The Archive

IN THIS EDITION

Johnson is seeking a path on Ukraine funding. Will it work?

GOP shows little support for Trump immunity argument

Who is spending millions on the air already

K Street Republicans concerned about Trump’s mental and physical acuity

THE TOP

Johnson is seeking a path on Ukraine funding. Will it work?

Happy Wednesday morning.

Speaker Mike Johnson has been giving clues recently about how he plans to push a Ukraine aid bill through the House. It’s an open question whether it will work.

In a series of public statements and interviews, Johnson — a Ukraine skeptic — has laid out a possible pathway for new Ukraine aid. Congress hasn’t approved any real funding for the embattled U.S. ally since December 2022. U.S. and Ukrainian officials say the battlefield outlook is growing bleak as Russia steps up its attacks.

For starters, Johnson wants to convert the tens of billions of dollars the United States may send to Ukraine into a loan. This is the approach that former President Donald Trump, another Ukraine skeptic, has suggested.

Johnson will also seek to attach the REPO Act to any Ukraine funding legislation. Under this proposal, President Joe Biden would be authorized to confiscate and sell off Russian assets, with those proceeds going to help rebuild Ukraine. The total amounts to roughly $6 billion to $7 billion here in the United States. The really big Russian asset play is in Belgium, where more than $225 billion has been frozen since the start of the war.

Plus, Johnson is pressing the Biden administration to relent on its ban on new liquified natural gas export applications. The White House has denied that it’s willing to make this tradeoff for Ukraine funding, however.

We understand Johnson’s thinking here. The REPO Act has bipartisan support. Trump likes the loan idea and it has gained traction with GOP senators who support Ukraine funding, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.). And the energy play is a typical Republican tactic — highlight an administration policy that they think is wrong and try to reverse it in a bill the White House desperately wants.

We’re going to explain this morning why Johnson’s current plan — which isn’t finalized — is iffy at best and will almost certainly have to change.

1) The majority of the majority. One dynamic the House Republican leadership is focused on is cobbling together a package that would have the support of the majority of the GOP conference. Johnson didn’t get there with the second government funding bill last month, and it will be far trickier here.

Johnson clearly wants to pass something, but he has a major problem with conservative hardliners. They’d see it as a betrayal of Trump’s “America First” approach and it could lead to an attempt to oust Johnson. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has already filed a motion to vacate the chair against Johnson, yet it’s still uncertain whether she’ll go through with it. But even if MTG doesn’t, some other conservative Republican may, and that could tip the House into another crisis.

2) Rules troubles. This is a huge problem for Johnson. If the speaker intends to pass this proposal with a simple majority, he’ll need to get it through the Rules Committee, which is effectively controlled by Reps. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). That trio has been skeptical about Ukraine aid, to put it lightly, especially if that legislation doesn’t include border security provisions.

Remember: On April 9, the House Republican Steering Committee will convene to elect the next Appropriations Committee chair. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who currently chairs the Rules Committee, is the leading contender to be the next Appropriations chair.

3) Suspension. If Johnson puts the Ukraine bill on the floor under suspension of the rules, he has a lot of dynamics to consider. First, is converting the aid to a loan enough to quell dissent inside the House Republican Conference? Probably not. Consider that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy only got 107 Republicans to vote for $300 million in new Ukraine aid back in September. So you’d have to assume that Johnson will attract roughly 100 votes for a foreign aid package — even if it includes the goodies he’s floating and aid for Israel.

That would mean that Johnson would need 190 Democrats to vote with him. The speaker could only afford to lose 23 members of the minority party. With all that’s going on in Israel and the huge chasm between Democrats and Republicans on how Israel is conducting its war with Hamas, we anticipate that Democrats will lose far more than that on any foreign aid vote.

In sum, it’s clear Johnson wants to do something here. But his best option may simply be the Senate’s $95 billion foreign aid bill, which passed the chamber with 70 votes.

— Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan

We want your feedback! We’re looking to improve our Punchbowl News products and offerings. As an AM subscriber, we ask that you take a few minutes to share your feedback. Take the survey here.

THE COURTS

GOP shows little support for Trump immunity argument

Congressional Republicans, including nearly the entire Senate GOP Conference, signed onto a Supreme Court brief in January backing former President Donald Trump when Colorado state officials tried to prevent him from being on the ballot over his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

But that same level of support from Hill Republicans for Trump hasn’t materialized on a separate and equally high-profile argument to the high court — that Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution related to any official actions as president.

In fact, the deadline for submitting a brief in support of Trump’s position in the immunity case has already passed, according to the Supreme Court’s website. Before the March 19 deadline, just one GOP senator and 26 House Republicans signed onto a brief backing Trump’s expansive view of executive authority. None are in the top leadership of either chamber.

That compares to 41 GOP senators and 136 House members who signed the Colorado brief, including the leadership in both chambers.

A notable shift: The immunity brief, led by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), was authored by America First Legal, an organization founded by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller. The NRSC and its chair, Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), filed a separate brief in support of Trump’s position in the immunity case, as he did in the Colorado case.

The disparity between the level of GOP support for Trump in each case serves to highlight the unpopularity of the former president’s chief legal defense against criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

The Colorado brief, led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, had nearly 200 Hill GOP co-signers and was submitted by America First Legal.

The Colorado list included Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who recently stood by his assessment following Jan. 6 that Trump is directly responsible for the events of that day.

McConnell’s prophetic prediction: But McConnell also suggested following the post-Jan. 6 Senate impeachment trial that he believed Trump could be held accountable for his actions by the courts, saying the former president “didn’t get away with anything yet.” The immunity case before the Supreme Court, of course, directly challenges the notion that Trump can be criminally prosecuted for actions related to his official duties.

Cruz’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. It’s unclear if there was a broader effort to encourage GOP lawmakers to sign onto the brief supporting Trump in the immunity case.

It’s not clear whether Trump will notice or ultimately care about the differences in support in the two cases that could determine not only his electoral future but also whether he potentially is convicted. Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

— Andrew Desiderio

AIR WARS

Who is spending millions on the air already

With the first quarter of 2024 over, we wanted to look back on which House candidates dominated the airwaves in the opening months of the year. Here’s who came out on top of the money game, thanks to data compiled by our friends at AdImpact.

Unsurprisingly, Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) was the biggest spender, disbursing a whopping $3.5 million in his successful special election bid in New York’s 3rd District. Democrats enjoyed a cash advantage in the race and Suozzi’s tough-on-the-border ads set the tone for the immigration-centered election.

According to AdImpact, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) has already reserved $2.4 million in TV ad spending this cycle. Craig, a Frontliner, is in a perennially tough district for Democrats, although she has won three cycles in a row there.

Coming in third was Republican Kelly Daughtry, who led the primary for North Carolina’s 13th District. Daughtry spent $2 million on television ads, but still didn’t get enough of the vote to avoid a runoff. Daughtry will face Brad Knott — who spent just $300,000 on the airwaves — in the May 14 runoff.

The fourth-highest spending House candidate was also in North Carolina’s 13th District. Fred Von Canon spent $1.5 million on TV ads, but fell one percentage point short of Knott and failed to advance to the runoff. The 13th District — currently represented by Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) — is now a safely red seat after Republicans in the state legislature drew new lines for the 2024 cycle.

Democrat Peter Dixon spent the fifth-most of any House candidate — $1.5 million — but only garnered 8% of the vote and came in fifth in California’s 16th District primary.

Other House candidates that splashed over $1 million in the first quarter include Jefferson Shreve and Chuck Goodrich in two upcoming Indiana GOP primaries, in addition to John Bradford and Grey Mills, both of whom lost their Republican primaries.

— Max Cohen

K Street Republicans concerned about Trump’s mental and physical acuity

Questions about President Joe Biden’s mental fitness have overwhelmed the conversations leading into the 2024 elections, but on K Street, the concern is more about Donald Trump.

Two-thirds of Republican K Street leaders (66%) doubt Trump’s mental acuity and physical fitness to serve as president, our latest survey of downtowners found.

Meanwhile, Democratic K Street leaders seem more confident in Biden’s physical and mental capacity to serve. More than half of Democratic respondents (54%) said they are unconcerned about Biden’s cognitive and overall health.

One thing is for sure: Americans will be picking between two seniors in November. Recent polling shows the majority of voters believe both Biden, 81, and Trump, 77, are too old to serve an additional term.

But the results from our survey of K Street leaders, conducted March 4-22 in partnership with LSG, were a bit surprising. Biden has received more public scrutiny than Trump over the issue of age and fitness for office, and Republicans have continued to use the two issues to rally their base.

Biden also took a major blow after former Special Counsel Robert Hur in February described him as a “sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” in the classified documents probe. Biden was not charged.

Although Trump’s numerous legal charges have dominated his reelection campaign, the former president has had his gaffes, too. Back in October during a campaign speech, Trump mistakenly referred to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as the prime minister of Turkey. Earlier this year, Trump confused former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Both Biden and Trump would be the oldest sitting U.S. president at the end of his second term.

Want to take part in The Canvass? Our survey provides anonymous monthly insights from top Capitol Hill staffers and K Street leaders on key issues facing Washington. Sign up here if you work on K Street. Click here to sign up if you’re a senior congressional staffer.

— Donna Baeck

… AND THERE’S MORE

President Joe Biden’s campaign is running an ad about abortion. The spot is running in Milwaukee, Detroit, D.C., Albany, N.Y., New York, Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

The ad includes a clip of former President Donald Trump saying he was pleased that Roe v. Wade was overturned. “I’m proud to have done it,” Trump says. The spot also has Biden saying that Trump is running on passing a nationwide abortion ban.

“I’m running to make Roe v. Wade the law of the land again,” Biden says in a straight-to-camera shot. “Donald Trump doesn’t trust women. I do.”

Separately, an outfit called Moderate PAC is up with an ad criticizing Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) for opposing Biden. Lee faces Bhavini Patel in a competitive primary in the Pittsburgh area.

The spot says that Lee and The Squad gave Biden the “cold shoulder” at the State of the Union. The ad, which is running in Pittsburgh, says voters should elect Patel.

Also: Sam Liccardo, the leading Democrat running in California’s 16th District, raised over $1 million in the first quarter of the year, according to BOLD PAC.

California’s 16th District is currently represented by Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo, who is retiring.

Liccardo has received endorsements from several Hispanic Caucus members, including California Reps. Nanette Barragán, Linda Sánchez, Robert Garcia, Lou Correa and Tony Cárdenas.

– Jake Sherman and Mica Soellner

MOMENTS

CLIPS