Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is defending former President Trump for his actions surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, saying Trump had encouraged a peaceful protest that day — but did nothing to merit the criminal charges the Justice Department (DOJ) is said to be weighing. 

“I don’t see how he could be found criminally responsible,” McCarthy told reporters Wednesday in the Capitol. “What criminal activity did he do? He told people to be peaceful.”

The Speaker’s comments came a day after Trump revealed he is a target of the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the Capitol rampage, which was conducted by supporters of the former president who were attempting to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The so-called target letter is typically an indication that a formal indictment is forthcoming. 

McCarthy’s defense of Trump marks a contrast to remarks he made shortly after the Capitol attack, when he took to the House floor to declare that Trump “bears responsibility” for the actions of the “mob rioters.” 

McCarthy said he spoke to Trump Tuesday after the former president placed a call to him, and that the conversation “wasn’t anything different than the time before.” He noted that they “talk on a regular basis” but also suggested Trump was frustrated with the arrival of the target letter. 

“Wouldn’t you feel frustrated?” McCarthy said.

McCarthy disputed reports that the call was a “strategy session” designed to unite Republicans behind a response to potential indictments, instead accusing the Biden administration of conducting such sessions for the purpose of targeting the president’s political adversaries.

“I think the strategy sessions happen in the Democrats’ Department of Justice, where they go after anybody who’s running against the president,” McCarthy said. “It seems as though — and if you go up in the polls you’re more likely to get indicted.”

House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), one of Trump’s fiercest supporters on Capitol Hill, also said she spoke to the former president Tuesday following news of the target letter, before tearing into the development as “yet another example of the illegal weaponization of the Department of Justice to go after Joe Biden’s top political opponent.”

The comments came on the same day that House Republicans staged a high-profile hearing with a pair of IRS whistleblowers who accused DOJ prosecutors of slow-walking an investigation into Hunter Biden. Both McCarthy and Stefanik said the real criminal conspiracy lies there, not with anything Trump did surrounding Jan. 6.  

“I would move to an impeachment inquiry if I found that the attorney general has not only lied to the Congress and the Senate, but to America,” McCarthy said, referring to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

McCarthy’s full-throated defense sets up a stark contrast with his GOP counterpart in the Senate, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who declined to comment on the Trump news when asked about it at a press conference Wednesday, citing the former president’s reelection campaign.

“I’ve said every week out here that I’m not going to comment on the various candidates for the presidency,” McConnell told reporters. “How I felt about that I expressed at the time, but I’m not going to start getting into sort of critiquing the various candidates for president.”

After the Senate concluded its impeachment trial into Trump following the Jan. 6 riot, McConnell tore into the former president in remarks on the floor, declaring, “There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day.”

“The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,” he added.

Since then, McConnell has remained relatively silent when it comes to matters involving Trump, picking and choosing when to weigh in on politically charged matters linked to the former president.

A former Trump deputy attorney general defended special counsel Jack Smith after the former president revealed he was the target of the Jan. 6 federal investigation looking into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

NewsNation’s Dan Abrams asked Richard Donoghue, who served in Trump’s Justice Department from December 2020 to January 2021, what he thought of remarks made by Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) Tuesday accusing President Biden of weaponizing the government to go after his opponent.

“I think nothing could be further from the truth,” Donoghue said. “For some people, Donald Trump will always be a man who was targeted because he stands up to corrupt elites, and for others he will always be Benedict Donald, a leader who puts his own interests above the country’s.”

“I don’t think he’s political. He’s not left-wing, he is not an agent of the deep state,” he said of Smith. “His politics would put him right of center, I believe, and look, he secured the first capital sentence in New York in more than 50 years. He’s not a bleeding-heart liberal.”

Abrams asked Donoghue if he believed it was unfair for those to describe Smith as a “tool of the left wing."

“Absolutely, I don’t believe that for a minute,” he said. “I’ve known Jack for decades. I’ve seen and worked many, many cases over the years up close. I’ve seen him work incredibly hard at doing that, and what he’s always done is follow the facts and apply the law.”

Trump revealed Tuesday that he received a letter informing him that he is a target of Smith’s investigation looking into the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Legal experts say that means the former president will likely be indicted for a third time this year.

Trump pleaded not guilty to 37 federal counts of mishandling classified documents and attempting to keep them from the government in a separate case last month. And he has pleaded not guilty to all charges in a hush money case in New York City.

Donoghue was one of several former Trump Justice Department officials who testified before the House Jan. 6 select committee last year. He is also a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Both NewsNation and The Hill are owned and operated by Nexstar Media Group.

 It’s one of the oldest, strongest and most consistent poll findings on record.   

Americans are happy to cut government spending in general, but adamantly oppose cuts in most all specific areas.    

 A few months ago, the Associated Press (AP) and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) examined spending issues and found 60 percent of Americans saying the U.S. government was spending “too much.”   

 Presumably, that majority wants to pare federal outlays.  

 But which spending?  

 Just 29 percent say we are spending too much on the military. Little support for reductions there.   

Social Security and Medicare? Just 7 percent and 10 percent, respectively, believe too much is being spent on those programs.  

 “OK,” you say, “we’re hitting third rails.” True perhaps, but those three third rails, plus interest on the debt, account for over half of federal expenditures.    

 “What about some of President Biden’s favorites,” Republicans might argue. “Should be easy pickings there.”  

 But only 11 percent want reductions in infrastructure spending. Just 25 percent see too much spending on the environment and 20 percent on scientific research. Even fewer, 16 percent, say the same about assistance with child care.  

 “Surely,” GOPers say, “we can demagogue welfare.” But only 18 percent would curtail “aid to the poor” in the AP/NORC survey. In YouGov polling earlier this year, just 15 percent favored cutting Medicaid, 17 percent would cut SNAP, only 16 percent supported cuts to Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the same small number favored cutting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.   

 So, no, voters don’t want to scale down those safety net programs.   

Only 12 percent would countenance cuts to education spending and, GOP efforts to demonize law enforcement notwithstanding, just 23 percent favor reductions there.    

My apologies for the long recitation of numbers, but I hope the point is clear. While voters want to cut government spending generally, large majorities oppose cuts in almost every specific category.   

 Yet, catering to the demands of the Freedom Caucus, McCarthy will force every House Republican to vote for massive spending cuts in each and every one of these programs, alienating the vast majority of Americans.  

 Republican appropriators already proposed cutting education by over $22 billion, which would mean firing 220,000 teachers across the country, increasing class sizes. In addition, they’re cutting over a billion dollars from STEM education.   

 To say voters will be angry about such reductions puts it mildly.  

 Unlike Democrats, Republicans are actually defunding the police, eliminating $1 billion from the FBI, which means fewer agents and federal prosecutors, which means fewer criminals brought to justice.   

 The GOP is backing a nearly 40 percent, $4 billion cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, which translates into fewer resources to clean up the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound, as well as less assistance for clean drinking water across the country.   

 Republicans are cutting cancer research, mental health support and preschool.    

GOP House members will end up voting for these or similar cuts because McCarthy first surrendered to the Freedom Caucus on the debt limit negotiations and then gave them license to cut even more, after the deal was complete.   

 But Republicans are unlikely to stop with votes to slash crowd-pleasing spending. At the insistence of the far right, the GOP will likely shut down the government to force these unpopular cuts.   

 That’s what happened in 1996, and Democrats won races as a result.   

 That year we campaigned against the GOP shutdown and for preventing Republican cuts to Medicare, education and the environment. The result: 18 Republicans lost their seats to Democratic challengers, while only three Democrats were defeated.   

Far fewer would flip the House in 2024.  

 Circumstances and context have changed, but Republicans seem intent on following the far right down the same path toward defeat in response to their effort to slash popular spending.

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, a member of the Association’s Hall of Fame, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.       

The revelation that former President Trump faces a possible grand jury indictment connected to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack and his efforts to hold on to power has landed like a bombshell on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers saw firsthand the violence unleashed that day. 

Some GOP lawmakers rushed to Trump’s defense, but many Republicans in the Senate held back from defending the former president, who has been accused of stoking the Jan. 6 mob and who waited before calling on protesters to disperse.  

The expected indictment separately poses a tough political problem for many Republicans critical of Trump, who remains wildly popular with the party’s base. 

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who hasn’t spoken to Trump since December 2020, stayed quiet about the news of yet another indictment against his onetime ally, who is now leading the Republican presidential primary field by 30 points in national polls.  

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) addresses reporters after the weekly policy luncheon on Wednesday, July 19, 2023. (Greg Nash)

His top deputies, Senate Republican Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), reacted with caution.

Asked whether it would be “legitimate” for special counsel Jack Smith to charge Trump for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Thune said it would depend on the facts and evidence presented.  

“That’s going to depend on whether or not laws were broken," he said. "So clearly, I don’t know what they’re looking at. But I’m sure we’ll know in due time.” 

Cornyn dodged the politically charged topic altogether, arguing the Justice Department has the authority to investigate whether Trump broke the laws in trying to stop the certification of the 2020 election. 

“I think that’s entirely within the purview of the Department of Justice and has nothing to do with the United States Senate,” he said.  

Asked if Smith is a “credible prosecutor,” he said, “I have no knowledge of anything approaching that.” 

Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who called the indictment of Trump last month for violating the Espionage Act “political” and “rotten,” was the only senior member of the Republican leadership to accuse the Justice Department of acting on political motives.  

“It looks like the president is targeting his most popular opponent. Isn't that interesting? Sounds political to me,” he said.  

Asked if he saw any qualitative difference between the 37 felony counts federal prosecutors brought against Trump last month for refusing to turn over classified documents he kept improperly at Mar-a-Lago and new charges related to Jan. 6, Barrasso saw both indictments as political attacks.  

More from The Hill

• GOP front-runners have little to say on climate change amid record heat
• Senate puts NASA on notice over Mars mission
• Ohio GOP braces for critical primary in bid to oust Sherrod Brown

“The administration is siccing its dogs on the former president of the United States and their most formidable opponent,” he said.  

Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) only said, “It’s a never-ending story, that’s my comment.”  

The generally muted response from Senate Republican leaders posed a stark contrast with House Republican leaders, who rushed to Trump’s defense.  

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested the Justice Department is bringing new charges against Trump because he is leading the Republican presidential field by double digits and pulled ahead of President Biden in a recent poll.  

“Recently, President Trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing President Biden for reelection. So what do they do now? Weaponize government to go after their No. 1 opponent,” McCarthy said Tuesday. 

“This is not equal justice. They treat people differently and they go after their adversaries,” he said. 

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) speaks to reporters during a media availability in Statuary Hall of the Capitol on Wednesday, July 19, 2023.

McCarthy’s comments reveal how his views of Trump’s culpability for the attack on the Capitol have evolved since January 2021, when he told GOP colleagues that Trump “bears responsibility for his words and actions ­— no if, ands or buts.” 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) accused the Justice Department of waging a politically motivated prosecution to distract from a whistleblower’s claims that senior administration officials interfered with an Internal Revenue Service investigation of Hunter Biden.

“Now you see the Biden administration going after President Trump once again, and it begs that question, ‘Is there a double standard? Is justice being administered equally?’” Scalise asked at a press conference.  

Other Trump allies in the House joined the attack against the administration.  

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) claimed Biden’s Justice Department did little to prosecute Black Lives Matter protesters who breached a federal courthouse in 2020 or to prosecute threats against conservative Supreme Court justices. 

“But if you’re President Trump and do nothing wrong? PROSECUTE. Americans are tired of the double standard!” he tweeted.  

Another Trump ally, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), attacked Smith on Twitter as a “lousy attorney” and pointed to the Supreme Court overturning his conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R). 

“He only targets Republicans because he’s a weak little bitch for the Democrats,” she tweeted. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asks a question during a hearing on Wednesday, June 21, 2023 to discuss the report from Special Counsel John Durham about the “Crossfire Hurricane” probe into allegations of contacts between Russia and former President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Senate Republicans, many of whom have made clear they don’t want to see Trump as the party’s nominee for president in 2024, however, broke with their House GOP colleagues over the claim that the Justice Department is operating a “two-tier” system and holding Trump to a special standard. 

“I think you’ve got to go where the facts lead you and determine whether or not laws are broken. But there shouldn’t be two systems of justice; everybody should be held accountable and there ought to be equal justice under the law,” Thune told reporters. 

“Clearly in these circumstances, it’s a politically charged environment. I think it puts an even higher burden of proof on the Justice Department given the perceptions that people have about that but this has got to be driven by the law and the facts,” he said.  

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) addresses reporters after the weekly policy luncheon on Wednesday, July 19, 2023.

McConnell excoriated Trump on the Senate floor at the end of his 2021 impeachment trial for inciting the mob that stormed the Capitol hallways and ransacked the Senate parliamentarian’s office. 

“There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” he declared, referring to the violence and chaos that resulted in injuries to more than 100 Capitol police officers.  

One officer, Brian Sicknick, died of natural causes while defending the Capitol.  

Thune said just because the Senate Republicans’ top leader called Trump “practically and morally” responsible, that did not necessarily warrant criminal charges.  

“Practically and morally is something very different than legally, and I think that’s what the Justice Department has to look at. They’ve got to look at the law, the facts as they’ve interviewed people, and then make a determination about whether laws were broken,” he said.   

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted twice to convict Trump on impeachment charges — including on the charge of inciting the Jan. 6 riot — warned his House GOP colleagues about relentlessly attacking the Justice Department.

He voiced concern about "the diminution of institutions in which we rely as a society." 

"A democracy works when we have confidence in the justice system, in the legal system, in our prosecutors and so forth. If we constantly attack and diminish them, that weakens the democracy," he said. 

House Republicans will put their claims of unequal justice for Republicans and Democrats at center stage Wednesday, bringing IRS whistleblowers before the public to blast the government’s investigation into Hunter Biden, the son of President Biden.

The hearing will serve in part as a way for Republicans to give former President Trump political cover as he faces a likely third indictment over Jan. 6, while also fueling a potential impeachment inquiry against Attorney General Merrick Garland.

IRS investigator Gary Shapley and an unnamed IRS special agent told the House Ways and Means Committee in May that they were displeased with the investigation into Hunter Biden’s tax matters, accusing prosecutors of slow-walking the investigation and allowing the statute of limitations to run out. Hunter Biden in June reached a deal to plead guilty to tax crimes for 2017 and 2018. 

In one point of drama, the identity of the unnamed IRS agent will be revealed at Wednesday’s hearing.

Republicans hope the credibility of the two whistleblowers will rub off on broader investigations of the Biden family’s business dealings. The House Oversight Committee claims it has uncovered financial documents showing that foreign companies funneled more than $10 million to Biden family members and associates, traveling through a web of shell companies.

“This is the A-team with the IRS. These two guys have stellar records,” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said Tuesday.

The hearing could also help Republicans distract from Trump’s numerous legal problems after the former president said Tuesday that he expected an imminent indictment in relation to the Justice Department’s probe into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

The hearing fits in with a broader GOP theme that the federal government is “weaponized” against Biden’s political opponents.

“If you notice recently, President Trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing President Biden for reelection. So what do they do now? Weaponize government to go after their number one opponent,” Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Tuesday. 

McCarthy complained that in Hunter Biden’s case, prosecutors waited until after the statute of limitations was up for some tax years, then brought charges on others. He also referenced Shapley’s complaint that Hunter Biden’s lawyers were alerted to investigators’ interest in a storage unit.

The White House in a statement criticized the attacks on Biden.

“Instead of wasting time on politically-motivated attacks on a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, the rule of law, and the independence of our justice system, House Republicans should join President Biden to focus on the issues most important to the American people like continuing to lower inflation, create jobs, and strengthen health care," said Ian Sams, the White House spokesperson for oversight & investigations.

The whistleblower testimony has prompted Republican accusations of corruption at the highest levels and led McCarthy to float a potential impeachment inquiry into Garland.

A key detail for Republicans in Shapley’s testimony is whether David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for Delaware overseeing the Hunter Biden case, had authority to bring charges in other districts.

Shapley alleges that U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matthew Graves “did not support the investigation,” pushing Weiss to request special counsel status in order to be able to bring charges outside of his usual Delaware jurisdiction. According to Shapley, Weiss was denied that status.

Weiss and Garland have both denied this. Each said the Delaware prosecutor was assured he could seek special attorney status if desired, governed under a different statute that likewise would have allowed Weiss to bring charges in any venue. Graves has also said he did not oppose Weiss bringing charges in Washington.

Some lawmakers have argued Shapley’s testimony shows unfamiliarity with the statutes governing prosecutorial power.

“If you want to put the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney’s word up against a disgruntled agent — who clearly doesn't even understand the difference between a special counsel and a specially designated attorney under Section 515 — you’re playing with fire,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who before being elected to Congress served as a counselor in Trump’s first impeachment. 

But McCarthy said the differing accounts could be fodder for an impeachment inquiry, as Garland told Congress that Weiss had “full authority to make those referrals you're talking about or to bring cases in other districts if he needs to do that.” 

Democrats have also dismissed some of Shapley’s complaints, characterizing them as common differences of opinion between investigators and prosecutors.

Shapley’s testimony points to numerous instances where prosecutors expressed hesitation about taking any action that might influence the 2020 election. They appeared to be wary of repeating past actions that spurred criticism, notably former FBI Director James Comey’s statement about the Hillary Clinton investigation just days before the 2016 election. 

The Oversight hearing also demonstrates how Republican interest in Hunter Biden and the business dealings of Biden’s family has pushed them into multiple different directions — from tracking funds flowing to Biden family members; to alleged interference in the criminal case against Hunter Biden; to an unverified allegation that an executive of Ukrainian energy company Burisma (of which Hunter Biden was a board member) offered a bribe to President Biden. 

“There's really two investigations going on now. There's the investigation of the Biden crime, and there's investigation of a government cover-up,” Comer said.

While Comer said that the Ways and Means Committee and the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Federal Government will also investigate any potential cover-up, he said that the Oversight panel is still focused on “following the money.”

Still, Oversight Republicans have gotten pulled into the cover-up allegations.

On Tuesday, Comer said in a statement that committee staff conducted an interview with ​​a former FBI supervisory special agent who confirmed some aspects of the IRS whistleblowers’ testimony — specifically, that the Secret Service and the Biden transition team were alerted to plans for the IRS to show up and seek an in-person interview with Hunter Biden that ultimately never happened.

Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said in a statement that Comer had “cherry-picked and distorted statements of a witness to advance Republicans’ false narrative about political interference in the Hunter Biden investigation.”

He’s also dismissed the GOP for fixating on investigations that Trump-appointed officials chose not to advance, pointing to Comer basing much of his investigation on a confidential tip about President Biden accepting a bribe that the FBI was not able to corroborate.

“There was an assessment opened up, and they decided not to move from the assessment level to either a preliminary investigation or to a full investigation,” Raskin said last week.

“They closed it down.”

This story was updated at 6:54 p.m.

Tuesday’s news that federal investigators have notified former President Trump of potential criminal charges for his efforts to retain power after his 2020 defeat has captivated Washington, roiled the 2024 presidential race and sparked an outcry from Trump’s GOP allies on and off Capitol Hill.

But for the lawmakers who spent the better part of the last two years investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — and Trump’s role in it — the development came as no surprise.

“It would not surprise me in the least if Donald Trump were a target of criminal investigation based on everything that he did and everything that the whole world knows he did,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the select committee that had investigated the rampage, said Tuesday. 

The Jan. 6 select committee spent roughly 18 months during the last Congress investigating the Capitol attack, interviewing more than 1,000 witnesses and airing its findings in a string of explosive public hearings before delivering its results to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Based on those findings, members of the investigative panel suggested that formal criminal charges from the DOJ would be an obvious next step. 

“I don't think there was any question … the committee, at the end of our work, [believed] that Donald Trump had something to do with it,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who had chaired the nine-member select committee, said of the violent attempt to block Congress from certifying Trump’s defeat. “So for him to receive a target letter is not something that would be a surprise.”  

Hours earlier, Trump announced that he had received a so-called target letter Sunday informing him that he’s become a person of interest in the DOJ’s Jan. 6 investigation, which is being led by special counsel Jack Smith. Such advisories are typically delivered ahead of an indictment, and Trump blasted the investigation as a political witch hunt Tuesday. 

“Deranged Jack Smith, the prosecutor with Joe Biden’s DOJ, sent a letter (again it was Sunday night!) stating that I am a TARGET of the January 6th Grand Jury investigation, and giving me a very short 4 days to report to the Grand Jury, which almost always means an arrest and indictment,” Trump wrote Tuesday on his Truth Social page. 

Republicans have hammered the DOJ in the wake of the news, rushing to Trump’s defense with amplified claims that the DOJ has been “weaponized” under President Biden to go after the president’s political adversaries. In their telling, Trump has become a target solely because he is the front-runner for the GOP nomination in next year’s presidential contest.

“Recently President Trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing President Biden for reelection,” Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. “So what do they do now? Weaponize government to go after their No. 1 opponent.”

In the days after the Capitol attack, McCarthy had said Trump “bears responsibility” for the actions of the “mob rioters,” but quickly made amends with the former president, who helped McCarthy win the Speaker’s gavel this year. 

It’s unclear what charges Smith’s team might be weighing against Trump. Investigators in recent weeks have reportedly been meeting with a host of Trump’s former attorneys, aides and legal advisers, including those who had most aggressively publicized the false claims of a “stolen” 2020 election. And members of the select committee said they’re confident in the DOJ’s diligence if the agency does eventually bring charges. 

“Their track record has been very solid when it comes to prosecutions, and we expect that the target letter and the work that the grand jury continues to do will meet that threshold of seeking the facts and holding people accountable, no matter where they are — and no matter who they are," said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), another member of the investigative panel.  

The Jan. 6 select committee, in delivering its findings to the DOJ, had recommended four separate charges against Trump: obstructing an official government proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, inciting an insurrection and conspiracy to make false statements.

"Ordinarily, if you get a target letter, you're indicted,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), another member of the select committee. “And I'm interested in what the charges will be.” 

“So far only the individual rioters have been held accountable,” Lofgren continued. “And I think it's important that the accountability be not just for the foot soldiers, but for the generals who designed this." 

Thompson said the committee went out of its way to keep its distance from the separate DOJ investigation, noting that the panel had refused to share any of its findings with the administration while the congressional probe was still open. 

“There was an effort to get some of the material before we finished, and we resisted. Because we didn't want to be a part of the politics of our committee and DOJ,” Thompson said. “We wanted to separate our challenge and our charge, and that's what we did.”

Thompson also said he’s had no communication with DOJ investigators since his select committee turned its findings over to the agency and disbanded at the end of last year. 

“We're out of business,” he said. “We're out of business." 

Mychael Schnell contributed reporting.

The Rolling Sea Action Fund will raise money as well as invest in different advertising and campaigns in the upcoming election cycle. The Democrats currently hold 212 seats in Congress, meaning they’d need to flip a minimum of five seats to become the majority party in 2024. 

The CBC’s former Political Director Niccara Campbell-Wallace is the executive director of the new fund. Campbell-Wallace told The Hill that one of the main goals of the fund will be to recognize that Black voters are the “backbone” of the Democratic party.

“When Black voters turn out, they turn out, and they fight for democracy,” Campbell-Wallace said. “This organization shares the mission and goals of the CBC PAC, which is focused on recruitment. This will be an avenue to really, really target folks in battlefield districts that are crucial for us to take back the House in 2024.”

The Rolling Sea Action Fund will target districts that have around 8 percent or more of a Black voting age population. The goal is to invest eight figures into mobilization efforts and campaigns, Campbell-Wallace said. 

But the fund will also focus on year-round political investment in Black communities, something many activists have said doesn’t happen. 

Though Black voters consistently cast their ballots for Democrats in higher numbers than any other racial group, Democrats have faced criticism from activists who accuse politicians of avoiding Black voting areas until little more than a week before election day. 

Campbell-Wallace told The Hill that the new super PAC will be “intentional and authentic” with their messaging to Black voters.

The Rolling Sea Action Fund comes after the 2022 midterms saw a record number of Black candidates run and win their elections. At the federal level, the CBC welcomed its largest cohort ever with 58 members. 

Congress also saw Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) make history last year as the first Black lawmaker to lead a congressional party. His rise to head the House Democrats nearly saw the nation’s first Black Speaker, with all 212 Democrats nominating Jeffries in January. But with the Republican majority, those hopes were squashed when Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) took the Speakership.

“Representation does matter, you have to see yourself in order to be what you see,” Campbell-Wallace said. “Having all these voices at the table with different thoughts, different types of Black people – because we know Black people are not a monolith – really lends itself to that.”

Though the fund will focus mainly on federal elections, it does plan to partner with grassroots organizations as well. One of the groups of voters they’ll be focused on is Black men. 

The Democratic party has been struggling with Black men in recent years. The 2020 election saw Black men’s support for Democrats drop to its lowest point in history. 

Though 80 percent of Black men supported Joe Biden in 2020, compared to 82 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016, the level of support has not reached the 95 percent of support Barack Obama won in 2008, according to an NBC poll.

But having voices like Jeffries, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), chair of the CBC, and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), CBC PAC chair, is important to showing Black men that the CBC is listening to their concerns. 

“We understand that there needs to be a direct effort targeting Black men and speaking to them in the way that they feel they’re understood and heard,” Campbell-Wallace said. “Having strong Black men and strong Black voices to really advocate for them is so essential. I come from a line of strong Black men, and so I love Black men and this is a sort of love letter to them.”

This story was updated at 10:52 a.m.

Republicans defended former President Trump after he announced Tuesday he was the target of the federal Jan. 6 investigation focusing on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, criticizing the government for his prosecution.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested Tuesday that the government was targeting Trump out of fear he could win next November.

“Recently President Trump went up in the polls and was actually surpassing President Biden for reelection. So what do they do now? Weaponize government to go after their No. 1 opponent,” he told reporters.

“This is not equal justice. They treat people differently and they go after their adversaries,” said McCarthy, who after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol said Trump “bears responsibility” for what happened.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) walks through Statuary Hall following a vote on Tuesday, July 18, 2023. (Greg Nash)

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) also questioned the timing of the new development in the Jan. 6 investigation and whether there was a double standard being applied to the former president.

He noted that the news comes as the House Oversight Committee is slated to hear testimony from two IRS whistleblowers this week who alleged an investigation into Hunter Biden was slow-walked by prosecutors.

“Now you see the Biden administration going after President Trump once again, it begs that question — is there a double standard? Is justice being administered equally?” he said at the House GOP conference presser.

Trump said in a statement that he received the letter notifying him of the investigation Sunday evening, an indication that the former president could soon face charges in a second federal case.

He pleaded not guilty to 37 federal counts in a separate case in June in connection with his mishandling of classified documents and attempting to keep them from the government.

The Jan. 6 investigation is being spearheaded by special counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed last year to determine “whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) also ramped up her attacks on the Justice Department after Trump announced his news, saying that it is “absolute bulls---” to reporters. She said that the charges are “ridiculous” and that Smith is “weaponizing” the Justice Department against Trump.

More from The Hill

• DeSantis says Trump ‘should have come out more forcefully’ on Jan. 6

• US soldier in North Korean custody ‘willfully’ crossed border: Pentagon

• Air National Guardsman accused of leaking documents wants to be treated like Trump

“If this is the direction America is going — we are worse than Russia, we are worse than China. We are worse than some of the most corrupt third world countries, and this needs to end,” she said in a video captured by CSPAN. “It's an absolute lie.”

She also took to Twitter to call Smith a “weak little b----.”

“Jack Smith is a lousy attorney,” Greene tweeted. “His career is filled with mistrials, overturned cases, and judicial rebukes. He only targets Republicans because he’s a weak little b---- for the Democrats.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) asks questions during a House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing entitled, ‘Investigating the Proximal Origin of a Cover Up’ on Tuesday, July 11, 2023. (Greg Nash)

Republican Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Mary Miller (Ill.) also echoed their colleagues' sentiments about the news.

“Joe Biden’s DOJ: Attack the Portland Federal Courthouse? No problem. Intimidate #SCOTUS justices to influence a court decision? No big deal. But if you’re President Trump and do nothing wrong? PROSECUTE. Americans are tired of the double standard!” Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a tweet.

“The DOJ has become a political agency, targeting Joe Biden's political opponents while covering up Joe Biden's crimes. The DOJ is attacking our democracy by actively interfering in the 2024 Election,” Miller said in a tweet. “I will join Chairman Jim Jordan in his effort to stop the partisan hacks at DOJ!”

This story was updated at 1:13 p.m.

Emily Brooks contributed.

In a letter to Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday, Spartz complained about discretionary spending that is not authorized by Congress, mandatory spending that Congress has not addressed, and ineffective oversight.

“As you know, we can wipe our *** (you know what) with all letters and grandiose statements we are sending to the executive branch. Only money matters,” Spartz said.

The Indiana congresswoman said she planned to oppose all GOP rule votes, which are procedural votes that govern consideration of legislation on the House floor. A failed rule vote can block legislation from coming to the floor.

“I am planning to oppose all Republican rules going forward until Congress starts exercising its constitutional duties,” Spartz said.

The threat from Spartz adds to a pattern of rule votes in a House GOP majority becoming a favorite tool for Republicans to express discontent with their own party. Rule votes are generally party-line votes — with members voting with their own party though they may vote differently on the underlying legislation — making them a test of party unity.

Last month, anger about spending cap levels set in the debt limit increase bill that McCarthy negotiated with President Biden led to a group of Republicans sinking a rule vote and shutting down legislative action on the House floor for a week.

While Spartz's vote along wouldn't sink a bill, McCarthy is striving to manage a narrow, five-seat majority.

Spartz, who is in her second term and has said she is not running for reelection in 2024.

These are very promising developments, but only if both parties are prepared to put everything on the table. This is not simply a political imperative. It is a policy imperative as well.

The political imperative comes from the need to build trust across party lines. Neither party wants to go it alone in proposing tough choices out of fear that the other side will attack them. Similarly, neither side wants to discuss possible compromises of their own priorities out of fear that the other side will take the concessions and run. Unfortunately, these fears are justified. The only way to get both parties at the table is to ensure that all options can be discussed in good faith.

The policy imperative to put everything on the table comes from the sheer magnitude of our fiscal imbalance. The Congressional Budget Office projects that under current law, annual budget deficits will grow from 5.8 percent of GDP this year to 10 percent in 2053. Debt held by the public is already near a historic high and is projected to nearly double over the next 30 years.

Another way to consider the challenge is to look at the “primary deficit,” which excludes interest on the debt. This is useful because it measures the difference between the cost of government programs (primary spending) and revenues. As CBO explains, these are “the main mechanisms through which lawmakers can directly influence the trajectory of the federal debt and interest costs.” 

The CBO projects a persistent primary deficit averaging 3.1 percent of GDP between now and 2053, a level that far exceeds the 1.5 percent average over the past 50 years. It is the added annual costs of servicing these primary deficits that produce a vicious cycle of rising deficits and debt. In CBO’s projections, interest costs rise from 2.5 percent of GDP this year to 6.7 percent of GDP in 2053.

We are truly headed into uncharted waters and it is difficult to conceive of a remedy that does not draw from all parts of the budget.

A crucial factor propagating future deficits is population aging. An aging population accounts for all of the Social Security growth. The major healthcare programs grow due to a combination of population aging and higher costs per beneficiary, which CBO refers to as “additional cost growth.” Over the next 30 years, about one-third of the cost growth for healthcare programs is attributable to population aging, while the remaining two-thirds comes from rising costs per beneficiary.

Other federal programs, including defense and nondefense discretionary spending, are actually projected to shrink as a share of GDP over the next 30 years. If a fiscal commission were to leave Social Security and healthcare programs off the table, it would exempt the main cost drivers of the budget and undermine its chances of substantially improving the long-term budget outlook.

On the revenue side, there is superficial good news. In CBO’s estimate, revenue under current law will grow from 18.4 percent of GDP this year to 19.1 percent in 2053. That would exceed the past 50-year average of 17.2 percent and roughly keep pace with the increase in primary spending. But there is a significant glitch in the current law revenue projection: It assumes a substantial boost beyond 2025 with the scheduled expiration of many tax cuts enacted in 2017.

According to CBO, extending these tax cuts (and if history is a guide there will be great political pressure to do so) would drive revenues lower relative to the baseline by about 0.8 percent of GDP on average. In other words, it’s quite likely that revenues will flatten or even fall as a share of GDP over the next 30 years. 

Theoretically, the primary deficit could be closed all on the spending side or all on the tax side but neither of these outcomes stands the slightest chance of being supported by the public or being enacted by politicians wishing to be reelected.

While reforms should be enacted that would reduce the long-term growth in federal spending, it is unlikely that any realistic array of reforms would allow an aging society to keep spending from rising. What might have been adequate revenues in past years will not be sufficient in the face of growing commitments to the elderly.

Higher economic growth would help, but no realistic level of growth would be enough by itself to close the expanding budget gap. Here again, population aging is a factor. Labor force growth, a key component of economic growth, is projected to slow by about three-quarters from the recent historical average as the population ages and fertility rates remain low. Mainly for this reason, CBO projects that annual real GDP growth will fall to just 1.5 percent by the 2040s. This compares to an annual rate of 2.4 percent from 1993 to 2022. 

So there are some intractable problems for a new fiscal commission to address: population aging, rising healthcare costs, slowing workforce growth, stagnant revenues, and spiraling interest on the debt. A fiscal commission that does not get at these root causes by putting everything on the table will not be able to solve the problem.

Robert L. Bixby is executive director of The Concord Coalition.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is keeping his colleagues guessing about his political future.  

The West Virginia Democrat on Monday took the stage at a No Labels event in New Hampshire, where he spoke about his thoughts on the state of politics, and left political observers wondering whether he’ll run for another Senate term in 2024 or challenge President Biden as a third-party presidential candidate.  

The Washington-based advocacy organization is looking to recruit a Democrat and a Republican to form a “unity” presidential ticket in 2024 — which could upend the 2024 presidential race, currently likely to be a rematch between Biden and former President Trump. 

Manchin in interviews continues to entertain a third-party presidential run, which means  Democrats fret about holding the Senate majority and whether Manchin, if he opts to become a third-party presidential contender, would siphon votes away from Biden and hand the White House to a Republican in 2025.  

Manchin said Monday he was in New Hampshire to reach out to voters who are fed up with a hyperpartisan status quo. He defended No Labels’s plans to secure a third-party presidential ticket, arguing it would not be a “spoiler” (WMUR). 

The West Virginia centrist said the two major political parties have “receded” to the “extreme” edges of the political spectrum.  

“We’re here to make sure that the American people have an option, and the option is can you move the political parties off their respective sides — they’ve gone too far right and too far left,” he said. “This is not about me or anybody else. It's about two parties that have gone to their respective side, the extreme right and extreme left, and the middle has been left behind. There's no voice for the middle.” 

The event also featured former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R), who sought the 2012 GOP presidential nomination and told NBC News he has “no plans at this point” to run on a third-party ticket in 2024. 

No Labels founder and CEO Nancy Jacobson told NBC News that the group is near its fundraising goal of $70 million, which will go toward its efforts to gain ballot access for its hypothetical presidential ticket in all 50 states. No Labels is scheduled to hold a convention next April in Dallas, where it will formally nominate its ticket. No Labels has described its efforts as an “insurance policy” in the 2024 presidential election, vowing to drop its bid if either party manages to provide a candidate whom centrist voters can accept. 

As The Hill’s Alexander Bolton reports, Manchin only raised $1.3 million in the second quarter of 2023, giving him $10.7 million in cash on hand. While that number is impressive for West Virginia, it falls far short of what would be needed for a presidential campaign. The Biden-Harris campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the combined Biden Victory Fund raked in $72 million in the second quarter.  

Mother Jones: No Labels says it’s not a political party. But it’s setting up state parties. Democrats and Never-Trump GOPers are worried about the group’s 2024 plans. 

Meanwhile, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has sparked division in his conference by embracing the right-wing drive to try to impeach Attorney General Merrick Garland, among other administration officials, write The Hill’s Emily Brooks and Rebecca Beitsch. In a year where the GOP has been most steadily focused on possible impeachments of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas or Biden, McCarthy often has been the voice urging the conference to move patiently and deliberately.  

But he has shown more vigor when eyeing Garland, an official leading an agency often derided by the GOP but a figure less frequently cited by the party’s members who are most keen on impeachment. Some have questioned whether there is a legal basis for impeaching Garland, while others have pointed to different cabinet secretaries who should be reviewed first. 

“I don’t know of a chargeable crime,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told The Hill. 

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis will be interviewed today on CNN, his first discussion with a major news organization other than Fox News as he looks to reset his campaign amid signs of weakness in the polls (The Hill).  

2024 politics roundup: Who’s in the first GOP debate next month? Here’s a rundown of candidates who qualify (USA Today). … Biden’s reelection campaign adds three familiar allies to leadership roles: Rufus Gifford, Cedric Richmond and Chris Korge (CNBC). … Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Democratic presidential bid has attracted campaign cash from Silicon Valley money men, who love contrarians (The Wall Street Journal)… Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has released a conservative pool of Supreme Court picks (NBC News). … Bob Vander Plaats, the Iowa evangelical leader with a tendency for backing the state’s Republican presidential primary winner, is urging his party to rally behind a single challenger to Trump (The Daily Beast).  

Trump world: Today’s courtroom pretrial conference to discuss procedures for handling classified information five weeks after Trump’s federal indictment will represent the first back-and-forth in the case handled by District Judge Aileen Cannon. It could offer clues about how she weighs a schedule for Trump’s trial as he campaigns for president. Trump is pushing for after next year’s election; the Justice Department proposed Dec. 11 (The Associated Press). … The Georgia Supreme Court Monday declined to take up an effort from Trump to quash an investigation into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state (The Hill). ... The former president and his allies are forging a 2025 plan to expand presidential power and to limit the independence of federal agencies if he’s elected (The New York Times). … Trump blamed former Cabinet members during a Fox News broadcast Sunday with Maria Bartiromo for his failure as president to drain “the swamp,” one of his election pledges. Over the weekend, he called former Attorney General William Barr “weak and pathetic.” He described fired former Defense Secretary Mark Esper as “incompetent.” Both men publicly split with Trump during his presidency with criticism about his decision making. 

Related Articles 

▪ ProPublica: How Republican billionaire donor Harlan Crow slashed his tax bill by taking Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on super yacht cruises. 

▪ Vox: How the Supreme Court put itself in charge of the executive branch. 

▪ The Hill: Conservative politicians who envision cutting taxpayer spending for the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are trying to legislate against the tide of public opinion. 

LEADING THE DAY 

➤ ADMINISTRATION  

© The Associated Press / Michel Euler | Then-Vice President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2016 at a Davos, Switzerland, summit. 

Ahead of an Oval Office meeting this afternoon with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Biden during a Monday phone call with Benjamin Netanyahu gave the prime minister something he’s coveted since his return to power late last year: an invitation to visit the White House. 

Netanyahu, 73, had felt snubbed and the invitation is intended to ease tensions between allies who know each other and have their pointed differences. U.S. concerns about judicial reforms in Israel and some of Netanyahu’s Cabinet members “are still valid,” White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters. 

Biden recently described Netanyahu’s coalition government as “one of the most extremist” since the 1970s and voiced particular opposition to Netanyahu’s decisions to undermine the power of Israel’s Supreme Court, construct more Israeli homes in the occupied West Bank, and retroactively authorize Israeli settlements built in the territory without government approval, The New York Times reported. 

Herzog will speak to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday and will meet with the secretary of state. 

Times of Israel analysis: Herzog faces a national challenge and personal opportunity. 

Debate in the U.S. about Middle East policy remains vigorous. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a supporter of Palestinian rights, over the weekend called Israel “a racist state,” words she retracted under intense criticism, including from Democratic colleagues. She later apologized and said she does not believe “the idea of Israel as a nation is racist” (The Hill). 

McCarthy, who traveled to Israel April 30 with a 20-member congressional delegation and became the second Speaker since Georgia Republican Newt Gingrich in 1998 to address the Knesset, advised Democrats Monday to “do something” about antisemitic remarks by members of their caucus (The Hill). 

McCarthy, who is eager to enlarge divisions with the Democratic caucus after months of dissections of House GOP intraparty feuds, wants to punish progressives by forcing a floor vote today that would put members on the record on Israel (Politico). Punchbowl News reports that late on Monday, 43 Democrats issued a House statement reacting to Jayapal’s remarks, saying they will “never allow anti-Zionist voices that embolden antisemitism to undermine and disrupt the strongly bipartisan consensus supporting the U.S.-Israel relationship that has existed for decades.” 

Pentagon oops: A simple typo caused millions of U.S. military emails containing sensitive information to be misdirected to Mali, a close ally of Russia and employer of the Wagner mercenary group, The Financial Times reports. The emails were sent to Maili’s .ML domain due to people incorrectly typing the suffix of all American military email addresses, which is .MIL. None of the misdirected emails was marked classified but many contained highly sensitive information about U.S. military personnel and installations, including base staff lists, medical data and identity documents, according to FT. 

Cybersecurity: The Biden administration announced it is partnering with manufacturers and major electronics retailers to create a cyber “trust mark,” or identifier on smart devices, to help consumers select internet- or Bluetooth-connected products that come with cybersecurity fortifications (The Hill). 

➤ CONGRESS 

© The Associated Press / Mariam Zuhaib | Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) on July 12. 

Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a former college football coach of renown, discovered that his one-man Senate blockade against Pentagon nominees and promotions as a strategy to try to halt a Pentagon abortion travel policy is applauded at home. So are remarks he made and then defended during interviews with NPR and CNN questioning whether white nationalists are racist. He may be battered by criticism, including among Republican Senate colleagues, inside the nation’s capital but not among Alabama admirers who see Biden calling him out during public events, according to reporting by The Hill’s Al Weaver.  

“I think he's doing better because of it,” Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.) said, noting that Alabama is largely pro-life and conservative. “They love the fact that he's standing [up]. … I think that coach is going to benefit from it.”  

The Associated Press: Alabama state Republicans on Monday defied a June Supreme Court order to redraw congressional maps and rejected a call to create a second majority-Black House district.  

Democratic watchdog group Congressional Integrity Project asked House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) Monday to rescind a select subcommittee’s Thursday invitation to Kennedy Jr. to testify about censorship — following the Democratic primary candidate’s controversial COVID-19 remarks in New York City over the weekend, which were condemned as racist, antisemitic and knowingly based on falsehoods. Kennedy says his remarks, captured on video, were misrepresented (The Associated Press).  

House Democrats’ campaign arm blasted Kennedy for what it described as antisemitic and anti-Asian “racism and hate,” and on Monday declared the namesake son of assassinated presidential candidate and New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy “unfit for public office” (The Hill). The White House slammed Kennedy Jr.’s weekend remarks, published by the New York Post, as “vile” (The Hill). 

▪ Fox Business: Jordan is considering holding Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt of Congress for failure to provide the House Judiciary Committee with information requested about the company’s alleged censorship. 

▪ The Hill: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) predicted in a Monday tweet that if Republicans control the House and Senate after 2024, they would “100 percent” approve a national ban on abortion. 

▪ The New York Times: House Democrats face long odds while trying to pass a planned censure resolution against New York GOP Rep. George Santos, who is seeking reelection amid a series of legal and ethics charges.  

IN FOCUS/SHARP TAKES 

➤ INTERNATIONAL 

Russia struck Ukraine's port of Odesa with missiles and drones on Tuesday, a day after pulling out of a U.N.-backed deal to let Kyiv export grain (The Associated Press and Reuters). The deal allowed Ukraine to export grain by sea, with ships bypassing a Russian blockade of the country’s Black Sea ports and navigating safe passage through the waterway to Turkey’s Bosphorus Strait in order to reach global markets. According to the European Commission, Ukraine accounts for 10 percent of the world wheat market, 15 percent of the corn market, and 13 percent of the barley market. It is also a key global player in the market of sunflower oil. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a U.N. body, warned at the time of the deal’s implementation that as many as 47 million people could be pushed into “acute food insecurity” because of the war (CNN). 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken last week accused Russia of using the grain deal “as a weapon,” while Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told CBS on Monday that “Russia has been slowly killing the grain initiative, from one extension to another. Prices for grain all across the world will go up, and people in the most vulnerable regions of Asia, Africa, will feel it.” 

A Ukrainian strike early Monday disabled the only road bridge connecting Russia with the occupied Crimean Peninsula, once again hitting a major symbol of President Vladimir Putin’s rule and constricting Russian supplies to the front lines in southern Ukraine (The Wall Street Journal). 

Meanwhile, more mercenaries from Russia’s Wagner military contractor entered Belarus on Monday, according to a monitoring group, continuing their relocation to the ex-Soviet nation following last month’s short-lived mutiny. Belarus’s strongman President Alexander Lukashenko, a staunch ally of Moscow who brokered a deal that ended last month’s rebellion launched by Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin, has said that his country’s military could benefit from the mercenaries’ combat experience (The Associated Press). 

▪ The New York Times: Where is China’s foreign minister? Beijing won’t clear up the mystery. 

▪ The Associated Press: A heat wave in southern Europe generates health warnings for residents and tourists. 

▪ BBC: Excessive heat globally — why this summer has been so hot.  

OPINION 

■ Electric vehicles are coming. The UAW must adapt, by Chicago Tribune editorial board. 

■ Will Trump show for the first GOP debate? by Juan Williams, opinion contributor, The Hill.  

WHERE AND WHEN 

The House will meet at 10 a.m.  

The Senate will convene at 3 p.m. to resume consideration of the nomination of Rachel Bloomekatz to be a United States circuit judge for the 6th Circuit.  

The president at 10 a.m. will receive the President’s Daily Brief. Biden will hold a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office with Israel’s president  at 1:15 p.m. The president at 5 p.m. will meet with Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Pope Francis’s peace envoy for Ukraine, in the Oval Office (The Associated Press).  

Vice President Harris will meet at 1:10 p.m. with a group of state attorneys general to discuss actions to address the fentanyl public health crisis. 

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is in Gandhinagar, India, where she will participate in the third session of the Group of 20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors, focused on international financial architecture, and the fourth session about international taxation. In the afternoon, Yellen will participate in the fifth session of the gathering, about the financial sector and financial inclusion. The secretary will depart India for Hanoi, Vietnam.  

Secretary Blinken will meet in Washington with President Herzog. 

First lady Jill Biden will be in Georgia and Pennsylvania today. She will arrive in Augusta, Ga., at 12:30 p.m. joined by Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona and Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk for a meeting with local officials about advanced manufacturing jobs. The first lady will travel to Pittsburgh in the afternoon and be joined by Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and acting Labor Secretary Julie Su for a meeting at 4:15 p.m. with local stakeholders about jobs in infrastructure. 

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff is en route to New Zealand for events this week.  

The White House daily press briefing is scheduled at 1:30 p.m. 

ELSEWHERE 

➤ LIBRARIES 

© The Associated Press / Pablo Martinez Monsivais | Then-President Barack Obama at Long Branch Elementary library in Arlington, Va., in 2010. 

📚 Former President Barack Obama is pro-books and pro-libraries — and he’s venturing where young people flock in order to advocate for the valued public benefit libraries and librarians deliver. He’s a cameo star this week in four TikTok videos, according to his office, collaborating with accounts run and videos created by local libraries in Texas, Maryland, California and Illinois to promote access to books (The Washington Post).  

The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom reported 2022 data chronicling 1,269 demands to censor books and resources, the highest number of attempted book bans since data was first gathered two decades ago. The former president (also a bestselling author) tweeted how books helped shape his life. “Librarians are on the front lines, fighting every day to make the widest possible range of viewpoints, opinions, and ideas available to everyone,” Obama wrote in a “thank you” message.   

➤ HEALTH & WELLBEING 

🧠 In a study of more than 1,700 people, the experimental drug Donanemab slowed the progression of Alzheimer's by about 35 percent, scientists reported at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference in Amsterdam. That rate doubles to 60 percent if the drug is started when patients are only mildly impaired. 

The study, published simultaneously in the journal JAMA, suggests that Donanemab is at least as effective as the newly approved drug Leqembi (lecanemab), which was found to reduce progression of the disease by about 27 percent. But experts caution that the drug isn’t a cure, and that its benefit amounts to only about a seven-month delay in the loss of memory and thinking. Eli Lilly, the drug’s manufacturer, expects it will be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) later this year (Sky News and NPR). 

“I do think that will make a difference to people,” Reisa Sperling, who directs the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, told NPR. “But we have to do better.” 

💉 Meanwhile, FDA has approved a treatment for the prevention of RSV, a respiratory virus, among infants and toddlers, making it the first preventive drug for the common infection that surged last winter among small children. The FDA approved nirsevimab-alip, or Beyfortus, for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) among newborns and infants born during or entering into their first RSV season, which typically starts in the fall, peaks in the winter and ends in the spring (The Hill). 

CNET: If you have one of these health conditions, take extra care in the heat. 

THE CLOSER 

© The Associated Press / AP images for Humana Inc. | National Senior Games track athlete Willie Spruill, 64, center, and competitors in the 50M dash July 11 in Pittsburgh.  

And finally … To borrow a slogan, they’re just doing it. Close to 12,000 competitors aged 50 and older have been diving into pools, sprinting down a track, slicing racquets across competitive courts and showing off their basketball layups in Pittsburgh this month, among many impressive performances in sports (NPR) And they have medals to show for it, along with some knee braces and perhaps some liniment. 

The 2023 National Senior Games began July 7 and concludes today.  

“It's a little bit disappointing as you're aging [and you] can't move as quickly, because that's what I am accustomed to,” said basketball player Sheila Bingham, who traveled with her team from Jackson, Tenn. “We actually have a player that's 82,” she added. “She is my motivator. When I see her, I can't quit. I’m encouraged to do more and keep playing” (WESA-FM). 

▪ The Bismarck Tribune: Julie Bosch, 62, of North Dakota took home the gold at the Senior Games in the women’s 1500-meter dash and the women's 5K road race in her age group.  

▪ King5: 70-year-old Madonna Hanna of Tacoma, Wash., brought home the Senior Games gold with her track and field team in the 4x100m relay. 

▪ Local12: Warren County, Ohio’s Robert Arledge, 90, won gold in the men’s 100-yard backstroke in his age bracket and silver in the men’s pole vault. 

▪ CBS News/KDKA: Rachel Williams, 89, of Pittsburgh took up table tennis when the pandemic hit and qualified to compete in the Senior Games this summer. 

▪ WSOC-TV: Nancy Fish of North Carolina competed in racquetball and captured the silver medal in doubles in her age group and won bronze for women’s singles in the 70+ demographic in Pittsburgh.  

▪ TribLive: Paula Franetti, 67, of Pittsburgh helped her teammates win basketball gold, a sport that helped her recover from back and pelvis injuries after a car accident. 

Stay Engaged 

We want to hear from you! Email: Alexis Simendinger and Kristina Karisch. Follow us on Twitter (@asimendinger and @kristinakarisch) and suggest this newsletter to friends! 

House Republicans are debating whether to focus impeachment efforts on Attorney General Merrick Garland after Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) suggested an inquiry against him, taking some members by surprise after much of the GOP impeachment furor had been directed at other Biden officials.

In a year where the GOP has been most steadily focused on possible impeachments of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas or President Biden, McCarthy often has been the voice urging the conference to move patiently and deliberately. 

But he has shown more vigor when eyeing Garland, an official leading an agency often derided by the GOP but a figure less frequently cited by the party’s members who are most keen on impeachment.

McCarthy first elevated the topic with a tweet late last month touting testimony of an IRS whistleblower who has alleged mismanagement of the investigation into Hunter Biden, saying it could serve as “a significant part of a larger impeachment inquiry.”

But the conference — though eager to investigate — hasn’t rushed to back the idea, with some questioning whether there is a legal basis for impeaching Garland and others saying different Cabinet secretaries should be reviewed first.

“I don't know of a chargeable crime,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) told The Hill. 

Issa said it’s up to the president to remove those who aren’t following orders or properly carrying out their jobs, with Congress only stepping in if a president fails to remove those who have committed crimes.

“It’s very, very popular with people in the hinterlands,” Issa said when asked about members of the Freedom Caucus and others who have backed the rarely used move of impeaching a Cabinet official.

“But the reality is that if someone is faithfully executing the desires and the orders of the president of the United States, then they're within the bounds of what Cabinet officers do," he added. "If they're not faithfully executing the request of the president, then we don't have to impeach him because they serve at the pleasure of the president.”

Some of the Republicans who have authored the more than a dozen impeachment resolutions filed this Congress were surprised the officials those documents had targeted haven’t taken center stage.

“I was one of the original co-sponsors of the Secretary Blinken impeachment,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) said. “We ought to take that up first for the incredibly, horribly done withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

McCarthy doubled down on action against Garland last week in a Fox News op-ed.

“When a prosecutor shields his boss’s son from investigators, it smells like a cover-up. Garland’s DOJ did not aggressively follow the money. Why? Are they afraid where that trail ends?” he said. 

“Clearly, someone is not telling the truth, and Congress has a duty to get answers,” McCarthy continued.

The Justice Department said Garland by design stayed out of the Biden investigation, leaving the inquiry in the hands of David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware who initiated it during the Trump administration.

More from The Hill

• Trump notified he is target in DOJ’s Jan. 6 investigation

• Tuberville’s controversies stoke his popularity in Alabama

• Air National Guardsman accused of leaking documents wants to be treated like Trump

Among other things, the whistleblower contends Weiss was blocked from getting authority to bring charges outside of Delaware. Every Justice Department official involved in the matter — including Weiss and Garland — has said otherwise, noting the prosecutor was assured he would receive special attorney status if he wished to file charges elsewhere.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that serves as the clearinghouse for such inquiries, backed the idea, offering stronger support for impeaching Garland than some of the other secretaries floated as targets for his committee.

“I think he sees the facts now,” Jordan said of McCarthy. “So it's quickly [becoming] who are you going to believe? … I'm with the speaker on we need to get to the facts. And if it warrants moving forward with an inquiry we got to do that.”

“That'll be a decision that in the end will be made by the entire conference,” he added.

Until McCarthy’s comments, Mayorkas seemed like the likeliest target of any potential House GOP impeachment of a member of Biden’s Cabinet. Conservative members have been pushing to impeach him for nearly two years over policies at the U.S.-Mexico border, and McCarthy himself had said Mayorkas should resign or face an investigation that could lead to impeachment.

But asked on Fox Business last week about impeaching Mayorkas, McCarthy pointed to a border bill passed by the House GOP and noted the House Homeland Security Committee is investigating the issue, along with taking the lead on investigating Biden following a resolution from Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) seeking to boot the president over his handling of the border. 

The competing interests will be a struggle for McCarthy and Jordan. 

“I think the chairman of Judiciary has a cat-herding issue that he's got to deal with, probably,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), who serves on the panel and the House Homeland Security Committee, which plans to forward its oversight report on Mayorkas for use by Judiciary.

“I will say that I have a less fully formed case in my head in all its particulars about Merrick Garland than I do about the others,” Bishop added.

Some members told The Hill that McCarthy’s embrace of a potential impeachment inquiry against Garland, coming over a two-week Independence Day recess, caught them by surprise when they returned to Washington last week. 

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the highest-ranking member of leadership to say Mayorkas should be impeached if he does not step down, said he has not carefully studied the issues with Garland — but he welcomed investigation of a Department of Justice that “appears to” have “a double standard for how it approaches cases.”

House Republicans held a conference meeting Thursday morning in which Jordan and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) gave updates on their investigatory efforts into the Biden family, the Justice Department and beyond. Lawmakers said McCarthy urged Republicans to follow the evidence.

Some lawmakers are welcoming the probe into Garland even as it threatens to put other potential impeachment probes on the back burner.

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), who sponsored the first resolution to be introduced this Congress to impeach Mayorkas, expressed support for a Garland impeachment. 

“I think you can do both,” he said, adding later, “We need to have a vote on the House floor with Mayorkas because the border in and of itself is just a — isn't even a catastrophe. It's cataclysmic.”

Other members likewise said they weren’t concerned about the GOP balancing its many budding impeachment investigations.

“I wouldn’t mind if we had a new one every day,” Boebert said.

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.), however, urged a cautious approach.

“It’s a pretty serious issue. We’re doing a lot now with different Biden investigations. So I think if the committee believes there is a case with any of the executives that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors then we will do that, but I don't think that is something that we should take lightly,” she said.

Democrats dismissed the idea that there is any case to be made against Garland.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said although Republicans have claimed Garland may have lied to Congress, they’ve yet to offer anything to prove it.

“The Republicans need to recall that the constitutional standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors not doing stuff that Donald Trump disagrees with,” he said.

“Donald Trump's U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Pennsylvania and [Trump Attorney General] William Barr found that there were no grounds for pursuing an investigation into allegations of corruption against Joe Biden,” he added.

“That would be a very strange reason to impeach Merrick Garland.”

Congressional negotiators are working quickly to move billions of dollars in federal funding, but debates are raging over a wide range of prickly issues. 

With less than three months until a government shutdown cutoff date, and a month of recess scheduled in the interim, Congress is staring down a tight deadline to pass its 12 annual appropriations bills and commence bicameral negotiations on funding.

Here are five spending battles to watch as the process heats up.

Spending top lines

Hard-line conservatives have been dialing up pressure on Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to take an aggressive stance on cutting federal spending for fiscal 2024 at levels significantly below the budget caps in a deal he struck with President Biden more than a month ago.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated earlier this year that the budget caps enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) could help reduce projected deficits by about $1.5 trillion over the next decade. But conservatives say steeper cuts are necessary, as the CBO projects federal debt held by the public will equal 115 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the next 10 years.

In a letter to McCarthy earlier this month, a group of 21 conservatives told the Speaker they cannot support appropriations bills that produce a top-line spending level “effectively in line with the cap set by the debt ceiling deal that we opposed and was supported by more Democrats than Republicans.” They added that they instead expect all appropriations bills “to be in line” with the enacted fiscal year 2022 top-line level, as the House GOP conference has previously pressed for.

But that demand lays the groundwork for a clash with the Democratic-led Senate, where appropriators have instead been working off top lines more aligned with the FRA.

Ukraine

Shortly after the FRA’s passage, chatter emerged about the potential need for supplemental funding for Ukraine, as defense hawks in the upper chamber raised concerns about what the measure would mean for defense dollars.

At the time, McCarthy brushed off the criticisms, signaling that aid for Ukraine would likely need to be addressed during the annual appropriations process instead of in a separate bill.

“The question to me is … Why would you do a supplemental? We just passed an agreement. You work through the [appropriations process]. They’re trying to go around the agreement,” McCarthy said in early June.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) warned not long after McCarthy’s comments that Ukraine would probably need further assistance, while calling defense “radically underfunded related to the Chinese threat.”

The House last week rejected five proposed amendments to an annual defense policy bill that would have cut aid to or U.S. involvement in Ukraine.

But dozens of Republicans still voted in favor of the amendments. In their recent letter to McCarthy, a number of conservatives urged the leader to publicly reject the possibility of a “supplemental Ukraine appropriations bill,” as some Republicans have targeted the aid.  

Rescissions

House GOP appropriators have called for rescinding more than $115 billion in funding previously allocated to agencies like the IRS, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration and others.

The push comes after Republicans saw some success in clawing back funding previously allocated by Democrats for the IRS and the nation’s coronavirus response as part of the FRA.

“During the 117th Congress, the majority party spent trillions of dollars outside the regular appropriations process for non-defense programs,” House appropriators said when announcing the plans earlier this year. “While the FRA successfully recouped some of those resources, tens of billions remain unspent. The effort to claw back those funds can, and should, continue.”

The move is likely to be met with opposition from Democrats when bicameral negotiations pick up.

But it could also cause problems with conservatives in the House, who are warning against proposals to repurpose rescinded funds to increase discretionary spending above fiscal 2022 levels.

FBI headquarters

Democrats from Maryland and Virginia have previously garnered attention for butting heads over where the next FBI headquarters should be located — but that fight could get a lot more complicated as some Republicans target funding for the agency. 

In a letter to House Appropriations Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) that drew attention last week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) recommended that appropriations bills “eliminate any funding for the FBI that is not absolutely essential for the agency to execute its mission, including as a starting point eliminating taxpayer funding for any new FBI headquarter facility.”

The letter instead called for “examining options for relocating the FBI’s headquarters outside of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area,” while proposing the consideration of “existing resources and infrastructure available at the FBI’s Redstone Arsenal Campus in Huntsville, AL.”

The move has already ruffled feathers with Democrats, including Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who downplayed the effort’s chances of success in impacting relocation efforts, telling The Hill: “I don't believe it's likely they'll succeed.”

Abortion 

House Republicans have also been ramping up focus on policies taking aim at abortion access in must-pass bills, including targeting the military’s reimbursement for abortion-related travel.

In the months following the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Roe v. Wade, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the department would reimburse service members for travel expenses to obtain an abortion in a move that has since sparked fierce blowback from Republicans. 

House Republicans targeted the policy in their proposed defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2024, as well as in the National Defense Authorization Act that passed the lower chamber mostly along party lines last week.

Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration spending bill advanced by the House Appropriations Committee last month included a provision rolling back a policy that allows pharmacists to dispense a drug used for abortions. The full committee also advanced the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs (VA) funding bill that included a ban on VA medical centers performing abortions. 

McCarthy quipped, "I will continue to see but I think if we had found a UFO, I think the Department of Defense would tell us because they probably want to request more money."

The Speaker's comments on unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) come as Republican lawmaker Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) confirmed Monday that the House Oversight Committee will hold a hearing on UAPs on Wednesday next week.

"I'd love to see whatever facts and information we have," McCarthy added Monday. "I'm very supportive to letting the American public see whatever we have."

Public interest in UAPs and UFOs has peaked in the recent weeks after video clips of unexplained aerial phenomena captured by the cameras and sensors on military jets went viral. 

The push to declassify more information about UAPs and UFOs comes after Air Force veteran David Grusch, a former member of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, told NewsNation that the U.S. government has recovered non-human craft for decades. 

In the Senate, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) have also introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to create a collection of records on UAPs and UFOs to be disclosed to the public immediately unless a review board provides reasons to keep them classified.

“For decades, many Americans have been fascinated by objects mysterious and unexplained and it’s long past time they get some answers,” Schumer said in a statement. “The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena.  

The number of reported UFO incidents has sharply increased, with more than 360 incidents having been reported or discovered in the past two years, according to an intelligence report published earlier this year. 

“I disagree with everything he said,” Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Monday.

But he declined to disinvite Kennedy, who is running for president as a Democrat, from the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on Thursday examining censorship.

“The hearing that we have this week is about censorship,” McCarthy continued. “I don't think censoring somebody is actually the answer here.”

Kennedy is set to testify as a Republican-picked witness.

But after the New York Post reported his comments over the weekend, Democrats are pushing back on his inclusion. 

Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), and Judy Chu (D-Calif.) wrote a letter to McCarthy and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Monday urging them to rescind their invitation to Kennedy.

“Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly and recently spread vile and dangerous antisemitic and anti-Asian conspiracy theories that tarnish his credibility as a witness and must not be legitimized with his appearance before the U.S. Congress nor given the platform of an official committee hearing to spread his baseless and discriminatory views,” the Democratic members said in the letter, shared with The Hill. 

“The conspiracies promoted by Mr. Kennedy were made without any basis in scientific evidence, which is not a surprise, since no such evidence exists. In fact, the British Office of National Statistics recently revealed data showing that British Jews had a higher mortality rate from COVID-19 in the UK than other ethnic groups,” they continued.

Asked about the calls to disinvite Kennedy, the House Judiciary Committee pointed to Jordan’s comments to Politico that echoed McCarthy.

“I totally disagree with what he said, but he’s a Democrat. I disagree with other things he said too. But we’re having him because of censorship,” Jordan said.

In a statement on Twitter, Kennedy criticized the New York Post for allegedly breaking an off-the-record agreement and argued his statements about the ethnic effects of COVID-19 and claims about governments developing ethnically-targeted bioweapons were misrepresented.

“I do not believe and never implied that the ethnic effect was deliberately engineered,” Kennedy said.

Mychael Schnell contributed.