A man who is running for former Rep. George Santos’s (R-N.Y.) seat was found guilty of charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Philip Sean Grillo of Queens, New York, was found guilty of five charges, including one felony, and convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding, a felony and misdemeanor of entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building, the Justice Department released Wednesday.

Grillo is running to replace Santos after he was removed in a historic vote last week, ending his 11-month tenure in Congress, making him the sixth lawmaker ever to be ousted from the House. Santos was booted from Congress weeks after the House Ethics Committee’s report found substantial evidence that he committed serious federal crimes.

Nineteen people have declared their candidacy for the Long Island seat, Grillo being one of them. Days after Santos left office, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced the special election to replace him would be Feb. 13.

Grillo, a representative for Assembly District 24, has yet to be sentenced, but according to evidence presented at trial he was “at the front of a group of rioters facing the police line” on the West Plaza of the Capitol. He entered the building through a broken window and carried a megaphone.

Someone stopped Grillo inside the Capitol, where he said, “I’m here to stop the steal. It’s our F— House,” according to the Justice Department. Grillo made several videos on his phone, including one showing him smoking marijuana inside the Capitol.

During trial, Grillo said he had no idea that Congress met inside the Capitol, despite admitting he is running for the congressional seat, according to the DOJ release. The FBI arrested him on Feb. 23, 2021 in New York.

Since the insurrection, more than 1,230 people have been charged in crimes related to breaching the Capitol. More than 440 individuals have been charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement, the DOJ said.

Former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) said in a post online that his replacement in New York’s 3rd Congressional District will either be a Democrat or a “Democrat in republican skin.”

“America which ever way it goes you will get a Democrat or a Democrat in republican skin coming to Congress from NY-03,” Santos posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

Santos was removed in a historic vote last week, ending his 11-month tenure in Congress and making him the sixth lawmaker ever to be ousted from the House. He was booted from Congress just weeks after the House Ethics Committee’s report found there was substantial evidence that he committed serious federal crimes.

Since leaving office, Santos has taken to posting online, particularly in popular Cameo videos going for several hundred dollars. In his post Wednesday, he gave his supporters and New Yorkers an update on what to expect about his successor.

“I put up a joking, very sarcastic endorsement the other day and I think some of you took it serious so let me make this clear, Mike Sapraicone is a prolific Democrat donor who donated almost $40,000 to Tom Suozzi’s gubernatorial primary campaign in 2022,” Santos said in a video attached to the post. “Just last year, while I was running for Congress, he was nowhere to be found donating to Republican’s significant funds, but he was donating $40,000 to Tom Suozzi.”

Sapraicone is a retired New York Police Department detective, and announced in July that he would be challenging Santos for the Long Island seat. Santos said “the alternate candidate,” Mazi Pilip, a county legislator, “happens to be elected as a Republican, however a registered Democrat since 2012.”

 “So, in general, the Nassau GOP is going to nominate either a Democrat or a Democrat donor to replace me,” he said. “Let that sink in.”

Santos urged his followers to tell Nassau County Republican Committee Chairman Joe Cairo that they deserve better than that.

Days after Santos’ expulsion, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced the special election to fill Santos’s seat will be held Feb. 13. She issued a proclamation Tuesday setting the date for the race to determine who will represent the district for the remainder of the term, leaving the GOP conference in a tight spot with its already slim majority.

Santos’s former district voted for President Biden in the 2020 election by about 8 points, signaling that the special election could be a pickup opportunity for Democrats. If the special election were to go to a Democrat, it would further tighten Republicans’ majority in the House.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is calling it quits, announcing Wednesday that he will leave Congress at the end of the month after 17 years on Capitol Hill. 

The decision was hardly a surprise. McCarthy’s historic ouster as Speaker in October had stripped him of power, left him with no real role in the GOP conference and poisoned his relationship with the conservatives who led his removal.

Still, his exit will leave a void in the Republican conference, where McCarthy had risen quickly through the ranks, assuming the top leadership role for the better part of the last five years and emerging as the GOP’s premier fundraiser and candidate recruiter, which paved the way for the party’s takeover of the House last year.

Here are some of the highlights from McCarthy’s up-and-down tenure on Capitol Hill. 

A Young Gun

After arriving in Congress in 2007, McCarthy quickly joined forces with two other up-and-coming Republicans — Reps. Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Eric Cantor (Va.) — who, beginning in the mid-aughts, sought to remold the image of the GOP. 

Frustrated with the ethics scandals that had rocked Republicans in previous years, and the spending binge under President George W. Bush that turned budget surpluses into massive deficits, the ambitious trio vowed to push the party back to its conservative roots, with a sharp focus on smaller government and debt reduction.

The group set out recruiting a new crop of staunch conservatives, and their efforts would ultimately pay off when Republicans won control of the House in 2010 after just four years in the minority wilderness. But the campaign also came at a personal cost.

Many of the conservative recruits came from the anti-establishment Tea Party mold and turned on the Young Guns targets when they eventually rose to assume leadership roles. 

Cantor, the majority leader, suffered a stunning primary defeat in 2014 at the hands of the more conservative Dave Brat. Ryan, after rising to the Speakership, was nudged into retirement by his right flank in 2019. And McCarthy, in similar fashion, is heading early for the exits following his stunning fall from power. 

2015: Freedom Caucus blocks his ascension 

When Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) resigned in 2015, McCarthy, as majority leader, was widely expected to replace him at the top of the party. 

It didn’t happen.

Just one day after announcing his candidacy, McCarthy stirred a storm of controversy when he went on Fox News and suggested the GOP’s long-running Benghazi investigation was designed largely to harm Hillary Clinton politically. 

The remarks frustrated fellow Republicans, particularly those in the Freedom Caucus, who were already doubtful of McCarthy’s conservative bona fides and eager to block his ascent. In a stunning move, McCarthy dropped out of the race on the day most of Washington expected him to secure the Speaker nomination. Republicans needed a figure who could unite the divided conference, he said at the time. 

“I am not that guy.”

January 6

McCarthy was among the many Republicans who promoted the false notion that former President Trump had won reelection in 2020. But the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol revealed that there were limits to McCarthy’s allegiance to his White House ally. 

The Republican leader phoned Trump in the midst of the attack, irate that the president hadn’t put out a statement calling off his supporters. (Trump responded by blaming far-left groups for the attack, then suggesting the pro-Trump rioters were more patriotic than the lawmakers under siege).

Several days later, McCarthy went to the House floor to say explicitly that Trump “bears responsibility" for the violence and a failure to call off the mob “when he saw what was unfolding.”

The criticisms, however, would be short-lived. 

When it became clear that the Republicans on and off of Capitol Hill were sticking with Trump, McCarthy — who needed Trump’s support to become Speaker — quickly reversed course.  

Just weeks after the attack, he made a secret visit to Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort. McCarthy would go on to say that Trump did not "provoke" the riot, and he helped to orchestrate the expulsion of then-Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) from GOP leadership for her refusal to indulge Trump's lies about his election defeat.

Since then, McCarthy has either downplayed or declined to discuss Trump’s role in the riot, instead blaming Democrats for what he says was their failure to secure the Capitol that day.  

A historic Speakership race

McCarthy won the gavel in January, officially cementing himself as the 55th Speaker of the House and fulfilling his longtime goal after years of rising through the GOP ranks.

But it wasn’t without a long — and historic — fight on the House floor.

It took McCarthy 15 ballots over the span of four days to clinch the Speakership after a coalition of hard-line conservatives withheld support from his bid over a variety of concerns they had with the GOP leader.

But the California Republican — known for his optimistic attitude and who frequently said he would never give up — remained in the race, bringing his nomination back to the floor ballot after ballot until, eventually, he cobbled together enough support to clinch the gavel.

“That was easy, huh?” McCarthy quipped before delivering his victory speech in the chamber. “I never thought we’d get up here.”

But McCarthy never won unanimous support from the GOP conference: Six Republicans voted “present” on the final ballot, lowering the threshold McCarthy needed to win the Speakership and, effectively, handing him the gavel.

Five of those Republicans would later vote to oust him, ending his tenure atop the chamber after allowing him to enter the leadership position months earlier.

Debt ceiling victory

From the moment McCarthy won the gavel, it was clear that a looming deadline to raise the debt limit and avoid a catastrophic economic default would be among the toughest — if not the most challenging — hurdles the new Speaker would face in his tenure atop the chamber.

The ultimate battle met those expectations.

McCarthy wrangled most of his conference together to pass a conservative debt limit plan in April, which dragged President Biden to the negotiating table, decreased the chance of passing a “clean” debt ceiling increase — which Democrats had pushed for — and gave Republicans leverage in the high-stakes talks.

Those negotiations continued throughout the month of May, with McCarthy and his top deputies — Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and Garret Graves (R-La.) — engaging in countless conversations with Biden and White House officials at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The talks — which took place at all hours of the day and, at least one time, broke down in a dramatic fashion — eventually ended with a deal to suspend the debt limit for two years and implement a number of cost-cutting measures.

The agreement passed the House with hodgepodge of moderate Democrats and Republicans and was seen as a win for McCarthy, pushing the president to the negotiating table and, in the end, leading to a debt limit increase with conditions.

But the deal also marked the beginning of the end for McCarthy. The package, which was less conservative than the GOP bill cleared in April, frustrated hard-liners — and rumblings about a potential motion to vacate began circulating.

A historic ouster

McCarthy was fond of telling reporters that he’s underestimated, and for much of the year he could back up that claim. Defying predictions, he had weathered the marathon Speaker’s vote, ushered through much of the Republicans’ legislative agenda and successfully negotiated a debt deal with Biden.

But in September, when he backed a short-term spending package to prevent a government shutdown, the honeymoon quickly ended. 

McCarthy’s right-wing detractors, already infuriated with the debt agreement, had urged the Speaker to hold the line in demanding sharp spending cuts, even if it meant a government shutdown. When he chose instead to keep the government open at current spending levels, they pounced.

Led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a small but willful group of conservatives forced votes on a motion to vacate the Speaker’s chair. On Oct. 3, eight Republicans joined every Democrat in removing McCarthy’s gavel — the first time a Speaker had ever been ousted. 

It remains unclear what McCarthy will do next. But he’s vowing to continue his work fighting for Republican causes. 

“I know my work is only getting started,” he said.

House Republicans on Wednesday advanced a resolution to censure Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), teeing up a final vote on reprimanding the New York Democrat for falsely pulling a fire alarm in a House office building in September.

The chamber defeated a Democratic-led motion to kill the legislation in an 201-216-1 vote, a sign that the legislation will pass when it hits the floor for a final vote.

The push to censure Bowman began after the congressman on Sept. 30 — during a high-profile vote to avert a government shutdown hours before the deadline — falsely pulled a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building, prompting an evacuation. 

The congressman in October was charged with a misdemeanor for the incident and pleaded guilty one day after. He has to write an apology to the Capitol Police and pay a $1,000 fine, per an agreement with prosecutors.

Bowman has consistently said that he pulled the fire alarm by mistake. In a statement the day of the incident, he said he pulled the fire alarm “mistakenly thinking it would open the door” he was trying to exit the building from.

“What I did was against D.C. law,” Bowman told reporters before entering the courthouse, where he pleaded guilty. 

“I said, from the very beginning, I was not trying to disrupt any congressional proceedings. I’m glad that the investigation yielded that. And so it was against D.C. law, and I got to take responsibility for it, which I’m here to do,” he added.

Republicans, however, accused Bowman of triggering the alarm in an effort to delay the government funding vote — a charge the New York lawmaker denies. Democrats had deployed a number of stall tactics before that vote to  buy time to read the 71-page bill, which had been rolled out earlier that day. 

“[T]he interruption of official proceedings of Congress by pulling a fire alarm was a theatrical attempt to cause panic, therefore endangering the safety and well-being of members of the House, of staff, and members of the public on the Capitol grounds,” the resolution reads.

Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.), the secretary of the GOP conference, moved to force a vote on the censure resolution this week. If the final vote is successful, Bowman would become the 26th House lawmaker ever censured, and the third to receive the reprimand this Congress.

Censuring members is a largely symbolic move: other than having to stand in the well and listen to a reading of the censure resolution, the reprimand does not include any subsequent punishments. But it does carry the stigma that a lawmaker has acted in a manner that was unbecoming of Congress, as determined by colleagues.

Censuring members was once a rarity in the House, but the act has become more frequent in recent years as polarization in Congress increases and lawmakers heighten their attacks against one another.

Most recently, in November, the House voted to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for her criticisms of Israel after Hamas’ attack on the U.S. ally on Oct. 7.

The House on Wednesday voted in favor of blocking a Biden administration rule that’s expected to shift car sales in the U.S. significantly toward electric vehicles. 

The vote was 221-197.

The rule in question could move car sales as far as to reach two-thirds electric by 2032.

The bill approved by House Republicans on Wednesday would also bar the Environmental Protection Agency from pursuing any rules that result in limited availability of gas-powered cars. 

Despite its House passage, the legislation is not expected to gain traction in the Democratically-controlled Senate. The White House has already threatened to veto it.

In its veto threat statement, The White House defended the rule as being “projected to save Americans $12,000 over the lifetime of a new light-duty vehicle by accelerating adoption of technologies that reduce fuel and maintenance costs alongside pollution.”

It also lamented other provisions of the GOP bill that it said would “catastrophically impair EPA’s ability to issue automotive regulations that protect public health, save consumers money, strengthen American energy security, and protect American investments in the vehicle technologies of the future.”

Republicans have criticized the EPA’s rule, saying that it is forcing a shift to electric vehicles that consumers do not want. 

Bill sponsor Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) said during a Wednesday press conference that “this standard…is unattainable, it’s unaffordable and in fact it’s unrealistic.”

“It takes away what we've always thought of as one of the most important principles of Americanism, and that's choice," he said.

Members of the GOP are also trying to push for language to block the rule in an upcoming appropriations bill, with at least one member saying they would consider voting against a funding bill if it does not contain such a provision. 

The House will consider a short-term extension of the nation’s warrantless surveillance powers as part of the defense policy bill, House intelligence leaders confirmed Wednesday.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will include a provision to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) into mid-April — dodging its end of the year expiration as Congress battles over four competing plans to reauthorize and reform the law.

“Obviously the House has been in chaos and our legislative business has been disrupted. So I think it's an appropriate extension that gives us the ability to address 702. By extending it, we avoid the calamity,” caused by a lapse of an important national security tool, Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was under pressure by some in the GOP to only consider Section 702 reauthorization as a standalone bill, arguing the risk to Americans who may see their communication swept up if they communicate with those being surveilled by the government requires careful vetting.

Section 702 only allows the government to spy on foreigners located abroad, but privacy rights activities have complained the dynamic still allows for backdoor searches of American’s information if they communicate with targets.

The NDAA’s text has not yet been released, so discussions could still be fluid. But the move suggests a reversal from Johnson, who as of Tuesday appeared to oppose a short-term extension through that vehicle.

“You can air drop the whole reform bill into the NDAA. And you know, he decided not to do that. OK, that’s fair. But what you can’t do is not have a temporary extension. Because the next likely vehicle for reauthorization is the Jan. 19 successor to the [continuing resolution]. So just that alone is a potential 19-day, no-702 period, which is the period in which Americans get killed,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the committee, told The Hill on Tuesday.

DEVELOPING

House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that he would support Washington, D.C., taxing and regulating legalized marijuana.

Comer told reporters he would support it “if that is what the city wants,” Politico first reported, and his office confirmed to The Hill. His comments come after a meeting with Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser focused on local crime.

Nearly two-thirds of D.C. voters favored legalizing marijuana for adult use in a 2014 ballot initiative. In the District, the possession of up to 2 ounces of marijuana is decriminalized for residents 21 years or older for recreational or medical use, according to the district’s marijuana laws.

Marijuana remains federally illegal, making the issue a legal gray area.

Comer's comments differ from congressional Republicans' views on marijuana sales in the past.

In March 2022, the GOP preserved a years-old provision known as the Harris rider, which bars the legalization of recreational sales. Local officials have pushed Congress to remove the rider by arguing that the cash-only market has caused more robberies and other violent crime.

Bowser and other local officials have been criticized after crime shot up across the district this year.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) was carjacked outside his Navy Yard apartment in October. In February, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) was attacked and assaulted in her D.C. apartment building’s elevator.

In early November, Bowser announced that D.C. will be handing out free digital tracking tags for vehicles, as car thefts have skyrocketed in the city.

Crime in the District has steadily increased over the last year and has largely surpassed last year’s totals in nearly every category.

Corey “Al-Ameen” Patterson has never voted in any election. 

That’s because since November 2009, Patterson has been serving a 15-years-to-life sentence at Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Norfolk. Since being incarcerated, Patterson’s right to vote has been revoked. 

In a testimony before members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Patterson said this means the society that he lives in is not a reflection of his imagination — nor of the individuals who came through the same school-to-prison pipeline from which he emerged.

“We have legislators coming through here looking at the food we eat, the water we drink, how they treat our visitors, how so much is wrong and not really being able to connect the dots between the criminal justice system and the community … all the shootings that happen on the outside, all of the inequities that happen in prison, that's all related. That's all connected. The fact that we can't vote is why things are so ugly in here,” Patterson said in his testimony.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), shared Patterson’s testimony Wednesday outside the Capitol as she unveiled legislation that would secure voting rights for felons like Patterson. 

The Inclusive Democracy Act would ensure Americans convicted of a felony have the right to cast their ballots in federal elections. The law would affect some 4.6 million Americans, Pressley said, predominantly Black Americans. 

“We must be just as relentless in protecting and expanding access to the ballot box, including for incarcerated citizens,” Pressley said. “They have not forfeited their rights of citizenship, and so they deserve to have, to have their voices heard and to have access to the ballot.”

The act would guarantee the right to vote in federal elections for all Americans, regardless of criminal conviction, and would require that those with past convictions receive notice that they have the right to vote and would retain the right to vote. 

Voting rights have been a top-of-mind issue for Democrats going into the 2024 election year. Concerns of voter suppression — which disproportionately impacts Black Americans — has been a concern of advocates since the 2020 presidential and midterm elections. 

Democrats have accused Republicans of enacting discriminatory voter laws, including limiting the number of voting locations in underserved communities, limiting access to early and mail-in voting and purging ballots.

Pressley’s co-sponsor, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), said on Wednesday that there is a “significant effort” to keep people from the ballot box.

“If you can't win at the ballot box, don't let people vote. That has been a tactic in many of the states around the country, so it's not just here in Congress,” said Welch. “We're committed to full access to the ballot box as a birthright in this country.”

When it comes to granting the right to vote to those convicted of a felony, however, confusion often arises over state laws, said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights with the Campaign Legal Center.

“Nearly 5 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, but almost 18 million more may be effectively disenfranchised because of the state patchwork of confusing laws, onerous paperwork requirements and fear of being prosecuted,” Lang said. 

While 48 states have restrictions on which people with felonies can vote, not all these laws are the same.

For instance, in 2020, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed a law that restored voting rights to felons who completed their sentence, unless they were convicted of homicide. Arizona offers a similar law, but with key differences — first-time felony offenders who have not been convicted of firearms-related offenses have voting rights restored automatically when they complete their sentence. But those previously convicted of another felony, or who have not paid restitution, cannot vote unless they petition or have the judge who discharged them at the end of the probation restore their rights.

Many of these laws disproportionately affect Black voters, who make up 37 percent of the incarcerated population, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. 

One out of every 19 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, which is 3.5 times more than non-African Americans, the Sentencing Project found in 2022.

Pressley opened up on Wednesday to share that her father was one of those Black voters to be disenfranchised.

“Growing up my father Martin was absent for most of my formative years, because his addiction was criminalized. This was incredibly destabilizing for our family,” said Pressley. “I really feel my father was discarded. He was treated as if he was disposable, and he was alienated from our society, and our family’s experience is certainly no anomaly. Especially as Black Americans, hundreds of thousands of people behind the wall are told that they do not matter, that their voices do not matter, that their contributions to society do not matter.”

Today, she said, her father is healthy and a professor of journalism. 

“We have got to disrupt this legacy in this country of treating trauma with more trauma. We need a democracy that values all people, we need a democracy that ensures all citizens can make their voices heard in our elections,” said Pressley. 

Lawmakers and witnesses at a hearing addressing housing affordability Wednesday morning sounded similar frustrations over the growing divide between affordable housing supply and demand in markets across the country.  

“The severe shortage of affordable and available homes for extremely low-income renters is a structural feature of the country’s housing system, consistently impacting every state and nearly every community,” said witness Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition. 

A surge of post-pandemic evictions highlighted the nation’s racially unequal housing crisis, with Black and brown renters being evicted at much higher rates compared to white renters.  

Experts have said that starter homes hardly exist anymore, with first-time home buyers needing 13 percent more in income to afford today’s starter home prices. With high rent and home prices, there are scarce signs of improvements on the horizon.  

“The gap between supply and demand continues to grow,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said Wednesday.  

Witnesses blamed local policies and zoning laws for much of the problem, while disagreeing over the federal role in fixing the housing crisis.  

“Federal government intervention in the form of subsidies is necessary,” Yentel said. 

Witness Norbert J. Michel, director of the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives at the Cato Institute, disagreed, saying that “failed housing policies” out of Congress are driving the housing affordability problem. 

“Without reversing course, federal policies will further expand government intervention in housing markets at a great cost to millions of Americans,” Michel said.  

“They will put even more upward pressure on prices and rental rates, waste taxpayers’ money, and ultimately make housing less affordable. Ideally, the federal government would end policies that favor ownership over renting and stop intervening in housing markets.” 

Conservative members agreed, with Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) saying, “It’s very simple, you get government out of the way.” 

“This has got to be something on the local level,” he added.  

Both Yentel and Waters pointed to housing costs as a key driver of homelessness, with Waters saying, “Housing costs are too damn high and they’re pushing people out of their homes.” 

Democratic representatives fumed over the lack of legislative action or attention on housing in the GOP-controlled House.  

“I do believe on the issue of housing; this committee has lost the plot,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) 

“Because House Republicans don’t want to talk about this issue, we don’t have the time to advance the policies that matter to the American people,” said Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.). 

“I am pissed, the American people are pissed, my constituents are pissed if we don’t make housing more of a priority in this Congress.” 

Horsford highlighted the number of hearings on the issue: 55 during the previous Democrat-led Congress, and one since Republicans took back power.  

“Almost a year into this Congress, and we are holding the first hearing on housing,” Horsford said. “Congratulations.”  

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) fired back at Horsford, claiming Democrats had done nothing to fix the problem despite all the attention on it.  

“Apparently my colleagues seem to think the number of hearings we hold translates to actual legislation passing. In the last Congress, there were 55 hearings on housing, and yet 0 bills were enacted. These bills were so bad that even the Biden administration rejected them,” he said.  

“Maybe we should consider changing our policies,” Lawler continued. “Maybe we should reduce the cost of living. No, why would we think about this logically. Stop worrying about the number of hearings and start worrying about the damn laws we’re passing.”  

The presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have come under bipartisan fire over their responses to questions about antisemitism on campuses during a House hearing Tuesday.  

The presidents were all asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) if a student calling for the genocide of Jewish people violates their schools’ policies.  

Sally Kornbluth, the head of MIT, said there would be an investigation as harassment “if pervasive.” 

“If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment,” UPenn President Liz Magill said, with Stefanik firing back, “Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide?”  

Harvard President Claudine Gay said “it can” violate the school's rules “depending on the context.” 

The responses caused an uproar on social media, with many saying they were appalled the presidents would not outright say a call for a Jewish genocide would be harassment.  

“Calling for the genocide of Jews MUST be condemned. No equivocations, no exceptions,” the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, before which the administrators had appeared, said on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Why is that so hard for college presidents to say?” 

Republican presidential candidate and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley posted the video of the interactions on X, saying such remarks “will end or we'll pull their tax exempt status."  

“Calling for genocide of Jews is no different than calling for genocide of any other ethnic, racial, or religious group. The equivocation from these college presidents is disgusting,” Haley said.  

And the White House has weighed in, with spokesperson Andrew Bates calling it “unbelievable" such an issue would even come up.

“It’s unbelievable that this needs to be said: calls for genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we represent as a country,” Bates said. “Any statements that advocate for the systematic murder of Jews are dangerous and revolting — and we should all stand firmly against them, on the side of human dignity and the most basic values that unite us as Americans.” 

Harvard is now trying to quell the outrage, with Gay releasing a statement Wednesday about the school's policies for harassment against Jewish students.  

“There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account,” Gay said.  

The Hill has reached out to UPenn and MIT for comment.  

All the presidents said at the hearing it was a hard balance for their schools in keeping student safety and making individuals comfortable, while also allowing free speech and expression to thrive on campus in these times. They condemned Hamas's Oct. 7 attack on Israel and defended the nation's right to exist.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) offered a grim outlook on the shrinking GOP majority after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced his plans to resign by the end of the month on Wednesday.

“Now in 2024, we will have a 1 seat majority in the House of Representatives,” Greene wrote on X, formerly Twitter. “Congratulations Freedom Caucus for one and 105 Rep who expel our own for the other. I can assure you Republican voters didn’t give us the majority to crash the ship.”

“Hopefully no one dies,” she added.

Greene was referring to the House Freedom Caucus’s push to remove McCarthy from his role earlier this year and to the 105 Republicans joining almost all Democrats to expel former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) from the House last week.

McCarthy, who became the first Speaker to be ousted from the position in October, announced in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Wednesday that he would be departing from the House by the end of the year. He wrote he was leaving “to serve America in new ways. I know my work is only getting started.”

After McCarthy was booted from the Speakership, speculation grew over whether the California Republican would remain in Congress. His removal as Speaker also launched nearly a month of Republican infighting as the GOP scrambled to unite behind one candidate.

A growing number of lawmakers have announced in recent months that they will not be seeking reelection, that they will be stepping down from their jobs or that they will be seeking a different office.

McCarthy’s resignation means that the GOP majority in the House continues to slim down, especially after the House voted to expel Santos from the lower chamber last week.

After McCarthy steps down, Republicans will only be able to afford three GOP defections to pass any party-line legislation. In addition, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) also plans to step down in the first quarter of next year to take a job as president of Youngstown State University.

House Republicans are threatening to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress if he does not appear for a scheduled closed-door deposition next week as part of a subpoena.

The threat from House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) comes as the legal counsel for the president’s son, Abbe Lowell, has said that Biden is willing to sit for a public hearing but not for the private questioning. 

“Contrary to the assertions in your letter, there is no ‘choice’ for Mr. Biden to make; the subpoenas compel him to appear for a deposition on December 13. If Mr. Biden does not appear for his deposition on December 13, 2023, the Committees will initiate contempt of Congress proceedings,” Comer and Jordan wrote to Lowell on Wednesday. 

The letter represents an escalation of the battle between the House GOP and Biden as Comer and Jordan speed into the final stages of a multipronged impeachment inquiry probe into President Biden, which they aim to formalize with a vote next week. 

Earlier on Wednesday, Lowell sent a letter to Comer reiterating Biden’s willingness to testify at a public hearing on Dec. 13 or another date this month — an offer he first made last week in response to the subpoena request.

“He is making this choice because the Committee has demonstrated time and again it uses closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and misinform the American public—a hearing would ensure transparency and truth in these proceedings,” Lowell wrote.

Lowell also pointed to previous public statements in which Comer indicated that Republicans would be happy to hear Hunter Biden’s testimony in a public setting. 

“We’re in the downhill phase of this investigation now because we have so many documents, and we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose,” Comer said on an Oct. 31 appearance on “The Benny Show” posted online, which Lowell referenced.

But Comer and other Republicans have since argued that holding only a public hearing with five-minute questioning segments divided among both Democrats and Republicans was not sufficient, and saying that a closed-door format where legal counsel can methodically go through numerous questions was necessary. 

The House GOP is seeking testimony from Biden as part of an impeachment inquiry into the president, based in part on his son’s foreign business dealings and allegations and suspicions that the president may have improperly used government policy to benefit the business or improperly benefited from the foreign business dealings. The White House, as well as Hunter Biden, have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Wednesday said he will depart the House at the end of the year. 

"I have decided to depart the House at the end of this year to serve America in new ways. I know my work is only getting started," McCarthy wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

"I will continue to recruit our country’s best and brightest to run for elected office. The Republican Party is expanding every day, and I am committed to lending my experience to support the next generation of leaders."

This is a developing story.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) will face a primary challenge from George Latimer, a Westchester County, N.Y. executive, Latimer's campaign announced Wednesday.

"I decided that the next step in my career would be a run for Congress because I believe our country is currently facing an existential crisis that threatens our very democracy," Latimer said in a statement to The Hill.

Latimer touted his more than three decades of service in New York, having first been elected to the Rye, N.Y. City Council in 1987. He later served in New York's State Senate and is now in his second term as county executive in Westchester.

Latimer's move comes in the wake of Bowman's critical position of Israel in its war with Hamas, and the Democrat pleading guilty to one misdemeanor in October for falsely pulling a fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building ahead of a key House vote.

The Israel-Hamas war has fueled a number of campaigns against progressive House members, and exposed stark divides within the party.

Latimer discussed his run for New York's 16th Congressional District with The New York Times on Wednesday and pointed to Bowman's call for a cease-fire in the war shortly after it began in October. And he called Bowman's recent accusation that Israel is committing genocide a political stunt.

“It’s about results, not rhetoric,” Latimer said during the New York Times interview. "So much of politics has turned into that sort of showmanship — how you look in front of the cameras."

The Times reported Latimer's decision comes after months of pressure from Israel-aligned donors. Bowman is among a group of House liberals — many from the far-left "squad" — who have been outspoken critics of Israel's retaliatory bombardment of Gaza following Hamas's Oct. 7 assault.

Hamas's attacks in southern Israel left over 1,200 people dead, including hundreds of civilians, prompting Israel to launch a campaign to destroy the group and its military capabilities. Israel's attacks on Gaza have since killed some 16,000 individuals, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza.

Bowman condemned Hamas's assault in the days that followed the Oct. 7 attacks, while emphasizing Palestinian civilians are not responsible for Hamas's actions. He's voted against multiple resolutions related to support of Israel and most recently, was one of 14 lawmakers who voted "no" on a GOP-led resolution on Tuesday to condemn the uptick in antisemitism in the U.S. and around the world.

The New York Democrat on Tuesday noted that while he "strongly condemns antisemitism and hate in all its forms," he chose to vote against the resolution because “it fuels division and violence, conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, and ignores one of the greatest threats to the Jewish community, white nationalism.”

Latimer told The Associated Press last month the push for him to run started long before Oct. 7, and suggested to The Times his campaign would cover things beyond Israel.

The 70-year-old county executive told The Times he would place a priority on housing, climate change and transportation in Congress.

Bowman is among a growing list of progressives facing blowback within the party over their positions and comments toward Israel and it's war on Hamas.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-Penn.), who argued Israel committed "human rights violations," already has at least one declared opponent, Bhavini Patel.

Patel told The AP she would've run against Lee regardless of her position on Israel, but stressed the criticism of Lee's from the Jewish community shows how the lawmaker does not attempt to understand the people of her district.

Other challenges are likely against Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who has been censured in the House for her rhetoric toward Israel, along with Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.), who accused Israel of "ethnic cleansing," per the AP.

The Hill has reached out to Bowman's office for comment.

Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) said she’d consider voting against a bill to fund the government if it does not bar a Biden rule aiming to bolster electric vehicles. 

McClain, during a press conference on Wednesday said it’s “a hard line for me” to prevent an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that would be expected to make two-thirds of new car sales electric in 2032. 

“I am tired of the government telling me what I can do, what I can drive, what I can cook my food with,” she said. 

Asked directly if she would vote against an appropriations bill that did not block the EPA rule, McClain told The Hill that she would “look at any bill before I’m going to tell you how I’m going to vote” but that “I won’t take that option off the table.”

She added that she would “absolutely” consider not voting for a funding bill over the issue. 

Her comments add a potential complication to the already difficult task before appropriators of piecing together a bill that will get buy-in from both the Democratic-controlled Senate and the House, where Republicans hold a slim majority. 

Republicans have had a number of internal clashes over budget issues and ousted former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) after he moved to avert a shutdown.

In recent days, members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus softened their demands on spending. But at the same time, they have also reportedly pushed Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to fight aggressively for their priorities, even by risking a government shutdown.

Last week, more than 200 Republicans signed onto a letter led by McClain calling for incorporating language to bar the EPA rule in an appropriations bill. It’s unclear whether any others would consider voting against a funding bill over the issue.

Former President Trump took a swing at former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) early Wednesday morning.

“Crazy Liz Cheney, who may be responsible for destroying the evidence from the J6 Unselect Committee, making all cases, past and present, highly questionable, AT BEST, is suffering from a massive case of TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “She just lost her Congressional Seat by the largest margin EVER, now is desperately looking for something else to do. Her unhinged statements are becoming a THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!”

The president appeared to be pushing back against recent comments by Cheney, in which she warned against his reelection. On Monday, Cheney suggested that a vote for the former president could mean the final democratic election in the U.S.

“I hope that there are options and alternatives that reflect the important challenges that we’re facing, and that reflect leadership to meet those challenges, but that choice can never be Donald Trump because a vote for Donald Trump may mean the last election that you ever get to vote in,” Cheney told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie on “Today.”

“And again, I don’t say that lightly, and I think it’s heartbreaking that that’s where we are, but people have to recognize that a vote for Donald Trump is a vote against the Constitution,” Cheney continued.

Cheney, who was one of the 10 House Republicans that voted to impeach the former president in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, has been doing rounds in the media to promote her new book “Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning,” which was released Tuesday.

A battle between House Republicans and Hunter Biden is heating up ahead of a scheduled deposition next week, with the president’s son continuing to resist closed-door testimony while offering to speak in a public format.

Abbe Lowell, Biden's legal counsel, sent a letter to House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday reiterating Biden’s willingness to testify in a public hearing and saying the committee “uses closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and misinform the American public.”

“A hearing would ensure transparency and truth in these proceedings,” Lowell said.

House Republicans are entering the final stages of their impeachment probe into President Biden, which they aim to formalize with a vote next week. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who is leading another aspect of the impeachment probe, said Monday that he expects remaining interviews of key witnesses to be completed over the next six to seven weeks.

Comer had subpoenaed Biden in November as part of the probe. Lowell responded last week by saying Biden was willing to testify in a public setting, but not a in a private deposition.

That was not acceptable to the House GOP, with Comer and others arguing that a public hearing with five-minute questioning segments divided among members of the panel was not a sufficient. They said a closed-door format where legal counsel can methodically go through numerous questions was necessary. 

“The subpoenas Mr. Biden has received compel him to appear before the Committees for a deposition; they are not mere suggestions open to Mr. Biden’s interpretation or preference,” Comer and Jordan wrote in a letter to Lowell last week — asking him to confirm by Monday that Biden would attend the scheduled Dec. 13 deposition.

Comer also Biden could have the opportunity to testify in a public setting after a closed-door deposition, and said that the committee planned to release a transcript from the deposition with Biden “soon after its completion.”

But Lowell in his letter on Wednesday pointed to numerous statements from Comer indicating that he would be happy to have Biden testify publicly.

“We’re in the downhill phase of this investigation now because we have so many documents, and we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose,” Comer said on an Oct. 31 appearance on “The Benny Show” posted online.

Lowell also pointed to a Sept. 13 statement from Comer on Newsmax: “Hunter Biden is more than welcome to come in front of the committee . . . he’s invited today. We will drop everything.”

The House GOP is seeking testimony from Biden as part of a multi-pronged impeachment inquiry into the president, based in part on his son’s foreign business dealings and allegations and suspicions that the president may have improperly used government policy to benefit the business or improperly benefited from the foreign business dealings. The White House, as well as Hunter Biden, have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

House Republicans pushing through the last stages of their impeachment probe into President Biden are relying on moderate and swing-district lawmakers to get a formal vote authorizing the inquiry through the razor-thin GOP majority.

Many of the House GOP’s most vulnerable members are lining up behind the inquiry vote, downplaying the political risk that comes with it by saying the referendum simply bolsters their ability to investigate.

They are drawing a distinction between voting to authorize an inquiry and supporting actual impeachment articles down the road — even as those leading the investigations argue the evidence uncovered so far is compelling.

“That's what I'm supporting right now — the process. I'm supporting the process that will just let us see the truth,” said Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.).

Any official impeachment is likely to heavily feature long-disputed and shaky allegations of bribery involving the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and Ukraine energy company Burisma — claims that were intertwined with former President Trump’s first impeachment and could cause political headaches for many members facing tough reelections.

The multi-pronged impeachment inquiry — headed by Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), and Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) — is also probing the foreign business activities of Biden’s family members and whether the Department of Justice improperly slow-walked a tax crimes investigation into Hunter Biden.

“The impeachable offense is — I think, the key thing is in Burisma,” Jordan told reporters Monday while outlining his portion of the investigation, a presentation similar to one he has given to GOP members. He expects remaining interviews of key witnesses to be completed over the next six to seven weeks.

At least one GOP lawmaker isn’t convinced. 

“Hunter Biden did a lot of really bad things. And if there's a link with Joe Biden, I think the inquiry is fair. I don't see that link at this point,” said Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), one of the most vocal House GOP critics of the impeachment probe.

“Whenever you use the I-word, you are setting an expectation with the public that you're going to follow through with an impeachment, and that's one of my problems with this,” Buck said.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said he needs to talk to the GOP chair about why the party wants to hold an inquiry vote before making a decision.

“They need to walk me through. I need to know what they can't get now that they will be able to get,” Fitzpatrick said.

Still, leaders of the House GOP impeachment probe say that they expect the razor-thin House GOP to unify around an official inquiry vote, which leaders plan to bring to the House floor next week.

“All the moderates in our conference understand this is not a political decision. This is a legal decision,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a press conference Tuesday.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who said he plans to support the inquiry vote, outlined the political risks of moving toward a vote on impeachment articles on a party-line basis.

“If you get like, zero Democratic votes, it's just gonna die in the Senate,” Bacon said. “When you look at the history of it, anybody that's done that, they get a beating in the next election.”

But another House GOP member from a district Biden won in 2020 downplayed the risk of a partisan impeachment vote compared to other factors affecting 2024 — such as Trump.

“It’s not necessarily what we want to do. But that said, if we’re going into the presidential [election] with Trump at the top of the ticket, this is not the thing we’re gonna be worried about,” said the GOP member, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

The White House, which has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing by the president, has pointed to numerous statements from House Republicans who previously expressed skepticism of the impeachment inquiry. 

“All these House Republicans and their colleagues should answer for why they would change tune now and go along with her baseless exercise to smear President Biden when their allegations have already been thoroughly fact-checked and debunked, instead of focusing on the issues they claimed they would prioritize when they ran for office, like lowering inflation, growing the economy, and strengthening national security,” Ian Sams, White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, said in a statement.

The move to vote on the impeachment inquiry at all also marks a notable shift for the House GOP conference.

Ousted former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced an impeachment inquiry on his own accord in September, notably bypassing a formal vote to launch the inquiry in a move that was perceived by many as a way to protect vulnerable members in the conference.

But as the inquiry ramps up in its final stages — with House Republicans hoping to enforce subpoenas to land big-name witnesses — top Republicans are teeing up a vote to bolster their investigation.

Comer argued that the Thanksgiving break helped sway more moderate members who were once skeptics of the impeachment investigation to support the probe.

“We were in Washington, D.C., for 10 weeks, and there are about 15 or 20 moderates that they really worry about what CNN says or what the Washington Post writes. And they were getting in their head,” Comer said Sunday on Fox Business’s “Sunday Morning Futures." 

“But something happened over Thanksgiving. Many of the members went home … and they met people in Walmart and people on Main Street, and they were like, ‘What in the world have the Bidens done to receive millions and millions of dollars from our enemies around the world?’” Comer said. 

The White House, while responding to a flurry of House GOP subpoenas, had argued in November that the probe was not constitutional because it had not been authorized with a vote.

“You also claim the mantle of an 'impeachment inquiry' knowing full well that the Constitution requires that the full House authorize an impeachment inquiry before a committee may utilize compulsory process pursuant to the impeachment power — a step the Republican House majority has so far refused to take,” Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, wrote last month.

Jordan told reporters that letter helped push the House GOP to formalize the inquiry with a vote.

“Constitutionally, it’s not required. Speaker said we're [in] an impeachment inquiry, [then] we're in an impeachment inquiry,” Jordan said. “But if you have a vote of the full House of Representatives and the majority say we're in that official status as part of our overall oversight work or constitutional oversight duty that we have, it just helps us in court.”

Mychael Schnell and Rebecca Beitsch contributed.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) on Tuesday revealed her father told her she was "in danger" on Jan. 6, 2021 following former President Trump's speech to supporters shortly before some members of the group rioted at the Capitol.

Speaking to a crowd near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump said, "We got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren't any good, the Liz Cheneys of the world."

Cheney on Tuesday told CNN anchor Anderson Cooper that her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, called her while she was in the cloakroom in the Capitol on Jan. 6 and informed her of Trump's comments, which she hadn't yet heard due to working on remarks.

"And he said to me, 'You're in danger,'" Cheney said Tuesday night. "And he said, 'We need to talk about it...given that he's just done this, that he's just targeted you specifically, what that means for you going to the House floor, what that means for you, in terms of speaking against objections."

Cheney said through the course of speaking with her father, it became clear she that "couldn't not proceed because of this threat from Donald Trump."

"But that's...you can imagine sort of the emotion of the moment to have my dad calling me to say the president has just targeted me in a way that put...me at risk," Cheney added.

The Washington Post reported in 2021 Cheney did end up walking out to the House floor after the call with her father, with the intention of stopping Trump and his allies' efforts to overturn the 2020 electoral college results. She soon heard rioters banging on the chamber's doors and a shot fired, and moved to a secure location.

Cheney later came out and pinned the blame on Trump for allegedly inciting the riot. She served as vice chairwoman of the House select committee on Jan. 6 and became one of the most outspoken GOP critics of the former president.

Cheney's remarks come on the heels of her new memoir titled,  “Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning,” which was released on Tuesday. The book chronicles her concerns over a second term with Trump in the White House and details her criticisms of the current Republican Party, both leading up to Jan. 6 and the party's later response.

Cheney lost her seat in the House after three terms to Trump-backed challenger, Rep. Harriet Hageman, during the 2022 primaries in Wyoming, where Trump maintained large support among voters.

Despite departing Congress, Cheney has remained a vocal critic of both Trump and other Republican leaders, including Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) and former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), both of whom she discusses in her memoir.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said Tuesday that Republicans in Congress can’t be relied on to “defend” the Constitution.

“I think the lesson that we've seen over the course of the last couple of years is that this group of elected Republicans can't be counted on to defend the Constitution,” Cheney said  in an interview with CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. “And that's a very sad thing for me to say. It's a very dangerous place for the country to be, but that's what we've seen based on the actions of the last several years.”

When Cooper asked what needs to happen to get Republicans “to actually govern and get stuff done,” Cheney reiterated that the GOP needs to distance itself from former President Trump.

“I think we have to have the majority of the American people who are not part of sort of this cult of personality around Donald Trump,” Cheney said. “There is a portion of the party that absolutely is not going to be convinced to move away from him."

“But it's a much smaller number than, you know, the vast majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents combined,” she continued. “And those of us who understand the danger have to be committed to working across party lines to protect against it.”

Cheney, a longtime critic of Trump, has been on a media blitz to promote her new book, “Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning,” which largely focuses on the current state of the Republican Party and what dangers a second Trump presidency would bring.

Cheney served as the vice chair of the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol. She then lost her August 2022 primary after becoming a frequent critic of her party and the former president.

She has repeatedly warned that a vote for Trump means “a vote against the Constitution.” She said in a separate interview with CBS’s John Dickerson over the weekend that a GOP majority in 2025 “presents a threat” to the United States, adding that the Republican Party made a choice to not choose the Constitution.