The Archive
Every issue of the Punchbowl News newsletter, including our special editions, right here at your fingertips.
Join the community, and get the morning edition delivered straight to your inbox.
October 13, 2023
Presented by Wells Fargo
At Wells Fargo, we cover more rural markets than many large banks, and nearly 30% of our branches are in low- or moderate-income census tracts. What we say, we do. See how.
PRESENTED BY
THE TOP
Happy Friday morning.
If you were counting Steve Scalise out, you were right.
Scalise’s blockbuster decision on Thursday night to withdraw his name for consideration as speaker shows once again just how toxic it is inside the House Republican Conference. They’re all but ungovernable. Forget about compromising with Democrats or President Joe Biden. This group of House Republicans won’t even compromise with each other. They’re deeply distrustful of anyone in leadership not named Donald Trump. And they’re unwilling to accept the realities of divided government — or simply governing at all.
Yet now the House Republican Conference needs to face this jarring reality: The floor has been shut down for going on two weeks, the federal government runs out of money in a month, our vital ally Israel is involved in an existential war and, due to endless GOP infighting, there is no speaker.
With Scalise and Kevin McCarthy both out of the running, as of now, the klieg lights are shining brightly on House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio.
Jake scooped last night that Jordan was already making calls for another possible speaker bid. We have more below on why the 59-year-old Jordan is and isn’t a good fit for the post.
Jordan told us walking out of the Thursday night conference meeting that he didn’t have any announcement yet and was simply thinking of Scalise. But shortly after that, Jordan began making calls.
“Tomorrow, we’re going to meet as a conference. I think we will come together behind a candidate and then we will move forward for the good of the country,” Jordan said, referring to the party meeting today. We wonder if Jordan will want to move quickly to an internal party vote for speaker and then onto the floor as soon as today or this weekend.
Before you tweet at us or fire off a nasty email, we’ll say it first — Jordan only got 99 votes in the House Republican Conference’s internal speaker election Wednesday. That’s a huge 118 votes shy of the 217 he’ll need to be speaker. It will be very difficult for Jordan to get there, even with support from Trump and conservative outside groups. And, after this week, there’s bad blood between the Jordan and Scalise camps that will make it even tougher.
There are already five GOP lawmakers who say they’re prepared to vote against Jordan on the floor: GOP Reps. Austin Scott (Ga.), Carlos Giménez (Fla.), Ann Wagner (Mo.), Mike Simpson (Idaho) and Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.). Some of these members are close Scalise allies. There’ll be more, especially with Jordan seen as the main culprit in Scalise’s collapse.
We’re also told that Reps. Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) are both looking at running for speaker, although we think Jordan would have a significant advantage.
Scalise was always going to have a tough time winning enough votes to get the speaker’s gavel — as will Jordan. But Jordan’s backers waged a determined backroom effort to push aside Scalise, according to GOP insiders.
It kicked into high gear Wednesday after Jordan narrowly lost the speaker election to Scalise. Jordan gave an emotional speech in which he pointedly declined to endorse the Louisiana Republican. Jordan said he’d only back a candidate that could get 217 votes inside the GOP conference before going to the floor. The speech stunned some members, who saw it as Jordan undermining Scalise’s attempt to win over the Ohio Republican’s backers.
Jordan’s team said they wanted to make sure no speaker nominee went through what McCarthy endured during January’s prolonged speaker vote. That’s why, in part, Jordan backed a proposal offered by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) to mandate the 217-vote threshold before the speaker election. But Republicans tabled the rule change after a spirited debate.
Scalise’s camp had apparently offered to back Jordan if he won the speaker election and expected the same from him. With Republicans reeling from McCarthy’s unprecedented ouster, this was seen as a key step in uniting the conference. It didn’t happen.
Jordan later told Scalise he’d nominate him on the floor for speaker, yet it came with a catch — if Scalise didn’t get to 217, Scalise would then nominate Jordan for the post. Scalise saw this as a trap. Jordan could convince some of his hard-core supporters to hold back, ensuring that Scalise couldn’t get 217. Scalise would then have to back Jordan anyway.
Scalise’s aides didn’t comment on this exchange. Here’s Russell Dye, Jordan’s spokesperson:
There was no call back, of course.
Trump’s comments about Scalise’s health Thursday also were seen as part of a broader whispering campaign against the Louisiana Republican. Scalise is undergoing treatment for multiple myeloma, a form of blood cancer. Scalise insists he’s fine and says he could’ve handled the speaker’s job, although Jordan supporters mentioned this issue repeatedly.
In addition, there were behind-the-scenes efforts to resurrect the 2015 controversy over Scalise’s appearance before a white-supremacist group years earlier. Scalise apologized for the incident, and both McCarthy and then-Speaker John Boehner backed him up.
One final point — if Jordan does become speaker, Scalise is going to be his majority leader. How will they be able to get along after all that just happened?
— Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan
Upcoming event! Join us next Thursday, Oct. 19 at 8:30 a.m. ET for a conversation with Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) about the future of cybersecurity. RSVP now!
THE NEXT SPEAKER
Jim Jordan: Why and why not?
We’re going to lay out some reasons you should take Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) speaker candidacy very seriously and some reasons why you should be skeptical.
Why you should take this seriously:
1) Unlike House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Jordan will take his bid for speaker to the House floor for a vote no matter what. He’s not one to back off of a leadership bid. He’ll make House Republicans vote for or against him publicly. And unlike other candidates, Jordan is a favorite of former President Donald Trump and the right. A vote against him could get you a primary challenger.
2) Right-wing heavyweights will go crazy for Jordan. Sean Hannity and other conservative talkers are sure to be on his side. Trump will also have his back, to the extent that matters.
3) Conservatives are going to back Jordan — and quickly. He won’t have the problems on the right that Scalise or former Speaker Kevin McCarthy had. Conservatives trust Jordan implicitly.
4) Unlike Scalise, Jordan has laid out a plan for how he wants to govern. Jordan told Republicans how he’d handle a shutdown threat and what his demands are when it comes to immigration policy. Republicans have been hungering for this.
5) Message discipline. Jordan is one of the most disciplined pols we know. Jordan picks a lane and stays in it. This is how he’ll be as speaker.
Why you should be very skeptical.
1) Moderates don’t like Jordan. We’re seeing that already, as we detailed above. Within moments of his getting into the race, there were five Republican no votes. Might those members flip? Sure. Yet the overall number may also balloon.
2) Jordan has a mega-lengthy list of controversial positions. Here’s one to jog your memory — Jordan and then Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) convinced Trump to plunge the federal government into the longest shutdown in history in 2018. And they got nothing for it.
3) Jordan leaves something to be desired on the fundraising front. He’s great as an individual fundraiser. But will he have any appeal to donors who cut seven- or eight-figure checks? McCarthy will surely help here.
4) Jordan has no history of big legislative accomplishments. Jordan understands policy minutiae, but he hasn’t been interested in doing deals at all.
5) Jordan has gone from back-bench rabble-rouser to the inner circle of power. But can he lead 220 colleagues and help them retain their majority in 2024? He doesn’t have a track record of being able to do this at any level.
What about Democrats? Some Republicans are now openly saying the onus is on Democrats to help the GOP get out of a mess of its own making. Democrats maintain they’re willing to help elect a new speaker — even a Republican one — but not without a cost. This has pretty much been their stance since McCarthy was hunting around for the votes to save his gavel.
But then, as now, Democratic leaders made clear it was on Republicans to reach out to them with an offer, not the other way around. We checked in with Democrats late Thursday night and this hasn’t changed.
Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) has been talking about trying to work with Democrats to empower Speaker Pro Tem Patrick McHenry to pass legislation. And some Democrats are trying to draw up a plan to allow McHenry to act on certain legislative priorities.
There was some “preliminary and informal” outreach from Democrats to Republicans before Scalise dropped out of the speaker race on Thursday. To be clear, this isn’t at the leadership level — think a few tiers down — but top Democrats are certainly aware of the conversations. Those talks are largely on hold now as Democrats wait to see if Jordan can secure the speakership.
We’ve written about what Democrats broadly want — see our AM edition Wednesday — but the list includes raising the threshold on the motion to vacate, sharing power on the House Rules Committee, putting Ukraine and Israel aid bills on the floor and allowing vulnerable Democrats to pass their bills via suspension votes.
We spoke with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on this Thursday night. Here’s what he said:
— John Bresnahan, Jake Sherman and Heather Caygle
WASHINGTON X THE WORLD
Senate GOP calls for freezing $6B of Iran assets despite pause
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) plan to plow ahead with their legislation to freeze $6 billion in Iranian assets, despite the news that the United States and Qatar already agreed to stop Tehran from accessing those funds.
McConnell and Cotton announced earlier this week that they’d seek unanimous consent to pass their bill that would lock the assets back down. This comes just weeks after the funds were released as part of a prison-swap agreement between the United States and Iran.
In light of Hamas’ horrific terror attacks on Israel — and Iran’s long-standing support for Hamas — there’s widespread bipartisan support for re-freezing the account, which is based in Qatar. We scooped on Thursday that Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo told House Democrats that the money wouldn’t be going to Iran “anytime soon.”
The White House said earlier this week that none of the money had been spent and that it was only to be used for humanitarian purposes.
This was a key component of the prisoner swap, and part of the administration’s wider efforts over the past two years to engage in diplomacy with Tehran after former President Donald Trump axed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
The bill from McConnell and Cotton will likely have a filibuster-proof majority behind it, but any one senator can object to its swift passage on the floor.
It’s unclear how Democratic leadership will handle the issue. McConnell and Cotton will seek unanimous consent regardless of the agreement with Qatar, we’re told, in part because that deal doesn’t have the force of law and the funds could still be released at any point.
Several red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2024 have already joined Republicans in saying the funds should be frozen, so this could be an interesting showdown on the Senate floor next week.
It’s possible that Congress will seek to punish Iran even further with new sanctions. That would effectively kill what has been a relatively fruitless effort by the Biden administration to reengage with Iran.
Biden administration officials have told lawmakers privately that there isn’t yet evidence connecting the Iranian government to Hamas’ terror attacks on Israel last weekend.
But lawmakers from both parties, as well as executive branch officials, have noted that Iran’s support for Hamas — both materially and financially — is well-established. And it’s clear that the brutality of Hamas’ terror attacks on Israel has completely altered the West’s posture toward Iran.
— Andrew Desiderio
PRESENTED BY DUKE ENERGY
A diverse energy mix is key for a reliable and affordable energy transition. See other ways Duke Energy is building a smarter energy future.
THE FUTURE OF…
ICYMI: The legislative landscape for cybersecurity policy
Our second installment in The Future of Cybersecurity series was published on Tuesday, and this time we’re exploring the legislative prospects for cyber in Congress.
Right now, much of Congress’ efforts are focused on artificial intelligence, social media and government surveillance.
These are areas of consistent bipartisan interest, but that doesn’t mean legislation will be easy to pass. Some of the roadblocks include the challenge of balancing national security interests with constitutional protections.
Any meaningful action will ultimately come down to whether lawmakers can bring together diverse interest groups, at least broadly, in a legislative direction.
Read more about the legislative landscape here. Listen to the podcast too.
Next Tuesday, we’ll highlight some of the key players influencing cybersecurity policy in Congress, the Biden administration and the tech industry. You can check it out here.
— Elvina Nawaguna
Impeachment agenda recedes from the limelight
With the House Republican Conference consumed by internal strife, the party’s impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden has firmly taken a back seat.
The impeachment inquiry’s first hearing on Sept. 28 feels like a lifetime ago. That was when Kevin McCarthy was still speaker, for one.
Over the ensuing two weeks, McCarthy’s ouster by his own party and the subsequent GOP failure to elect a speaker has sucked all the oxygen out of what was once a major centerpiece of the House Republican agenda.
Notably, neither House Majority Leader Steve Scalise nor Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) mentioned the impeachment inquiry in their candidate announcement letters last week.
The closest that Jordan — the Judiciary Committee chair and a key player in the inquiry — came to mentioning the conference’s marquee investigation was a vague reference to “doing the oversight and holding the Administration accountable.”
To be clear, Jordan has previously committed to continuing the impeachment inquiry if elected speaker. But the inquiry is evidently not one of the driving issues for House Republicans looking to select their next leader.
Flash black a month ago: The landscape was markedly different. Staring down an impending right-wing revolt, McCarthy launched the inquiry in part to stave off growing unrest in his conference. But in the end, the move had little impact on the eight GOP lawmakers who voted to oust him.
An underwhelming first hearing in the House Oversight Committee didn’t help. Many Republicans were frustrated that a GOP witness publicly disagreed with the House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer’s (R-Ky.) assertion that there’s currently enough evidence to impeach Biden.
Comer insisted his panel is still chugging along as it examines whether the president was improperly involved in the overseas business dealings of his family. To date, Republicans haven’t uncovered evidence of wrongdoing by Biden.
Blink and you miss it: Thursday was the deadline for major subpoenas aimed at obtaining the personal and business bank records of Hunter and James Biden — the president’s son and brother. But, of course, no one was even talking about that yesterday.
The Oversight Committee is in communication with the relevant banks, who are cooperating with the subpoenas, spokesperson Jessica Collins told us.
“You’ll be the first to know,” Comer told us Thursday when we asked if he had any update on the subpoenas. “I’m sure Jamie Raskin will call you. He’ll say there’s nothing in there!”
We asked whether Comer was concerned that the internal Republican fight over who will be speaker was distracting from or impeding the inquiry.
“I’m not doing this to entertain you guys,” Comer said. “We’re just following the money.”
“Today, the American people and an increasing number of House Republicans are realizing that this impeachment drive is a sham demanded by President Trump that is based on distorted facts, debunked claims, and discredited lies and is devoid of any evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden,” Oversight Democratic spokesperson Joseph Costello said in a statement.
— Max Cohen
THE MONEY GAME
News: Former Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-Fla.) raised $1.5 million in the first five weeks of her Senate campaign. Mucarsel-Powell is running to unseat Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). The race is one of the very few long-shot chances for Democrats to flip a Senate seat blue next year.
Mucarsel-Powell has $1.1 million on hand at the end of Q3.
— Max Cohen
Crucial Capitol Hill news AM, Midday, and PM—5 times a week
Join a community of some of the most powerful people in Washington and beyond. Exclusive newsmaker events, parties, in-person and virtual briefings and more.
Subscribe to Premium
The Canvass Year-End Report
And what senior aides and downtown figures believe will happen in 2023.
Check it outEvery single issue of Punchbowl News published, all in one place
Visit the archive
Presented by Wells Fargo
At Wells Fargo, we cover more rural markets than many large banks, and nearly 30% of our branches are in low- or moderate-income census tracts. What we say, we do. See how.