Author: Politico

In those debates, the conventional wisdom has been pretty simple: Democrats may go for kumbaya stuff, but the way to get conservatives on board is to drop the bleeding-heart talk and emphasize data and national security — “Cold, hard American interests,” as Mitch McConnell put it last year when discussing help for Ukraine.

But what if that wisdom turns out to be wrong?

It’s a question that comes up, almost as an aside, in a new book by Rajiv Shah, president of the Rockefeller Foundation and, once upon a time, Barack Obama’s improbably young administrator of the United States Agency for International Development.

The book, Big Bets, is written as a sort of leadership guide for people trying to drive large-scale change, not a political memoir. But I was struck by a short passage about his time in government, which coincided with the rise of the tea party.

The way Shah describes it, the moment felt pretty similar to our own: a hostile Congress with a newly empowered hard right eager to make generational changes to how America does business. A fraught budget season. And an administration full of elaborately résumé’d Democrats whose counterarguments seemed not to move the needle at all.

What happened next may hold some lessons for the forthcoming battles over helping Kyiv, among other recipients.

In Shah’s case, the change in question was a proposal to gut the USAID budget. And the Democratic smartypants in question was himself, a 30-something whose credentials included a medical degree, a business degree and a senior stint at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Diving into numbers and doing math, he came up with a number to cite at the upcoming appropriations hearing: The cuts to things such as food aid and anti-malaria efforts would lead to 70,000 extra childrens’ deaths.

“USAID ADMINISTRATOR: GOP BILL COULD KILL 70,000 KIDS,” one headline read.

Politicals in the White House cheered. The Republicans whose votes he needed? Not so much.“

[Agriculture Secretary] Tom Vilsack called me and had just seen Speaker Boehner and said, ‘Hey, I was just with the speaker, and you should know he’s quite unhappy,” Shah recalled this week. “Tom suggested I visit with the speaker.” At the meeting, an aide handed him a list of members to meet with. Thus began what Shah calls his apology tour. “I spent the next several months, basically visiting with some new members of the Republican caucus and some longstanding members. And then it occurred to me that I had to really deepen my relationships with the other side of the aisle.”

So far, so normal: Guy in politics says something boneheaded, grovels before people he pissed off, lives to fight another day. What’s striking, though, is his recollection of how he deepened those relationships and salvaged his budget. Rather than playing up perfectly plausible arguments about national security (desperate poverty could drive people toward al Qaeda) or the economy (winning goodwill for the U.S. in poor countries might help American firms ace out Chinese ones for natural-resource deals), he talked about religion and charity and generosity.

“A mutual friend who cares about African development through his own faith introduced me to Jim Inhofe, who was the senator from Oklahoma,” Shah told me, referring to the conservative senator, who once famously brought a snowball onto the Senate floor in order to rebut climate change. “Senator Inhofe and I met many times. We’d talk together about our values and prayed together. And he invited me to join the Senate prayer breakfast. So I was able to join that setting on a number of occasions, not to talk about policy at all, just to get to know people and their values.

”Before long, the odd-couple friends were traveling together, visiting Christian charities in Ethiopia. Shah’s bonds with religious conservatives helped fend off the cuts. They also put him in some novel company: A son of Indian immigrants who was raised in a Hindu family, he became the unlikely keynote speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast. “It was a way to have dialogue and connect with people based on a common set of values — caring for others, doing the right thing, abiding by basic moral principles, recognizing that we’re in roles of leadership and trying to use that leadership to make the world a better place.”

In other words: kumbaya. “The common view is it has to be about hard nosed national security, which sometimes is true,” he said. “But I was blown away by the passion and the commitment to this mission that was driven by kind of the best elements of faith and humanitarian caring.”

I recount the story of Shah’s political bridge-building not because it represents another success on the CV of a guy who has enjoyed many of them (and has now written an advice book based on them). Rather, the story seems notable because — less than a month and a half from yet another potential government shutdown, one that will likely involve pitched arguments about aid to Ukraine and possibly other forms of foreign assistance — it might be relevant for folks in charge of cobbling together some sort of fix.

The comparison goes only so far, of course. Ukraine is at war; Shah’s work was in the world of purely humanitarian assistance. And the tea party-era GOP he sought to work with was different from the current one, whose lingering religiosity is tied even more closely to domestic culture war battles.

All the same, both the boilerplate argument against foreign assistance and the boilerplate response to that argument have been the same going all the way back to the Marshall Plan. On the one hand: Why should American taxpayers pay for a bunch of foreigners? And on the other: A three-legged stool that involves national security (we have to fund them or else they’ll go Commie!), national prosperity (we need to rebuild Europe so they’ll buy our stuff!), and human empathy (pity the hungry children!).

Quite logically, the arguments for pouring money into Ukraine have been based on national security: In the telling of many advocates, it’s about defending the rules-based international order that benefits America, sending a message to China about Taiwan, protecting global democracy, and pushing back against a Russian government that wishes us ill. All true and logical and sound. Combine it with reports of atrocities and it makes for a pretty compelling case.

But at a time when there’s scant agreement on what America’s interests even are in terms of the rules-based international order — and a moment where certain corners of the American body politic even harbor doubts about the virtues of democracy — it may not be enough for the current legislative climate. Especially since the media environment allows a lot of people to dismiss those atrocity reports as phony.

Would a campaign built around lobbying legislators in the name of religious values be better primed to succeed? Consider an example from the other side: Tucker Carlson, who spent a good chunk of an Iowa candidates forum peppering candidates about the religious dimensions of the Ukraine war. The remarks, falsely claiming Christians were persecuted under Volodymyr Zelenskyy, were quickly criticized by U.S.-based Orthodox Church leaders for playing into Russian propaganda about waging war against secular liberalism.

Last month, he was at it again, with an odd riff on whether it’s better to be a Christian in Ukraine or Russia. “I’m only suggesting that one factor that Christians use to assess the behavior of their government, and other governments, ought to be the treatment of Christians,” he said, before noting that “one of those countries just arrested a bunch of priests,” and it wasn’t Russia.

It’s discredited stuff that has nothing to do with national interests as they’re normally defined. But in front of certain audiences, it’s pretty effective.

Which is just to say that, if you’re interested in winning support for continuing aid to Ukraine — or any number of other foreign spending commitments — similar audiences might be similarly moved by tales that rely less on chessboard logic than on scriptural tales like David and Goliath, or old chestnuts like the Golden Rule, or basic good-guy tendencies like standing up to bullies: the impulses that make people feel proud of themselves, whether or not they’re also wise statecraft.

Shah says it’s the sort of thing that can also work face-to-face in Washington power corridors. “Get in a room, close the doors, start with values and talk and get to know each other,” he said. “I think it’s very applicable. … I can understand why people reading the press would be skeptical. But it’s the only way we ever get stuff done in our history.”

“It gave the impression that it’s okay to do that to Palestinians because they’re Palestinians,” she said on the call. “That’s dehumanizing, and it opens the door for people to think that, well, you know, certain things are okay because they must be bad people. They must be terrorists.”

Also on the call, Warren David, president of Arab America, told Andrew Miller, the deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, that his members were “outraged — outraged — to say the least at the rhetoric that’s been coming out the last few days” from the Biden administration.

David warned of “the demonization of Palestinians in Gaza and of Arabs in general” that “has really escalated hatred” against them. And he asked Miller what the State Department and President Joe Biden planned to do to “walk back their negative discourse” in light of the slaying of Wadea Al-Fayoume.

“We feel great damage has been done regarding the image of Arabs in the United States,” David said on the call. “In some ways, it’s worse than what happened in 9/11.”

In response, Miller stressed that the Biden administration’s “intent has certainly not been to stoke anti-Arab sentiment” and welcomed further discussion to “make sure that we’re not unintentionally contributing to a problem.” He also said that “the Palestinian people are not to blame for Hamas’ actions” and that the administration takes the safety of minority groups “very, very seriously.”

Nevertheless, the discussion put in stark relief the degree to which Arab Americans and Muslims throughout the country are fearful of becoming victims of a 9/11-style backlash after Hamas’ rampage. It also underscored the growing frustrations they’ve felt with the administration’s posture, even as the president’s tone has evolved.

Those frustrations as well as the unease voiced on the call may only grow in significance as the conflict in Israel escalates. As Biden prepared to travel to Israel this week, a blast at a hospital in Gaza that reportedly claimed hundreds of lives and intensified international alarm about civilian casualties. Israel and Hamas leveled conflicting accusations of responsibility for the explosion.

In the immediate aftermath of the Palestinian militant group Hamas’ killing of more than 1,000 Israeli civilians and soldiers in a surprise raid this month, Biden offered unequivocal support for Israel. He said Hamas’ attack was “pure, unadulterated evil” and vowed that the United States “has Israel’s back.” In recent days, Biden has expressed concern for Palestinian civilians and Secretary of State Antony Blinken has announced that the U.S. and Israel agreed to put together a plan to get humanitarian aid into Gaza.

On Sunday, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan said it is “critical” that Palestinian civilians have places where they can go “that will not be subject to military bombardment” and “have access to the the essentials: to food, water, medicine, shelter.”

Roughly 3,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the Israel-Hamas war began, according to Palestinian officials. The death toll in Israel has risen to 1,400, according to Israeli authorities.

“We can’t lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians had nothing to do with Hamas and Hamas’s appalling attacks, and they’re suffering as a result as well,” Biden declared at an infrastructure announcement in Philadelphia last week.

He made similar remarks at a Human Rights Campaign dinner this weekend, decrying “a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” And after Al-Fayoume’s killing, Biden said he was “shocked and sickened” by the news. “This horrific act of hate has no place in America,” he added.

But some Arab American and Muslim leaders, as well as their allies, dismissed Biden’s recent statements as too little, too late. They said in interviews that they have been horrified by the recent remarks of foreign policy hawks such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who described the Israel-Hamas war as a “religious war.” But they said they have also been distressed by remarks made by Biden officials and other Democrats with whom they are more often aligned.

Several expressed disappointment in comments made last week by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who called progressive lawmakers’ advocacy for a cease-fire “disgraceful,” “wrong” and “repugnant.” They were particularly frustrated given that two of the top liberal politicians advocating for a cease-fire are Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Those members, the first two Muslim women elected to Congress, were among a group of progressive female lawmakers of color who received a security briefing from Capitol Police amid an uptick in threats.

White House officials said that Biden has stood firmly against Islamophobia as well as antisemitism throughout his presidency. They noted that he has repeatedly stated that Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people, directed his top national security officials to meet with Muslim leaders last week, and called on law enforcement officials to identify any potential domestic threats that could emerge in connection with the Israel-Hamas war.

They also pointed to Biden’s efforts and statements aimed at combating anti-Muslim hatred before the war began. At an Eid al-Fitr celebration at the White House last May, he said that fighting Islamophobia was a “priority” for his administration and touted a task force to address attacks on Muslims.

“President Biden and Vice President Harris have been unequivocal: there is no place for hate in America — not against Muslims, not against Arab Americans, not against Jews — not against anyone,” said White House spokesperson Robyn Patterson. “On President Biden’s very first day in office, he rescinded the previous administration’s Muslim ban. He’s gone on to establish the first interagency task force to address attacks on Muslims and anti-Muslim bias and discrimination. President Biden has made clear that standing up against Islamophobia is essential to who we are as a country.”

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and Democratic National Committee member, told POLITICO that he is “deeply concerned” by recent rhetoric by Biden and his aides.

“There was no language of compassion for Palestinians in the initial statements. There was no call for a cease-fire or for restraint,” he said.

Khalil Jahshan, executive director of the Arab Center Washington, D.C., who was on the call Monday, said that in previous discussions with Biden officials last week, Arab American and Muslim leaders “did raise the issue of domestic violence here and the need for the president to open his mouth and say this is not a war against fellow Americans.”

He added that “at least on that one, they delivered.”

After the killing of Al-Fayoume, some Muslim leaders also privately made the case to Biden officials that the president himself should speak directly about the tragedy, according to a person familiar with their conversations.

And he did.

“The child’s Palestinian Muslim family came to America seeking what we all seek — a refuge to live, learn, and pray in peace,” Biden said on Sunday. “As Americans, we must come together and reject Islamophobia and all forms of bigotry and hatred. I have said repeatedly that I will not be silent in the face of hate. We must be unequivocal. There is no place in America for hate against anyone.”

But while the group clearly wants to drive down federal spending, it still hasn’t settled on a strategy to get there or what else to push for. That uncertainty lies at the heart of House Republicans’ often-chaotic state: McCarthy’s biggest skeptics on the right are happy to use hardball tactics in their slim majority, even if it hurts the party’s priorities, yet their lack of clear demands make it nearly impossible for leadership to satisfy them — or for the resisters to wield their influence toward a clear endgame.

Overplaying their hand could also backfire on the hardliners, whose colleagues are starting to publicly fume that a handful of Republicans is torpedoing party unity. Some in the GOP rank and file fear that the right’s demands won’t end with spending cuts, letting the same group of McCarthy critics who dragged out the January speaker’s race assert control over the rest of his time with the gavel.

“The Freedom Caucus is a diverse group, and we have diverse opinions about ways to implement a conservative agenda,” one of the members, Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.), said in a brief interview after Monday night’s meeting, adding that the next phase of action remains under discussion both within the group and with GOP leaders.

They’ll need to decide soon: McCarthy’s detractors have agreed to halt their blockade of the floor only for the next few pieces of legislation that come up, including Rep. Andrew Clyde‘s (R-Ga.) attempt to roll back a Biden regulation on guns equipped with pistol braces.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said unsticking Clyde’s measure was the rebel group’s first step, “and now we’re figuring out what’s next.” Notably, it’s still far from clear that Clyde’s bill will have the votes to pass the House later Tuesday, according to a GOP lawmaker who is whipping the bill.

The biggest thing that the protesters clearly agree on is the need to drive down spending below what McCarthy and President Joe Biden agreed to. They’ve already convinced GOP leaders to essentially renege on last month’s bipartisan debt deal, instead pushing new funding levels that Democrats would never accept and forcing another standoff in the fall. Some, like Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), won’t rule out forcing a shutdown to get what they want.

“We’re looking at everything, that’s not here yet,” Norman said when asked if he would be willing to hold up funding after the September deadline.

The group’s initial win was announced Monday night, when Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) declared that Republicans would cut $130 billion from this year’s spending bills by drafting to pre-pandemic levels — well below the agreement McCarthy reached with the White House.

That was what Freedom Caucus members, including many of those who’ve been holding up the House floor, specifically demanded.

But some of those conservatives are gearing up to push their conference to go a step further, signaling they want spending bills below — not at — the fiscal 2022 year levels. And the hardliners have no interest in Congress’ favorite accounting ploys, asserting they don’t want to count clawing back old funds as spending cuts.

“One of the key structural things we’ve got to work through is whether you can achieve 2022 spending levels through recessions,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), referring to those clawbacks. “A lot of us who are concerned about spending worry that that is a budgetary gimmick.”

While some of his colleagues praised Granger’s move, Gaetz said he still had doubts: “I worry that [her] statement doesn’t clearly reflect compliance with the January agreement.”

As they demand more involvement in spending decisions, conservatives are in essence seeking a far larger concession from McCarthy — to revisit the deals cut when he became speaker with his detractors, many of whom are leading the latest protest.

The hardliner holdouts argue, for instance, that McCarthy failed to closely consult with them on the debt limit bill — and raised concerns about the other big pieces of legislation that the California Republican will have to negotiate with Democrats. That includes some of the year’s biggest agenda items, including the 2023 farm bill, a mammoth defense policy package and an end-of-the-year surveillance program reauthorization.

While those issues do involve spending, they also encompass much thornier questions, such as work requirements, farm subsidies, Pentagon powers and the GOP’s increasingly toxic relationship with the FBI.

The talks between McCarthy and his right flank are being closely watched by the rest of the GOP conference. Already, intra-party tensions have spiked as many Republicans watch a fraction of their most conservative colleagues largely dictate the floor schedule — and seemingly increase their demands by the day.

There’s also consternation about the idea that Republicans reached a “power-sharing” agreement as part of the speaker’s race. It’s a term used by Gaetz and other conservatives that McCarthy himself has questioned.

“You have a conference of 222 people, and they would all be well advised to remember that they are one of [222]. … The majority was delivered by people in swing districts. People who represent areas Joe Biden won,” said Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), adding that conservatives “didn’t win the majority.”

And McCarthy allies warn that even if the group makes good on its threat of a repeat performance by sinking further bills amid causing headaches for leadership, conservatives are likely to confront even more intra-GOP frustration with their tactics.

“You can only pull the pin so many times,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.). “This isn’t just going to be leadership pushing back if this continues to go on … rank and file are going to go crazy.”

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

But she recently found herself in the somewhat surprising position of pushing back against an emerging line of attack against DeSantis, something that’s been trotted out by supporters of Donald Trump: The attempt to draw attention to DeSantis’ awkward public presence by claiming that the GOP presidential hopeful is “a little bit on the spectrum,” as Trump hatchet man Steve Bannon first put it last week.

It’s not that Benham thinks such a diagnosis would be disqualifying. Rather, she’s troubled by the act of armchair diagnosis as a way of knocking someone. The implication is that the status of being on the spectrum is problematic or shameful or bad — and, at any rate, something intentionally kept secret.

“It’s frankly none of our business until he tells us one way or the other,” she tells me. “But if you want to delegitimize someone as a politician, certainly leaning into those stereotypes that people have about autistic folks is one way to do it. And that’s what’s happening here.”

No kidding. In short order, Bannon’s comment, which used the pseudo-diagnosis to explain DeSantis’ disastrous Twitter campaign rollout alongside Elon Musk, was echoed across the MAGA ecosystem. “Ron DeSantis is 100% on the spectrum,” tweeted the pro-Trump activist Laura Loomer. “Can we finally talk about this?” Grace Chong, the CFO of Bannon’s War Room podcast, called him “DeSpectrum” in one tweet, and in another one contrasted him unfavorably with the former president: “Trump does it BIGGER, BETTER, and with HEART. Unlike that guy on the spectrum.”

Within the community of autistic advocates and people who study autism, the development has led to a sort of dread about what lies ahead, particularly as Trump versus DeSantis becomes the major story in primary politics. Though it thus far only involves fringe characters — and, in fact, generated a certain amount of negative feedback even from those characters’ Trump-friendly followers — history suggests this kind of assertion tends to move from the margins to the mainstream.

“My reaction is that, oh, here we go again, perpetuating false myths and negativity about the concept of autism and being on the spectrum,” says Barry Prizant, a University of Rhode Island professor and author of Uniquely Human, a bestselling book about autism. “It’s obviously trying to adhere a black mark to DeSantis. … I think there has to be major pushback against that, because it’s perpetuating the stigma.”

“God give me strength,” says Eric Garcia, Washington correspondent for the Independent and author of the 2021 book We’re Not Broken: Changing the Autism Conversation. “It’s really fucking disgusting what Steve Bannon is doing.” Garcia says his group chat with fellow autistic writers lit up on the Bannon news. The refrain: “Are we really going to have to spend 18 months on this?”

In a different context — such as if a political figure were to disclose an autism diagnosis — an open discussion of what we now know to be a very common neurological difference could provide a teaching moment for society, one that could highlight the challenges faced by many people on the spectrum as well as some of the workplace strengths many in that community feel they can bring, including deep focus and an ability to avoid groupthink.

It could also, in theory, be a moment when raw numbers demonstrate that it’s a bad idea to make fun of autistic people: The latest CDC estimate is that one in 36 American children is on the spectrum, a vast population of folks with families and friends and loved ones, and one that’s geographically spread throughout the country, not just in blue states or red.

But that’s not what’s happening here.

“The speculation so far is being done completely in bad faith,” says Devon Price, an autism-focused social psychologist and author of Unmasking Autism, his own well-received book on “the power of embracing our hidden neurodiversity.” In the face of that sort of allegation, something like a categorical denial from the targeted candidate would come off as a further statement that a spectrum diagnosis is something bad (even if the denial happens to be entirely true).

DeSantis’ camp did not respond to a request for comment.

Also concerning to advocates: The GOP in the Trump era has rewarded pols who shake off other social taboos against making fun of disabled people. Trump supporters are excited by the “idea that, like, The Man doesn’t want you to make fun of disabled people and so therefore you should,” says Zoe Gross of the Autism Self Advocacy Network. “To just have a disability [is to be] the butt of a joke or the target of insults. We need to be moving away from that, not towards that.”

Bannon also did not respond to a request for comment.

Still, if ableism is eternal, the specifics of tossing around autism-spectrum diagnoses says something about our moment. Time was when the number of people who might witness, say, an uncomfortable candidate foray into a New Hampshire diner would be limited to the diner’s patrons and the few hangers-on in the press pool. Folks at home would maybe see the 10-second clip spliced into an evening news story. Nowadays, we can stream the whole thing in real-time. After a while it creates a kind of intimacy, allowing all sorts of folks watching from their laptops to venture forth with diagnoses for conditions ranging from the dermatological to the gerontological to the neurological — and then share them with the world.

The goofy speculation is no longer limited to the hacks in the media van.

Trump’s presidency famously saw an explosion of such distant diagnoses as detractors labeled the 45th president a sociopath or as suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder, to the displeasure of psychiatric professional associations. The difference, though, is that most people would agree those labels are bad and even disqualifying. There is no organized demographic of sociopaths or narcissists trying to push back against discrimination and stereotypes the way there now is in the autism community.

“I don’t think there’s anything about being autistic that means that you can’t represent well a constituency, understand a logical argument or advance a political cause,” says Gross, who was a Hill staffer before joining the autistic-led Washington advocacy group. “This feels obvious to say, but to call someone autistic as an insult is insulting, mostly not to that person you’re trying to insult but to autistic people in general.”

With the analysis of DeSantis, it’s also a little more complicated.

Yes, it’s easy to condemn a podcast provocateur for throwing around a diagnostic term inappropriately. But in Washington smart-set media-and-politics circles, making fun of DeSantis’ social awkwardness is a widely shared pastime, with people gleefully circulating videos of the candidate robotically working a room or laughing in strange ways. As with published quotes likening him to a “computer” and recounting baffling emotional miscues, the underlying insinuation — this guy can’t quite relate — lines up with stereotypes about people on the spectrum.

So what’s the line between perpetuating stereotypes on the one hand and, on the other, merely goofing on the foibles of a clearly smart and successful politician who, like Mitt Romney or Al Gore before him, happens not to have the schmoozing skills of a Bill Clinton (or possibly not even of the average local school board member)?

To most people in the autism advocacy world, the ethical difference lies in pathologizing — connecting the mocked behavior to a specific condition that may or may not apply. But maybe it’s also a moment to think about what we look for in elected officials. “There’s a way in which it would be better for all people if the barrier to entry was a little less high in terms of how socially normative you have to be,” Gross tells me. “Or if we focused more on substantive issues, and less on how socially normative a politician is. But I also don’t think that it’s disability-related every time people are saying, ‘Oh, that politician acts weird.’”

It turns out that pressing the flesh in a diner is also not much of an indicator of anything.

“I’m pretty good at working a room,” says Benham, the Pennsylvania legislator. “Because working a room follows a set of rules and social norms that you can learn. But there are plenty of my colleagues who are not good at that and who are not autistic. … Maybe they’re just introverted.”

Adams has repeatedly called on the federal government to address the migrant crisis, which has stretched city resources with the arrival of over 41,000 asylum seekers since last year.

Earlier this month, Adams stopped short of urging Santos to step down, despite calls from the congressman’s own party to resign over false claims he made about his background from his Jewish ancestry to his investment banking career.

“I don’t think my opinion matters here,” Adams said when asked about Santos at a Jan. 12 press conference about the city budget. “We’re not leaving any stone unturned on who we should be sitting down with to make sure New Yorkers get the resources that they need.”

Santos is staring down the barrel of multiple investigations as a new poll showed a majority of New Yorkers want him to resign.

“I think the voters have to make that determination,” Adams said Friday on CBS 2, “but personally, I believe it’s time for him to leave.”

Adams was scheduled to meet with Santos on Dec. 13, according to a report in the Daily News, roughly a week before the bombshell story about the freshman lawmaker’s many lies. Members of Santos’ team cancelled the meeting the day before, however, during a back-and-forth with a mayoral scheduler.

A City Hall spokesperson said Friday the mayor likes to meet with lots of newly elected officials. But he has never spoken with Santos.

Former Justice Department attorney George Higginbotham, former Republican National Committee deputy fundraising chair Elliott Broidy, and California businesswoman Nickie Lum Davis have already pleaded guilty in connection with the investigation into the influence-peddling effort. However, before leaving office, Trump granted Broidy a full pardon.

Kenner did not elaborate on what testimony Trump or Obama could offer about the effort, but said the value of their accounts should be evident to prosecutors. “I believe it’s all relevant,” Kenner said.

“The government is not intending to call any former presidents,” Justice Department lawyer John Keller told Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly during the half-hour-long court session Tuesday. However, Keller said the government does plan to call two high level officials from the Trump White House: former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and one of his deputies, Ricky Waddell. Neither is expected to resist testifying, Keller said.

Kollar-Kotelly expressed concern that efforts to draw the former presidents and other high-profile individuals into the case could complicate plans for Michel’s long-delayed jury trial to go forward in March. The judge was adamant Tuesday that, even if the former presidents seek to quash the subpoenas for their testimony, the trial will begin as scheduled on March 27.

“I do not have any time to push this case back, so you’re going on the dates you’ve got,” said Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of President Bill Clinton.

Michel — who has pleaded not guilty in the case — has been free pending trial, but his legal troubles appear to have contributed to a decision to cancel an international reunion tour last year for the American hip-hop group best known for the songs “Ready or Not” and “Killing Me Softly.”

“Our laws in this state need to change in order to capture this type of decade-plus systemic and egregious fraud,” he added. “Nonetheless, this historic sentencing serves, or should serve, as a reminder to all in New York, both companies in their corporate form and their executives, that this type of conduct in New York will not be tolerated and will be held accountable.”

Susan Necheles, an attorney representing the firm, said in court on Friday the company plans to appeal the verdict.

A 12-person jury in December found the Trump Corp. and Trump Payroll Corp., units of the Trump Organization, guilty on 17 counts including criminal tax fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records. The fines imposed Friday totaled the maximum penalty for each of the counts. The company has 14 days to pay the fines.

“It is interesting that the Trump Corporation once again distances the corporation from the acts of the other individuals,” Judge Juan Merchan said Friday, following statements from the prosecution and defense attorneys. “These are arguments that were made throughout the trial, it’s not what the evidence has shown and it’s certainly not what the jury found.”

Prosecutors said the Trump Organization criminally evaded taxes by concealing compensation to top executives in the form of perks like luxury cars and free lodging, while suppressing its payroll costs with lower reported salaries.

The company’s former Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, who became the star witness in the case against the Trump Organization, was sentenced earlier this week to five months in jail and five years of probation. Weisselberg was the biggest personal beneficiary of the tax scheme, according to prosecutors, and he testified that he received $1.76 million in off-the-books compensation.

Necheles, the attorney for the Trump Organization, said her appeal of the December verdict would be based on the company’s position that the perks didn’t impact the firm, just its employees.

“We disagree with the people’s contention that this was done with an intent to benefit the Trump Corporation,” she said, adding that the conduct was limited to individuals including Weisselberg.

When Trump vowed to appeal last month, he said in a statement that the verdict was “a continuation of the Greatest Political Witch Hunt in the History of our Country.”

“New York City is a hard place to be ‘Trump,’ as businesses and people flee our once Great City!” he said.

Bragg on Friday said the “conviction was consequential” because it was “the first time ever for criminal conviction of former President Trump’s companies.”

The U.S. should continue funding Ukraine for its own values and self interest, King said, nearly a year after Russia first invaded its neighbor.

“It would be catastrophic to cut off aid to Ukraine at this point,” King said, responding to calls from some House Republicans to reduce some funding to Ukraine.

He added: “To put it in perspective for Americans: It’s as if our East Coast, from Maine to Florida and then west to Houston, Texas, was being occupied by a foreign power.”

After meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, King said he was “very impressed” with the level of accountability for how the funds were spent — a key concern of many people opposed to additional aid — as well as Zelenskyy’s understanding that any scandal could end the West’s ability to continue sending assistance.

“This argument that somehow the money’s being wasted, I don’t think holds water,” King said.

Moscow plans to mobilize a new wave of more than half a million men to fight in the war this month, Ukrainian officials said last week.

“It’s gonna take a lot of work and a lot of tough decisions to get us where we need to be,” said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), a member of GOP leadership and early Freedom Caucus player who supports the changes. “To quote Bill Clinton, we need to usher in a second age of ‘Big government’s over.’”

Yet the bulk of what McCarthy and conservatives tentatively agreed to, particularly when it comes to spending deals that will need Democratic sign-off to become law, falls far short of a guarantee. And for other corners of the GOP conference, the giveaways to win over more than a dozen of McCarthy’s conservative critics will be tough to swallow.

One of McCarthy’s negotiators, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, described some of the spending goals as “aspirational.”

Perhaps the most high-profile of the concessions to conservatives, explained by Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) to his colleagues on a call Friday morning, is for the House GOP to present a budget that balances over 10 years — capping discretionary spending at fiscal 2022 levels or lower, according to three Republicans familiar with the plan.

The deal doesn’t necessarily include Pentagon cuts, but any arrangement that does won’t sit well with hawks on the Armed Services and Appropriations panels who’ve touted securing billions of dollars more than Biden sought for defense, even while Democrats controlled all of Washington.

“Seems like we could be backing ourselves into sequestration,” Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), a military veteran who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told McCarthy and allies on a private conference call to McCarthy earlier Friday, according to three Republicans on the call. Those automatic cuts were a hallmark of the desperation budget deal from a decade ago.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) also voiced concern on the call about the proposed spending cuts’ effect on defense, those people said.

A second budgetary measure included in the agreement, according to two Republicans, is an idea from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.): In the event of a looming shutdown, the House would pass a stopgap spending bill that includes 98 percent of current funding — triggering automatic cuts to incentivize Congress to finish its work on appropriations.

Another significant procedural change, conveyed by McCarthy and his team to some members, is that conservatives will hold three seats on the powerful House Rules Committee, according to three people familiar with the agreement.

Because Republicans can only afford to lose two votes on that panel, which determines which bills come to the floor, stacking it with conservatives would enable them to tank legislation before it comes to a full chamber vote. McCarthy allies noted that any bill opposed by three conservatives would likely fail regardless, indicating that they’d rather have an ugly fight in committee than on the floor.

“We’ll be fine. We’ve had plenty of Freedom Caucus members before,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), incoming chair of the Rules Committee.

Reverting back to fiscal 2022 levels, as the emerging agreement envisions, would amount to a roughly $75 billion, or 10 percent, cut to defense programs if GOP leaders don’t spare the Pentagon — a figure that alarms many Republicans across the conference.

But many of them acknowledge that the effect may be limited, because even if a cut of that magnitude passed the House, the Democratic-led Senate would likely reject it outright.

Summing up some of the consternation outside the House chamber later, senior Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said: “Well, that’s just it. You open a whole other can of worms … It will be an ongoing battle.”

Still, some defense hawks downplayed the possibility of slashing the Pentagon budget, noting that their ranks far outnumber those of fiscal hardliners who want reductions. (One GOP aide said the agreement with conservatives was on the overall fiscal year 2022 spending number, not a specific commitment to cut defense.)

“Most of us won’t vote for cuts to defense,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told reporters. “You can bring it to the floor. There’s enough Republicans who are not going to cut defense spending.”

Wisconsin Republican Rep. Mike Gallagher, who also sits on the Armed Services panel, echoed that: “There’s a ton of defense hawks that are necessary to get to the math of 218.”

Incoming Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) declined to discuss McCarthy’s pact with conservatives after privately venting his frustration to some colleagues this week. But he insisted he isn’t concerned: “I didn’t make that deal,” Rogers said. “I can’t talk about it right now, but I’m not worried about it.”

The emerging agreement also addresses the looming need to raise the debt ceiling indirectly, declining to commit conservatives to supporting any hike without other budgetary austerity they have insisted on.

Each major element of McCarthy’s deal with the right flank — closer to agreement but still short of final status as of Friday evening — has pushed him closer to landing the speaker’s gavel after four paralyzing days of stalemate.

Some Republicans argue the concessions are broadly about changing the culture of the House to abide by a set of firmer rules, even though it has irked rank-and-file members who viewed the conference’s 20 holdouts on the speaker election as kidnappers trying to claim a ransom and shoot their hostage.

And it’s still not clear that the GOP leader has all the votes he needs yet. Rep.-elect Keith Self (R-Texas), who switched his vote on Friday, signaled as much in his statement moving to support McCarthy, alluding to “obstructionists” in the mix who are opposing the Californian for self-promotional purposes.

But despite the grumbling, McCarthy’s machinations may finally be working after the four-say stalemate. He flipped a total of 15 Republicans earlier Friday, surprising even some members of his leadership team, and Republicans now say it’s possible he could secure the gavel late Friday night — ending a protracted, public battle that has torn at some leadership egos.

Some Republicans already fear McCarthy’s concessions could come back to haunt him and their conference as he tries to govern with a slim majority. For instance, some members argue it will be tough for McCarthy to hold onto the gavel if — or perhaps when — any member, Democrat or Republican, decides to force a vote on toppling the speaker.

When Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) raised concerns about Democrats weaponizing that power to challenge McCarthy should he become speaker, the leader told her not to worry, arguing Republicans would band together and “rally” against it.

He also sought to assuage a series of other worries, telling members he didn’t give anything away that predetermines who gets a committee gavel and that “people are not being punished in the process” of the negotiations, according to Republicans on the call.

His comments were partly a nod to Rep. Andy Harris’ efforts to claim control of a subcommittee that would oversee the nation’s biggest pot of domestic spending — a push that infuriated his fellow appropriators.

While Harris got no assurances on that gavel, the Marylander was one of the dozen-plus conservative dissenters who flipped to back McCarthy on Friday.

“We need to better understand what is happening and to enforce the environmental laws that we have against coal and gas plants that are being operated primarily for the benefit of cryptocurrency operations,” Sierra Club staff attorney Megan Wachspress said in an interview.

The New York law “is a really important initial step towards getting that information and towards better understanding how cryptocurrency miners are turning coal and gas into Bitcoin, basically, and what the impacts of that are,” she said.

Environmental groups pushed for the temporary pause on some types of cryptocurrency mining in New York because of concerns that old fossil fuel plants would be brought back online or ramped up to run computers to earn cryptocurrency — a process that uses an extraordinary amount of energy. They’ve also warned that the industry itself may not be compatible with the state’s new climate law that requires a steep reduction in emissions.

The law does not affect cryptocurrency mining that uses power drawn from the electric grid. Operations can continue at large and small sites across upstate New York, including a former aluminum smelter in Massena near the Canadian border and a former coal plant in Somerset near Niagara Falls.

The partial ban comes as upstate New York has become attractive to companies that mine digital currencies, including Bitcoin. The region has an abundance of former power plants and manufacturing sites with unused electrical infrastructure that is appealing to the industry.

The law is likely to scare off companies from coming to New York for fear of further restrictions, some owners said, and it comes as the digital currency market has also crashed following the bankruptcy of Bahamas-based crypto exchange FTX — leaving the industry with additional uncertainty.

Cryptocurrency businesses are already directing their investments elsewhere, said Kyle Schneps, Foundry’s director of public policy. He said the Rochester-based Bitcoin mining company has acquired two sites in other states and is focusing investments there.

“The sentiment pervading the crypto industry now is that New York is willing to use its climate goals to arbitrarily exclude any industry which is politically expedient to target,” Schneps said.

“Any cryptocurrency company, whether proof of work or proof of stake, that is not already grandfathered in by New York’s singular crypto laws is unlikely to build their business in New York under current conditions because nobody knows who could be next on the chopping block.”

The moratorium bill exempted the only two power plants currently burning fossil fuels to run cryptocurrency mining machines, carving out any that had already submitted permit applications.

“The legislation has no impact on our operations, and we continue to invest and create good jobs at our facility,” said David Fogel, the CEO of Coinmint, which operates the up to 160 megawatt cryptocurrency mining facility in Massena.

The impact of the new law has already hit one company.

Blockfusion, which owns a cryptocurrency mining facility in Niagara Falls that is currently idle due to an order by the city, lost insurance coverage because of the statewide moratorium, despite not being impacted, said CEO Alex Martini-LoManto. He supported the moratorium but said it should have gone further and prohibited any fossil fuel plants coming back online for any reason. Blockfusion, when it was operating, ran on power from the grid, which is primarily hydropower.

“It’s a lot of circus — media and politics but the effect is very minimal,” Martini-LoManto said. “It doesn’t change Bitcoin mining in New York… it doesn’t have a retroactive effect.”

Cryptocurrency industry groups are alarmed by calls from environmental advocates to broaden the limits on the “proof of work” method underpinning Bitcoin and the push to take similar actions in other states. Miners are engaged in a global competition to solve complex calculations that validate transactions, all in exchange for a fee. The approach is called “proof of work,” and the more computing power a mining operation has, the more fees it can earn. And that means a thirst for electricity.

“In some ways, all of the concerns that the industry had about this bill and about the rhetoric around it were valid,” said John Olsen, the Blockchain Association’s Albany lobbyist. “This isn’t about an environmental impact from the work, it’s about energy use and whether it’s valid that that energy is for a specific operation.”

Greenidge, the former coal plant turned gas plant turned cryptocurrency mining site, continues to operate. The state Department of Environmental Conservation rejected the company’s renewal of a key air permit in June, but, under the state’s administrative laws, the plant can keep running during appeals. Greenidge is also seeking to renew its water permit.

Additionally, the Fortistar gas plant near a residential neighborhood in North Tonawanda in Niagara County with storage container-like pods with cryptocurrency miners and fans outside can keep running. The facility, bought by Digihost, a Toronto-based blockchain company, has a pending Title V air permit application with the state DEC. The application has not yet been deemed complete by the agency.

No new applications to run a fossil fuel power plant for cryptocurrency mining would be approved by the DEC under the law.

The agency also has a big lift with a short timeline ahead. The legislation directs DEC to finalize a “generic environmental impact statement” considering a range of issues related to cryptocurrency mining that uses the energy-intensive “proof of work” methodology underpinning Bitcoin by Nov. 22.

This sets up a tight schedule because the statute also requires DEC to hold 120 days of public comment and multiple hearings across the state on a draft of this document.

The law calls for the DEC to analyze the number of “proof of work” cryptocurrency mining locations in the state, the amount and sources of energy used, the greenhouse gas emissions from the operations and any anticipated increase and potential impacts of mining expansions. The study will also consider water usage and public health impacts.

The outcome and details of the final product of that process could lead to additional regulations for the industry from the state Legislature. For example, a generic environmental impact statement on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas was a key step toward New York’s prohibition on the practice in 2014 — also a first in the nation at the time.

“We’re hopeful that DEC recommends policy … and will make the determination whether or not this particular validation practice should be happening at all, and if if aligns with our climate goals,” Moran said of New York’s goal of slashing emissions 85 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.