A congressional delegation will visit New Orleans on Friday to review security for the Super Bowl — an unusual step that underscores heightened tension around the Feb. 9 event, Axios has learned.
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry said Wednesday that law enforcement will conduct bag checks at checkpoints in the French Quarter between Feb. 5 and 10.
Vehicle traffic will also be restricted in the area, and coolers and ice chests will be prohibited — measures responding to the methods used by the New Year's Day attacker.
Driving the news: The delegation will be led by Rep. Dale Strong (R-Ala.), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology, a spokesperson for the panel told Axios.
Lawmakers will visit the site of the New Year's Day attack with officials from the Department of Homeland Security, FBI and New Orleans police.
They will then tour the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center and the Caesars Superdome and be briefed by NFL and law enforcement officials.
Zoom in: Strong will be joined in New Orleans by Reps. Julie Johnson (D-Texas) and Nellie Pou (D-N.J.).
Congressional offices are being warned not to use DeepSeek, an upstart Chinese chatbot that is roiling the American AI market, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: Congress has struggled to navigate the security and administrative challenges posed by the rapid advancement of AI technology.
"At this time, DeepSeek is under review by the CAO and is currently unauthorized for official House use," the House's Chief Administrative Officer said in a notice to congressional offices obtained by Axios.
What they're saying: The notice warned that "threat actors are already exploiting DeepSeek to deliver malicious software and infect devices."
"To mitigate these risks, the House has taken security measures to restrict DeepSeek's functionality on all House-issued devices," it continued.
Staffers are prohibited from installing DeepSeek on any official phones, computers and tablets, the notice said.
Zoom out: This is far from the first time the CAO has restricted staffers' use of an AI product, though other targeted companies have been based in the U.S.
In 2023 the office set limits on the use of ChatGPT, telling offices they can only use the paid version of the OpenAI chatbot for certain tasks.
The CAO also told staffers last April that they could not use Microsoft Copilot, though the company told Axios it was working on a suite of government-oriented tools it hoped would be allowed.
Editor's note: This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
A nonprofit group tied to House Democratic leadership is already planning an ad slamming the Trump administration's funding freeze, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), viewing the days-long battle over the freeze as a win for Democrats, has been urging his members to press their advantage and keep hammering the topic.
The Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday rescinded an earlier memo freezing federal grants, loans and other financial assistance, though the White House said parts of the freeze remain in force.
The initial memo led to widespread confusion and locked some states out of a federal Medicaid portal.
Driving the news: House Majority Forward, an issue advocacy group closely aligned with Jeffries, is running an ad called "Real Steal" on national cable Monday — including "Fox & Friends" — backed up by a five-figure ad buy.
The ad accuses Trump and congressional Republicans of causing "chaos, confusion across the country" and cutting funds for healthcare, police and fire departments, and pre-K centers.
"Trump's grabbing that money to pay back his billionaires with more tax cuts," the ad says. "It's … The Real Steal."
Between the lines: The ad — part of HMF's $10 million "economic accountability" campaign — is a clear signal the short-lived OMB memo will play a prominent role in Democrats' political messaging.
Jeffries and his messaging arm have encouraged lawmakers to hold events on the freeze and highlight the impact it had on their constituents.
The other side: "President Trump and Republicans hit the ground running, delivering for the American people," said Torunn Sinclair, a spokesperson for the House Republican-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund.
"Democrats are spewing lies — it's sad and pathetic. They've learned nothing from the 2024 election," Sinclair said.
A senior White House official said in a statement to Axios: "The American people sent President Trump back to the White House to end the massive waste, fraud and abuse of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars."
"No amount of fearmongering and falsehoods in this baseless ad will change the excitement the American people feel now that we have true leadership here in the White House," the official said.
Why it matters: The base is loving the party's muscular signs of life and wants more. Phone lines lit up in Democratic offices on Wednesday, sources told Axios.
"This is only the beginning," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told House Dems on an emergency call Wednesday afternoon.
House Democrats are planning a "day of action" Thursday on the funding freeze, even after the White House withdrew the memo and blamed media coverage for the public's confusion.
Zoom in: The Trump White House is in retreat.
Top Trump advisers said the memo was an unforced error and skipped the proper channels, the N.Y. Times reported on Wednesday.
Now, Democrats will try to turn the public backlash into durable opposition to other (and more popular) parts of his agenda.
Senate Dems will flood the floor into the overnight hours Wednesday night with speeches about the dangers of Trump's move.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has demanded the creation of "strike teams" to combat the budget reconciliation plan by Republicans, sources tell Axios.
The bottom line: After weeks of internal frustration over his leadership, Schumer has taken a heavier hand.
Schumer obsesses over issue polling and privately acknowledges that some of Trump's priorities play well with voters.
But the magnitude and scope of the OMB memo jumped out to Schumer and leadership as a massive overstep by Trump.
Why it matters: One week after the 2025 inauguration, it feels more like the winter of 2017.
Democrats have flipped overnight from retreat to obstruction after Trump fired government watchdogs and froze (some) government spending.
They have no plans to stop unless or until Trump backs down.
"This is about Trump wanting to seize control of everything," Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) told reporters Tuesday.
Zoom in: A coherent Democratic counteroffensive is starting to emerge.
Make noise: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' (D-N.Y.) messaging arm urged House Dems to hold press conferences and go live on social media. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) Democrats audibled Tuesday's press conference from Jan. 6 pardons to Trump's spending freeze.
Block bills: Senate Dems filibustered a GOP bill sanctioning the International Criminal Court (ICC). Democrats were resigned on Monday that they'd be jammed on the bill. Now they know they can increase their negotiating position if they stay unified.
Protest votes: Nearly two dozen Senate Democrats voted against Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy's confirmation, a day after the chamber voted unanimously to advance his nomination.
Lawsuits: A federal judge blocked Trump's spending freeze plans on Tuesday. But all day, Democrats decried Trump's move. The lawsuit will give them time to create a narrative about the real-world impact of the cuts. Meanwhile, GOP lawmakers will be hearing from their (potentially) angry constituents.
The bottom line: The all-day rage session was convenient for Schumer, who'd rather talk about Trump than a soon-to-be-open Michigan Senate seat. Gary Peters surprised the Hill today by announcing he won't run for reelection.
Leading House Democrats are weighing legal, investigative and legislative options to respond to President Trump's firing of at least a dozen agency inspectors general last week, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: The ousters — the legality of which have been questioned even by some Republicans — present the first major test of congressional Democrats' ability to counter Trump while in the minority.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has positioned himself as the new leader of the resistance, working with Trump to keep the government afloat while opposing what he sees as threats to democracy.
A spokesperson for Jeffries, asked for comment on the firings, referred to a letter from his committee ranking members blasting them as illegal.
What they're saying: "We're exploring multiple avenues of action to defend the integrity of federal agencies ... everything is on the table at this point," House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told Axios in a Monday interview.
Oversight Committee ranking member Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) told Axios, "We can have minority witnesses at hearings, we can have our own independent roundtables, we can have minority reports."
"There are tools available to us, and we're going to use everything we've got. Don't forget, in Trump 1.0 we were in the minority too. We had some signal victories."
Driving the news: Trump on Friday reportedly fired at least 12 inspectors general — with some reports putting the number at 18 and Connolly telling Axios he believes it is actually 19.
IGs act as internal watchdogs within federal agencies charged with investigating corruption or misconduct.
Trump often clashed with and ousted IGs during his first term, leading Congress to pass a law in 2022 requiring presidents to provide Congress with 30 days' notice and a "substantial rationale" for such firings.
Trump has defended his actions, telling reporters Saturday, "Some people thought that some were unfair or some were not doing their job. And it's a very standard thing to do."
Zoom in: Several top lawmakers proposed, as a potential first step, bolstering the ousted inspectors general in an expected court battle against Trump.
"The inspector generals association has already made it clear they're going to litigate, and ... any members of Congress would have standing, I believe, to join that litigation," said Natural Resources Committee ranking member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.).
Connolly also said he plans to introduce legislation to empower the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) to keep potential Trump replacement IGs in check.
Reality check: Republicans ultimately hold the real tools — appropriations and subpoenas — for keeping the executive branch in check, a reality Democrats are clear-eyed about.
"If the Democrats were in control, we would be having hearings immediately," said Raskin. "I would hope that our Republican colleagues would be as alarmed as we are, but I have a hunch they may not be."
Of his CIGIE bill, Connolly said: "We're in the minority so I doubt that legislation is going to pass. That doesn't mean we can't put it in the hopper and, hopefully, two years hence, address some of these issues legislatively."
The bottom line: For now, Huffman acknowledged, Democrats' most reliable avenue for recourse is "the bully pulpit, it's marshaling public opinion, it's calling out our Republican colleagues who've turned into feckless supplicants."
"And it's setting our sights on the 2026 midterm, when hopefully the cavalry will arrive."
A House Republican on Thursday introduced a proposed change to the Constitution that would allow President Trump to seek a third term in office.
Why it matters: The amendment has virtually no chance of becoming ratified but it is a marker of the depths of fealty the new president enjoys within the House GOP.
Republican House members have rushed to introduce bills that would codify Trump's vision for expanding the U.S. borders by acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal, for instance.
The measure is an extreme long-shot: It would need a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and be ratified by 38 states to be added to the Constitution.
Driving the news: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) said Thursday he is introducing a two-page joint resolution to amend the 22nd Amendment, which sets the current two-term limit for presidents.
Ogles' amendment would allow any president to serve a third term if their first two terms were non-consecutive.
The text of the amendment would still prohibit a third term if the first two were consecutive — prohibiting former Presidents Bush, Obama and Clinton from running again — or a third full term for anyone who has served more than two years of someone else's term.
What they're saying: "It is imperative that we provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration," Ogles said in a statement.
"He is dedicated to restoring the republic and saving our country, and we, as legislators and as states, must do everything in our power to support him."
Ogles is a member of the Trump-aligned House Freedom Caucus who introduced legislation to allow him to negotiate a purchase of Greenland.
The other side: Ogles also faces a potential House Ethics Committee investigation for his campaign finances, as one House Democrat who sits on the committee that considers constitutional amendments noted.
"I don't think he wants to talk about the campaign finance fraud that he is accused of and would like us instead to focus on what a committed Trump sycophant he is," said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a Judiciary Committee member.
"Truly pathetic. Voters from Tennessee deserve much better," she said.
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), another Judiciary member, told Axios: "2 terms is enough chaos for any nation to endure."
Editor's note: This story has been updated with an additional statement.
The House subcommittee overseeing President Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is stacked with some of the most outspoken and ideological lawmakers in both parties, Axios has learned.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), whose mere presence on a committee is enough to cause upheaval, will be chairing Oversight's DOGE subcommittee.
Several of the GOP members are from the right-wing Freedom Caucus, with other big names such as Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and freshman rising stars like Reps. Brian Jack (R-Ga.) and Brandon Gill (R-Texas).
Driving the news: Democrats' members similarly include a healthy number of Congressional Progressive Caucus members, according to a list obtained by Axios.
Led by Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), the list features big-name progressive Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the CPC.
It also includes Reps. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a fiery defender of D.C.'s interests on Capitol Hill, and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), an Oversight Committee mainstay.
Crockett in particular is known for her biting rejoinders in committee hearings and for sparring with firebrand Republicans like Taylor Greene.
Between the lines: This is the kind of committee you put together when you're trying to stage the Capitol Hill equivalent of bare-knuckle brawls.
Few, if any, of the Republicans and Democrats on this committee are considered bipartisan dealmakers prepared to reach across the aisle on reasonable spending cuts and revenue raisers.
What they're saying: Stansbury told Axios' Erin Doherty on Tuesday that she is prepared to fight against Republican attempts to use DOGE to shrink the size of government.
"All you need to do is see that they put [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in charge of the committee to know that this is likely going to be very much a political committee," she told Axios.
President-elect Trump sent shockwaves through Capitol Hill on Friday by announcing that his inaugural ceremonies will take place indoors, leaving members of Congress guessing about their plans.
Why it matters: Monday's proceedings will now take place in the Capitol rotunda — an extremely limited space — meaning many lawmakers will likely not be able to attend.
When Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in the rotunda in 1985, only 96 people were invited, according to contemporaneous reports.
That's significantly fewer than the 435 House members and 100 senators — not to mention Trump's family members, Cabinet and staff appointees, Supreme Court justices and other invited VIPs.
Driving the news: Trump wrote in a post on his social media app Truth Social that there is an "Arctic blast sweeping the Country" that "could take temperatures into severe record lows" in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 20.
"Therefore, I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda," he said.
The Capital One Arena, a downtown D.C. stadium with a capacity of 20,000, will screen the swearing-in live and host the presidential parade, Trump said.
What we're hearing: Lawmakers and staffers told Axios that the move to the rotunda throws their plans into serious doubt.
Several House members who had planned to attend said Friday afternoon that they were trying to get more information.
"We are still trying to figure out what this announcement means," said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), noting that there is "definitely not enough room" in the rotunda.
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) acknowledged he will likely not be in the rotunda but may be at the arena, telling Axios: "I have 46 guests attending the Inauguration and I will remain with them throughout."
Between the lines: The move comes as a relief for some Democrats who had been experiencing heartburn over whether to attend the inaugural ceremony of a man they revile.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who had not decided whether to go, told Axios: "Reminds me of Aaron Burr's rejoinder to Ben Franklin's admonition to 'never put off until tomorrow that which you can do or decide today.'"
"Burr said, 'Never decide today that which you can put off until tomorrow because something may happen in the meantime to make you regret your premature action.'"
Data: Axios research and congress.gov; Chart: Erin Davis/Axios Visuals
A group of House Republicans are emerging as frequent co-sponsors of legislation to bring President-elect Trump's vision of an American empire to fruition.
Why it matters: This group spans the House Republican conference's ideological spectrum, from some of its most moderate members to its most right-wing.
"People who were snickering or laughing about it when it was first brought up are starting to actually realize it's a legitimate issue," said centrist Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.).
"This is real," said Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.), a member of the right-wing Freedom Caucus. "There are going to be some serious conversations."
State of play: A trio of House GOP bills would codify each one of Trump's proposed moves to either expand the U.S.'s territory or its international influence.
Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) has introduced legislation that would allow Trump to enter into negotiations with Panama to try to reassert U.S. control over the Panama Canal.
Ogles has introduced a similar bill to authorize negotiations with Denmark about purchasing Greenland.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced a bill that would change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on official maps and documents.
By the numbers: Each bill has between 10 and 15 co-sponsors, with a considerable amount of overlap.
Reps. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), Mike Collins (R-Ga.), Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) and Neal Dunn (R-Fla.) are each co-sponsoring two of the bills.
Lawler and Reps. Mike Rulli (R-Ohio), Randy Weber (R-Texas), Barry Moore (R-Ala.) and Brian Babin (R-Texas) are co-sponsoring all three.
What they're saying: Several of the lawmakers who have either introduced or co-sponsored legislation told Axios that a desire to counter China's international influence is at the heart of the effort.
"We've been talking on the China Committee about ... China's growing influence on infrastructure across the globe, and I think the Panama Canal is hugely important to America," said Dusty Johnson.
Lawler also cited rare earth minerals and Arctic waterways as key factors in the push to acquire Greenland, saying Trump is "right in raising these as actual issues of national security and ... economic security."
Zoom in: Some of the more right-wing lawmakers involved in these bills pushed back on the notion that they run counter to a growing strain of anti-interventionism within the MAGA movement.
"'America First' is, simply stated: When you have a foreign adversary who arguably is our greatest existential threat — meaning China — when they're making moves towards Greenland, we can't just sit idly by," said Ogles.
"This is literally in our backyard, front yard, however you want to look at it," Ogles said.
Babin noted that the U.S. controlled the Panama Canal until the 1970s: "This is not intervention. This is not adventurism. This is a U.S.-built canal. There wasn't even a Panama. That was part of Colombia."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is staring down surprise and frustration from lawmakers in both parties for removing Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) as chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
Why it matters: The ouster of Turner, a staunch foreign policy hawk and defender of the intelligence community, was a blow to the large bipartisan bloc of national security-minded lawmakers in Congress.
Turner's replacement is Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), who is closer to MAGA world on issues like Ukraine, Axios' Hans Nichols reported.
Driving the news: Johnson confirmed Wednesday that Turner, who was appointed to his role by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in 2022, would not be reappointed to lead the Intelligence panel.
"This is not a President Trump decision. This is a House decision, and this is no slight whatsoever to our outgoing chairman. He did a great job," Johnson told reporters.
"It's a new Congress. We just need fresh horses in some of these places, but I'm a Mike Turner fan. He's done a great job. He performed valiantly in a difficult time under difficult circumstances," he added.
Turner was seen by some House Republicans as too close to the intel community, and he angered GOP colleagues with an alarming statement last year warning of a "serious national security threat."
What they're saying: Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a hawkish Intelligence Committee member, told reporters "we all have questions and concerns" and that Turner's removal "kind of came out of nowhere."
"McCarthy spent a lot of political capital right-sizing and fixing that committee so that it would be what it needed to be. And Johnson, it's not really clear what his plan is," Crenshaw added.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), another hawk, told Axios "it divides the conference, and I don't think that's good," adding that "most of us agree" with Turner on issues like Ukraine and intelligence collection.
"I'm not happy with the decision. I think the vast majority of us are not happy with the decision," said another House Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Zoom in: Despite Johnson's denials, several House Republicans pushed the theory that the right-wing House Freedom Caucus pressed President-elect Trump's team to demand Turner's ouster.
The House Republican who spoke anonymously said the right-wing group, still smarting over a successful Turner-led push to reauthorize the federal government's spying capabilities, engineered the move.
"The House Freedom Caucus remembered that, went down to Mar-a-Lago, extracted a pound of flesh from somebody they didn't like," they said. The right-wing group met with Trump at his Florida resort last weekend.
Crenshaw called it a "very believable theory."
"Rumors are HFC demanded it," offered Bacon, adding that "if the rumors are true, it's offensive."
The other side: Freedom Caucus members pleaded ignorance.
"He and I had our disagreements. I was surprised ... I was totally taken aback," said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a leading opponent of federal government surveillance.
Freedom Caucus chair Andy Harris (R-Md), asked if any of his members pushed for Turner's removal, told Axios: "I don't think so. You'd have to ask them. It's not an issue we bring up."
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), a former Freedom Caucus member, told Axios, "I support the speaker's decision as it is his decision to make."
Democrats, meanwhile, are very public about their outrage towards Johnson's move.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called Turner's removal "unjustified" and said it is "likely being applauded by our adversaries in Russia and China. Shameful."
"It's very troubling, to put it mildly ... and it's foreboding that they are removing somebody as strong as that for apparently political reasons," said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), an Intelligence Committee member.
What's next: Crenshaw told reporters that Republicans on the panel plan to meet with Johnson to try to get his explanation for the decision.
Still, Crenshaw said of Crawford: "I like Rick. He's already CIA subcommittee chair."
The bottom line: "Any time the speaker makes appointments of course you're going to have people who are upset," a senior House Republican told Axios.
"Mike Turner's well respected among a good cross-section of the conference."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has ousted Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) as the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, multiple GOP sources familiar with the matter confirmed to Axios.
Why it matters: Turner, who was tapped to lead Republicans on the panel by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in 2022, has at times broken with party leadership in a way that angered his GOP colleagues.
One former House Republican said there is a feeling that Turner is "way too intel establishment."
Zoom out: It's the second time in as many days Johnson has removed a Republican from a key panel.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the lone House Republican to vote against reelecting Johnson as speaker on Jan. 3, was taken off the Rules Committee — though he left voluntarily.
House Democrats' two largest ideological factions are trying to tamp down their disagreements ahead of President-elect Trump's return to the White House, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: HouseDemocrats see their number one task as taking on Trump and winning back control of Congress in 2026. Everything else, they say, can wait.
"Across the board, I think all of us in the Democratic Caucus want to focus on taking back the majority," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
What we're hearing: Members of both the Progressive Caucus and the center-left New Democrat Coalition — which each contain roughly 100 of the 215 House Democrats, with some overlap — confirmed the talks to Axios.
"Those conversations are starting," a Progressive Caucus member, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Axios.
A New Dems member said the focus is on "finding common ground."
What they're saying: Progressive Caucus chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) told Axios there are "conversations being had about trying to make sure that we're unified and cordial and understanding of everybody."
After Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) was elected New Dems chair in November, Casar said, "he reached out to me ... about us finding areas of common ground and making sure that we maintain unity across the Dem caucus."
Schneider told Axios: "We actually had a meeting, and we both said this — we should be talking to each other every day and the best way to avoid unintended circumstances is to communicate with each other."
"So as long as we're talking and not dropping surprises on the other, I think we'll have a good working relationship," Schneider added.
Zoom in: While Republicans' infighting has generally grabbed the headlines over the last two years, Democrats have grappled with their fair share of internal divisions.
The Oct. 7 attack and the resulting Israel-Hamas war, in particular, have put House Democrats at odds and resulted in public swiping.
The party's 2024 election loss has also resulted in a new round of finger-pointing over which ideological flank of the party was to blame.
Zoom in: Separate from these talks, members of both caucuses also described an informal consensus that is emerging around not endorsing primary challengers against incumbent House Democrats.
Said Jayapal: "We are trying to get to a [Democratic] caucus-wide agreement that we do not weigh in against incumbents and that we focus on open seats."
Schneider noted the two caucuses "both respected" that practice last cycle and said he "would expect that to continue."
The bottom line: "I think we're all united on ... one purpose, and that's 218 [House seats], the majority," said Schneider.
"We need to keep the eyes on that. I want to see Hakeem Jeffries as speaker. I want to see Democrats with gavels in their hands."
House Democrats are warning Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that tying federal wildfire relief for California to the debt limit could set a new precedent that would come back to bite Republicans.
Why it matters: Disaster prone red states like Florida and Louisiana — Johnson's home state — could face a similar squeeze from Democrats if they retake the House, lawmakers told Axios.
"This place is like high school, it's tit for tat when one side breaks a norm. The other side is happy to return the favor," said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), pointing to the removal of members from committees as an example.
If Johnson conditions the aid, Moskowitz said, "California's our largest delegation. You think they're going to forget about that?"
Driving the news: Johnson told reporters Monday that, "I think that there should probably be conditions on that aid. That's my personal view."
"We'll see what the consensus is. I haven't had a chance to socialize that with any of the members over the weekend, because we've all been very busy. But it will be part of the discussion for sure," he said.
It's not clear yet whether the idea has full support among Republicans, with centrist Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) telling Axios "that process will play itself out."
"We want to provide relief to Americans who were impacted by natural disasters of any kind," he said, but California's "disastrous policy decisions … will be part of a discussion."
What they're saying: "I just think it's a really bad precedent, and, yeah, I do think it could have slingshot effects," Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) told Axios in a brief interview at the Capitol.
"Whether it's wildfires in CA, or hurricanes and tornadoes in Louisiana, we should should never condition aid to disaster victims," Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) told Axios, also warning that the move would set a "really dangerous precedent."
House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said conditioning aid would be "crazy and ridiculous" and would "completely upend Congress."
Between the lines: Lawmakers in both parties told Axios that Johnson's gambit is a clear acknowledgement that both disaster aid and the debt ceiling will require Democratic votes to pass.
Republicans have floated including a debt ceiling increase in the massive party-line fiscal bill they're planning, but that risks touching off a right-wing revolt.
"It's not the issue of conditioning, it's the issue of how do we get it done," said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), a top House Appropriations Committee member who acknowledged both measures will "probably" need bipartisan support.
Zoom in: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), whose district has been directly hit by the wildfires, said it would "obviously be outrageous and unthinkable for Republicans to react differently to a disaster based upon how people voted."
Sherman said he is "not for" conditioning future aid to red states on a partisan objective — offering an immigration reform package as an example.
But "if Democrats tied Louisiana relief to making sure Social Security stayed solvent, that's a bipartisan objective," he said.
The idea of conditioning aid may also lack universal GOP support, with Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) telling Axios in a statement: "If aid is needed, we need to deliver."
The bottom line: "People have lost their lives, homes, and livelihoods," said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), whose district has also been impacted by the wildfires.
"I have zero tolerance for partisan bullsh*t right now."
A non-profit closely aligned with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is preparing its first major investment in the 2026 election with a campaign aimed at dinging Republicans on the economy.
Why it matters: The effort comes as President-elect Trump and congressional Republicans are preparing a hulking fiscal policy package that could define the 119th Congress.
Driving the news: House Majority Forward, the issue advocacy arm of House Majority PAC, is launching a $10 million "economic accountability" campaign.
The campaign will include TV and digital ads to "hold Republicans accountable for refusing to lower costs," according to a press release first shared with Axios.
It will also involve research and polling to "develop a deeper understanding of how Republican policies are hurting American wallets."
HMF president Mike Smith said: "Speaker Mike Johnson and House Republicans have only just been sworn in, but they're already breaking their promises by failing to lower costs. It's time to stop playing games, and start working for the American people."
Between the lines: The plan represents something of a shift in strategy for Democrats after an abortion-centered message of "freedom" failed to carry them to victory last year.
Top Democrats told Axios in the aftermath of the Nov. 5 election that a difficult political environment driven by years of inflation ultimately doomed Vice President Harris.
Trump successfully pitched himself as a change candidate, promising to upend the national and global economic order with an agenda of immigration restrictions, trade barriers and dismantling regulations.
The other side: "The failed Biden administration and their allies in Congress decimated our economy with a far-left agenda of reckless spending and extreme America-last policies," said Courtney Parella, a spokesperson for GOP-aligned non-profit American Action Network.
"That's why Americans chose and trust Republican leadership — to restore the economy, lower costs, and deliver for families," she said.
President-elect Trump has inspired Republican members of Congress to introduce a bill that would allow the federal government to take steps to repurchase the Panama Canal.
Why it matters: It's the second time this week GOP lawmakers have rushed to propose legislation that would codify Trump's vision for a new era of American expansionism.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said Tuesday she plans to introduce a bill that would rename the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America."
Driving the news: Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), the chair of the pragmatist Republican Main Street Caucus, introduced the two-page Panama Canal Repurchase Act on Thursday.
The bill authorizes the president and secretary of state to "initiate and conduct negotiations with appropriate counterparts" in Panama on buying back the canal.
The U.S. controlled the canal from its construction in 1914 until 1977, when then-President Carter turned over to Panama.
By the numbers: Johnson's legislation has 15 GOP co-sponsors, ranging from relative centrists like Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) to right-wing hardliners like Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.).
It does not yet have any bipartisan support, though some Democrats have expressed openness to the idea of reasserting U.S. influence over the canal to counter China.
Trump has also proposed purchasing Greenland and, more jokingly, annexing Canada, and he has not ruled out the use of military force to achieve the former.
Some moderate House Democrats are keeping the door open to supporting the massive tax, border and energy package President-elect Trump and Republicans are concocting — if the price is right.
Why it matters: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has virtually no room for error to pass the bill along party lines, and some of his right-wing hardliners are harshly conditioning their votes.
"One of several, for me, 'bright lines,' 'red lines,' however you want to say it, is deficit reduction," Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told reporters on Thursday.
That could be a heavy lift with Republicans planning trillions in tax cut extensions, on top of funding for things like enhanced border security.
What we're hearing: The main way Republicans could try to entice some breakaway Democratic support is through raising the $10,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction.
That would put money directly into the pockets of suburbanites in high-tax blue states like California, New York and New Jersey.
"I'm not going to say what I will support or not support until I see the specifics, but I think SALT is critically important ... and this is a huge opportunity to bring SALT back fully," said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.).
Rep. George Latimer (D-N.Y.) told Axios, "Obviously I like full SALT restoration, but let's see where the negotiations take us. ... The doors are open for whatever helps."
State of play: Some of the House GOP's most ardent advocates for SALT, like Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), are pushing hard to include a generous provision in the bill and are going to Mar-a-Lago this weekend to make their case.
But the high price tag of that policy could make it a tough sell for deficit hawks like Roy, who told reporters, "Obviously, if you significantly lift or eliminate the cap, there's a fairly significant impact in terms of revenues."
The intrigue: Some of the other centrist Democrats who may be inclined to give the package a fair look would be turned off by the inclusion of a strong SALT provision.
Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who represents a working-class, rural district, told Axios he would support the bill "if there's stuff in there that's good for Maine or that I like."
But, he added, "I don't like SALT. It's just a huge giveaway to the top 10%, and I care about the deficit. So that's a bad start."
Reality check: Extending the Trump tax cuts could ultimately be a bridge too far for most Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) calling the package the "GOP tax scam part two" at a press conference on Wednesday.
"Wasting trillions of dollars on tax giveaways to the super-wealthy is offensive on its face," said centrist Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio).
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said it would be "very hard to support a tax bill that reduces corporate taxes, that doesn't put the top rate back to where it was."
Johnson, asked by Axios if he is willing to work with Democrats on the legislation, said: "We welcome all Democrats to vote for a good package. This is going to be great legislation. It's an America First agenda, but it follows common sense."
Trump appears to be willing to take Democratic input: Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) told reporters Thursday he plans to make a trek to Mar-a-Lago this weekend.
The bottom line: Even skeptical Democrats say they are ready to talk if things fall apart for Johnson and he decides to engage with them.
"They're going to want to do this on their own," said Landsman. "If they can't because of the slim majority, obviously they're going to need our help. And that's when the bipartisan magic happens."
Fresh off their bruising 2024 losses, Democrats seem to more willing to engage with Republican legislation on issues like immigration and Israel.
Why it matters: The dynamic is putting some "messaging bills" that House Republicans passed in the previous Congress on a path to actually becoming law.
The Laken Riley Act is picking up votes from Senate Democrats needed to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold.
The bill would require the detention of undocumented immigrants arrested on theft-related charges and allow states to sue the federal government over crimes committed by immigrants.
The legislation received 48 Democratic votes in the House on Wednesday, up from 37 when it was voted on last year. Seven Democrats who previously voted against it flipped to voting for it this week.
What they're saying: "You know, some of us have been talking about this for years," Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) told Axios. He's a centrist, border-district Democrat who voted both times for the bill.
"I think after people saw what happened with the election, you definitely are seeing more people realize that what happens at the border is very important to the voters," Cuellar said.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who is co-sponsoring the bill in the Senate, said Wednesday in a Fox News interview that if the bill can't get the seven Democratic votes it needs to pass the Senate, "that's a reason why we lost."
Yes, but: The election results were not the only factor that drove increased Democratic support for the bill.
One House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said some votes flipped because it "was not the same bill as last year" with the removal of language hammering the Biden administration for its immigration policy.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a staunch Biden ally, cited that as the reason for him changing his vote.
Still, the lawmaker who spoke anonymously also acknowledged: "Clearly the election will have some impact on how members see the world."
Zoom in: That dynamic could play out with a bill to sanction the International Criminal Court for issuing arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Several House Democrats told Axios it is possible the bill could get more Democratic votes than the 42 it received when it passed the House last June.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said there are "similar learning lessons for the Democratic Party" with each bill, noting that Democrats took a beating on Israel last year.
"I think there will be Democrats that will look at it differently now," he said. "If you're asking people to take a side between Israel and the ICC, I think there will be more people than maybe previously that will vote for this."
The bottom line: "These message bills are hard, because the people at home believe the title and don't understand what's in them," said one senior House Democrat.
"These are wedge issues, and we've got to really think about them ... it's all very complicated."
House Republicans are already laying down potential dealbreakers for the massive fiscal legislation President-elect Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) are planning.
Why it matters: The chamber is set to have a roughly two-vote majority when the package is voted on, meaning just a handful of GOP defections could sink the entire initiative.
Republican factions — both in the House and Senate — are already at each others' throats on whether the package should consist of one bill or two, with Trump wavering on the topic.
State of play: Republican leadership could run into an issue with its fiscally conservative wing if it tries to advance one sprawling bill that includes a measure to raise the debt ceiling.
"I heard that there are three people that will not vote for a debt ceiling lift, which already kills the bill," said Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.).
Two House Republicans — Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona and Tim Burchett of Tennessee — have never voted to increase the debt ceiling.
Zoom in: The overall price tag of the measure could also create a dilemma for deficit hawks.
The bill is set to include an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts that could cost as much as $5 trillion over 10 years, in addition to funding for border security and an immigration crackdown.
It will also likely include spending cuts, but the kind of discretionary cuts that Republicans have been floating may amount to peanuts compared to the debt and deficit implications of the package.
What they're saying: "I'm not going to say I'm going to create a 'red line' per se, but in general I came up here to cut spending. That's my whole personal goal, to right-size government," said Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.).
Burlison said Republicans have historically been "bad at" pairing meaningful spending reductions with their tax cuts.
"Everybody has something that somebody's whispering in their ear that they need for [their district], so spending is always a hang-up for Congress and we have never, ever been able to bring that in," said McCormick.
Zoom out: It's not just the GOP's right flank that leadership has to worry about.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) told reporters Tuesday he's "been very clear from the start that I will not support a tax bill that does not lift the cap" on the state and local tax deduction.
That's a provision several blue-state Republicans have pushed for — even though it is unpopular with many Republican lawmakers.
The 119th House passed its first bill of 2025 Tuesday: The Laken Riley Act, which would require the detention of undocumented immigrants arrested for certain non-violent crimes such as theft.
Why it matters: It's a sign of just how central immigration and border security will be for Republicans under the incoming Trump administration.
The party spent the last four years railing against what they said was the Biden administration's dereliction on border security.
Driving the news: The bill — named for a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed on the University of Georgia campus last year — passed 264-159, with 48 Democrats siding with Republicans in voting for it
The bill was one of a dozen pieces of legislation listed in the House GOP's rules package that passed last week, allowing it to be voted on under a streamlined process.
The House previously passed the bill last March, with 37 Democrats voting in favor of it, but it did not get a vote in the then-Democratic Senate.
Several Democrats who previously opposed the bill, including several committee ranking members and Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who represents a district not far from UGA, voted for it this time around.
Zoom in: Republicans frequently pointed to Riley's murder at the hands of an undocumented immigrant who had previously been arrested on theft-related charges as evidence of the need for stronger border policies.
Now Republicans control the Senate and plan to hold a vote on the bill, Axios' Stephen Neukam and Stef Kight reported.
It's likely to get some Democratic support in the Senate, though it may not be enough to clear the chamber's 60-vote threshold.
The other side: Democratic leadership opposed the bill but did not formally whip against it, according to a notice sent out by House Minority Whip Katherine Clark's (D-Mass.) office.
"The policies in this bill would ratchet up the number of mandatory detentions without increasing funding to carry them out," the whip notice said.
It also argued that the bill would give conservative state attorneys general greater ability to block federal border policy.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional reporting.
