Good afternoon. We hope you’ve had a peaceful couple of weeks. Congress comes back in a couple of days, and it’s already clear things are going to get chaotic.
McCarthy in Trouble
GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy lied Thursday. Then hours later, he was publicly caught in that lie.
It wasn’t actually the first time reporters disproved McCarthy denials pertaining to Donald Trump. But in lying, McCarthy managed to turn Alex Burns’ and Jonathan Martin’s reporting yesterday about comments he made in the aftermath of January 6 into a bigger problem within his conference than it might have been otherwise.
What he said: McCarthy told House Republican leaders in the aftermath of January 6 last year that he would urge former President Trump to resign, because he thought impeachment would pass the House and potentially also the Senate. “What he did was unacceptable,” the California Republican said. “Nobody can defend that and nobody should defend it.”
The chaser: He said he wished some of his bomb-throwing members, like Rep. Lauren Boebert, could be kicked off of Twitter and Facebook like Trump was at the time.
McCarthy’s comments emerged Thursday morning in print in the New York Times, as a preview of Burns’ and Martin’s upcoming book. McCarthy issued a categorical denial of the details, and his spokespeople continued that denial throughout the day. Then Burns and Martin produced unmistakable audio of McCarthy saying exactly what he claimed he hadn’t said. (You can listen here.)
A lot of this is going to evolve over the next few days, as members return to D.C. and have meetings in person. But one thing is clear: McCarthy is not untouchable within the GOP like Trump is. A not-insignificant number of people on Twitter (which is not real life) were convinced Thursday night that the conference will go along with McCarthy and quietly move on from this like the vast majority of Republicans did for Trump’s behavior in recent years. And it is possible McCarthy will recover without much fallout in public.
But the House GOP is a fractious conference, and fringe members have been openly questioning whether McCarthy will be speaker for months. Above all, as you follow this, keep in mind that this is an opportunity for some members to personally gain and rise in the ranks. Some might seize it. The internal maneuvering we might see play out probably won’t bear much resemblance to the deference House Republicans showed Trump during the churn of his presidency.
With his handling of it, McCarthy has managed to upset more than one wing of the party. Obviously, some on the right won’t be thrilled with how he turned on Trump. They especially won’t be thrilled with his wish for some of his own members to be banned from social media. Combating social media censorship, after all, is a major plank of the Republican party platform at this point, and these are the exact members most disposed to causing headaches for McCarthy. (Burns and Martin have suggested they have audio of those remarks, too.)
Many House Republicans will be sympathetic to what McCarthy said about Trump in that call, particularly the members who see themselves as the Responsible branch of the party and were saying similar things behind closed doors at the time. Some who have been alarmed by McCarthy’s lax approach to the far right members of the conference over the past year might have even been happy to know he said it.
But then came McCarthy’s lie. Believe it or not, some members of Congress want to be able to trust their leaders. They don’t want to constantly wonder whether they are being lied to. And, to take a more cynical tack, they don’t want a leader who stumbles into quagmires like this. It may not have immediate repercussions, but lawmakers won’t forget it, and it could turn into a potent line of attack in the future.
“That’s where Scalise has the upper hand,” one GOP source familiar with the dynamics told The Dispatch, referring to House GOP Whip Steve Scalise, who could angle for the top job. “He’s been working the moderates hard. And they’re not going to like this.”
Spokespeople for Scalise and Rep. Liz Cheney both said Friday they did not record or leak the call to the press.
Others downplayed the potential impact of McCarthy’s blatant lie, citing Republicans’ hostility toward the media.
“Lying to the NYT is not necessarily a transgression,” one conservative House Republican told The Dispatch Friday morning.
McCarthy is reportedly privately working members over the phone, and he hasn’t commented publicly since the audio came out. There are a few factors working in his favor: He has loyalty from a lot of influential members. He’s also played a meaningful role in helping members campaign for the majority. Many Republicans could ultimately opt to keep their heads down and let the moment pass.
Everyone is in agreement that how this unfolds will largely depend, of course, on Trump’s reaction. Conservative members have been relatively quiet about it thus far. An equally important deciding factor, though, will come with November’s midterm elections: the size of the potential GOP majority. With a tight margin, it would be harder to subdue dissent. With a larger majority, McCarthy would have more room for unrest among conservatives.
Presented Without Comment
Also Presented Without Comment
Also Also Presented Without Comment
Congress to Take Up Additional Ukraine Aid
When lawmakers left for their two-week recess earlier this month, they managed to finalize a bill to end Russia’s permanent normal trade status with the United States. That was one of the two most substantial steps Congress has taken thus far to respond to Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine. The other came in March, when lawmakers approved nearly $14 billion in aid to Ukraine as part of an omnibus government spending bill.
Given the realities of legislating in a tightly divided Congress—with high chances of delays in the Senate and partisan disagreements about various proposals—some reporters and experts rightly questioned whether Congress will continue to play a meaningful role in the United States’ response to the war, or if the trade bill will mark lawmakers’ last significant action on it for a while. The next couple of weeks could answer that second question with a firm no, at least for now. The House is expected to soon consider a Senate-passed measure to make it easier to send military aid to Ukraine. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Joe Biden’s new request to Congress for another tranche of Ukraine aid will be “taken up as soon as we can.”
Her comments came after she met Thursday morning with Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal at the Capitol building.
Biden announced Thursday after his own meeting with Shmyhal that he will ask Congress to pass a new supplemental funding package for humanitarian and economic aid to Ukraine. “My hope is and my expectation is that Congress will move and act quickly,” Biden said of the new request, which he expects to send next week.
He did not specify an exact amount, saying the Defense Department is still finalizing the details of the request.
Biden told reporters his administration has nearly depleted the supplemental funding Congress approved in March, used both for helping Ukraine in the fight and shoring up America’s national security posture in Europe.
“To modernize Teddy Roosevelt’s famous advice: Sometimes we will speak softly and carry a large Javelin, because we’re sending a lot of those in as well,” Biden said Thursday. “We’re not sitting on the funding that Congress has provided for Ukraine. We’re sending it directly to the front lines of freedom.”
Biden said the United States plans to direct $500 million to help the Ukrainian government keep services operational during the war—paying for pensions, salaries, and other programs.
“This is money the government can help use to stabilize their economy, to support communities that have been devastated by the Russian onslaught and pay the brave workers that continue to provide essential services to the people of Ukraine,” Biden said Thursday morning.
The administration is also sending $800 million in weaponry and military assistance to the country, Biden said. The latest package will include 72 howitzers, 144,000 rounds of ammunition, and 121 tactical drones, among other supplies.
To give the president more flexibility in sending aid to Ukraine, House lawmakers are expected to consider a bill next week that would pave the way for further assistance as the war enters its third month. Sen. John Cornyn pushed for the bipartisan bill before the congressional recess, and it won unanimous passage in the Senate.
The measure would cut bureaucratic red tape that can slow down weapons transfers. It allows countries that receive the assistance to repay the United States at a later date. The powers it grants Biden are set to last through fiscal years 2022 and 2023, according to the bill’s text. It limits the aid to the government of Ukraine and governments of other eastern European countries that are “impacted by the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine.”
It has historic implications: The lend-lease program follows the precedent of a bill Congress passed in March 1941, as World War II raged in Europe. It granted President Franklin D. Roosevelt sweeping authority to give countries assistance, including weaponry and critical supplies like food. It allowed the United States government to have greater involvement in the war, without formally entering the conflict. (Formal American entry into the war came months later, after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.)
The WWII-era lend-lease program aid went to countries including Great Britain, China, France, and the Soviet Union, and it was seen by foreign leaders as a game-changer in the war effort.
“Our country is going to be what our people have proclaimed it must be: the arsenal of democracy,” Roosevelt said of the legislation when it passed.
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.