Connect with us

Congress

Inside the Jeffries-Schumer Rupture

Published

on

Year after year, in shutdown fight after shutdown fight, in debt-limit standoff after debt-limit standoff, you could count on this: While Republicans would be bickering and taking potshots at each other, Democratic leaders would stay in lockstep — giving their members a united front to rally behind.

That all exploded in dramatic fashion this week, culminating Friday at a news conference unlike any I have seen in my career covering Congress, where the No. 1 House Democrat repeatedly dodged questions about whether the No. 1 Senate Democrat was fit to lead.

Should Senate Democrats ditch Chuck Schumer? House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, as the kids say, chose violence: “Next question.”

It was the diss heard around the Capitol and in Democratic circles around the country. It marked the end of decades of relative peace atop the Democratic ranks and exposed the friction between two Brooklyn natives who had worked closely together last year to engineer a new presidential ticket. And it sent a worrying signal to their party: In the future, these two leaders won’t necessarily be singing from the same political hymnal.

The stunning breach comes just as President Donald Trump takes a wrecking ball to the federal bureaucracy and pushes the limits of his constitutional powers. And yet the Jeffries-vs-Schumer drama has emerged as the biggest show on Capitol Hill this week — a distraction for Democrats that is yanking the headlines away from Trump’s tough polling and a spiraling stock market.

Ashley Etienne, a former top communications strategist for ex-Speaker Nancy Pelosi who has vocally criticized Hill Democrats agitating for a shutdown, told me it amounted to a “complete meltdown” for Democrats.

“Trump had given the party a gift — the economy is tanking, his tariff wars are devastating Americans’ pocketbooks, and the courts are finally checking his authority — yet we’ve found a way to squander it,” she said, “To beat Trump, we need clarity of purpose, discipline and coordination. It’s clear none of that exists right now.”

While the Democratic base will hold Jeffries up as a hero, even some Jeffries fans are privately questioning his approach. Before the news conference, I heard from several former House Democratic leadership aides who were puzzled by Jeffries’ posture.

One, a Democratic strategist with close ties to Pelosi granted anonymity to speak frankly, texted me out of the blue to say that he’s “afraid Jeffries is letting the Caucus’ emotional response get the best of him and his relationship with his home state counterpart.”

“Sure we’ve had disagreements in the past … but I cannot recall a moment when our bicameral leadership went this hard against each other,” the person added.

So how did two Democrats of different generations but similar politics and a shared Brooklyn upbringing end up so dramatically at odds?

Many of the Democrats I heard from said it was a long time coming and represented a deeper divide between the two leaders that had been obscured during the hothouse of the 2024 campaign.

“Leader Schumer sees Leader Jeffries as a new leader who needs to learn a lot about the nuances of governing and negotiating,” said the Pelosi-linked strategist. “Jeffries sees Schumer as someone who has lost touch with the sentiment of the base and whose tactics and style are a relic of the past.”

Yes, the clash was exacerbated by the different political realities that the two men were inhabiting. With House Republicans able to put up the votes to fund the government, Jeffries didn’t have to make the hard choice about whether he was leading his members into a shutdown. He could instead use the moment to ingratiate himself with the base, and he did.

Schumer, on the other hand, was the last man standing between the lights being shut off and 2 million federal workers being furloughed without pay. Further compounding the dilemma: real fears that Trump and Elon Musk would have even more power in a shutdown than they would otherwise.

Typically in situations like this, leaders graciously give each other space to do what they need to do — even if they privately disagree. Case in point: Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune have vastly different ideas about the size and scope and strategy for Trump’s agenda — and yet we have not seen them spar publicly.

It’s not a difficult line to walk. Here’s Sen. Mark Warner managing to do it just fine: “I’m a ‘no’ on this — but I have total respect for members who are voting yes, because these were both crappy choices,” the Virginia Democrat said after announcing his opposition to the House GOP bill.

That’s not what happened here, however.

Jeffries and his leadership team worked over the course of days to stir up opposition to the House bill even after it passed, loading pressure on Senate Democrats even as many in the party knew they would eventually have to swallow it.

And all came to a head with Jeffries’ curious choice to return to the Capitol for a news conference Friday, after two days holed up with his caucus at a suburban Virginia resort, knowing full well he would be inundated with questions about Schumer — with pat answers at the ready except to indirectly accuse his Senate counterpart of posing a “false choice” between shutdown and surrender.

Jeffries’ comments at the presser, some House Democrats speculate, were the results of a pressure campaign that had been building at the Democratic retreat. As they huddled in Leesburg, members complained to Jeffries about Schumer throwing in the towel. They felt like they had gone out on a limb to vote against government funding, and they felt Schumer was being weak in refusing to follow suit.

Jeffries also felt blindsided by Schumer’s decision, according to someone close to him. While Schumer gave Jeffries a heads up that he would back the GOP’s funding bill just before announcing his intentions publicly, Jeffries had believed for days that Schumer would likely come down on his side on the vote.

Jeffries’ leadership team first put out a joint statement Thursday hours after Schumer announced his decision, in which they said they would “not be complicit” in advancing the funding bill.

Meanwhile, Jeffries privately argued to his members that they were in the right, invoking the words of Martin Luther King Jr., no less: “The time is always right to do what’s right. This week, House Democrats did what was right. We stood up against Donald Trump,” he said at the retreat, according to my colleague Nicholas Wu.

A person close with Jeffries told me he did not mean to cast aspersions on Schumer’s leadership during the press conference, but was dodging the questions to try to keep the focus on Republicans.

Tell that to Schumer. Now with Jeffries keeping mum on Schumer’s future as Senate Democratic leader, he has essentially given Democrats a green light to question whether he should stay at all.

The dynamic is a major break from the relationship Pelosi and Schumer had back in the day. One of the former leadership aides said those two would have been bending each other’s ears daily to strategize — and certainly never would have let their disagreement spill out into the open.

“I don’t know that Pelosi would have ever gotten into an open confrontation with the Senate like this,” said a senior House aide.

The most surprising part of it, these people told me, is that Jeffries pounced even after Schumer explained that he was trying to do what he believed was right — taking the hard position on behalf of what’s best for the party despite knowing he’d take heat from the base.

“This is the [Mitch] McConnell thing, right?” the former House leadership aide said. “He would take the shit and eat the sandwich — and that’s what you do when you are leader. Pelosi did it, too. These guys [in the House], they don’t have the same experience.”

So why create all this chaos for his counterpart across the Rotunda? The immediate political incentives for Jeffries were clear: He was already getting pummeled by the base for the tepid response from Washington Democrats to Trump and Musk’s slash-and-burn campaign. Given the opportunity to reverse that narrative, he took it.

“Look, it takes a lot of heat off our leadership,” said one senior House Democratic aide when asked about why Jeffries was doing this.

Another senior House Democratic aide told my colleague Nick that the situation allowed front-line Democrats to keep the base happy while someone else took out the trash.

But it may have come at the cost of upending the lockstep relationship between leaders that has historically been essential to parties out of power. The usual pattern in Washington is that nothing unites a party quite like being in the minority — witness Kevin McCarthy’s marriage of convenience to the hard-liner Jim Jordan, who once blocked him from the gavel.

The breakup also underscores the continuing divide in the Democratic Party over how to oppose Trump.

A longtime former House Democratic leadership aide, who was also granted anonymity to speak frankly, called it evidence of “the lack of experience by House leaders.” The aide warned that this could have long-term repercussions.

“The cool sexy thing is, ‘fight, fight, fight.’ … But it’s one thing to gin up pressure on [Sens. Kyrsten] Sinema and [Joe] Manchin,” the person said, referring to the retired Senate moderates. “This is different. …This is gonna be terrible for their relationship.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Why Kristi Noem’s ouster could mean trouble for Pam Bondi

Published

on

Attorney General Pam Bondi was already in trouble with congressional Republicans. Now she could be facing an even more existential threat to her political future after President Donald Trump ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, showing his willingness to ax Cabinet members who lose trust within the GOP.

Bondi is under intense scrutiny for her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. As many as 20 Republicans might be prepared to back an effort to render punishment against the nation’s top prosecutor for slowwalking the materials’ release, according to the Democrat helping lead the charge. And five Republicans joined with Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday to subpoena her testimony.

The White House is signaling confidence in Bondi’s leadership. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, pointed to Trump’s remarks Thursday during an unrelated news event where he called Bondi a “terrific person” who is proving “how tough she is and I think the next three years she’s going to really prove it.”

“Attorney General Pam Bondi has worked tirelessly to successfully implement the President’s law and order agenda,” Jackson said in a statement. “The President has full faith in the Attorney General.”

Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre in a statement extolled what the attorney general has done to deliver transparency in the Epstein case and comply with the bill passed by Congress that mandated the files’ release. She said those lawmakers who remain critical of the administration “refuse to accept the truth.”

“These members know we are not hiding anything, and their laughable antics to score cheap political points at the expense of victims will not sway our mission to uphold the rule of law and keep the American people safe,” said Baldassarre, who also provided a bulleted list of “DOJ Wins” and a handful of quotes from Congressional Republicans lauding the attorney general.

And to be sure, Noem’s situation was unique. She oversaw an agency whose federal immigration enforcement agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota, faced questions about whether she spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a self-promotional ad campaign and clashed with border czar Tom Homan.

But Noem’s back-to-back disastrous congressional hearings this past week laid bare the extreme lack of confidence among Republicans in the outgoing secretary’s leadership, and revealed the extent to which Trump can be influenced by the sentiment of lawmakers in his party. For Bondi, the situation is becoming increasingly dire.

Asked whether he believed Bondi continued to have support among House Republicans, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who voted to subpoena Bondi in committee, responded, “I don’t know.”

“I just think it’s time to get some answers,” he added. “She’s in the batter’s box. I’d say … let her hit.”

Democrats are also preparing to train all their attention on Bondi now that Noem is no longer a top political target.

In a news conference Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Bondi and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller — an architect of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement agenda — have “got to go.”

“We’re going to approach those two toxic individuals with the same intensity that has now led to the termination of Kristi Noem,” Jeffries added.

Bondi is not the only other high ranking administration official who remains under the microscope on Blue Light News. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is also facing calls from Democrats to resign for not previously disclosing the full extent of his ties to Epstein, though he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

One House Republican, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, had plans to formally call for an Oversight Committee vote to subpoena his testimony — an outcome Lutnick preempted by announcing he would sit for a transcribed interview with members of the panel voluntarily.

Bondi, however, has absorbed the brunt of GOP ire. For months, her handling of the case against convicted sex offender Epstein has spurred outrage from a swath of the MAGA base, which clamored for years for the federal government to release the case materials in its possession and begin to hold powerful people to account for their crimes.

The DOJ’s decision last July to withhold further Epstein-related information, even after Bondi at one point boasted about having Epstein’s so-called client list on her desk, prompted an all-out revolt in Congress. It culminated in the passage of legislation, co-sponsored by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), forcing the department to make all the files public.

Under Bondi’s leadership, the DOJ ultimately blew past the statutory deadline to comply with the new law. Officials later claimed the department had fulfilled all its obligations, despite withholding case files and making redactions that appeared to go beyond the scope of what the bill permitted.

“I’m not impressed with Bondi on the Epstein files, and I’ll make that abundantly clear when I depose her whenever that day comes,” said Mace, who brought the motion in the Oversight hearing Wednesday to subpoena the attorney general. “She’s lost a lot of support among the base [and] up here as well.”

Senior House Republicans have since last summer been perplexed and often alarmed by Bondi’s handling of the Epstein matter, with even some members of Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership team privately arguing her decisions fueled the House GOP rebellion over the Epstein case, according to four people granted anonymity to share direct knowledge of the situation.

GOP leaders now are aware that Bondi could stir more fallout on Blue Light News if she testifies as expected. One senior Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, described her judgement as “not good on Epstein,” adding, “it certainly hasn’t helped us.”

Among the potential political liabilities for Bondi: an ongoing bipartisan effort to try to hold her in inherent contempt. Such a measure, which has not been deployed successfully in decades, would allow the House to impose its own punishment on Bondi — including potentially permitting the chamber’s sergeant-at-arms to take her into custody.

Khanna said he and Massie had discussed that they would have “20 Republicans who may be open to a contempt filing if she doesn’t release more files … I do believe she’s in trouble.”

Under pressure, the Justice Department released more Epstein files late Thursday, including witness interviews with a woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted by Trump when she was young. The president has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has not been charged with a crime, and the White House has said the accusations are baseless and lack credibility.

Oversight Democrats had previously announced they were looking into the potential withholding of those specific materials containing the woman’s allegation. None indicated Friday the department’s actions were satisfactory.

“The world is watching as Pam Bondi continues to aid this White House cover-up,” said the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, in a statement Friday morning. “We look forward to having her testify under oath before the Oversight Committee as soon as possible.”

Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said his members are “trying to get an update” on where the DOJ stands with the Epstein files. Asked whether Bondi is on shaky ground, he said, “I have no idea. You’ll have to ask the president.”

Still, some House Republicans insist Bondi maintains broad support within their conference and that the Oversight members are outliers who don’t represent the consensus view of the party.

“There are several members of that committee that are perhaps seeking higher office,” said Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas). “I don’t know if intentions are always pure.”

Mace is running for governor. The other four who voted to subpoena Bondi — Burchett and Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Michael Cloud of Texas — are seeking reelection to the House.

Their actions also suggest they are making a broader political calculation — that their voters see the Epstein case as a potent issue that could carry weight heading into election season.

Boebert said Thursday she had no intention to “go after” the attorney general but is eager to find out why the federal Epstein investigation has not yet resulted in further accountability or prosecutions.

Massie, who does not sit on the Oversight panel but questioned Bondi last month at a combative House Judiciary hearing, said he believed the closed-door setting afforded by a sworn deposition would give Bondi the opportunity to provide more substantive testimony.

He suspected that his Republican colleagues would act increasingly independent of the White House in the coming months, as more lawmakers choose to retire and primary season passes. He also pointed to Noem as evidence that Trump’s cabinet members are dispensable.

“I guess it shows it’s possible that he would, you know, replace people,” Massie said.

Meredith Lee Hill, Mia McCarthy, Kyle Cheney and Erica Orden contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

Republicans confront the massive cost of Trump’s Middle East war

Published

on

Republicans on Capitol Hill are preparing to confront a staggering price tag for the war in the Middle East after closed-door briefings this week detailed the rapid consumption of expensive munitions and the lack of any firm deadline for the end of the military campaign.

Asked how much the Iran offensive would cost, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) didn’t sugarcoat it.

“A lot,” he replied.

Senior Republicans privately expect President Donald Trump’s administration to request tens of billions of dollars for the Middle East conflict and other military needs from Congress in the coming days, with some GOP lawmakers hearing estimates that the Pentagon is spending as much as $2 billion a day on the war.

Three F-15E jets shot down by friendly fire in Kuwait are estimated to cost $100 million alone. But Trump officials in private briefings have declined to give lawmakers any specific numbers, according to six congressional Republicans granted anonymity to describe the internal discussions.

A White House request for supplemental funding could further balloon once it hits Capitol Hill, according to four other people with direct knowledge of the matter. Farm-state Republicans want an additional $15 billion in tariff relief for farmers, while others float adding tens of billions of dollars in wildfire aid to get enough Democratic support to pass the massive bill.

The prospect of a growing new spending measure has GOP leaders bracing for a messy internal fight, with fiscal hawks who have long decried “forever wars” and bloated Pentagon budgets deeply unsettled by some of the cost estimates flying around on Capitol Hill. At the very least, some are planning to demand offsetting spending cuts.

“I haven’t seen any specifics … but if it’s unpaid-for, I generally have an issue,” Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) said.

Another House Republican granted anonymity to describe the conversations among GOP hard-liners said, “It’s not a ‘hell no,’ but it should be offset somehow.”

The topic is now looming over next week’s House Republican policy retreat, which kicks off Monday with a speech from Trump at the president’s resort in Doral, Florida. If the administration sends its formal funding request in the coming days, House GOP leaders will be forced to confront the issue head on.

At least some are expressing unqualified early support for any administration request. House Foreign Affairs Chair Brian Mast (R-Fla.), for instance, said in an interview this week he is ready to support an emergency funding bill spending tens of billions of dollars on the Iran operation alone.

That sentiment could be challenged by the congressional Republicans who are privately wary of the open-ended timeline and shifting rationales for the war. One House Republican recently remarked that Trump’s pledge to do “whatever” it takes, including entertaining boots on the ground, sounded like “President Lyndon Johnson going into Vietnam.”

Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, a vulnerable Pennsylvania Republican, noted that “as much as we need to neutralize their capabilities to continue to attack us, we do also need to make sure that we don’t get dragged into a forever war.”

Asked in an interview if Congress is ready to approve a $50 billion Pentagon funding package, Speaker Mike Johnson replied that he didn’t know the specific number yet but Congress would pass the bill “when it’s appropriate and get it right.”

“We’re waiting on the White House and [the Pentagon] to let us know, but we have an open dialogue about it,” Johnson said.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who is attuned to the spending concerns among the fiscal hawks inside the GOP ranks, demurred when asked about the potential for a $50 billion package.

“We’re still just in the first few days of this conflict, and there’s no ask yet from the Department of War for a supplemental,” Scalise said in an interview Wednesday.

He referenced the laborious talks ahead: “When that time comes, we’ll obviously have very serious conversations, because it’s important that the Department of War have the tools they need to keep America safe.”

A bigger potential headache is brewing for Johnson as members of his conference debate whether additional military funding should go in a much-discussed but long-shot budget reconciliation bill. That could move to Trump’s desk along party lines without Democratic support, but only if Republicans are almost completely unified.

House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said in an interview this week he expected the chamber to move forward on an initial emergency funding bill but that a second filibuster-skirting megabill could contain additional Pentagon spending, along with some possible offsetting cuts.

“It’s not just for the current conflict,” Arrington said. “There are things that need to be retooled fundamentally at the Defense Department, and the president’s team is making a really good case for that.”

Rep. Ralph Norman, one GOP hard-liner who has objected in the past to big Pentagon budgets, now says he would “absolutely” support a $50 billion bill without offsets.

“I don’t like it, but with what this president’s doing with income — the GDP is increasing, the money he’s bringing in for other investments — to handicap him on that, that’s a problem,” said Norman, who is running for South Carolina governor and seeking Trump’s support.

In the Senate, some GOP appropriators are cautioning that any war funding bill will be a big lift — and warning the administration to get specific, and fast.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the “administration should not be taking anything for granted.”

“If they come to us at the end of the month and say, ‘This is what we want, and basically, deliver the votes’ … it’s not a winning strategy, in my view,” she said. “You’ve got to start making the case.”

Katherine Tully-McManus and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

GOP fundraiser with Hegseth scrapped amid Iran War buildup

Published

on

Rep. Zach Nunn has postponed a planned “Top Gun” themed fundraiser with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that had drawn criticism over its timing — at the start of a war that has already resulted in U.S. casualties.

The Iowa Republican announced the postponement Thursday on social media.

Nunn had said Hegseth would appear at the fundraiser on Saturday, hours after the initial U.S.-Israeli airstrikes in Iran. The event, called “Top Nunn” and billed as a “salute to the troops,” was scheduled for later this month in a Des Moines suburb.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon publicly identified the first U.S. deaths in the war, troops who were killed by an Iranian drone strike in Kuwait. The six soldiers were assigned to an Army Reserve command based in Nunn’s district, and two of them were from Iowa.

The announcement of the fundraiser drew strong condemnation from Democrats, who accused Hegseth of leveraging the war for political purposes. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Katie Smith attacked Nunn’s event as “callous and disqualifying” in a statement on Wednesday.

Nunn, a former intelligence officer for the Air Force, explained the postponement in a social media post while offering condolences to the families of the troops who were killed.

“Operation TOP NUNN is postponed. We will have more to share about the event soon, and all ticket holders will be notified of the new date,” Nunn said. “Our prayers are with the families and our action is with our troops on the frontlines.”

Nunn said he plans to attend the arrival of the remains of the six soldiers at Dover Air Force Base on Saturday along with President Donald Trump.

Nunn paid his respects to the six soldiers in a speech on the House floor Thursday and led a moment of silence.

Continue Reading

Trending