Senate Democrats want to leave the issue of trans athletes playing in women's sports to state and local governments.

Why it matters: Democrats privately admit they need a sharper response to counter Republican attacks on their support for transgender rights, especially when it involves sports.

• In the Senate, their emerging strategy is to argue that one part of the issue is best left to the states, while acknowledging concerns about athletes gaining an unfair advantage.
• "There are basic issues of fairness here," said Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) "There are really important issues that we should be discussing on the local level, within sports leagues and within conferences."

Between the lines: The Democratic messaging effort has been spearheaded by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), sources tell Axios.

• Baldwin, the first openly gay person elected to the Senate, faced a barrage of attacks on the topic in her 2024 reelection campaign.
• She feared Republicans were flooding the zone with their attacks without Democrats having a clear and consistent rebuttal.
• "Republicans in Washington are saying they know better than parents and local school districts," she said in a statement. "They are wrong. I trust parents, schools and local sports leagues to make these decisions for their children."

Zoom in: The issue was thrust into the public Thursday by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who broke with progressives by saying transgender participation in sports was an "issue of fairness."

• "It's deeply unfair," Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, told Charlie Kirk on his inaugural podcast, "This Is Gavin Newsom."
• Senate Democrats this week blocked a bill that would have banned trans athletes from women's sports. Not a single Democrat voted to bring the bill to the floor.

What they are saying: Some Senate Democrats agreed with Newsom on the sports fairness issue, but they said to be careful that the overall conversation doesn't demonize transgender athletes. They also want to avoid federal overreach.

• "It's leading to more bullying. It's leading to more mental health issues as people are feeling targeted," Booker told Axios. "Yes, when it comes to sports leagues, they have to find a way to create fairness."
• Said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine): "I understand the concern. I have a daughter who was a high school athlete. Interestingly, when I asked her about this issue, she said, by all means, there should not be a federal ban."
• "Every state and every community is going to come to their own decision on it," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Axios.

The bottom line: "Everyone deserves a level playing field, but the governing bodies — the parents, the coaches, the NCAA ... need to make those decisions," said Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).

• "We let local schools make those kinds of decisions," said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) "There's no one set of facts. These are going to be pretty complicated situations."

House Democratic leadership is privately confronting members who disrupted President Trump's speech to Congress, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Many progressives defied House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' (D-N.Y.) request to avoid making themselves the story.

• Jeffries, in a dear colleague letter ahead of the speech, urged a "strong, determined and dignified Democratic presence in the chamber."
• Trump's speech was instead rocked by constant heckling. Democrats held up signs and other props, and Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was ejected.
• In meetings and discussions with leadership this week, Democrats who heckled, walked out in protest or were otherwise disruptive were given a talking to about their tactics, sources said.

What we're hearing: Leadership is "very unhappy" with those who went beyond traditional protest tactics like outfit coordination and refusal to clap, a senior House Democrat told Axios.

• Roughly a dozen Democratic disruptors — including Reps. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) — were called into a "come to Jesus meeting" on Thursday morning, the senior Dem told Axios.
• The top three House Democratic leaders were present: Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.).

Yes, but: A source familiar with the matter stressed that these lawmakers are "not getting yelled at."

• "It's a consultative process. We understand the pressure they are under." "They are not being talked to like they are children. We are helping them understand why their strategy is a bad idea," the source said.
• A spokesperson for Jeffries declined to address the private meeting. Spokespeople for Clark and Aguilar did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

What to watch: Some Democrats said they expect leadership to take a harder tack going forward to prevent these moments of public disunity from happening ahead of time.

• Said a second House Democrat who spoke anonymously: "It doesn't surprise me leadership is very upset. They gave specific instructions not to do that."
• "Would they have done that to [Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi]? You know the answer: Never," the lawmaker said. "So you've got to put the hammer down."

Speaker Mike Johnson is planning an "expeditious vote of censure" for Rep. Al Green tomorrow morning and is calling on Democrats to join Republicans in punishing the Texas Democrat for heckling President Trump on Tuesday.

Why it matters: Republicans want to draw maximum attention to the Democratic protests during Trump's Joint Address to Congress.

• "Any Democrat who is concerned about regaining the trust and respect of the American people should join House Republicans in this effort," Johnson said in a statement to Axios.

Driving the news: GOP leaders have settled on Rep. Dan Newhouse's (R-Wash.) two-page censure resolution, as the best way to admonish Green.

• They are planning a vote Thursday morning, which will likely be the last one of the week.
• "Rep. Al Green's shameful and egregious behavior during President Trump's Joint Address disgraced the institution of Congress and the constituents he serves," Johnson said.
• "Despite my repeated warnings, he refused to cease his antics and I was forced to remove him from the chamber. He deliberately violated House rules, and an expeditious vote of censure is an appropriate remedy."

The other side: Green, who has said he plans to try to impeach Trump, doesn't seem too fazed by the potential punishment.

• He told Axios he will not fight the censure effort.
• "If I broke the rules, then I have to be prepared to suffer the consequences. You don't break the rules and then demand that you be treated as though nothing ever happened," Green said.

Congressional Democrats' internal divisions over how to combat President Trump surfaced with a fury Wednesday after the president was repeatedly heckled and disrupted during his speech to Congress.

Why it matters: The party is in a rut, stumbling on finding the most effective counterattack to Trump's full-bore assault on the federal bureaucracy. That struggle played out on primetime television Tuesday night.

• Democrats have been bombarded by grassroots activists demanding they scrap norms and traditions in favor of bare-knuckle political brawling.
• But many party leaders and other establishment-oriented Democrats believe that a more narrow, subdued approach remains the most effective.
• A senior House Democrat told Axios that some moderates are angry at progressives for their outbursts, but added that "people are pissed at leadership too. … Everyone is mad at everyone."

What happened: Trump's speech was rocked by disruptions right from the start, with Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) repeatedly heckling the president until Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) ordered Green escorted out of the chamber.

• Democrats held up signs and wore shirts with slogans blasting DOGE and Elon Musk, walked out of the chamber in protest, and heckled Trump throughout his 100-minute speech.
• A large portion of Democrats opted for more traditional, silent forms of protest — color-coordinated outfits or refusing to stand or clap for most of the speech — without resorting to disruptive tactics.

What they're saying: Rep. George Latimer (D-N.Y.) said he felt the disruptions were "inappropriate," telling Axios, "When a president — my president, your president — is speaking, we don't interrupt, we don't pull those stunts."

• "I didn't take that approach myself, so obviously I don't condone it," centrist Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) said of the disruptions.
• Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) told Axios: "I think it was a big mistake ... I'm an old school traditional type guy, I think we should be treating the president with deference. So I think it was inappropriate."
• Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), in a post on X, lamented what he called a "sad cavalcade of self owns and unhinged petulance" and told Axios: "I don't think that's the way forward."

Zoom in: It's not just about decorum and norms. Some Democrats argued that the disruptive lawmakers failed on the messaging front as well.

• Golden told Axios: "If anyone is thinking that it was an effective strategy, they're probably in an echo chamber. My take is that the average American thought the optics were pretty bad."
• "It would be a compliment to call it a strategy," said another centrist House Democrat, pointing to online photoshops of the signs members held up.
• The lawmaker also criticized colleagues who refused to applaud even Trump's guests: "Not standing for Trump would have been a fine strategy, but you need to separate him from the kid with cancer."
• Several House Democrats noted that most of the disruptors were mostly progressives from safe districts — arguing that swing-district voters were turned off by their outbursts.

Yes, but: Some progressives are training their fire on leadership, arguing that a lack of top-down coordination left rank-and-file lawmakers to develop their own tactics.

• Even before the speech, "there was definitely frustration about lack of guidance [or a] plan," said one progressive lawmaker.
• Said another: "People are super pissed that we didn't get more direction from leadership."
• Leadership had urged members to attend the speech, bring guests negatively impacted by DOGE and not use props: "I actually believe that what happened yesterday — the leader did not want that," said the centrist Democrat.

What to watch: Some Democrats aren't ruling out voting for Rep. Dan Newhouse's (R-Wash.) resolution to censure Green for "breach of proper conduct" when it comes up Thursday.

• Golden and Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.) told Axios they are undecided on the measure.
• The centrist House Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity told Axios: "What [Green] did was inappropriate — and he became the story, not the price of eggs."
• But other centrists argued there is a partisan double-standard at play: "I will vote against censure because the other side was equally or more misbehaved," said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas).

Editor's note: This article was updated with comment from Rep. Tom Suozzi.

House Republicans are planning to pressure vulnerable Democrats to help them pass a short-term funding bill next week.

Why it matters: GOP leaders are talking big about passing a government funding bill with just Republican votes, probably in the House but definitely in the Senate.

• "I think the 13 Democrats sitting in Trump seats ought to think twice about shutting down Trump's government," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters.
• Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) will be on the hunt for at least eight Democrats to overcome a filibuster.

Driving the news: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has decided to try to pass a "clean continuing resolution," which would fund the government through Sept. 30 without any significant policy changes. He says President Trump is on board.

• Trump and Johnson are pulling out all the stops to convince potential holdout Republicans to support a funding bill this time.
• "But I think once people understand the necessity of it, I think they'll get on board and we'll pass it," Johnson told reporters Tuesday.

The goal is to drive up the number of Republican votes to help insulate themselves from blame if the government does shut down. The higher the number of GOP "yeas," the more insurance they think they are buying.

• Elon Musk will pay a visit to the Capitol on Wednesday to meet with House Republicans. Trump will have a separate meeting with House Freedom Caucus members.

Zoom in: Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Rep Andy Harris (R-Md.), the HFC chair, indicated to Johnson and Thune on Tuesday afternoon they would lay down their arms on this spending fight.

• "We stand ready to work with you to ensure the government remains open in a way that preserves President Trump's options to root out wasteful government spending and fully continues DOGE's important work," they wrote.

The bottom line: The conservatives added a warning, hinting they would oppose any legislation that tried to undermine Musk's and Trump's DOGE efforts.

• "We will not support a government funding package that would be weaponized against President Trump at the very moment he is seeking to make good on the promises he made to the American people."

Democratic lawmakers are discussing a litany of options to protest at President Trump's speech to Congress on Tuesday, including through outright disruption, a half dozen House Democrats told Axios.

Why it matters: Some of these tactics go beyond their leaders' recommendation that members bring guests hurt by Trump and DOGE. This sets up a potential clash between party traditionalists and its more combative anti-Trump wing.

• "The part that we all agree on is that this is not business as usual and we would like to find a way — productively — to express our outrage," one House Democrat told Axios.
• There is widespread disagreement among Democrats, both inside and outside of Congress, over what would be the most appropriate and effective form of demonstration.

What we're hearing: Some members have told colleagues they may walk out of the chamber when Trump says specific lines they find objectionable, lawmakers told Axios.

• Criticism of transgender kids was brought up as a line in the sand that could trigger members to storm out, according to a House Democrat.

A wide array of props — including noisemakers — has also been floated:

• Signs with anti-Trump or anti-DOGE messages — just as Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) held up a sign during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech last year that said "war criminal."
• Eggs or empty egg cartons to highlight how inflation is driving up the price of eggs.
• Pocket constitutions to make the case that Trump has been violating the Constitution by shutting down congressionally authorized agencies.
• Hand clappers, red cards like those held up to express disagreement at town halls, and various other props have also been discussed.

The intrigue: In closed-door meetings and on the House floor Monday night, lawmakers were specifically discouraged from using props, two House Democrats told Axios.

• These tactics are also a source of considerable internal debate among House Democratic rank-and-file — in large part based on what they've heard back in their districts.
• "There are definitely a lot of constituents that really want Democrats to disrupt and there are ... constituents who feel like that just plays into his hands," one House Democrat told Axios.

Zoom out: Disruptions during joint session speeches used to provoke outrage, but have become increasingly common in recent years.

• Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-S.C.) outburst at former President Obama — ''you lie," he shouted — was a shocking event in 2009.
• Former President Biden was persistently heckled by Republicans during multiple State of the Union addresses.
• Then there was the aforementioned disruption of Netanyahu's speech by Tlaib.

Zoom in: Some groups of Democrats plan to mount more traditional protests through the use of color coordination in their wardrobe choices.

• Pink: The Democratic Women's Caucus wants all their members to wear pink in a unified display of defiance to a president many of them despise.
• Black: Female members of the Congressional Black Caucus have separately discussed donning black to more accurately capture the party's somber mood.
• Blue and yellow: Ukraine Caucus co-chair Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) will distribute ties and scarves with the colors of Ukraine's flag to signal support for President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Others plan to sit stone-faced and refuse to clap during the entire speech, another time-honored tactic for opposition party members to silently protest the president.

What they're saying: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter to House Democrats that he and other leaders plan to attend the speech to "make clear to the nation that there is a strong opposition party ready, willing and able to serve as a check and balance."

• Jeffries also said leadership understands if some members skip the speech — as several have said they plan to do — but urged a "strong, determined and dignified Democratic presence in the chamber."
• House Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told Axios leadership is telling members to "keep the focus on the health and safety and the economic wellbeing of our constituents."

The bottom line: "Whether we are wearing pink, or black, or yellow and blue, we are all conveying our displeasure with this administration," said. Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.).

• "What's more important is our work together and the pressure for three Republicans to do the right thing for everyone," she said.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional reporting.

Democratic senators are preparing to pummel three of President Trump's top State Department nominees on Tuesday, turning their confirmation hearings into a proxy war on the U.S. commitment to NATO and support for Ukraine.

Why it matters: It's the Democrats' first chance to punch back on what they saw as Trump's assault on Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office on Friday.

• Democrats — and many European leaders — were deeply dismayed by Trump's and Vice President Vance's exchange with Zelensky.
• They were dumbfounded by Trump's conciliatory words for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
• It will also give senators an opportunity to ask officials for details on Trump' pause on military funding for Ukraine.

Driving the news: Matthew Whitaker, Trump's pick to be ambassador to NATO, and Michael Rigas and Christopher Landau, his nominees for the two deputy secretary of state slots, are scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday morning.

• Trump's nominees are indicating they'll fiercely defend Trump's approach and demand that European allies do more to strengthen NATO.
• "Leadership is not charity. The American people have carried the burden of global security for too long," Whitaker will say in his opening comments, according to remarks Axios obtained.
• "For decades, U.S. taxpayers have funded the lion's share of NATO's defense while too many of our allies have failed to meet even their most basic obligations."

What they're saying: "It is an open question that deserves a clear answer, whether or not this administration and its nominee to be our ambassador to NATO believe in the value of the NATO alliance," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told Axios.

• "He has told me in a private meeting that he is supportive" of NATO, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the top Democrat on the committee, said of Whitaker.
• "The relationship with NATO, the relationship with Ukraine, the president buddying up to dictator Putin ... all of these are big problems," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

President Trump's explosive Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shocked hawkish Republican lawmakers and led one prominent GOP backer of Ukraine to suggest that Zelensky should resign.

Why it matters: The meeting angered Democrats, who were horrified by Trump and Vice President Vance's conduct. It offended some Republicans, with most of them reserving their ire for Zelensky.

• "He needs to either resign or change," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters outside the West Wing.
• Zelesnky "has made it almost impossible to sell to the American people that he's a good investment."

Other Republicans shared their concern about the long-term fallout of the short-tempered meeting.

• Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), in a text to Axios, said Friday was "a bad day for America's foreign policy."
• "Ukraine wants independence, free markets and rule of law. It wants to be part of the West. Russia hates us and our Western values. We should be clear that we stand for freedom," he said.
• Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), in a post on X, called the meeting "a disaster — especially for Ukraine," adding, "Sadly, the only winner of today is Vladimir Putin.

What they are saying: The most heated GOP criticism targeted Zelensky, while others argued the meeting was a loss for both countries.

• "I don't know if Zelensky can ever get where you want to go with the United States. Either he dramatically changes, or you need to get someone new," Graham said on Fox News' "America Reports."
• He described Zelensky as having "a chip on his shoulder." "I don't know if you can repair the damage. I don't know if you can ever do a deal with Zelensky anymore," he added, encouraging Zelensky to apologize.

The other side: Democrats were nearly unanimous in their condemnation of Trump's and Vance's behavior.

• "Trump and Vance are doing Putin's dirty work," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) said on X. "Senate Democrats will never stop fighting for freedom and democracy."
• "Trump and Vance tag teamed Zelensky," said Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.). "Truly shameful conduct that the world is seeing. Embarrassing."

What happened: The press conference with Trump, Zelensky, Vance and other leaders began with statements and questions from reporters — but devolved into a shouting match.

• Vance accused Zelensky of being disrespectful and ungrateful for U.S. support.
• Trump released a statement afterward, saying that he had determined Zelensky is "not ready for Peace if America is involved." Lunch and a joint press conference between the two leaders were canceled.
• Zelensky departed the White House about two and a half hours after he arrived, and a highly anticipated minerals deal was not signed.

Democratic lawmakers, united in their fury over DOGE, are diverging on how to use President Trump's address to Congress next week as the effective launchpad for Resistance 2.0.

Why it matters: It's a question that has repeatedly splintered party members when faced with inflammatory speeches on Capitol Hill: Should they show up and protest from within, or boycott and counterprogram on the outside?

• House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) want members to attend and bring special guests who have been negatively affected by the administration.
• "We ask that House Democrats attending the Joint Address bring a guest who has been harmed by the Trump administration's early actions," the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC) told congressional offices in a memo obtained by Axios.

Zoom in: However, there are lawmakers in the House and Senate who believe a different form of resistance — nonparticipation — may be a better way to meet the moment.

• Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Axios he is leaning against attending the speech because "when Trump does it, it's not a serious event."
• "We want to make [clear] that things are not business as usual. Things are falling apart," said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), a DPCC co-chair who is undecided on attending.

What we're hearing: Other lawmakers told Axios their plans fell through or they will take their spouses, as is common.

• Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), Jeffries' top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, said he committed weeks ago to give his plus-one to a Republican colleague.
• "I hadn't really given much thought to bringing someone, partly out of my frustration with the president," Morelle told Axios.

Zoom out: Democrats have been debating the best method to fight their way out of the political wilderness. Initially, party leadership declined to respond in kind to Trump's flood-the-zone strategy.

• But under a barrage of admonishment from their grassroots to "fight harder," many Democrats have shifted to a more proactive posture of resistance.
• Leaders are trying to balance those two approaches by urging Democrats to stay laser-focused on hitting Musk and GOP spending cuts — including with Trump's speech.
• "It is more important than ever that House Democrats tune out the stream of chaos and ... communicate with precision on the issues that matter," said the DPCC memo.

By the numbers: Nearly a dozen House and Senate Democrats told Axios they are either leaning against attending the speech or undecided.

• Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) all declined to commit to attending.
• So did Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.).
• "As of now, I don't have any reason to go," said Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). "I know what he's going to say — he's going to get up there, he's going to lie, he's going to praise [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and all kinds of other nonsense."

The other side: "I know that many of my colleagues are eager to sit in and express our profound opposition to everything going on," said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.).

• "It is far better to push back inside the room, I think, than outside."

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) won a game of brinksmanship with his own party on budget reconciliation. Now he's prepared to do the same with Democrats on government funding, lawmakers and aides tell us.

Why it matters: House Republicans are increasingly confident they can avoid a government shutdown without any Democratic support.

• "I think it demonstrated we can do things on our own," House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told reporters on Wednesday.
• Going alone would be unprecedented but not impossible. The current funding bill runs through March 14.

🙏 Johnson will need strong buy-in from the White House that President Trump will back his approach.

• After a White House meeting Wednesday, Johnson said a spending stopgap is "becoming inevitable."

Between the lines: The appropriation process has been complicated by Elon Musk's and DOGE's efforts to cut money that Congress has obligated to departments and agencies.

• That's caused a Democratic uproar and raised the possibility they won't give Republicans the votes they could need to keep the government open.
• But Johnson said Wednesday that Republicans shouldn't expect to get DOGE cuts written into a spending stopgap.
• The speaker told reporters the "most reasonable" thing is to avoid a shutdown by pursuing a "clean" CR.

Zoom in: House and Senate GOP leaders met with their appropriators Wednesday morning to discuss their next steps.

• Republicans are united, for now, on a single point: they will not give in to Democratic demands to block Musk's cost-cutting efforts.
• "The Democrats have had completely unreasonable conditions assigned to this," Johnson said. "They want us to limit the power of the executive branch."
• "That's a no-go," Cole said. "We're not moving."
• "The Democrats need to be working with us on a realistic basis," Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told Axios.

The bottom line: Republicans will need some eight Democratic votes in the Senate to break a filibuster and pass a government funding bill.

• In the House, they have always relied on Democratic votes to fund the government.
• House Republicans passing a funding bill without Democratic help is unprecedented but not impossible.

With the help of President Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) muscled a budget package through the House — a win he claimed will give him momentum to pass "Trump's full America First agenda — not just parts of it."

Why it matters: Johnson's dream of one big, beautiful bill will live another day. But so will the reality of his razor-thin House GOP majority.

• The extraordinary evening was an early taste of the chaos to come.

Zoom in: Just before 7:30pm ET, lawmakers began filing out of the House chamber after being told votes were done for the evening. Leadership thought they had too many holdouts to risk a vote.

Just 13 minutes later lawmakers were streaming back in — the vote was on.

• "I just got a call from my office, they said 'Come back, the vote is back on,'" exclaimed a befuddled Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.).
• Some lawmakers had already been long gone. Several told Axios they were at dinner. At least one was at a Capitol Hill bar. Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said he was "halfway home."
• "I was already in my pajamas," quipped Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wisc.). The whole dynamic was "very odd," said Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.).

Between the lines: Both parties pulled out all the stops to try and ensure their preferred outcome.

• Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) showed up despite giving birth less than a month ago. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) voted despite being sick.
• Rep. Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.), who is recovering from a blood clot in his leg and a knee infection contracted from surgery, arrived to vote using a walker.
• Only Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Calif.), 77, who has missed nearly every vote since Jan. 3 as he undergoes cancer treatment, was absent.

Zoom out: Remember, this procedural bill was the easy part.

• Passing the actual bill — which could include deep cuts to Medicaid — will require Republicans of all stripes to subordinate their personal goals for the overall ambitions of the party and their president.
• House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is salivating at the opportunity to put Republicans on the record on their planned cuts, especially on social safety net programs.

What's next: Now Senate GOP Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has to decide whether he wants to accept, or try to amend, the House budget reconciliation package.

• Many of his members, including Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), want to make dramatic changes, including how Congress counts the cost of Trump's 2017 tax cuts.

The list of no's is growing for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and time isn't on his side.

Why it matters: Flipping votes on a budget resolution isn't impossible, but it could force Johnson to delay bringing it to the floor.

• ⏰ That would further undermine the House's effort to get "one big, beautiful bill" over to the Senate by the end of April.
• 💥 Two current public "no" votes, Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.), say the spending cuts aren't enough.
• 🙉 At least one other Republican is a private "no" vote, Burchett told reporters Monday evening.

Johnson and his leadership team are projecting public confidence they will be able to pass the resolution Tuesday evening.

• "There's a couple of folks who just have lingering questions," Johnson told reporters Monday, "but I think all those questions can be answered and we'll be able to move forward."
• "We'll see," Johnson told reporters when asked if the vote is still on for Tuesday night. "But it'll happen this week."

🚨Johnson says he won't negotiate ahead of a vote, including with moderates who are concerned by Medicaid cuts.

• "Everybody needs to understand that the resolution is merely the starting point for the process," Johnson said Monday, per Politico.

The big picture: Johnson sided with his most conservative lawmakers in building this budget package. Now they're threatening to leave him hanging.

• "If the Republican budget passes, the deficit gets worse, not better," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) posted on X.

Zoom in: Johnson is trying to fuse together 218 votes with the unusual combination of a huge debt limit increase, deep spending cuts and Trump's wish list on tax cuts.

• Johnson has freaked out his moderates with the depth of the spending cut targets, which will be hard to hit without cuts to Medicaid and nutrition programs.
• That's for naught if conservatives tank the bill first.

Zoom out: Some senior Republicans remained optimistic that the current framework — which will also add up to $4.5 trillion in tax breaks if Congress cuts $2 trillion in spending — will eventually find enough votes for passage.

• "It's going to reduce the debt to GDP ratio," Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told reporters. "It's important to me and important to our president."
• "I don't expect it to change," he said. "I feel like we landed at a really good place."
• "We're going to be fine," Arrington told Axios.

President Trump plans to sign an executive order on Wednesday to eliminate, or dramatically diminish, a handful of federal advisory committees, according to administration officials.

Why it matters: The executive order, which the president plans to sign on Air Force One, will target organizations like the United States Institute of Peace and the Inter-American Foundation.

• The order is similar to his assertion Tuesday night that he has direct authority over boards and commissions like the FDIC, SEC and CFTC.
• The move will mark Trump's latest assault on a federal bureaucracy that he is convinced is hostile to his agenda.
• Like he has with Elon Musk's DOGE effort, Trump will also cite his concerns about the millions of dollars some of the committees cost taxpayers, officials said.

Driving the news: Trump will also require his Cabinet to scrub their departments and submit a list of additional committees and boards for termination within 30 days.

• His goal is to pare back the number of agencies to a statutory minimum, which may be complicated because some of them have been authorized by Congress.
• Where possible, he will fully eliminate agencies and advisory committees.

What we're hearing: Among the groups that Trump will single out for termination or reduction:

• The Presidio Trust, a federal agency that manages large parts of the Presidio in Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) San Francisco district.
• The U.S. African Development Foundation, which invests in African grassroots enterprises.
• The Presidential Management Fellows Program, which is designed to train recent college and graduate school grads for the executive branch.
• The Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, which was founded to "advise the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other U.S. Government agencies on development issues relating to foreign assistance," according to its charter.
• The Health Equity Advisory Committee, which President Biden established in 2024, but Trump officials claim isn't actually meeting.
• Federal Executive Boards, which were created by President Kennedy to help coordinate government activities in different regions across the country. Trump has already killed at least one of them.

Between the lines: The Institute for Peace is being targeted, in part, because officials believe it is a highly partisan organization, with its employees contributing to the Democratic Party.

• And they consider the Inter-American Foundation, which was designed to invest in development projects across Latin America and the Caribbean, as a vehicle to justify Democratic theories about the root causes of migration.

Go deeper: A variety of councils are associated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, including the Academic Research Council, the Community Bank Advisory Council and the Credit Union Advisory Council.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) plans to use this week's budget votes to force Republicans to choose between defending tax cuts for billionaires or defying President Trump and Elon Musk.

• "It unifies Democrats from one end to the other. It is simple. It is easy to state. And it's true," Schumer told Axios.

Why it matters: After weeks of getting pummeled, Schumer is clearly relishing the prospect of changing the subject and forcing Republicans to play defense.

• Schumer wants to turn the "vote-a-rama" on the Senate GOP's budget bill — expected Thursday or Friday — into a parade of tragic decisions by Trump and Musk — all in service of making the rich even richer.
• Look for amendments on Trump's proposed tax cuts, the president's funding and hiring freezes and Musk's deep cuts to federal agencies.
• You can also expect an amendment blocking the GOP from changing tax rates if they cut funding from Medicare or Medicaid.

Zoom in: None of these Democratic-forced amendments will pass. But Schumer's goal is to make GOP senators own as many of the cuts and freezes as possible, or put them on the wrong side of a president who demands total loyalty.

• Democrats have been on their back feet as Trump and Musk fire federal workers, cut off foreign aid and rewire the country's bureaucracy.
• Democratic lawmakers feel powerless and are "pissed" at Democratic activist groups.
• Schumer and Jeffries huddled last week for a strategy session on how they could pick a couple of issues — such as cuts to Medicare and tax breaks for the wealthy — to re-create the magic of 2018.

🚨Now Schumer has an opening to cast DOGE and the congressional GOP in the harshest possible light.

• That includes programs highlighted by DOGE and those — like Medicaid — targeted by congressional Republicans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) summoned his caucus for a rare Saturday conference call ahead of a potential "vote-a-rama" next week.

Why it matters: Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) budget package includes some $175 billion in border security spending, presenting a potential political minefield for Democratic senators.

Schumer's meeting lasted less than an hour.

• The New York Democrat told his members to prepare a blitz of amendments to the GOP's budget resolution, according to multiple sources familiar with the call.
• Schumer wants Democrats to remain focused on messaging that Republicans want to cut taxes for the wealthy at the expense of American families, he told members.

Zoom in: Schumer wasn't certain the GOP's budget resolution would come to the senate floor next week, as has been expected.

• If Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) calls Graham's budget package to the floor next week, it would lead to a "vote-a-rama" — in which senators can offer amendments for some 50 hours to score political points.

Between the lines: Schumer has given his members broad leeway on some controversial issues around immigration, like the Laken Riley Act.

• Democratic activists are demanding their elected lawmakers mount a more forceful response to President Trump's dismantling of the federal government.
• But the reality for incumbent Democrats is that they don't have any immediate way to stop Trump, short of appealing to the federal courts.
• Senate Democrats staged an all-night talk fest last week to protest the confirmation of Russ Vought as Office of Budget and Management director. He was confirmed on a party-line vote.

The bottom line: Many lawmakers are deeply frustrated — and even "pissed" — with progressive pressure campaigns demanding they do more to oppose Trump, as Axios reported.

• The budget process will allow Democrats to go on record defending policies that Trump and Republicans plan to cut.
• House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Schumer have been strategizing on how to draw attention to the GOP's proposed tax cuts and their efforts to trim spending from entitlement programs like Medicaid.

Editor's note: This article was updated with new details from the Senate Democratic call.

The new chair of the Federal Trade Commission is putting his commissioners on notice that he thinks President Trump has the right to fire them if he wants to.

Why it matters: Andrew Ferguson, who replaced Lina Khan on Jan. 20, is the first head of an independent agency to embrace a controversial legal theory that could dramatically reshape the federal bureaucracy.

• It will alarm progressive activists and Democratic lawmakers who are concerned that Trump wants to purge independent agencies like the FTC and the National Labor Relations Board.

Driving the news: Ferguson, a former solicitor general for the Commonwealth of Virginia, is filing a motion on Friday to formally change the FTC's legal position.

• He is seizing on a letter sent to Congress this week by the acting solicitor general that the Trump Justice Department will seek to overturn a 90-year old Supreme Court decision known as "Humphrey's Executor."
• In 1935, the court ruled that the president could only dismiss the head of an independent agency "for cause."
• The new Trump approach holds that the heads and other board members can be fired based on the president's "will."

What they're saying: "I agree with every word of the Acting Solicitor General's letter. Humphrey's Executor was wrongly decided, is deeply anti-democratic, and ought to be overruled," Ferguson told Axios in an exclusive statement.

• "I will be making a motion to ask my fellow Commissioners to agree to align the FTC's position on this issue with the President's position," he said.

Zoom out: Legal scholars – and the Supreme Court – are deeply divided on the constitutionality of Humphrey's Executor and which agencies it applies to.

• In 2020, the court ruled the president had the power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Zoom in: Trump has already moved to fire the acting chair of the NLRB.

• That has led to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to launch an investigation into Trump's authority.

Go deeper: The FTC is beefing up its staff with a string of new hires who are skeptical of Big Tech.

In private meetings with his in-cycle incumbents, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has asked for a small favor: If you're not going to run in 2026, please let me know soonest.

Why it matters: Two Democrats in potentially close races have now honored his request. A third — Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) — has yet to make an announcement.

• Schumer craves clarity on the 2026 Senate map, according to people familiar with the matter.
• He also wants time to consider the party's options, allocate resources and develop a comprehensive strategy to eat into the GOP's three-seat majority.

Driving the news: Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) on Thursday morning became the second senator in as many months to announce her retirement, following Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) in January.

• Both decisions sent shockwaves throughout Washington.

The intrigue: That leaves Shaheen, 78, as the only open question for many senior Democrats.

• She has publicly questioned her future, and multiple sources tell us she hasn't privately indicated whether she plans to run.
• If Shaheen runs, Democrats like their chances of holding onto the seat.
• Should she retire, New Hampshire will be much more expensive for Democrats, drawing resources away from other competitive races.

Zoom out: In other potentially competitive races, there's not much uncertainty around the Democrats' remaining 2026 incumbents.

• Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) are sending strong signals they plan to run for reelection.
• While he's not an incumbent, there's great pessimism among senior Democratic sources that former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) won't try to return to the Senate in 2026.

Zoom in: Just as Peters' retirement opened the field in Michigan, several Democrats are indicating that they are interested in running in Minnesota, a state Vice President Harris won by 4 percentage points and Sen. Amy Klobuchar took by 16 points.

• Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic 2024 vice presidential candidate, is interested, according to Politico.
• There's also a possibility that former Sen. Al Franken, who was forced to resign during the height of the #metoo movement, could mount a comeback. He praised Smith on Thursday but didn't give any indication that he would run.
• Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Angie Craig (D-Minn.) are also potential candidates, Axios reported earlier Thursday.

The bottom line: Retirements from proven winners are never welcomed, but they sting less when they are made early in an odd number year.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) met Wednesday to try to re-create the magic Democrats found in 2017, when they turned President Trump's original tax cuts into political poison for the GOP majorities.

Why it matters: Grassroots Democrats are demanding to see real action immediately. But top Democrats are eyeing a different date: November 2026.

• Their goal is to develop a unified message ahead of the midterms and take back at least one chamber of Congress.
• They'll have to temper the expectations of activists who want quicker results, while also keeping them motivated to support Democrats in the coming campaigns.

Zoom in: Democratic leaders firmly think their life in the minority will be shorter if they seize on the right messaging opportunities, not every messaging opportunity.

• They want to avoid responding to Trump's outrages du jour and develop a deeper narrative about what unified Republican control means for working families.

What's next: Democratic leaders are eyeing the 2018 midterms as a blueprint, when they made Trump's tax cuts so unpopular that Republicans barely mentioned it in their campaign messaging.

• Democrats are salivating at the opportunity to message against even deeper tax cuts being paired with broad slashes in federal spending, especially on health care.

The bottom line: Democrats are powerless to stop the GOP's filibuster-proof plans to cut taxes and federal spending. But details of the Republican playbook read like a wishlist for Democratic campaign operatives.

• The (at minimum) $1.5 trillion in spending cuts the GOP is considering, in addition to $4.5 trillion to pay for tax cuts, includes hundreds of billions in reduced Medicaid payments and cuts to food assistance and student loan aid.
• "This is all about clearing the path to cutting taxes for billionaires, and making the American people foot the bill," Schumer said Wednesday from the Senate floor.

Some 20 senators have their bags packed for the Munich Security Conference this weekend, but they are waiting on a final green light from Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) before heading to Andrews Air Force Base.

Why it matters: Thune has threatened to make the Senate work weekends before, but never with one of the year's most cherished CODELs hanging in the balance.

• In an email to senators, Thune warned they may have to stay in town to vote on President Trump's nominations on Friday, sources familiar with the matter told Axios.
• That would delay, and potentially cancel, their participation in the annual security conference, where many senators say that simply showing up is one of their most important messages. The conference runs from Friday to Sunday.
• Allies are eager for insight into how Trump and a Republican Congress will handle everything from the war in Ukraine to redeveloping the Gaza Strip.

The other side: "I'm trying to hold the plane hostage," Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) joked to Axios.

• He thinks senators should stay and get more nominations done through Friday.

Zoom out: Senators love their CODELs. They especially love the Munich Security Conference, where they can have weisswurst and sweet mustard for breakfast and helles beer at lunch. Generals and heads of state mill about in the Hotel Bayerischer Hof.

• For Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who typically leads one of the larger delegations, it is an opportunity to take stock of what has worked and what hasn't.
• His message this weekend will be "to assess why deterrence failed and make sure that never happens again, to make sure that aggression is not rewarded in a fashion," Graham told Axios.
• He plans to introduce sanctions against Beijing that snap into effect if China invades Taiwan.

Zoom in: Trump has alarmed allies with his unorthodox approach to foreign policy, real estate diplomacy and land acquisitions — and sometimes all three.

• He has threatened significant tariffs on U.S. allies, offered to buy Greenland, make Canada the 51st state, turn Gaza into a "big real estate site" and proposed taking back control of the Panama Canal.
• Senators can expect some awkward questions from foreign leaders on all of the above.

The bottom line: When asked if she's prepared to answer questions on those topics, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said she will "let those speak for themselves."

• "The president obviously has a plan that he's working on, he is visiting with the leaders of many nations," she added. "So I would rather that he take the forefront."
• "I'm infuriated and frustrated by the administration's seeming surrender and betrayal of Ukraine," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) "I imagine that view will find a lot of friends among the Europeans who have committed so much to this fight."

Elon Musk's slash-and-burn approach is giving the White House genuine street cred with House conservatives. But it might not be enough to compensate for the outrage he's provoked among House Democrats.

Why it matters: If Democrats hold the line — and withhold their votes to fund the government — it will be exceedingly difficult for House Speaker Mike Johnson to avoid a government shutdown.

• Musk is flipping the traditional equation, in which Democrats vote to fund the government and Republicans feel compelled to do so under duress.
• While not all Democrats are on board with holding the government hostage to their anti-DOGE demands, many are clearly contemplating it.

Zoom in: For all the outraged Democrats that Johnson might lose because of Musk, he'll be on the hunt for Republican votes to replace them.

• "It helps," said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.). "However, the baseline needs to be intact at $2 trillion," he added, referring to how much spending he wants to cut in the (separate) reconciliation bill.
• "That's just additional," said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.). "We appreciate it, but that's not enough."
• "We're excited to see it," said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio). However, "you're looking at two different things. What DOGE is working on is mostly stuff that we have to deal with by March 14."

By the numbers: In the last few government funding votes, more Democrats than Republicans have voted to prevent a shutdown.

• In December, Johnson lost 34 House conservatives on funding the government. In September, the number was even higher: 82 House Republicans voted against it.
• In both cases, every House Democrat supported it.