Sen. Ron Johnson, who is expected to take over as chair of the Senate Budget Committee from the late Lindsey Graham, could make life more complicated for Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Unlike his predecessor, Johnson is hardly a leadership ally. A fiscal hawk elected in the 2010 Tea Party wave, he’s more bullish about reconciliation bill and a major proponent of the SAVE America Act, which House Republican leadership says they’ll tack onto any forthcoming reconciliation bill—which Johnson would oversee from his new perch in the Senate. Thune, for his part, has repeatedly stated that Senate Republicans don’t have the votes to get Trump’s beloved proof-of-citizenship bill past a filibuster. He doesn’t believe they can slip the bill through the reconciliation process, either. And, in fact, he would prefer not to attempt a new reconciliation bill at all.

Indeed, Thune told me that he warned Johnson this very morning of the potential challenges, noting that Senate budget rules would likely prohibit the SAVE Act from being included in a third reconciliation bill. Moreover, Thune said, he reminded Johnson that any new reconciliation bill would allow Democrats to put forward a slew of amendments to trip up Republicans facing tough reelections—and that the bill could fail, given the tough political environment in the midterms. (Johnson has served on the Budget Committee for years, so he does understand the tricky dynamics. “They’re never easy, and I don’t expect this one to be easier,” Johnson told me.)

In our conversation, Thune was adamant as ever that the House needs to appreciate the Senate’s limitations. “The key—and [Johnson’s] aware of this, and we’ve talked about it—is whatever we do is going to have to be carefully coordinated in the House,” he told me. Thune also said that Johnson has already reached out to the House Budget Committee to try to coordinate their strategies. Good luck…

The Israel Aid Divide

The Democratic schism over Gaza is expected to come to the fore on Wednesday as Rep. Thomas Massie forces the House to consider blocking $3.3 billion in annual military funding for Israel. As recently as a year ago, only a few progressive Democrats might have supported such a bill. But the ground has shifted beneath the party amid a series of primary contests in which Democratic voters have made opposition to Israel’s conduct a decisive litmus test for candidates. I’ve spoken to many Democrats who say they still don’t know how they’ll vote, but expect many of their colleagues to flip on the issue.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been listening to all corners of the debate for weeks, finally clarifying his stance this morning in a characteristically something-for-everyone letter. He called for a two-state solution—the long-standing party position—and squarely placed blame on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for poisoning relations with the U.S. Still, Jeffries said that he would vote against the amendment, describing it as “overly broad” and arguing that there are “more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary”—such as President Trump negotiating new terms with Israel before the 10-year memorandum of understanding between the countries is set to expire.

While many House Democrats I’ve talked to agreed with Jeffries’ position and described his M.O.U. proposal as a road map for the party heading into 2028, some also believe that he’s taking a risky position in voting against the amendment. In particular, some rank-and-file members think that backing Massie’s bill—even if it will never become law—would be a way for the party to essentially defang the far left, which has leveraged a majority issue with the base to strengthen its appeal. Members are concerned that Jeffries’ vote would ultimately empower the incoming democratic socialist bloc to make ultimatums before giving him the speaker’s gavel.

When I asked Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar about the issue, he told me that leaders are “not thinking about what a Democratic candidate is going to say in December after they’re sworn in. That’s not part of the calculus.”

Others, however, may be responding to their own evolving constituent calculus. Rep. Valerie Foushee, who nearly lost her primary to a progressive challenger who was aided by $1 million from an anti-Israel super PAC, told Leigh Ann that she is leaning yes on tomorrow’s vote—adding, pointedly, that Jeffries represents “a constituency that is not mine.”—Marianna Sotomayor

Latest from Puck