Congress: The Senate & The House

[phkrause]

🐳 Exclusive: GOP high-water mark

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) is staring at a scary political environment for Republicans and claiming to see something very different: a path to 225 seats.

Why it matters: Republican leaders insist they can retain the majority, but only if they drive their voters to the polls by manufacturing the kind of voter enthusiasm Democrats are generating organically.

• 🏆 "If we make it a contrast election, we win," Scalise told us in an interview today.
• "We could get to 225. It would be a good night for us if we did, but it's possible," he said.
• "235 is not," he said. "You're literally doing coin tosses in a couple of seats."

Between the lines: Asked if he saw any signs of a blue wave forming or the map expanding, Scalise said: "Not right now. No."

✅ Reality check: Republicans know that history — and many of the indicators heading into November — is working against them.

• "I know what history says, you know, but history's not on the ballot," Scalise said.
• 🗳️ Still, Democrats are turning out in primaries — and special elections — as if they're getting free gas cards for showing up.

Democrats lead by nearly nine percentage points on the generic ballot.

• President Trump's approval rating is below 40%, according to the RealClearPolitics average.
• And Trump is underwater by a whopping 61 percentage points on inflation in a recent poll, an apparent record.

🔎 Zoom in: Republicans are examining the map with a jeweler's loupe and insist the picture isn't as bleak in the pivotal battleground seats.

• "We're not looking at national polls; we go district by district," Scalise said.
• That means trench warfare in 35 seats, where Republicans say they have proven winners, plenty of money and new rules to spend it.
• "We've got 20 [seats] on our side that we're fighting to hold on to that are real competitive, and 15 [seats] that we have a real chance to flip," Scalise said. "These are knock-down, drag-out fights."

🎧 What we're hearing: The White House has long thought of the midterms as a "hate election." Scalise uses the more genteel term "contrast election."

• But before Republicans can dream about growing their majority, they need to fix their enthusiasm problem — and match the Democratic energy showing up in many of the preelection indicators.

The GOP's midterm convention in Dallas last week was the first step.

• "If we are able to capitalize on that kind of enthusiasm and carry that momentum into November, then we'll have the same turnout as the other side, and we'll hold the majority," Scalise said.
• 🚌 Now comes the road show: Congressional leaders — and the president — are hitting the campaign trail.
• In the next two weeks, Scalise will travel to 11 states to campaign for 16 Republicans — incumbents and challengers.

The bottom line: The 225-seat scenario is Scalise's high-water mark. At another point in the interview, he suggested the majority could be smaller — closer to the 220–215 split Republicans won in 2024.

• "This isn't going to be a 10-seat majority, but it could be a six-seat majority." 

— Hans Nichols

[phkrause]

🍔 Dem food fight

The House's last in-session week before the midterms was beset by furious private finger-pointing among House Democrats following several high-profile rebellions.

• 🔥 There is even chatter among members contrasting the ability of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to control members with that of his top deputy, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), according to two House Democrats.

Why it matters: This dynamic may only worsen if Democrats retake the House, which is set to see an influx of distinctly rebellious and independent lawmakers, particularly on the left.

• Said one of the two House Democrats, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share details of sensitive private discussions: "People are talking about 'Mom and Dad'.… Dad is soft."
• ⁉️ "I think people are asking the question: If this is happening in the minority, are you prepared for what will happen in the majority?" said a third House Democrat.

☀️ "There is no daylight between the three of us," Jeffries said at a press conference today with Clark and Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.).

• "We'll address the situation when we address the situation," he added.
• A Democratic leadership aide told us that everything Jeffries' deputies do is in coordination with him and doesn't represent a break between leaders.

Catch up quick: Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) yesterday provided Republican leadership with the necessary votes to advance a package of GOP bills, including a Russia sanctions bill strongly opposed by Democratic leaders.

• ⚡️ It was the second time this month that the pair of centrists defected from leadership on a procedural vote — even after Clark and Jeffries publicly threatened them with punishment the first time.
• Rep. Analilia Mejia (D-N.J.) said progressives "catch shit" for being "too ideologic and bold on our ideas," and that it's "curious … how there isn't an equally vocal attack" on centrists who break from the party line.
• Clark, along with Jeffries, engaged Gluesenkamp Perez in a heated discussion on the House floor during the vote in view of an Axios reporter, which sources said was about her defection.

— Andrew Solender

[phkrause]

Trial or Error

View in browser

If Democrats win control of the House in November, they will face a dilemma: Should they attempt a record third impeachment of Donald Trump?

The president and his allies have warned that this would be a Democratic majority’s first move. “I’m going to be impeached. They’re going to impeach me,” Trump said last month at a rally in South Carolina. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been noncommittal. “We haven’t ruled anything in, and we haven’t ruled anything out in terms of impeachment,” the would-be speaker told ABC’s This Week on Sunday. But Representative Jamie Raskin, the lead manager of Trump’s second impeachment, seemed more open. Earlier this month, on Meet the Press, he said that Trump had “undoubtedly” committed impeachable offenses. “We understand it’s not a panacea. It is a tool in the toolbox,” he said. “We will not hesitate to use it if we need to use it.”

Realistically, House Democrats may have a hard time resisting impeachment. Their voters are in a punchy mood. A new CBS News / YouGov poll found that opposition to Trump is the top motivation for Democratic voters in the midterms, and the political consultant Sarah Longwell recently wrote in The Atlantic that the most important priority for Democratic voters is not left-versus-right ideology but a willingness to fight Trump tooth and nail. Jeffries has already faced criticism for being too passive a leader, as well as for meeting with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and he may struggle to ignore a groundswell of support for impeachment.

As a constitutional matter, the case for impeaching the president is solid. Trump has usurped congressional powers, started an unauthorized war or two, defied courts, and used his position for outrageous personal and family enrichment. In 2019, my colleague Yoni Appelbaum made the intellectual case for impeachment as a useful democratic process.

The political case for impeaching Trump is shakier. Regardless of the results in November, Democrats are unlikely to get enough votes in the Senate to convict and remove him, meaning that a third impeachment would hit the same dead end as the first two. An impeachment can still be effective as a way of damaging a president, but Trump is already deeply unpopular and will never face voters again, so the upside is limited, and an impeachment might give him a way to rally his remaining base around him—which would only strengthen his power and resolve.

But what if House Democrats impeached Trump’s Cabinet members instead? The power to impeach secretaries and other executive-branch officers is explicit in the Constitution but perhaps not well known, because it’s been used only twice in history. One reason such proceedings are rare is that a president usually fires a Cabinet member or forces them to resign before they can be impeached, but Trump has shown serious reluctance to fire aides because of public pressure. The congressional scholar Norm Ornstein has argued that if Trump won’t rein them in, Democrats should. On Tuesday, outgoing Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican, brought new attention to the possibility by moving to impeach Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. GOP leadership promptly shut down all voting until after the election.

In 1876, Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached for corruption, but he resigned the same day and the Senate subsequently acquitted him; a number of senators doubted they had jurisdiction post-resignation. (This historical example resurfaced during Trump’s second impeachment trial, which occurred after he’d left office.) In 2024, House Republicans impeached Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on vague grounds, but the Senate voted to dismiss the charges as unconstitutional without a trial.

A Democratic House could plausibly launch impeachment inquiries into several administration officials, many of which would dovetail with investigations that representatives say they already have planned. In some cases, Democratic representatives have already filed articles of impeachment against Cabinet members, including Hegseth, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, but those have gone nowhere in the GOP-led chamber. A new Democratic majority could change that.

The conduct of a few particular individuals makes them likely targets for impeachment efforts. Kennedy has done serious damage to American public health, undermining vaccinations and weakening the CDC. At least one Republican senator has accused him of lying about vaccination rules during his confirmation hearings, when he also falsely characterized a trip he took to Samoa. Hegseth has waged an unauthorized war against Iran, for which he seems to have no realistic game plan; mishandled classified information; possibly violated the Hatch Act by appearing at a fundraiser for a political candidate; and left the armed forces bereft of leadership by firing a slew of qualified generals and admirals.

Attorney General Todd Blanche has been instrumental in turning the Justice Department into a partisan tool for persecuting Trump’s political adversaries, and a federal judge rebuked him for his role in Trump’s attempt to set up a $1.8 billion slush fund for political allies. Multiple sources shared with my colleague Sarah Fitzpatrick serious worries about FBI Director Kash Patel’s leadership, including claims of emotional volatility, heavy drinking, and absence from the job. (Patel denied the allegations and sued Fitzpatrick and The Atlantic for defamation, demanding $250 million.) Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, has led a concerted effort to take congressional powers for the White House.

As a policy matter, impeachment of some of these officers could be more effective than ordinary investigations would be in halting the egregious actions taken by their offices and departments. It might also have a couple political benefits over impeaching Trump. First, such an effort could escape the Trump vortex: By moving the focus to officials who don’t command the same personal loyalty as Trump, impeachment might allow more emphasis on actual administration actions and policy, instead of on presidential personality. Second, conviction might still be a remote possibility, but GOP senators who are fed up with the White House might be more willing to vote to convict officers than they would be to risk taking on Trump himself.

The real question is whether controversial Cabinet secretaries will stick around to see whether Democrats try to target them. A midterm election, especially one that goes poorly for the president’s party, is typically a moment for some secretaries to exit. But Hegseth seems entrenched, continuing to push out rivals; Blanche just won confirmation; and Kennedy and Vought are ideologues pursuing treasured agendas. If neither they nor Trump are willing to change course, then a Congress that has done little for the past two years will have a chance to do something novel: act.

Related:

• How does impeachment work? (From 2017)
• How Trump broke—and then saved—impeachment (From 2021)

[phkrause]

Senators from both parties voice criticism about Pentagon briefing on US defense strategy  Lawmakers said they were left deeply unsettled Thursday after the Pentagon's top policy adviser, Defense Undersecretary Elbridge Colby, failed to provide an expected update on the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy at a classified briefing. Read more.

Why this matters: Tensions are mounting between the Pentagon and Congress over the flow of information to lawmakers about the U.S. military’s priorities. Both Democrats and Republicans accused Colby of being frustratingly opaque. They also say they were unsatisfied with Colby’s answers to questions ranging from inquiries about the Iran war to growing concerns that Trump could deploy troops to polling places during November’s midterm congressional elections.