Freedom Caucus takes key vote on Marjorie Taylor Greene’s future

House Freedom Caucus members took a momentous vote Friday on Marjorie Taylor Greene's future with the group, according to three people familiar with the matter — but it's not yet clear whether she’s been officially ejected.

The right-flank group took up Greene's status amid an internal push, first reported by POLITICO, to consider purging members who are inactive or at odds with the Freedom Caucus. Greene's close alliance with Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and her accompanying criticism of colleagues in the group, has put her on the opposite side of a bloc that made its name opposing GOP leadership.

While her formal status in the conservative group remains in limbo, the 8 a.m. Friday vote — which sources said ended with a consensus against her — points to, at least, continued strong anti-Greene sentiment.

A spokesperson for Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry (R-Pa.) declined to comment on the group’s vote as well as the official status of Greene’s membership. Perry said in an interview last week that he had denied requests to remove members from the group of roughly 35 House Republicans. A spokesperson for Greene did not respond to a request for comment.

The uncertainty that now shrouds Greene’s status is partly due to the tightly held bylaws that govern official Freedom Caucus decisions. Even before the Greene vote, members questioned whether the group’s rule that 80 percent of the Freedom Caucus must support any formal decision applies to all matters — or just legislation.

Interviews for this story reflected lingering interest in trying to reconcile differences with Greene before any formal action is taken, and a suggestion that the chair or board could separately intervene to slow down any removal.

Discussions about Greene’s Freedom Caucus status were simmering for weeks, and the Friday vote occurred shortly after a high-profile clash between her and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), a member of the conservative group’s board.

Greene confronted Boebert on the House floor, calling the Coloradan “a little bitch” and claiming Boebert copied her on a measure aimed at quickly impeaching President Joe Biden. After the exchange was first reported in The Daily Beast, Greene confirmed the fight and doubled down, adding another pejorative.

Should Greene ultimately exit the Freedom Caucus, it is likely to trigger a greater feud within the House GOP as conservatives wrestle over how closely to work with their own party leaders. McCarthy’s team is still struggling to quell an ongoing rebellion propelled by Freedom Caucus members.

The public cracks in Greene’s relationships with her fellow conservatives also come as the House’s right flank continues to debate when to abandon party unity to advance its ideological goals.

Former Rep. Justin Amash (I-Mich.) is the closest example of the Freedom Caucus previously weighing whether to remain open to a member who no longer aligned with the rest of the group. Amash, who had called for then-President Donald Trump to be impeached before leaving the GOP, resigned before the Freedom Caucus acted further — saying he didn’t want to be a “distraction.”

House GOP infighting is threatening their ability to get bills out the door

Speaker Kevin McCarthy vowed to open up the House floor to more freewheeling debate. Now he's finding out how hard it is to keep that promise.

As the GOP prepares to bring up a pair of marquee bills on energy and education, McCarthy and his leadership team are knee-deep in proposed amendments from their own party that — if adopted — could tank both pieces of legislation outright.

“That’s the advantage, or disadvantage, of having open amendments. We’ll see how it rolls out. This would be the first true test,” Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) said. He called it a stark turnaround from past years, when members complained they lacked "buy-in" on key votes.

Senior Republicans say they ultimately have the votes to pass both the energy and education bills on the floor. But that’s only after an aggressive whip operation by McCarthy’s leadership team, including Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), to assuage concerns about the flood of amendments.

That kind of last-minute scrambling to lock down votes is likely to be the norm for Republican leadership over the next two years, as the party fights to tether its disparate wings together on broad promises the GOP focused on in its push to reclaim the House majority. And none of it will be easy, given that the party has just four votes to spare on any measure coming to the floor — not to mention a Democratic caucus eager to exploit the fissures across the aisle.

Republicans' worries are particularly acute when it comes to the education measure they have dubbed the “parents' bill of rights.” A bloc of House moderates, for example, privately raised alarms about a proposed amendment to the education bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that would effectively gut the Department of Education, banning it from handling “any office or program related to elementary or secondary education.”

But just before the bill came to the floor on Thursday, Massie’s amendment got tweaked to mollify those moderates’ concerns.

The GOP’s balancing act doesn’t apply only to amendments. House Republicans are facing headwinds on another major priority: how to frame their underlying bill designed to address boosting security at the U.S.-Mexico border.

On one side, there’s Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who’s pushing a bill to severely restrict migration into the U.S. But on the other side are Reps. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), Mario Diaz Balart (R-Fla.) and their allies — who are more moderate on the issue and fear Roy's bill could ultimately bar asylum claims.

Roy and Gonzales’ feud has appeared to devolve from policy disagreements to personal grudges, enough so that GOP leadership has spoken to both Texans to try to smooth other matters, according to one senior House Republican who was granted anonymity to speak freely about internal conversations.

And with that border bill in flux, so too is the Judiciary Committee’s long-anticipated hearing on it.

Roy, who sits on Judiciary, said he still expects the panel to take up his bill next week.

“There have been some conversations about figuring out timing. But look, the bill’s been ready. It continues to be ready. We ought to bring it up next week,” Roy said in an interview. While he declined to speak about his conversations with Gonzales, he said he believed GOP leaders would ultimately back him.

“I expect leadership to get fully behind it, and do what they need to do,” Roy said. “I expect we’ll vote on it next week. This is why leadership gets paid the big bucks. It’s their game now.”

While Roy and Gonzales have seemingly hit pause on their recent Twitter brawling, Republicans are skeptical that the two have closed the gap on their policy differences.

“I don’t think it changed anything. I mean, they are on different ends of the spectrum,” the senior House Republican said, adding that one possible solution getting discussed is to pursue “separate bills, and see which one has more support.”

Gonzales indicated that his colleague was correct, declining to confirm that leadership has intervened in his dispute with Roy and responding: "I try not to waste my time with people that try to waste my time."

"Look, I have spent a lot of time being a reasonable actor in this whole deal. And I'm dealing with people that aren't reasonable actors," Gonzales added. "So guess what? The rules of the game have changed and the border security package that's in Homeland Security has a long way to go before it gets my support.”

This undesirable option comes as the timeline to move on border policy is narrowing, with Republicans saying they need to start moving. The more pressing matter, though, is the GOP’s education bill, which will hit the floor later Thursday.

Days before that floor debate, McCarthy and his leadership team privately fielded concerns from multiple conference members about possible “poison pill” amendments, such as those relating to LGBTQ students or banning books. Some of those Republicans were under pressure from groups like the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, which opposes the "parents' bill of rights" proposal and supports some centrist GOP lawmakers.

Another House Republican, this one closely allied with leadership, said members threatened a potential “jail break” before leadership addressed worries among various members had that the bill would disrupt the principle of federalism. This GOP member said leadership “substantially” reduced members’ concerns, particularly by telling them that the bill was designed to give parents information about theoretical rights rather than to directly interfere in local matters.

“Leadership has been aggressive in beating back the substantial concerns members had about federalism,” this Republican said, also addressing internal discussions candidly on condition of anonymity.

As the vote nears, GOP leaders believe they have resolved many of their internal concerns with the roughly 20 amendments from both parties that are expected to receive floor votes.

Still, Republicans will be watching a pair of amendments closely, both from Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.): One states that parents must be informed if a school’s athletic programs allow transgender girls to play on a gender identity-aligned sports team, while the other requires parents to be informed if a transgender girl is allowed to use gender identity-aligned bathrooms.

A third former House GOP candidate alerted to unapproved military records request

A Democratic-aligned firm made a failed attempt to obtain personal information from the Army National Guard on at least one House Republican candidate, according to a document obtained by POLITICO.

It’s the same firm that the Air Force has identified as securing the unauthorized release of multiple House GOP candidates’ records last year.

Abraham Payton of the research firm Due Diligence Group attempted in August to obtain the personnel records of Colin Schmitt — a GOP member of the New York state assembly — from the Army National Guard, according to a copy of the request form that Payton filed. Schmitt, who’s still an active National Guard sergeant, lost by less than 1.5 percentage points to Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) in their November battle for New York’s 18th District.

The attempt to obtain Schmitt’s personnel file comes as House Republicans dig into a broader investigation of military records handling after Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) and Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) revealed the “unauthorized release” of their Air Force records to Due Diligence last year. The firm’s pursuit of documents on GOP candidates from a separate military branch indicates that Due Diligence cast a wider net than previously known.

And Schmitt is pointing a finger directly at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the attempt to obtain his personnel data. The House Democratic campaign arm paid Due Diligence just over $110,00 between January 2021 and December 2022, according to Federal Election Commission records.

“It appears that a coordinated campaign to target myself and other Congressional Republicans across the country who serve or have served our nation was for political gain,” Schmitt said in a statement, blaming the DCCC for “the illegal use of my social security number to attempt to gain access to my private military records.”

The Air Force said last month that an internal investigation it launched after POLITICO reported on former GOP candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green’s military records in October — when she was challenging Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.) in a battleground district — found that the private records of 11 individuals were improperly disclosed to a third party.

Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek has said that “virtually all” of the 11 unapproved releases were made to the same third party “who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes.”

Payton, a former research director for the Democratic group American Bridge, sought Bacon’s personnel information, according to an official letter first reported by POLITICO. It is unclear if Payton was behind all of the 11 Air Force requests, however; Nunn has not publicly disclosed if Payton was the individual who sought his military personnel records, and Green has confirmed only that Due Diligence sought hers.

Due Diligence did not respond to requests for comment. Payton, whom POLITICO attempted to reach at an email address connected to the firm, did not respond to a request for comment. The DCCC did not respond to a request for comment.

In addition to Bacon, Nunn and Green, POLITICO first reported that Sam Peters, who challenged Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) in November, was notified of the improper release of his Air Force records. Another member of the group of 11 affected by the Air Force’s unapproved disclosures, Kevin Dellicker, fell short in last year’s GOP primary race to challenge Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.).

The other six individuals affected by the Air Force records releases are not publicly known. But the House Armed Services and Oversight Committees are jointly investigating the matter, and Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) vowed to keep pushing following the revelation about the attempt to access Schmitt’s records.

"I have asked the Secretary of Defense to provide our Committee with information on this reprehensible incident,” Rogers said in a statement. “It’s unacceptable that the Department of Defense continues to delay answering our Committee on the egregious mishandling of military personnel records. I will fight for the answers our service members deserve.”

Payton indicated on the form requesting Schmitt’s records that he sought them for benefits and employment purposes. The form also indicates that Payton had Schmitt’s social security number at the time of his request.

While Payton sent his request to the New York Division of Military and Naval Affairs, Schmitt said in an interview that he’s seeking clarification about whether a separate attempt was made on the federal level or another possible separate channel to obtain National Guard records.

“I am thankful that the New York Army National Guard notified me of the attempt to illegally access my information and worked to protect me. I am working with counsel to continue to review if any additional attempts were made to illegally use my social security number and steal my private records to weaponize against me for political purposes,” Schmitt said.

According to a copy of the military records request Payton filed, he sought to obtain Schmitt’s “releasable/redacted copy of Official Military Personnel Files (OMPF)” in August of last year.

Payton sought the information for the stated purpose of “Benefits,” “Employment," and “Other,” to which he explained in the line below: “Services, awards, disciplinary history/records relevant to applicant’s qualifications for (potential) position’s duties, pay, and benefits.”

POLITICO was told by the person who gave it Green’s military records last year that they were obtained through a public records request. POLITICO reviewed the request for the records made by a third party, which sought a “publicly releasable/redacted copy of OMPF [Official Military Personnel File] per Freedom of Information Act statutes.” The requester identified the purpose of the request as relating to “benefits,” “employment” and “other.”

POLITICO also reviewed the letter sent in response to the requester. A military employee responded with a password-protected version of the file with limited redactions. After publication, the Air Force said it erred in releasing the records and launched an investigation.

Bacon said last month that Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall informed him that material from the Air Force’s internal investigation into the records releases was turned over to the Justice Department for possible further action. And Schmitt is joining all five GOP Air Force veterans in calling for a DOJ inquiry into whether political opposition research crossed into criminal activity.

“We’re aware of the concerns raised, and the Department of Justice has been communicating with the U.S. Air Force about this matter," a DOJ spokesperson in a statement Sunday.

The DOJ declined to comment on the status of any potential investigation into the matter.

Meanwhile, Rogers and Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) asked the Pentagon for the full list of people affected by improper records disclosures and whether any criminal referrals have taken place, setting a deadline of Feb. 27 that came and went, with no response.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy, when asked about the missed deadline, has previously stated that House Republicans will move to subpoenas if the Air Force does not comply with their inquiries and is weighing legislation on the matter. He did not offer further details on what such a bill would look like.

Schmitt, himself, says he is willing to cooperate with the House GOP.

“I have spoken with Congressman Don Bacon and have offered to fully participate” in Rogers and Comer’s inquiry “into these illegal acts,” said Schmitt.

New York Republicans go to all-out war against Santos

New York’s House Republicans are racing away from the walking political grenade known as George Santos.

Six of Santos’ New York colleagues, particularly the four who flipped tight battleground districts last fall, are working — out in the open and behind the scenes — to contain the blowback from the embattled lawmaker’s deceptions about his past. The first-term foursome started by breaking from the vast majority of their party by calling for Santos to resign, a move that could reduce the GOP’s already tiny majority.

And the newly elected New York Republicans are only growing louder: They’re pushing legislation aimed at hitting Santos financially, hoping to prevent the now-notorious fabulist from profiting off book or TV deals on his story. And they’re firing off fighting words on social media and local airwaves.

But their public criticisms haven’t insulated them from daily questions about his record, particularly as Democrats look to tie them to him. Their frustration, simmering for two months as negative Santos headlines build up, is close to boiling over.

“He is a bludgeoning tool the Democrats are using without regard for truth. They’re lying about us in relationship to him,” Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. “And he’s caused us every day to have to respond to his very existence in the House of Representatives, instead of giving 100 percent of our time to the important issues that Americans and the people who sent us to Washington care about.”

“Every time that we’re having a conversation we seem to be talking about George Santos,” echoed Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.).

The anti-Santos Republicans’ stand is a lonely one. Most others in their conference prefer to spurn Santos in more subtle ways that don’t call for forcing him out, which would tee up a special election in a battleground district that could chip at their four-vote majority. But New York’s newest House Republicans assumed war footing for a reason: Mere months after the Empire State gave the GOP its fattest gains of an otherwise lackluster midterms, they say Santos is making their own donors squeamish and their voters suspicious.

“At a minimum, donors who gave to him want to spend time on the phone speaking about what’s the latest and how can we hold him accountable. And then others are scared off,” said first-term Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.).

“I guess some of them are embarrassed that they are now associated with this scam,” LaLota added. “And they’re not so eager to pick up the phone when a politician is asking for their support again — because the last time they did it, their name wound up in a paper associated with probably the most terrible person in Long Island politics.”

Santos, who’s now formally under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, has faced harsh scrutiny after revelations he lied about core components of his educational and professional background. In a Monday interview, he dismissed the idea that his problems might affect his colleagues.

“I don’t believe it. I think that’s just platitudes. And they’re making stuff up as they go just to find excuses to do what they’re doing,” Santos said of his fellow New York Republicans’ attacks. “The reality is simple: I was never a part of the little boys’ club, and they hated me from the moment I got the nomination to the moment I got elected.”

Adding to the House GOP’s woeful New York state of mind, House Democrats’ largest super PAC announced last month a $45 million program designed to claw back an advantage there next fall. The PAC is likely to spend part of that cash trying to link Santos to New York’s four most electorally vulnerable new House Republicans: Reps. Mike Lawler, Brandon Williams, D’Esposito and Molinaro.

If that quartet is hoping Santos might embrace the standard practice for scandal-plagued members, avoiding the media and keeping his head down, they’re going to be disappointed.

“They can’t control me,” Santos said of his fellow in-state Republicans. “So the party bosses stick their loyalists on me, and that’s what you’re seeing. And the problem is that the ones at the top of the mountain screaming for … righteousness and ethical morality are amongst some of the most corrupt people in politics.”

After D’Esposito spearheaded a bill clearly aimed at Santos, designed to prevent members convicted of certain offenses from then profiting off their story in the form of book deals, paid speeches, or movie and TV contracts, the Long Islander pushed back on Twitter.

“Coming from a man who lost his NYPD issued GUN while he was DJ’ing at a party! Then assaulted a 72 year old senior WOMEN,” Santos wrote last week about D’Esposito, before deleting his post. “You sir are the example of a bad cop who give cops a bad name. Spare me.”

Santos appeared to be citing, in part, a New York Daily News report that found D’Esposito had been docked vacation days on two separate occasions, including once in 2015 for having his firearm stolen out of his vehicle and another time in 2007 after working as a DJ and serving alcohol “without authority or permission to do so.” Santos in his tweet conflated the two. Democrats also sought to use that story against D’Esposito during last year’s midterms.

Asked if he saw any dramatic irony in the corruption allegations he shared, given his own record, Santos replied that he hasn’t been convicted of any offenses and has “never been punished or censured.” While he has admitted to lying about his education as well as other fabrications, Santos has danced around other questions about his past.

What Santos has managed to do: generate more camaraderie among his fellow New York Republicans, particularly the first-term ones. LaLota quipped that that the group now operates like “NATO members” who make joint decisions.

And Santos’ decision to punch back at D’Esposito sparked a fresh wave of backlash.

“Anthony risked everything to serve the people of New York with honor and courage. He has more integrity in his pinky than George Santo has in his entire body,” Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.) said in a statement to POLITICO last week. “George disgraces the halls of Congress and is stain on the soul of our nation.”

D’Esposito plans to hold a press conference about his anti-Santos bill on Tuesday morning.

Meanwhile, as Santos vows to be “100 percent compliant, to clear my name” with the ethics committee, he’s also asking that “the same scrutiny” fall on his fellow Republicans — and clearly wants to use the media attention he’s getting to further that cause.

But his GOP colleagues say that the more he talks, the bigger problems he generates.

“He should focus on the investigations that are underway and at least show some remorse. And he’s not, and that is what is so troubling,” Molinaro said.

As far as GOP leadership is concerned, New York infighting isn’t helping alleviate the constant headache that Santos has become.

When House Republican leaders started whipping support in January to boot Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from the Foreign Affairs Committee, a key promise of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the four first-term New York Republicans warned leadership that if Democrats proposed an amendment that stripped Santos from his committees, they would support it — likely giving the idea enough votes to pass, according to a Republican with knowledge of the discussion, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about sensitive conversations.

Santos and McCarthy ultimately resolved the issue in private, meeting the day before the Omar vote. Hours later, Santos informed his colleagues he’d be stepping down from his committees while he faced investigations, making the Omar vote an easier lift.

The New York tumult only compounds a disappointing start to this Congress for the state’s Republicans, who’d hoped to celebrate their success in helping deliver the GOP majority from a blue stronghold. And it’s clear that they blame Santos for dimming their shine.

Constituents “want answers to troubling questions about why he is still in Congress,” LaLota added. “They deserve those answers.”

2 former House GOP candidates alerted to improper requests for Air Force records

Two former House GOP candidates say the Air Force alerted them this month that their military records were improperly released during the midterm campaign.

Sam Peters, a Republican who challenged Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) in November, and Kevin Dellicker, who fell short in the GOP primary race to take on Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), both received Feb. 8 letters from the Air Force notifying them that Abraham Payton of Due Diligence Group made “multiple requests” for their military personnel records last year.

In both Peters and Dellicker’s cases, the Air Force identified Payton, a former research director for the Democratic group American Bridge, as having “inappropriately requested” copies of their records for “for the stated purpose of employment and benefits.”

Peters and Dellicker are the fourth and fifth known recipients of Air Force letters regarding the records releases, which have sparked an investigation by House Republicans. They are joining Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) and Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) in seeking an additional investigation of any illegal activity that may have occurred surrounding the requests for their military records, a push first reported by POLITICO on Tuesday.

Specifically, the affected Republicans want to know what role, if any, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and their Democratic challengers played in receiving and using information that the Air Force improperly disclosed.

“Look, you sanction a hitman to kill somebody, you’re guilty of a crime. You sanction somebody to steal, you’re guilty of a crime,” Peters said in a phone interview on Wednesday. “And the DCCC needs to be [held to account], and I fully intend on making sure they are.”

The House Democratic campaign arm did not return a request for comment on whether it received and used materials provided by Due Diligence Group during the 2022 midterms. According to Federal Election Commission records, the DCCC paid Due Diligence just over $110,000 between January 2021 and December 2022.

The Air Force has identified 11 people in total as affected by the “unauthorized release of military duty information.” That number includes Bacon, Nunn, Peters, Dellicker and former House GOP candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green of Indiana.

Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said the military branch launched an internal audit after POLITICO reported on Green’s records in October. Green has confirmed that her records were released to Due Diligence.

POLITICO was told by the person who gave it Green’s military records that they were obtained through a public records request. POLITICO reviewed the request for the records made by a third party, which sought a “publicly releasable/redacted copy of OMPF [Official Military Personnel File] per Freedom of Information Act statutes.” The requester identified the purpose of the request as relating to “benefits,” “employment” and “other.”

POLITICO also reviewed the letter sent in response to the requester. A military employee responded with a password-protected version of the file with limited redactions. After publication, the Air Force said it erred in releasing the records and launched an investigation.

Air Force letters sent to Bacon, Peters and Dellicker this month state that Payton was already in possession of their Social Security numbers when he sought their records. The letters further state that the released records included the Republicans’ personal information without their authorization, which is “protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.”

In the case of Peters, the Air Force letter informed him that a specific form from his record known as DD Form 214 was released in February 2022 and that roughly three weeks later, his military personnel records were released to Payton. Dellicker’s letter notified him that his DD form 214 was released to Payton in February 2022.

Bacon said in an interview that Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has referred the results of its internal review to the Justice Department, which declined to comment on whether an investigation is underway.

“This social engineering trick that [Payton] pulled was made more credible because according to the Air Force, he already had my Social Security number. Now, the Air Force still isn’t supposed to release this information without my signature,” Dellicker said in an interview.

The unauthorized release of Dellicker’s Air Force records was first reported by LehighValleyNews.com.

Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, has said that “virtually all” of the 11 unapproved releases were made to the same third party “who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes.”

It is unclear if Green’s records were released to Payton or another individual employed by Due Diligence, whose website states that it uses “public records research to provide our clients with the knowledge and insights needed to drive strategic decision making.” It is also unclear how many of the 11 improper disclosure requests that the Air Force identified were initiated by Payton.

Due Diligence did not respond to requests for comment. Payton, whom POLITICO attempted to reach at an email address connected to the firm, did not respond to a request for comment.

House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers and Oversight Committee Chair James Comer asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in their letter last week for the full list of people affected by improper records disclosures.

The House GOP duo also sought details on any actions — “administrative or punitive” — taken against those involved in the unauthorized release, and whether any criminal referrals have taken place regarding the matter.

GOP lawmakers seek investigation of ‘unauthorized’ disclosure of their Air Force records

Two Republican lawmakers say the Air Force alerted them that their military records were improperly released during the midterm campaign.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) was informed of the “unauthorized release” in a letter from the Air Force obtained by POLITICO. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) said in a statement that he was told by the Air Force that his own records were also disclosed without his approval.

Bacon said Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall first told him that an internal probe revealed 11 people’s records were disclosed and that the Air Force would send the results of its inquiry to the Justice Department — while offering no further information on whether a formal DOJ investigation would result. The GOP lawmaker called for a probe of the role played by a Democratic-linked firm that the Air Force told him “inappropriately requested” his personnel records.

The DOJ declined to comment. Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said “virtually all” of the 11 unapproved releases were made to the same third party “who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes.”

The revelation follows the uproar over the disclosure of Indiana House GOP candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green’s military records after POLITICO reported on them in October. And it promises to intensify Republicans’ already keen interest in investigating whether other sitting members of Congress were affected — as well as the role that a Democratic-linked research firm played in the episode.

The Air Force launched its audit after the disclosure of Green’s records, according to Stefanek.

The Feb. 7 letter Bacon received from the Air Force names Abraham Payton of the research firm Due Diligence LLC as the person who “inappropriately requested copies of your military personnel records for the stated purpose of employment and benefits,” adding that Payton was already in possession of Bacon’s Social Security number. Payton is a former research director for the Democratic political group American Bridge.

Both Bacon and Nunn are calling for an investigation into whether political opposition research turned into illegal activity.

“I understand the evidence has been turned over to the Department of Justice and I expect those who break the law to be prosecuted,” Bacon said in a statement to POLITICO. “This was more than just ‘dirty tricks’ by Democrat operatives, but likely violations of the law.”

Nunn also suggested that the disclosure of his records amounted to criminal activity.

“The recent targeting of Members of Congress’s personnel military records [and] the breach of sensitive data … taken by political hacks isn’t only a violation of public trust — it’s criminal,” he said in a statement.

How it began

Bacon said the Air Force began looking into the matter in response to what happened to Green, who lost a battleground-district race in November to Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.).

The Air Force publicly acknowledged the unauthorized release of Green’s records to "a third party," though it did not specify whether that person was the same individual who provided them to POLITICO during the campaign.

POLITICO was told by the person who gave it Green’s military records that they were obtained through a public records request. POLITICO reviewed the request for the records made by a third party, which sought a “publicly releasable/redacted copy of OMPF [Official Military Personnel File] per Freedom of Information Act statutes.” The requester identified the purpose of the request as relating to “benefits,” “employment” and “other.”

POLITICO also reviewed the letter sent in response to the requester. A military employee responded with a password-protected version of the file with limited redactions. After publication, the Air Force said it erred in releasing the records and launched an investigation.

Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, said in an October statement that a “preliminary” inquiry found Green’s “service record was released to a third party by a junior individual who didn't follow proper procedures and obtain required consent.”

After POLITICO’s initial reporting on Green’s Air Force records, Green responded that the material was "illegally" obtained. Her records referenced a sexual assault she experienced during her time in service.

Green blamed Mrvan and his allies for the release. Mrvan's campaign has denied any involvement, and a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told Fox News at the time that “we would never use anyone’s experience with sexual assault against them.”

Green spokesperson Kevin Hansberger said in a statement last week that the release of her “and other Republicans’ personal records is reprehensible and illegal.”

“There must be full transparency of the investigation and its findings. Those responsible for these illegal acts should face criminal charges and be held accountable for their actions,” Hansberger added.

Hansberger reiterated Green’s previous argument that political opponents were behind the release of her records, saying that the incident shows that Democrats “will go to any lengths necessary, even breaking the law, to protect their interests.”

DCCC did not return a request for comment on whether it received and used materials provided by Due Diligence Group during the 2022 midterms. According to Federal Election Commission records, the House Democratic campaign arm paid Due Diligence just over $110,000 between January 2021 and December 2022.

Due Diligence’s website states that it uses “public records research to provide our clients with the knowledge and insights needed to drive strategic decision making.”

It’s unclear whether Payton and Due Diligence were the only third-party entities that sought the service records.

Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, said in a response to written questions: “Virtually all unauthorized disclosures were in response to a third party who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes through a process commonly used by other federal agencies to conduct employee background checks.”

Due Diligence did not respond to requests for comment. Payton, whom POLITICO attempted to reach at an email address connected to Due Diligence, did not respond to a request for comment.

Tracking the extent of the releases

The Republican chairs of the House Oversight and Armed Services Committees publicly revealed last week that the Air Force had improperly released the records of 11 people to “a private research firm which allegedly misrepresented itself in order to obtain access.” That GOP letter also identified Due Diligence as the firm that obtained Green’s records.

Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in their letter last week for the full list of people affected by improper records disclosures.

The House GOP duo also sought details on any actions — “administrative or punitive” — taken against those involved in the unauthorized release, and whether any criminal referrals have taken place regarding the matter.

“This news comes on the heels of a prior admission by the Air Force to having inappropriately released the [military personnel files] of former Republican Congressional candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green to the very same research firm, Due Diligence Group,” Rogers and Comer wrote. “That disclosure served to revictimize a servicemember by releasing details about her sexual assault.”

The House GOP committee chairs mentioned only Due Diligence in their letter, not Payton. Additionally, Nunn provided no further information regarding the notification he received of the unauthorized release.

Rogers and Comer asked the Pentagon chief to provide further information by Feb. 27, arguing that “it is essential that the men and women of the Armed Forces trust their leadership’s ability to protect private personnel data from improper disclosure.”

POLITICO contacted more than a dozen House Republican lawmakers and 2022 candidates who served in the Air Force to ask whether the military has notified them of an authorized disclosure similar to those experienced by Green, Bacon and Nunn. None replied in the affirmative.

The releases of records occurred between October 2021 and October 2022, according to Air Force spokesperson Stefanek.

“Department of the Air Force employees did not follow proper procedures requiring the member's authorizing signature consenting to the release of information. There was no evidence of political motivation or malicious intent on the part of any employee,” Stefanek wrote.

She added that the “Air Force takes full responsibility for releasing the personally identifiable information of these individuals. Records-release procedures have been improved by elevating the approval level for release of information to third parties and conducting intensified retraining for personnel who handle record requests.”

The letter Bacon received from the Air Force’s Texas-based personnel center states that its investigation revealed “no criminal action or malicious intent” on the part of the military employee who released his information.

Bacon, however, is pushing for more information on whether the DCCC or the Democratic-linked House Majority super PAC played any role in the military’s releases of the information.

House Majority PAC said it had no relationship with Due Diligence during the 2022 campaign cycle and did not use the firm’s work in any activity on the Green-Mrvan race.

House GOP passes first big whip test, ousting Omar

After a flip-flop-filled struggle, the House GOP's whip operation passed its first major test: booting progressive Ilhan Omar from a prized committee spot.

Republican leaders worked for more than a week to secure the votes to pass the resolution, which cited the Minnesota Democrat's past comments about Israel. A few GOP members had suggested they would oppose Omar's ouster due to bigger concerns — namely, a desire to not go tit-for-tat with Democrats by using forcible committee removal against the opposing party — but in the end, Republicans were almost wholly united, with Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) voting present.

The 218-211-1 vote marks the third time since 2021 that a House majority has forcibly removed a member of the opposition party from a committee. Democrats removed GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) from their panels during the last Congress over incendiary comments and social media posts they had made concerning fellow lawmakers.

Just days ago, there was a real possibility that Speaker Kevin McCarthy — despite his projected confidence — could fall short in his long-promised push to yank Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee, where the Somali immigrant would have served as top Democrat on an Africa subpanel. Then, one by one, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) and Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) all flipped from no to yes. It was a notable victory for a speaker who needed 15 ballots to get his fractious conference to hand him the top gavel.

“We've watched what she has done,” McCarthy said Tuesday morning to reporters. “I just think she can serve on other committees. It would be best if the Democrats didn't put her in the position of Foreign Affairs. If they do, she will not serve on Foreign Affairs. They can choose another committee for her.”

The House Rules Committee held an “emergency meeting” Tuesday night to push through the resolution on Omar, and a procedural vote to move forward passed the House Wednesday along party lines, teeing up Thursday's vote.

The resolution to remove her was introduced by first-term Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), who is Jewish and says he has not spoken with Omar personally. He cited various comments she has made with antisemitic overtones, while also arguing that Democrats watered down a resolution to condemn her for those remarks in 2019 when they held the majority. Omar, for her part, has largely apologized for her previous comments.

“As an American Jew and as somebody who served in the Marine Corps, I believe that her comments are vile. And while she may have apologized in the past, she continues to erect a pattern of antisemitic rhetoric,” said Miller in an interview about his motivations for leading the resolution.

Miller added that he put forward the resolution ”in conjunction” with McCarthy, and that he ”obviously expressed interest in wanting to carry this resolution as one of two Republican Jewish individuals within the conference.”

Democrats, meanwhile, blasted the move as political revenge and are set to unanimously back Omar against the effort to remove her from the panel. She was set to become the top Democrat on a subcommittee on African policy.

"There has been accountability — Ilhan Omar has apologized. She has indicated that she'll learn from her mistakes — is working to build bridges, because we believe in building bridges, not walls," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters Thursday. He said later that Omar would promptly join the Budget Committee after her Foreign Affairs Committee eviction.

And Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a fellow member of the progressive “squad,” lambasted the vote as "just a bunch of racist gaslighting. We all know it."

Just days ago, three GOP lawmakers were vowing to oppose the resolution, and party leaders could only afford to lose four votes assuming full attendance. And that was far from guaranteed, as they'd expressed concerns over potential absences, including one GOP member who is recovering from serious injuries.

Those concerns were mostly assuaged by Wednesday. Spartz (R-Ind.) said Tuesday she would back the measure after it was tweaked to include language about an appeal to the Ethics Committee, despite its containing in a nonbinding “whereas” clause with no legal teeth. And Buck also changed his position Wednesday, saying “the commitment is that [McCarthy] will work with me on clarifying what the standard here is" on removing members from committees, as well as making the process "more transparent and consistent."

Joyce voted present due to his position on the ethics panel. He also voted present when the House booted Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) from her committees.

Generally, Republicans argue Omar can serve on other committees and say this is a watered-down resolution compared to a Democratic-led votes to remove Greene and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) from their committees. Democrats took those actions, with some Republican support, over threatening comments and social media posts made by both lawmakers — statements GOP lawmakers are quick to point out that, in Greene's case, were made before she was sworn into Congress.

Republicans warned at the time that if Democrats wanted to change the longstanding precedent of allowing parties to decide panel assignments and removals internally, then they, too, would have those tools at their disposal when in power. Now, they're making good on that promise.

"We are taking an unprecedented rule that the Democrats put in place last Congress and using it effectively against them," Miller said.

Some Democrats have since expressed concern about how the Gosar and Greene situations were handled, with Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the Ethics Committee, saying in Tuesday’s Rules Committee meeting she didn’t think “it was the correct process" when the two Republicans were booted. Wild voted in favor of removing both at the time.

The lack of Democratic support for removing Omar, though, is in part a product of time. In her previous two terms, Omar faced intense pushback from some in the caucus over her controversial comments about Israel and Jews, and while some Democrats may have even supported a measure back then to condemn her remarks, one never came up on the House floor. The House instead passed a resolution generally condemning bigotry. Since then, she's worked to mend relationships with her fellow lawmakers.

It was still a tough vote for some Democrats.

"My vote was not a vote in support of Congresswoman Omar," Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said in a statement. "Someone with her record of hateful comments does not belong on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. My vote was a vote to protect the institution, for democracy, and for preventing the weaponization of committee selection."

The vote follows McCarthy's announcement last week that he would block two California Democrats — Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell — from the House Intelligence Committee. McCarthy can take unilateral action against members on that committee, due to the nature of the panel, while removing Omar requires a majority vote in the House.

House GOP sets its expectations low for McCarthy-Biden debt meeting

House Republicans’ expectations for Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden’s first one-on-one sitdown are so low that many of them point to a single goal: For the president to suggest he’ll negotiate at all on spending cuts.

As the new GOP majority digs in on its demands ahead of a looming debt crisis, Democrats have so far refused to even entertain giving ground in talks. The White House and Senate Democrats want Republicans to outline the cuts they’d seek in exchange for lifting the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling — or offer any proof of what they can pass with their minuscule margin in the House.

Given the current debt stalemate, few members of either party expect the McCarthy-Biden encounter to yield any significant breakthroughs. This leaves McCarthy’s conference with little to do but organize its often-fractious ranks for the fight ahead: House Republicans will hold a debt limit meeting Wednesday morning, ahead of their speaker’s time with Biden.

But the GOP is also entertaining hope that the president shows a shred of openness to taking its demands seriously, even as very few of its members specify what they want Biden to negotiate on. A rare Republican with a concrete proposal was Texas Rep. Chip Roy, who on Tuesday called directly for federal spending caps.

"It's a lot of work. We got to do it. We're in a big hole because of irresponsibility on both sides of the aisle,” said Roy, who has also specified that the cuts shouldn't touch the Pentagon’s budget or programs like Medicare or Social Security. “But there is a path, and we ought to sit down and figure it out."

That growing fiscal slash-and-burn pressure from the GOP’s right flank leaves both parties in a state of high-stakes uncertainty as Congress veers towards a summertime cliff that draws parallels to the Obama administration's flirtation with debt calamity more than a decade ago. And this time around, Biden's lead negotiating partner won't be his generational counterpart Mitch McConnell but the younger speaker from California, who brings a more Trump-friendly conservatism and less predictable style to the table.

McCarthy will also be speaking for a conference where fiscal hawks hold significant sway and spending caps are gaining momentum as a proposed solution. That outcome would be similar to the 2011 debt limit standoff, which ended with Congress enacting strict spending limits that technically lasted a decade, but were waived more times than not.

“I think the first thing [Biden] should do, especially as president of the United States, is say he's willing to sit down and find a common ground and negotiate together,” McCarthy told reporters Tuesday morning when asked what he would need to see from Biden to consider the meeting a success.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) put it more simply: “It would be awesome if the president would admit he is going to negotiate. That would be awesome.”

But GOP members are still fiercely split over major issues like whether to slash the Pentagon’s budget or touch entitlement programs, and broad domestic spending cuts could prove problematic for more moderate, electorally vulnerable members.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), another conservative who supports limits on domestic spending, said of Biden: “He wants to do a free debt ceiling. And I don't think that's what the American people want.”

The first step this time, as House Republicans see it, is for Biden to acknowledge to their leader that the U.S. needs to start chipping away at the nation’s rising borrowing bills. While GOP leaders have agreed to look at capping spending at fiscal 2022 levels in future spending bills, there’s been little open discussion about whether those demands would carry into the debt conversations.

“We can't even talk about it without the president and Democrats coming to the table,” said House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas).

Democrats, meanwhile, are looking for their own concessions. Biden plans to seek a commitment from McCarthy that the U.S. will never default on its financial obligations, according to a White House memo released earlier Tuesday. Administration officials also said they plan to unveil their proposed budget for the coming fiscal year on March 9, demanding that House GOP leaders reveal their own blueprint detailing their vision for spending cuts.

Some Senate Democrats have said they’re willing to discuss government funding as part of the annual appropriations process, but not while using the nation’s borrowing limit as a bargaining chip.

“There shouldn’t be a negotiation about whether or not we pay our bills,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, a member of the chamber's Democratic leadership. “If they want to talk about next year’s budget, certainly that’s a legitimate thing. But we don’t negotiate to pay our bills.”

Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), however, has said it would be a mistake for the White House not to negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling. Manchin met with McCarthy last week, after which he said the GOP leader agreed not to cut Medicare and Social Security.

“I think those two can get something done,” Manchin said Monday night of the president and House GOP leader. “I really feel confident about that.”

Unlike some House Republicans, though, Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said he hopes Biden will entertain changes to ensure the long-term solvency of programs like Social Security and Medicare, which “are both headed for bankruptcy.”

“That doesn't mean you have to cut programs, but it does mean that you’ve got to make reforms … that will translate into making those programs more sustainable for the long term,” Thune said Tuesday. “If you take that off the table in these negotiations, it does obviously limit the amount of the budget that you can address.”

More than a decade ago, then-Vice President Biden and Senate GOP leader McConnell successfully hashed out a spending caps deal to stave off a market-rattling default. But this time, McConnell has said McCarthy should take the lead, arguing that nothing would get through the Democratic-led Senate if it can’t pass the Republican-led House.

McConnell said Tuesday that the 2011 deal was successful when it came to restricting spending in the short-term, but it squeezed defense funding too much.

“We’re all behind Kevin and wishing him well in negotiations,” McConnell said.

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), a senior party appropriator, said Biden will ultimately have to negotiate with the GOP to stave off a debt default that — in Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's recent words — could result in a “global financial crisis."

“No one holds all the cards,” Fleischmann said.

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

As Santos passes up his panels, GOP prepares to boot Omar from hers

George Santos, after weeks of causing trouble for Kevin McCarthy, finally relieved some on Tuesday.

The New York Republican announced plans to step aside from his two committee assignments, a decision that came one day after a private meeting with the speaker. While McCarthy wouldn’t say if he directly encouraged the move, the cloud of controversy that's trailing Santos — whose pattern of serial misstatements has sparked multiple investigations — was complicating the GOP leader's efforts to make good on the planned ouster of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from a key committee.

That's in addition to the distraction that Santos himself was becoming for House Republicans, given the spectacle he'd create at otherwise straightforward hearings. So in one fell swoop, the freshman fabricator helped relieve two of McCarthy's biggest current headaches, at least for now, while remaining a reliable floor vote by not resigning.

As the speaker promptly praised Santos’ “appropriate decision,” Republicans across the conference privately agreed that, with Santos off the Science and Small Business Committees, McCarthy’s leadership team would have an easier time rounding up the votes to remove Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee. And indeed, after a struggle to pull together the votes they needed, by Tuesday evening GOP leaders were confident to schedule a Wednesday vote to eject Omar from the panel.

It came after Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) shifted her position, asserting that McCarthy adjusted the “due process language” in the resolution — which establishes that any member has “the right to bring a case before" the ethics committee seeking the speaker's reconsideration of a removal decision.

The House Rules Committee met Tuesday night on the resolution that will be introduced by freshman Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio). Still, McCarthy still can only lose four votes on his side, assuming full attendance from the likely united Democrats, and now the two Republicans who have publicly stated their opposition.

Senior Republicans leaned hard on Spartz and the other two members along with several other undecided Republicans, but two of them made clear the outreach hadn’t worked: “Oh, he’s called me yelling,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) said of McCarthy. Referring to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s removal of two of Buck’s fellow Freedom Caucus members from their committees in 2021, Buck added that “I’m just not interested in removing members from the other party in retaliation for Pelosi’s terrible decisions.”

Mace also pointed to “rumors of others being undecided, but who are not being vocal about it.” Two other House Republicans — Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Tim Burchett of Tennessee — say they have not made up their minds ahead of the vote on ousting Omar.

Notably, House Republicans who oppose or are on the fence about taking Omar off the foreign affairs panel are largely agreed with the rest of their conference in criticizing the Minnesota progressive, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress.

Mace slammed Omar as “racist,” and an “antisemite” — a reference to her past criticisms of Israel, which Omar has apologized or attempted to clarify amid Democratic pushback — but then added: “That doesn't give us a right as a conference to tell her what she should say or how or what her opinion should be.”

As McCarthy privately pressured key holdouts while his leadership team’s anti-Omar whip count still floundered, absences on his side of the aisle remained a concern. Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), for one, is still recovering after sustaining critical injuries from a 25-foot fall.

After speaking one-on-one with Mace, McCarthy said they had a good discussion where he "just wanted to lay all the facts out,” arguing that there is “a lot of difference [between] what we're doing [and] what Democrats" did during the last Congress by removing Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) from the committees in response to incendiary or threatening rhetoric.

That committee-seating process hasn’t been entirely simple for Republicans, either. Santos — who’s under a slew of local and federal investigations — had continued to grab headlines as he was assigned to his own pair of panels. In a statement on his decision, the New Yorker avowed that "the business of the 118th Congress must continue without media fanfare."

Santos' move was quickly embraced by his home-state GOP colleagues, several of whom have already called for his resignation amid the growing controversy over his misstatements about his past.

"I think it's obvious it's the right decision," said Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who toppled House Democrats' former campaign chief in a swing-district midterm triumph two months ago.

Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) echoed that sentiment: "As I said, I think he should resign and focus on his defense. But, do welcome this decision.”

Santos declined to comment when first asked about the move Tuesday morning, later pointing to the party’s push to punish Omar for her own past remarks.

And there appeared to be some uncertainty on Tuesday about whether Santos — who faces multiple investigations on the federal, state and local levels into potential false statements about his background — would try to return to his committees at some point. McCarthy said that any members named to fill the spots Santos is forgoing would take those seats on a temporary basis, and Santos described his decision as similarly short-term in his statement.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said Tuesday morning that Santos had apologized and described his move as a temporary recusal, after which "he'll come back" to the panels he'd not yet been seated on.

"It sounded to me like it's temporary," said Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), who chairs the Small Business Committee. "I think, until there's a level of what he thinks the issues that he's a distraction from are over."

Despite the multiple probes Santos is currently dealing with, Williams said he didn't sense the move stemmed from looming legal issues.

"I've seen members do that before, usually when they were under some sort of legal question or something like that — just step back on their own. If they don't do it, we quite often do it ourselves," House Rules Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said, adding that Santos "deserves some credit for doing it" before any internal move that may have been made against him.

The small business panel had not yet named its Republican members as of Tuesday. A panel spokesperson attributed the delay on Monday to reasons other than Santos.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

‘I have no enemies, at least’: Where Santos really stands in the House GOP

Everyone in the Capitol seems to be talking about George Santos. Almost no fellow Republican, however, appears to be forging real bonds with him.

The New York Republican became a migraine for his party only last month after reports raised questions about whether Santos lied extensively about his past — not to mention about the controversial far-right group he’s associated with. But even as Santos finds himself taking questions live on the radio from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), it’s far from clear that he’s welcome among most conservative lawmakers.

During conversations with a dozen House Republicans, a picture emerged of a Santos who's more reserved among his colleagues than his recent spotlight-seeking suggests, holding friendly conversations here and there without directly cultivating many allies. Members often remarked they had no idea who he spends time with — but it certainly isn’t them.

"To my knowledge, hardly any of the New York members speak with him,” said first-term Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), the first GOP member to call for Santos to resign. “There's really nothing to speak about. He's a totally untrustworthy individual who has broken the public's trust … He's become an embarrassment. He's become a joke.”

Santos himself demurred when POLITICO asked about his standing in the conference: “I'm not gonna say they're all my friends … I have no enemies at least,” he said, adding he has “confidantes” but noting it is “too soon” in his term for “special relationships.” He quipped that he’s in more of a “relationship” with the political press.

His status as a man on an island could prove politically risky, particularly if the consequences of his apparent fabrications continue to pile up and prompt more resignation calls. For the moment, Santos' biggest ally may be the speaker who needs his vote in a slim majority, even though Kevin McCarthy's famous freshman has done little but cause PR problems.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) agreed, when asked, that most House Republicans are keeping their distance from Santos.

“A number one thing in this town is, people don't like being criticized for what they do. They really don't like answering questions about what somebody else has done,” Armstrong said. “If nothing but out of political expedience, people are gonna avoid him.”

Santos tends to flash a smile as he bounces around the Capitol halls, often encircled by an aggressive barrage of news cameras and persistent press questions. This week he took the practice of catering to the spotlight rather literally,laying out Chick-fil-A and Dunkin’ Donuts for the reporters waiting outside his office.

Few of his colleagues expect that glare to dim quickly. Asked whether Santos' seat on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee would cast a brighter light on a typically wonky panel, Chair Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) laughed and replied: “The Science Committee in recent times has a reputation for being a rather calm, focused, some people almost would say sedate existence. We're gonna get livened up.”

Lucas projected little concern about Santos becoming a distraction to his committee, observing that “every member has strengths, every member has weaknesses” and adding that he would have to “figure out, in this particular case, what those are, and work with it.”

But other Republicans are less copacetic about the Santos Show that's taking shape this Congress. Those who saw his ascension as a blatant manipulation of the party apparatus, from the National Republican Congressional Committee to the staffers on his campaign payroll, are particularly alarmed that he's managing to hang on despite lacking major allies.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), a former NRCC chair, said that "I don't know what he told" the campaign arm, but "if he deceived them, he deceived our conference. ... You always have to be sensitive to who are going to be your candidates.”

Two Republicans close to Santos’ team say they, too, were completely in the dark about his fabrications, recalling that he often mentioned stories unprompted that later proved inaccurate, such as his claims to have played volleyball for Baruch College.

“This was not an inside job. We were all duped here,” said one of the Republicans close to Santos’ team, before referring to a famed con woman who inspired a Netflix TV series: “We got Anna Delvey’d.”

Santos' campaign had assembled its own opposition file to review the candidate's vulnerabilities, according to these two Republicans, both of whom were briefed on its contents. They said the file included parking tickets, details about his ex-wife and questions about his education — but that Santos was quick to explain away the questions about his schooling, attributing them at times to recording errors based on multiple names he had used and to his frequent moves.

At one frenetic point in the campaign, according to the two Republicans, Santos declared to a room of aides that he needed a moment to collect himself because he had just learned that his cancer had returned — he's asserted a brain tumor occasionally in the past but avoided follow-up questions about it. His team immediately pulled back their demand to express support, underscoring what both Republicans close to his team referred to as a genuinely high level of kindness between the candidate and his staff.

But the issue of his cancer faded from the conversation on the trail almost as quickly as it materialized.

One of the Republicans close to his team said that some donors have urged Santos to stay in office amid the GOP's thin margins and the reality that his district would be tough for another Republican to win.

Santos’ office did not respond to a request for comment about his health claims or questions about the internal opposition file.

Weeks before the first reports brought Santos' misrepresentations to light, the House GOP was already catching on to his future pariah status. After then-Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) finished giving GOP members-elect a Capitol tour in November, Davis remarked in an interview that Santos would trigger the next Congress’ first special election.

Now that Santos is a full-fledged House GOP conference member, fellow Republican lawmakers are tied to his falsehoods as they push for accountability and transparency in their pending oversight of the Biden administration. And they're not certain whether he has any path to redemption inside the party.

“I don't know the answer to that question,” one House Republican said, speaking candidly about Santos' standing on condition of anonymity. “I think it's just going to depend on what [the] Ethics [committee] and [the Justice Department] find.”

Gaetz and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), themselves at odds during McCarthy's speakership battle, have stuck up for Santos in public by arguing that he should receive committee assignments. The Floridian, who got a taste of ostracism during a federal sex trafficking probe that ensnared him before he was cleared last year, told CNN earlier this month that Santos shouldn’t be “subject to shunning” by his colleagues.

Asked why he would defend Santos, Gaetz spoke on principle, saying that his colleague “represents 700,000-plus people … if they voted for him and sent him here, they don’t deserve to have their representative ignored on substance.”

That doesn't quite mean Santos is considered a friend. When that question came up, Gaetz cheekily replied: “We take all sinners on my row.”

Santos, for his part, brushed off the calls for him to resign, arguing that "everybody's entitled to their opinion and to their prerogative, but at the end of the day, we're all working here in this body.” But even if he can finish his term, his time in office may be limited to two years: He'd face an incredibly steep climb to reelection, with the Nassau County GOP and New York Conservative Party already pushing for his departure.

So for the time being, Washington might find him next seeking relationships across the aisle. Santos also said in an interview that he “can't wait to start talking to Democrats.”

McCarthy broaches Santos, Omar and other panel dramas in closed-door meeting

Speaker Kevin McCarthy briefly addressed the most scandal-plagued member of his conference on Wednesday, privately telling House Republicans that George Santos will continue to serve unless something triggers his removal.

The GOP leader noted Santos will continue to serve on his two committees but would lose those assignments if he were ultimately charged with a crime — the same rules that any House Republican is subject to, according to three Republicans who attended the closed-door conference meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Asked whether he believed he had the speaker’s support after the GOP conference meeting, Santos evaded the question: “What’s your assessment of that?” he asked. “You guys got the information so that should be incumbent upon you guys to make that assessment.”

McCarthy's mention came after the California Republican touched on a topic popular with much of his party: booting Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, both California Democrats, off the House Intelligence Committee. A select panel like Intelligence is different from most other House committees, in that the speaker has unilateral power to appoint the chair and control the membership.

But during Wednesday's closed-door meeting, McCarthy also raised his vow to remove Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which would require a full House vote that could occur as soon as next week. McCarthy didn’t wade into whether the GOP has the votes to do so yet, according to one of the Republicans who attended on Wednesday; two GOP members have publicly vowed to oppose removing Omar, and at least two other Republicans have told POLITICO they are undecided.

Schiff told reporters Wednesday “the hypocrisy grabs you by the throat” to see Santos seated on panels when he and Swalwell were removed from Intelligence.

“But hypocrisy is probably the least of Mr. McCarthy’s sins,” Schiff added. “The most significant impact is that he is continuing this destructive trend set by his party leader of tearing down our institutions, of degrading the Congress.”

The trio targeted by McCarthy, including Omar, planned to stick together through the “journey of vengeance,” Swalwell told reporters. They appeared on television together earlier this week and had been making a forceful case to their colleagues against McCarthy’s threat.

“Whatever our disagreements might be as members of Congress, policy differences alone have not and must not be cause for eliminating someone from serving on a committee,” Omar said.

Meanwhile, McCarthy and his leadership team have said little about Santos as the headline-grabbing New Yorker's personal scandals continue to mount. A handful of Santos' GOP colleagues, mostly from his state's delegation, have called for his resignation — a rare rebuke that demonstrates his political toxicity back home.

And Santos was in attendance for McCarthy’s remarks, leaving the weekly conference meeting as a flock of cameras and reporters chased after him. Conference members had little response to McCarthy's mention of Santos, and the three Republicans who attended noted how briefly the topic was addressed.

Despite the calls for Santos to resign, there is a growing acceptance among House Republicans that the apparent serial fabricator will stick around for as long as possible given their party's paper-thin majority. Many lawmakers in both parties privately acknowledge it is unlikely Santos would step down on his own accord.

While both parties have started preliminary discussions about a special election should Santos be forced to step aside — a risky prospect for Republicans in such battleground turf — lawmakers and campaign officials say they're not expecting one this year, though the dynamics could well shift if the incumbent's problems get even worse.

Although Santos could still face legal consequences for discrepancies in his campaign finance reports in particular, any probe of them would likely take years to result in any actions.

Jesús Rodriguez and Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

Biden, House GOP refuse to budge as key debt ceiling deadline looms

The Biden administration and House Republicans are heading toward an initial Thursday debt ceiling deadline without even a hint of an endgame, ensuring a months-long standoff that's poised to rattle financial markets amid worries about a recession this year.

The two sides are effectively shrugging as the Treasury Department warns the country will hit the $31.4 trillion borrowing cap Thursday — though it’s not a hard deadline, as the department can still use extraordinary measures to pay the bills for another few months. But it means the potential economic doomsday clock is officially ticking, with House Republicans still insisting on massive spending cuts before they help raise the debt ceiling and Democrats refusing to engage the idea.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said last week that the U.S. likely won’t run out of cash or exhaust those measures until at least early June. Until then, the department is suspending investments in certain government retirement funds and hoping the House GOP and Democrats can come to an agreement to keep the government from careening into an economic crisis with far-reaching consequences.

But Yellen’s warning to congressional leaders hasn’t spurred any movement toward even the beginning of a deal between Congress and the White House. The biggest legislative battle of the year is just beginning — and threatening to grow even messier than the 15-ballot speakership fight — and there’s no exit strategy in sight.

Even some Republicans viewed as more likely to negotiate with the White House are already taking aim at the administration's position after White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said last week: “We will not be doing any negotiation."

“Maybe we should not just draw lines in the sand immediately, including the White House,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), calling the administration’s refusal to negotiate on fiscal reforms “disappointing.”

“If we default on our debt, there's going to be huge ramifications,” he said. “I'm not interested in bottoming out everybody's 401k. They've already had a tough year.”

The White House is already working behind the scenes to work around Speaker Kevin McCarthy, including dispatching its top advisers to meet with moderate Republicans — particularly those who won in districts President Joe Biden won in 2020 — in hopes Democrats can count on those GOP lawmakers to cross the aisle and lift the debt ceiling.

“I think there is a real chance of that,” said one senior House Republican. “Kevin would probably love for that to happen because it gets him out of — ‘it wasn’t me.’”

Others think the White House needs to come at it differently for officials to have any hope at cross-aisle cooperation.

“Biden’s initial comment of zero negotiations is a non-starter,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who said he personally hasn’t heard from the White House. “[Republicans] can’t get 100 percent of what we want with only control of half of Congress, but our voters sent us to D.C. to control spending, so the Democrats have to show some movement our way, too.”

“Both sides need to negotiate in good faith,” he added.

Concessions over the debt ceiling were a vital part of the deal that McCarthy negotiated with his 20 conservative holdouts to finally attain the speakership. He agreed that the GOP House wouldn’t move to lift the debt ceiling unless Congress slashes at least $130 billion in federal spending next fiscal year or addresses broader fiscal reforms that tackle the ballooning debt, as many Republicans argue it threatens the nation’s economic security and future.

Such spending cuts should be negotiated as part of the annual budget and appropriations process Congress will also have to tackle later this year, said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). He argued it shouldn’t occur during a high-stakes battle over the nation’s borrowing authority.

"We've been very clear. The President's been very clear. It's everybody's duty to make sure the United States pays its bills on time,” Van Hollen said. “There will be no negotiations over the debt ceiling and paying our bills on time.”

But Republicans, who are still deciding how to populate their committees after the speakership fight delayed those moves, said concrete discussions about potential demands haven’t even begun.

Some GOP members are beginning to float more specific plans as the debt-ceiling fight gets officially underway, like the return of a controversial payment prioritization plan that former Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) proposed during a similar showdown about a decade ago. Such a plan would allow the government to keep paying its bondholders if both parties can’t reach an agreement, while dictating what other financial obligations would lapse.

“I fully support the debt prioritization plan as it’s one of the many steps that have to be implemented,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a Freedom Caucus member who was among the 20 conservative McCarthy holdouts. Norman has argued his main priority is working to balance the budget over the next 10 years or less.

Meanwhile, the primary concern for financial markets is whether the debt ceiling brawl forces the U.S. to miss a payment owed to Treasury bondholders. Treasuries — usually seen as extremely safe assets — underpin the global financial system and are closely tied to lending products like mortgages. Missing a payment could send the stock market off a cliff, though Wall Street analysts are split about how much of a threat the standoff actually poses to the economy, with some banking on Congress and the White House reaching some sort of deal before the federal government misses any debt payments.

Some of the Republicans pushing the payment prioritization plan, first reported by the Washington Post, include Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), one of the 20 holdouts. He told the Post: “We agreed to advance a debt prioritization bill through regular order by the end of the first quarter of 2023 … Now, the contours of that were not specified (there are different versions).”

The hotly debated idea divides Republicans and budget experts alike, and the administration has already swatted it down. White House chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted that it would sow “CHAOS” in the U.S. and “cut off funding” for food safety, FAA operations, border security and drug enforcement.

“This so-called prioritization scheme makes Republicans’ priorities pretty clear,” Jean-Pierre said Tuesday. “They want to put wealthy bondholders over ordinary Americans.”

It’s unclear what capability the Treasury Department has to prioritize payments, with officials declining to comment last week on whether it’s even an option. A top Treasury official stressed in a December speech that debt limit stalemates hurt the department's cash balance and trigger market volatility. Treasury officials told House Republicans in 2014 that while the government could technically prioritize payments, such a plan would be “entirely experimental and create unacceptable risk to both domestic and global financial markets.”

Payment plan aside, the debt ceiling is a critical political battle for the House GOP. With McCarthy commanding only a narrow majority that can move to topple him at any time, even lawmakers who count him as a friend predict the showdown won’t end well for him.

“It will cost Kevin his job,” said Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.).

Burgess Everett, Alex Ward and Adam Cancryn contributed to this report.