At the border, the Republicans set a trap and then fell for it

Republicans in Congress thought they had laid a clever trap for Democrats that would achieve complementary political and policy goals.

Their idea was to tie the approval of military aid to Ukraine to strict border security requirements that Democrats would never accept, allowing Republicans to block the money for Kiev that many of them oppose, while at the same time attacking Democrats for refusing to to stop the wave of migrants. at the border. It would be a win-win situation heading into the November elections.

But Democrats tripped them up by making substantial — almost unprecedented — concessions on immigration policy without demanding much in return. Now it's Republicans who are quickly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in grave jeopardy, border policy in turmoil, and Congress once again reeling in the face of multiple crises at home and abroad without attention due to a legislative deadlock. .

The turn of events led to a remarkable spectacle on Capitol Hill this week, when a parade of Senate Republicans almost immediately rejected a key piece of legislation they had been calling for for months as part of a deal to provide more aid to beleaguered Ukraine . Even Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader and leading Republican supporter of helping Ukraine, and Senator James Lankford, the Oklahoma Republican who invested months in killing the border deal, suggested they would vote to bring it to the floor to block in a test vote. for Wednesday.

It made Senate Republicans, who had largely avoided the chaos that has consumed Republicans in the House of Representatives over the past two years, become more like their counterparts on the other side of the Rotunda, roiled by division, finger-pointing and even calls from the far right for new leadership.

“A year ago they said, 'We need a change in the law,'” Mr. Lankford said, frustrated by his Republican colleagues who had rebelled against the border situation but suddenly rejected the new legislation. “Now the conversation is: 'Just kidding, we don't need a change in the law. We just need the president to use the laws they already have.” That wasn't where we were before.”

The episode stunned Democrats.

“Just stunned,” Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, wrote on social media. “I've never seen anything like it. They literally demanded specific policies, got them, and then ended them.”

While trying to rationalize their expected decision to mount a filibuster against the legislation they had called for, Republicans said they needed more time to process the bill and might be allowed to propose some changes . But those mainly seemed like excuses. It's unlikely that extra time will be the bill's friend as the politics surrounding it become increasingly volatile as this year's election approaches. In previous immigration battles, failed procedural votes typically doomed efforts.

Moreover, some Republicans said it wasn't just a matter of making a few tweaks to the text. They said it was time to go to the polls.

“Joe Biden will never enforce a new law and refuses to use the tools he already has today to end this crisis,” Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Senate's No. 3 Republican, said in a statement announcing his opposition on Tuesday . “I cannot vote for this bill. Americans will turn to the upcoming elections to end the border crisis.”

Mr. Barrasso's statement was just the latest indication that the looming election — and Donald J. Trump's increasing hold on the party as the expected candidate — had made Republican approval of the border deal all but impossible. Mr. Trump rejected the bipartisan proposal soon after it was rolled out, and senators who embraced it risked clashing with him and his supporters.

In the House of Representatives, Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team made it clear they wanted nothing to do with the Senate bill. So even some Republicans who might be inclined to support the proposal might choose not to, avoiding a tough vote for a measure that had no prospect of getting out of Congress.

For Mr Johnson, opposition to the measure represented part of the delicate balancing act he is attempting. So far, he has managed to keep at bay arch-conservatives unhappy with the bipartisan spending deals he has brokered to keep the government open. But allowing a vote on the border-Ukrainian package could inflame their anger so much that he too would face a challenge to his post.

Moreover, Republicans in the House of Representatives will be in a fierce battle to maintain their majority after two years in charge with minimal performance, and many of them see immigration as a winning issue. Still, in tough races in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrats will now be able to say they were willing to accept tough new border controls, but Republicans killed that effort.

The showdown has put Mr. McConnell himself in a difficult position. He saw the border legislation primarily as a means to unlock aid to Ukraine, which he said is part of an existential battle with Russia over Western and democratic values. Should the new legislation collapse, as now seems likely, he will have to take a different path to helping Ukraine, even as many of his Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives and the Senate increasingly oppose the funding.

Opponents of Mr. McConnell sought to capitalize on the policy distance between him and his fellow Republicans.

“WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP – NOW,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, wrote on social media after the bill was released. Such calls are unlikely to gain any traction, but they do demonstrate the grassroots' increased willingness to publicly challenge Mr. McConnell.

As the border legislation was about to be released, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona independent who helped negotiate the measure, said on CBS's “Face the Nation” on Sunday that Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate more than would be given the opportunity to process the bill.

“Then they can make a choice,” she said. “Do you want to secure the border?”

It turned out that they didn't need much time. They made their decision quickly and chose not to act at the border – at least not before the November elections.