, backtracked on his remarks. 

“Michael Cohen is a liar,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. 

“He recently committed perjury, on the stand and under oath, at a civil trial involving President Trump. If his public statements are any indication, he plans to do so again at this criminal trial. The Court should preclude Cohen’s testimony in order to protect the integrity of this Court and the process of justice.”

Cohen responded to the motion on X, formerly known as Twitter, writing, “F-U Todd Blanche.”

Trump’s hush money trial is scheduled to begin in New York on March 25, the first criminal trial he’ll face — and that any former president has ever faced.

This story was updated at 12:57 p.m. on Feb. 27.