Kevin McCarthy has told House Republicans to treat every committee like the Oversight panel — that is, use every last bit of authority to dig into the Biden administration. That work begins in earnest this week.

Several sprawling probes — largely directed at President Joe Biden, his family and his administration — set the stage for a series of legal and political skirmishes between the two sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s all with an eye on the true battle, the 2024 election, as Biden flirts with a reelection run and House Republicans hope to expand their control to the White House.

After two impeachments of former President Donald Trump and a select committee that publicly detailed his every last move to unsuccessfully overturn the 2020 election results, GOP lawmakers are eager to turn the spotlight. And their conservative base is hoping for fireworks, calling on Republican leaders to grill several Biden world figures, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, retired chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and presidential son Hunter Biden.

But GOP leadership has to mind its swing-district members and centrists, whose jobs are on the line if the strategy backfires in 2024, as early calls to impeach Mayorkas have sparked grumbling in that camp. Striking the right balance will be a difficult lift, even without Democrats constantly blasting the investigations as revenge politics run amok.

Regardless, the GOP’s investigative firehose will leave few parts of the administration untouched. POLITICO has been chatting with lawmakers, aides and outside allies about Republicans’ plans. Here’s a field guide to navigating the investigative landscape, with hearings expected to start this week:

Biden Family

A top priority for Republicans is investigating Hunter Biden, with Joe Biden being the party’s ultimate target of the probe. GOP lawmakers are hunting for a smoking gun that will directly connect the president’s decisions to his son’s business dealings. No evidence has yet emerged to show that the clients taken on by Hunter Biden, who’s been under a years-long federal investigation, affected his father’s decisions as president.

The public phase of the Republican investigation will kick off on Feb. 8, with the Oversight Committee expected to hold a hearing on Twitter and its handling of a 2020 New York Post story on Hunter Biden. Twitter initially restricted users’ ability to share the article, with top officials characterizing the decision as a mistake in the aftermath.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has invited testimony from three former employees — James Baker, former Twitter deputy general counsel; Yoel Roth, Twitter’s former global head of trust and safety; and Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s former chief legal officer. A GOP committee aide told POLITICO that they “expect” the former employees to testify. (POLITICO has not undergone the process to authenticate the Hunter Biden laptop that underpinned the New York Post story, but reporter Ben Schreckinger has confirmed the authenticity of some emails on it.)

Beyond that, Comer is re-upping questions to a gallery selling Hunter Biden’s art. The chair is also asking for Treasury Department Suspicious Activity Reports, or SARs, related to Hunter Biden and his associates. Those records are filed by financial institutions and don’t necessarily suggest wrongdoing but are frequently used as investigative leads.

Comer warned he is willing to subpoena the relevant records after Treasury rejected his initial request, saying it needed to engage in discussions with the committee about the thrust of its investigation.

The Kentuckian has vowed that his committee’s Hunter Biden investigation will be "credible," but GOP leadership’s decision to name some of the conference’s most conservative members to the committee, including Reps. Scott Perry (Pa.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), is raising fresh skepticism about that among Democrats and their allies.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) warned that the ascension of Oversight panel conservatives would "infect the credibility of the committee," including on investigations.

Mayorkas and the border

House Republicans will soon formally launch a multi-committee investigation into the nation’s southern border and DHS, all with an eye on Mayorkas.

The Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on Feb. 1, focused on the border — with Republicans warning that it’s only “part one” of the public grilling. The Oversight Committee will follow suit during the following week of Feb. 6. Comer invited four Border Patrol officials to testify. In return DHS offered Border Patrol chief Raul Ortiz and a member briefing with the four officials Comer asked for, sparking stonewalling accusations and threats of possible subpoenas from the GOP chair.

The GOP’s border hearings come as the party has struggled to reach a consensus about how to move forward legislatively, including a split between two Texas Republicans: Reps. Chip Roy, who’d prefer a more conservative approach, and the more centrist Tony Gonzales.

The border investigations also come as the party faces pressure from both its right flank and its base voters to take the historically rare step of trying to impeach Mayorkas.

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) recently became the new majority’s first Republican to introduce an impeachment resolution, which targeted Mayorkas. A second group of Republicans, led by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), is expected to unveil impeachment articles against Mayorkas this week.

Justice Department/FBI

Republicans are planning to house a wide-ranging probe of the Justice Department and FBI under the Judiciary Committee and a new subcommittee — created as a concession to conservative detractors during the speaker’s race — focused on what the GOP calls the “weaponization” of the federal government.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a McCarthy antagonist-turned-ally who will chair both the committee and subpanel, has fired off a laundry list of requests to Attorney General Merrick Garland in addition to seeking hearings or transcribed interviews with more than a dozen DOJ officials.

Jordan has sent off a similarly lengthy letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray. He’s warned both that he’s ready to use subpoenas to get information if they don’t comply with his information requests.

Judiciary Republicans are likely to make Biden’s handling of classified documents and last summer’s FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence part of their sweeping DOJ oversight efforts. Two other panels are currently investigating the broader issue of classified document handling and related law enforcement activity: the Oversight and Intelligence Committees.

The Oversight Committee is requesting documents on the matter from the National Archives and has an interview with a top Archives official on the books this week, while the Intelligence Committee wants a security assessment.

COVID

After two years of Democratic-led investigations into the pandemic, Republicans are ready to shift the focus with probes of their own.

The Oversight Committee will hold its first hearing on Wednesday about the use of government funding on the coronavirus — homing in on a series of coronavirus relief bills that amounted to trillions of dollars in aid in total. Comer described his focus on coronavirus aid as an attempt to guide the committee toward rooting out “waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.”

But pandemic aid is a topic that the previous Democratic-led House has already visited. A select subcommittee in the previous Congress held a hearing last year with federal watchdogs in charge of overseeing pandemic aid funds.

In addition to investigations by the Oversight Committee, Republicans created their own select subcommittee on the pandemic. McCarthy is vowing that the new Covid panel will probe so-called “gain of function” research, which involves the intentional manipulation of viruses and pathogens in ways that could make them more deadly or contagious.

That goal connects to an unproven theory espoused by some Republicans that the coronavirus was intentionally created in a lab.

Foreign policy

House Republicans will also use their majority to delve into several foreign policy targets, as they seek to push back on the Biden administration’s decisions abroad.

The most prominent investigation so far stems from a new select committee designed to look at “strategic competition” between the U.S. and China, which is expected to be a major focus of the GOP national security agenda heading into 2024. Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who was tapped by McCarthy to lead that select panel, has said he’ll focus on supply chains, bolstering the U.S. military and privacy and social media — particularly TikTok.

The vote to set up the panel was largely bipartisan, but Democrats cautioned even as they voted for it that Republicans might steer the select committee toward conspiracy theories or xenophobic language.

Beyond China, GOP foreign policy investigations are likely to focus on two other areas: Afghanistan and Ukraine. The Biden administration’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 sparked bipartisan outrage, making it a prime target for the Foreign Affairs and Armed Services Committees.

Meanwhile, Republicans are also vowing tougher oversight of additional U.S. aid to Ukraine. That sets the stage for intra-party skirmishes between budget hawks or isolationist-leaning lawmakers and a coalition of more establishment-minded Republicans in both the House and Senate who have pledged to greenlight more help.

House conservatives are upping their demands on Kevin McCarthy as he tries to lock down the speaker’s gavel.

Their new price: a select committee with a huge scope of targets.

While the Republican leader and soon-to-be committee chairs have already lined up a laundry list of investigations that will largely command the House GOP’s agenda next year, it’s not enough for some McCarthy critics. Some of those opposing and on the fence about the Californian’s speakership bid want him to start a new panel, one that could direct probes against the entities they’ve castigated for years, including the FBI, the Justice Department, the IRS and Anthony Fauci.

Further complicating McCarthy’s position is that other Republicans aren’t on board. Some of his allies are skeptical that such a select committee wouldn't severely overlap with the investigative plans that incoming chairs such as Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and James Comer (R-Ky.) have already worked on for months.

But after largely percolating on the edges of the conference and conservative media, the calls are getting harder for the speaker hopeful to ignore. Several members who McCarthy needs to win over if he’s going to secure the gavel are openly using the creation of such a panel — to investigate what they call a “weaponized government” — as a bargaining chip as the California Republican tries to lock down their votes.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said that the group has had “good conversations” with incoming chairs but that he and other conservatives are pitching the select committee as a way to coordinate the conference’s investigative plans under one roof. They aren’t naming names on who they believe should lead the panel, though at least one skeptical McCarthy ally has argued that, if it has to happen, it should be Jordan.

“It needs to be targeted the right way,” Roy said about the party's investigations. “You don’t get many bites at the apple. You’ve got to get it done right.”

Conservatives say they want to model the panel off the 1970s Church Committee, which conducted a landmark investigation that uncovered significant surveillance abuses among the intelligence community and the IRS, leading to the formation of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But it’s a high bar that’s almost certain to fall short. While the Church Committee was a bipartisan operation, Democrats have frequently criticized the GOP’s targeting of the FBI, and their party is highly unlikely to help fuel probes they’ve already derided as political sideshows.

And Democrats are already gearing up to rebut GOP investigations next year. Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who will be on the frontlines as the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, summed up how he views his party’s responsibilities as it deals with Republican probes: “a truth squad in the sense that we will have to debunk conspiracy theories.”

And a former senior aide to the Democratic senator who chaired the Church Committee has also criticized Republicans for trying to make the Church comparison specifically, accusing them of wanting to invoke “Church’s legacy not to push for real solutions … but to obtain impunity for themselves and punish their enemies.”

But underscoring how much the “Church” rhetoric has injected itself into the party’s thinking, McCarthy, during a recent Fox News appearance, tipped his hand toward the idea, saying that “you’re almost going to have to have a Church-style investigation to reform the FBI.”

McCarthy, notably, didn’t specifically mention setting up a new committee, and those comments would also align with previously planned investigations. The ambiguous comments come as the Californian tries to lock down the votes to claim the speaker’s gavel in a thin majority and wants to avoid alienating any more members. A spokesperson for the GOP leader didn’t respond to multiple questions about whether McCarthy was endorsing starting a new panel, or just an investigation into the Justice Department and FBI, which is already in the works.

It’s hardly the first time he’s faced pressure from his right flank to acquiesce to going further on investigations.

House Republicans say they now expect to probe the treatment of individuals who were jailed for participating in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, where a mob of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters breached the building as Congress was certifying Joe Biden’s win. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) previously pressed McCarthy on an investigation last month during a closed-door conference meeting.

Comer noted that there was an ongoing discussion about which panel “needs to take the lead on that,” adding that the Oversight Committee will have “a lot on the platter but we’ll do whatever we’re asked to do from leadership.”

McCarthy has also threatened to subpoena intelligence officials who signed a letter in 2020 warning that a New York Post story about Biden’s son Hunter might have its origins in a Russian disinformation operation. And conservatives also think they’ve moved McCarthy on impeaching Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. He hasn’t officially backed the step, but opened the door initially in April and then signaled an impeachment could be on the table, depending on the results of investigations, during a trip to the southern border in November.

Asked about the California Republican’s remarks, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) — whom McCarthy opponents have used as a figurehead for the opposition — noted that McCarthy’s latest border remarks came “after he knew that he was facing somebody who was going to possibly deny him being speaker.”

But conservatives’ vision for the new select committee could stretch far beyond just the FBI and Justice Department — two long-running targets of the party’s ire — by stepping into other jurisdictional lanes.

Roy pointed to three other entities that could fall under its purview, in addition to the FBI and Justice Department: Fauci and the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the Department of Education and the IRS and money that will let the agency hire new staff. Those are all areas that other committees have indicated they plan to investigate. And while Roy acknowledged that potential overlap, he added, “You still want your best prosecutors prosecuting the case.”

Conservative insist they don’t want to step on the toes of Comer and Jordan — they just want a central, coordinated hub for investigations next year. McCarthy has been meeting with incoming chairs, including Jordan and Comer, as they plan out their series of probes next year. But supporters of creating a new panel argue that it could help free up Oversight and Judiciary Committee members, in particular, who are going to be busy juggling multiple investigations.

But Comer himself, and others in the conference, aren’t fans of the attempt to wade into the committees’ turf.

“I feel like we’ve got enough committees already to do all of that. I’m pretty passionate about that. I feel like you’ve got a Judiciary and Intelligence Committee that are very capable of doing that,” Comer said. “I’m not a big select committee or special counsel kind of guy.”

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), who is close to both Jordan and Comer, said he believes the two GOP chairs “have the bandwidth” already to run the investigations. And if there’s going to be a select committee, he said, they should both sign off.

“If you’re going to form that kind of committee, I want Jim Jordan to be the chair. Turns out, he’s already the chair of the committee who can go after the weaponization of government,” Armstrong said.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), a Freedom Caucus member who is backing the push for a new panel and hasn’t yet signaled whether he’ll vote for McCarthy, said that the committee would “definitely have to be in coordination with Judiciary and Oversight” but that it would send a “strong signal” about GOP priorities.

“We only have so much time,” Clyde said. “It’s the one thing we can’t make more of.”

House Republicans are fuming over a recent White House move that will slow roll their investigations, but leaders say it doesn’t change their game plan.

While the House GOP has spent weeks detailing its planned investigations into the Biden administration now that the party has a majority, the White House has stayed mostly silent on strategy. That changed Thursday morning, when White House Special Counsel Richard Sauber announced he plans to effectively reset the clock come Jan. 3 and ignore the long list of investigative requests already sent by Republican Reps. James Comer of Kentucky and Jim Jordan of Ohio — the incoming chairs for the Oversight and Judiciary Committees, respectively.

It's an explosive start to a chapter that won’t even officially begin until next week. The relationship between House Republicans and the Biden White House seemed doomed to go sour from the start, but it’s an unmistakable signal that Biden’s administration won’t quietly go along with investigations — some of which it has openly deemed little more than political noise.

“At every turn the Biden White House seeks to obstruct congressional oversight and hide information from the American people,” Comer said in a statement.

House Republicans were quick to clarify that their investigative plans, which have been in the works for months and have included strategy meetings with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, are moving forward regardless of the White House’s position. Comer said in an interview that he had already planned to reissue all of his information requests quickly in the new Congress, including for interviews and documents related to Hunter Biden’s business deals, last year’s Afghanistan withdrawal and the administration’s handling of the pandemic. The White House’s newly articulated position would be little more than a short delay of that process, he noted.

A Jordan spokesperson similarly said Thursday that the White House’s letter wouldn’t change the lawmaker's timeline or strategy for issuing potential subpoenas next year.

And in a further twist of the knife, the Biden White House took unusual inspiration for its newly stated oversight posture: former President Donald Trump. In its letters to Comer and Jordan, the White House counsel’s office cited Trump administration legal opinions that Democrats once derided as extreme and undemocratic.

Former House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) termed the position “the latest in a series of abuses by the Trump administration to operate in a shroud of secrecy.” Even Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, at the time, criticized the Trump White House for construing congressional oversight so narrowly.

A GOP Oversight aide characterized the White House’s stance as an “attempt to delay” that “reveals they are acting in bad faith.” The aide added that “oversight and accountability are coming regardless.”

Meanwhile, Jordan has already sent a slew of letters to the administration outlining documents and interview requests he wants next year as Judiciary Committee chair, warning potential witnesses that while he'd prefer voluntary testimony, he’s willing to use a “compulsory process if necessary.”

The relationship between the Biden administration and a GOP-controlled House was never going to sail smoothly. A majority of Republicans backed attempts to challenge Biden’s 2020 win and have been signposting a sprawl of investigations on everything from the president's son to the coronavirus pandemic and the ongoing border crisis. And the White House, meanwhile, has been staffing up for months to handle the investigative deluge over the next two years.

But the White House's latest opening salvo appears to have touched a nerve among congressional Republicans.

“The Biden White House is used to House Democrats and the media sweeping essential oversight under the rug. In 5 days, a new Republican majority will have the authority and obligation to get answers for the American people,” House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tweeted Thursday.

Jordan, and Judiciary Committee staff, also spent Thursday teeing off on social media against the White House’s strategy and amplifying criticism from other corners of the party.

“The difference in how the ‘media’ covered oversight of Trump Administration and how it will cover oversight of the Biden Administration will be staggering. But it won’t stop us from doing our constitutional duty,” Jordan added in a tweet.

The White House's move is likely to spark accusations of hypocrisy from both sides. Democrats remained mostly silent on the announcement Thursday, after expressing indignation at the Trump administration's move years ago. And despite the current GOP fury, Jordan himself refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the Jan. 6 committee this term.

Additionally, White House aides, in response to GOP criticism that officials first aired their plans with the media and not with Republicans directly, were also quick to point out that Jordan and Comer went on Fox News earlier this year to announce a letter they sent as part of their coronavirus “origins” probe.

It might be the White House's most controversial move that will delay GOP investigations, but it's hardly the first.

Comer wants the Treasury Department to turn over so-called suspicious activity reports, known as SARs, related to Hunter Biden as part of the GOP investigation into his business deals. But the administration has batted down those requests while Republicans were in the minority, noting that their policy requires that a committee chair or a majority of the members on a panel OK a request for the reports, which are filed by financial institutions.

And Sauber, in his letter to Comer and Jordan, pointed to a similar distinction in Congress’ own rules, in addition to the Trump-era rationale, to make the case that the GOP requests so far don’t have teeth.

“Congress has not delegated such [oversight] authority to individual members of Congress who are not committee chairmen, and the House has not done so under its current Rules,” Sauber wrote.

But the 2017 stance sparked outrage from House Democrats, who were then in the minority.

“We cannot do our jobs if the Trump administration adopts this unprecedented new policy of refusing to provide any information to Congress unless a request is backed by the implicit threat of a subpoena,” Cummings said at the time.

The White House’s position, in theory, would disadvantage House Democrats in the new term as they fall back into the minority, unless they could get a GOP chair to bless their investigative requests. Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary panels are expected to spearhead the party’s day-to-day defense against the GOP investigations.

“The Democrats should be offended by that [letter], but considering they haven’t requested any information pertaining to oversight over the past two years, I don’t see them asking for anything over the next two years,” Comer said.

Kyle Cheney contributed to this report. 

Senate Democrats finally have subpoena power, and they’re ready to use it.

Though their target list is still under discussion, Democrats in the upper chamber have made clear that they intend to use their investigative authority — newly acquired thanks to their functional 51st Senate seat — as a counterpoint to House GOP probes of Hunter Biden’s business dealings and the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan.

They’re also mulling picking up the baton from House Democrats on two fights: scrutinizing the oil industry’s culpability for climate change and obtaining former President Donald Trump’s tax returns, according to senators.

The House has been the epicenter of investigations in the current Congress given the deadlocked Senate, but that spotlight will be shared starting next year. Democrats’ loss of the House has created an investigative “vacuum” that party senators intend to fill, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), an investigative-minded former prosecutor and senior Judiciary Committee member.

“There are very definitely investigations that I think now will be possible,” Blumenthal said, referring to Democrats’ inability to issue subpoenas in the current 50-50 Senate because Republicans could block them at the evenly divided committee level.

Democrats’ Senate pickup is welcome news for a party that had agonized over how to push back on a spate of planned House GOP investigations into everything from the president’s son to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan to the FBI and Justice Department. For the moment, President Joe Biden’s party is brushing off Republican efforts. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated last week that oversight isn’t just about the executive branch, but also the private sector.

A senator set to lead that sort of private-sector oversight — Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), incoming chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — said it was “premature” to discuss subpoenas but outlined a laundry list of areas he plans to investigate next year.

“We’re talking about incredible greed in the pharmaceutical industry, very high prices. We’re paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare, we’re talking about union busting. … I think those are issues the American people want us to look at,” he said.

But that doesn't mean Senate Democrats are going to immediately start firing off subpoenas. Its 51-49 majority has given the party more power, but that authority remains fragile — a fact underscored by Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s decision to become an independent. Sinema is expected to keep her committee assignments, importantly, with Democrats and Schumer seeking to tamp down the ramifications for their majority by vowing that Democrats would still be able to “exercise our subpoena power.”

However, they'll have to carefully navigate aggressive investigations for another reason: a difficult 2024 Senate map. Several of their seats in red and purple territory are up next term, where partisan probes may not pay political dividends.

Among those up for reelection, besides Sinema, are Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who chair the energy, veterans' affairs and banking committees, respectively. And all hail from states that voted for Trump in 2020, two by overwhelming margins.

Brown shrugged off a question about new investigative priorities once he gets boosted committee powers: “Nothing jumps to mind, but perhaps.”

Despite past intra-party criticism of the Biden administration, from a rule to decrease methane emissions to the botched pullout from Afghanistan, Democrats are less than keen on conducting oversight on the current head of the executive branch. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who is poised to chair the Budget Committee, said he “wouldn’t be surprised” if there were members within the conference who thought that anything negative about the administration “was kryptonite.”

But Democrats are already leaving a trail of bread crumbs pointing to what they could dig into next year, likely picking up long-awaited threads that the 50-50 Senate has prevented them from pursuing.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chair of the Finance Committee, and outgoing House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) are asking for records related to Trump-son-in-law Jared Kushner’s family business. And in line with Schumer’s corporate focus, Wyden sent a letter last week to Amgen, a biotech company, as part of a probe into pharmaceutical companies' compliance with tax laws.

Wyden pointed to the Kushner-related effort as a sign that Democrats “believe in strong oversight” and signaled that he’s also interested in Trump’s tax returns. But he sidestepped committing to using subpoenas next year.

“All the options are on the table,” Wyden said. “But as my wife always says, ‘you know there’s some history here.’ I wrote the first Trump-related tax bill.”

Whitehouse, one of the caucus’ most outspoken voices on climate change, pointed to Rep. Ro Khanna’s (D-Calif.) investigation into whether fossil-fuel companies had been misleading and spreading misinformation on the impact of climate change as an example of an area Senate Democrats could take over next year.

“I think it can be quite busy and quite productive,” Whitehouse said about the forthcoming Democratic investigations.

Judiciary Committee Democrats have also signaled an interest in investigating decisions made by the Trump-era DOJ. They’ve previously signaled that they wanted to talk to former Attorneys General Bill Barr and Jeff Sessions, a goal they had to temporarily abandon in the 50-50 Senate.

And Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the homeland security and governmental affairs panel chair, said Democrats are still mulling how to handle House Republicans' Hunter Biden investigation — a topic Democratic senators have had to navigate before. In the run-up to the 2020 election, Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) teamed up to investigate the Biden family, issuing subpoenas through a Senate oversight panel over Democratic objections.

That probe sparked warnings from their Republican colleagues about inadvertently spreading Russian misinformation heading into the presidential balloting.

“We are in the process right now of putting together some of the investigations we’re going to do for the next two years,” Peters said, adding that the House GOP's Hunter Biden investigation was one issue that was top of mind "when we think about our calendar.”

House conservatives want their party to go big on impeachment next year. Across the Capitol, Senate Republicans on their would-be jury are not ready to convict.

While House GOP leaders feel intense pressure from their Donald Trump-aligned base and colleagues to impeach President Joe Biden or a top member of his Cabinet, many of the party’s senators want nothing to do with it. In fact, some Republican senators are openly signaling that even if impeachment managed to squeak through the House, it would quickly die in their chamber — and not just at the hands of the Democratic majority.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a close ally of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said he “hadn’t really given any thought” to impeaching Biden or a Cabinet official like Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, whom Kevin McCarthy singled out last month as a primary target of future House investigations. Cornyn said he hasn’t seen any actions that meet the bar for an impeachable offense: “Not really, no.”

And Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, the only GOP senator to twice convict former President Trump, put it more bluntly: “Someone has to commit a high crime or misdemeanor for that to be a valid inquiry. I haven’t seen any accusation of that nature whatsoever. There are a lot of things I disagree with … but that doesn’t rise to impeachment.”

Cooling their counterparts’ impeachment fever is just one of many tricky tasks facing the Senate GOP over the next two years in its relationship with an incoming House majority where pro-Trump conservatives often shout the loudest. While those House Republicans look to ding Biden’s administration after six years trapped in the minority, the party’s senators are picking battles more carefully.

A big reason behind the different strategies: House Republicans will hold the party's biggest megaphone on Capitol Hill heading into 2024, with some of their own GOP centrists already feeling heartburn — and hearing Democratic warnings — that pursuing impeachment will backfire in the next election.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), McConnell’s No. 2, subtly urged House Republicans to focus on specific investigative targets that could help the party put pressure on Democrats. He added that the border was a “debacle” and that Mayorkas should be called in for “oversight,” but underscored that what specific actions should spin out of such investigations was not yet clear.

“I think there is a legitimate need for oversight … but, I mean, I think it needs to be focused on some specific areas,” Thune said. When asked about the possibility of impeaching Biden himself, Thune repeated that they should outline certain investigative targets and "see if we can’t pressure the Democrats into working with us on a few things.”

It's an ongoing pattern for Republican Senate leaders, who have mostly tried to avoid the pitfalls of Trump-related probes. While House GOP leadership has leaned hard into publicly pushing back on the Democratic-run panel investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, their Senate counterparts have largely sidestepped tangling with the select committee.

Meanwhile, McCarthy called on Mayorkas to resign or face possible impeachment during a trip to the border last month. The Californian first opened the door to impeaching the Homeland Security secretary earlier this year, and his most recent remarks dovetail with his efforts to lock down support from conservatives who have threatened to oppose his speakership bid.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who lost to McCarthy for the conference's speakership nomination last month, has introduced a resolution to impeach Mayorkas that's supported by several of the minority leader’s most vocal critics.

Spokespeople for McConnell, who teed off on the administration’s border policy from the floor Monday, didn’t respond to a question about impeaching Mayorkas. The GOP leader also quashed calls to impeach Biden last year that were sparked by a widely criticized Afghanistan withdrawal.

Because Senate Republicans will be stuck in the minority for at least the next two years, they can't do much to contribute to House GOP investigations. And for some GOP senators, questions about their counterparts’ impeachment dreams elicit responses that put a new spin on M.C. Hammer's 1990 hit: They can't, and won't, touch this.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, one of the seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump last year, said with a laugh that she was “not going to get into the machinations of the House.”

“That’s not something I’ve heard discussed over here,” Collins said about impeaching Biden or Mayorkas.

And Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, brushed off questions about if he supports a Biden or Mayorkas impeachment: “I can’t do anything about what the House does.”

It was always a long shot that the Senate would convict in any impeachment trial next Congress, given it would require 67 votes in favor. No presidents have been found guilty and the one Cabinet official who was the subject of an impeachment trial was acquitted. But House Republicans' roughly five-seat margin next year means that dreams of even passing an impeachment of Biden or his top lieutenants through their own chamber might have already died on the vine.

Still, the staunchest pro-impeachment House Republicans aren't deterred by the reality that their efforts would ultimately fail across the Capitol — or even alienate some in their own party. They see it as their business to take on the Biden administration, and winning the majority means business is about to pick up.

“I would say back to them: 'Then why enforce any laws? Why do anything?' I think we always have to hold people accountable. We have to do our job in the House, regardless of what is going to happen in the Senate,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has pushed impeaching Biden since he took office.

And Greene's camp does have some Senate Republicans in its corner when it comes to impeaching Mayorkas. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who was an impeachment manager against former President Bill Clinton, sent a letter to Mayorkas arguing that his actions, if not corrected, could provide “grounds for impeachment.”

In addition, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) accused Mayorkas of having “misled” him and members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and being “unresponsive.” He added in a brief interview that “I think an impeachment there is probably warranted" and could be used to get information from the agency.

But asked about the prospect of impeaching Biden, Hawley, who has disavowed any interest in a run of his own in two years, pointed to the 2024 election as the better venue.

“You know, I’m not a fan of the president. … But impeaching a president is a very, very, very high bar,” he said. “The American people, pretty soon here, are going to have a chance to weigh in again.”

Some Republicans had eagerly awaited their chance to impeach President Joe Biden and members of his Cabinet. It'll be a taller order than they expected.

Jim Jordan made his name on Capitol Hill by nudging his own party from the right while pushing Democrats even harder. He may well return to that dynamic next year in a GOP-controlled House.

The eight-term Ohio Republican is on the brink of leadership-blessed power in a Republican majority, set to wield the Judiciary Committee’s powerful mallet should the GOP flip the House in November, as is likely. Jordan’s ascension will mark a new pinnacle not only for himself but for the pro-Trump Freedom Caucus — empowering its last original co-founder still in Congress to handle impeachments, immigration and more.

That perch will give him new chances to wage bare-knuckle political combat against Democrats, with the Biden White House already preparing aggressive pushback to nascent House Republican investigations. But it will also give Jordan an opening to embrace his old-school Freedom Caucus self by choosing issues where his cachet with conservative and younger members paired with an off-the-Hill influence can help him move the party in his more Trumpian direction.

And that influence is real: Interviews with nearly a dozen lawmakers underscore that while other House GOP leaders may run afoul of the party’s base, Jordan continues to wield unparalleled sway within it. His cred within the Trump world and conservative media give him tools to — when and if he wants — undercut the leadership colleagues who’ve elevated him as he backed them from the minority.

In an interview with POLITICO, Jordan suggested that he's not afraid to use his influence to push his own fellow Republicans, sketching out where he wants to see change in a GOP-controlled House.

Jordan mapped out “four big moments” in 2023 where he sees opportunities for Republicans to legislatively fight the political riptide (namely, a Democratic White House and possibly Senate) that's likely to wash away much of their recently rolled-out Commitment to America agenda: the debt ceiling, surveillance reform, funding the government and the farm bill.

“The old line is, the guy who takes you to the Super Bowl gets to coach the game," Jordan said."So I think if we win, I think [Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy] is going to be the speaker. Then it's important we do what we said we were gonna do, and do what the American people elected us to do."

Each of the four areas Jordan outlined for Republicans to dig in on could also spotlight divisions among them. The House GOP has balked at this Congress' Mitch McConnell-negotiated deals on the debt ceiling and government funding; a partially Trump-fueled schism helped sink surveillance proposals in 2020; and under then-Speaker Paul Ryan, conservatives helped take down a farm bill in 2018.

So if Jordan's invocation of those four topics gives leadership any heartburn, it's not without precedent. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), an ally of the Ohioan, pointed to the dichotomy he embodies by describing Jordan as an “enthusiastic supporter” of McCarthy and someone who will “be helpful in holding the conference’s feet to the fire.”

“I think he is the change agent,” Bishop said, summing up Jordan’s mantra as de-emphasizing "antagonism with leadership” while helping “facilitate positive change.” Then Bishop attached a leadership-sized warning shot: “Half measures or business as usual are not going to be acceptable.”

Jordan, first elected in 2006, is no stranger to antagonizing leaders of both parties. He co-founded the House Freedom Caucus in 2015, got labeled a “legislative terrorist” by John Boehner, one of the two GOP speakers he helped run off, and later unsuccessfully challenged McCarthy for minority leader. Since then, he's become more of an inside-the-tent player as the conference shifts his way, helping lead the GOP defense against Trump’s two impeachments and the Jan. 6 select committee.

“I do think that’s where Jim has been making his presence known and impacting the overall direction of the conference,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas).

That approach has left Democrats all but ready to throw salt over their shoulder when Jordan draws near, viewing him as the quintessential Donald Trump acolyte. Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked him from the Jan. 6 committee, and Democrats have contrasted his treatment of Trump probes with his actions during the Benghazi probe to allege that he spreads misinformation.

Democrats see Jordan’s remarks at CPAC earlier this year — where he said that GOP investigations would help “frame up the 2024 race” and that Republicans “need to make sure that [Trump] wins” another term — as indicative of how he would run the committee.

“Jim sort of had several roles: You know, point man for spreading right wing poison. You know, cheap underminer of prominent Democrats, character assassin," said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who is running to lead Democrats on the Oversight Committee next year.

"Those are his skill sets that he would bring to whatever the status of the Republicans is in the new Congress," Connolly added. "But legislating, working across the aisle, are not among those skills."

They’ll have plenty of chances to clash again. Jordan is poised to lead Republicans into some of the next Congress' most politically divisive investigations — particularly a broad look at the Justice Department and FBI that will sweep in the search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, possibly getting paired with a bid to curtail DOJ and the FBI through government funding bills.

Bishop predicted that Jordan would want to make “serious reforms” to both agencies, including looking at “structural change” to the FBI.

And GOP leaders are giving Jordan a leading role in potential impeachments next Congress, a lane that's laden with potholes. Democrats are gearing up to decry any of Jordan's moves as overreach and revenge politics after two Trump impeachments, and not all of his GOP colleagues are on board yet.

Jordan, and many on his committee, already have one possible impeachment target in Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Judiciary Republicans are already in talks over what to do about Mayorkas' handling of the southern border, Jordan said. Meanwhile, Democrats are preemptively bristling over the idea, arguing that it is unprecedented and shows the GOP isn’t serious about addressing immigration.

Importantly, with the midterms still three weeks away, Jordan and McCarthy are still gliding along in a relationship that Republicans credit with bringing the conference’s often-fractious right flank deeper into the fold. The two are actively engaged on future strategy, and coordinating with Oversight chair-in-waiting Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on GOP investigations.

"They’ll be a good influence for the whole conference," said Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), a member of House leadership who sits on the Judiciary panel. "I think Kevin really respects Jim's voice and the respect that he has from his colleagues. And so I think he'll put a lot of weight into what he says and thinks.”

Jordan praised McCarthy for having “given opportunities” to Freedom Caucus members and engaged “more of the spectrum of the conference," predicting that “you'll see more of that” next year.

That isn’t to say everyone is sold. Using a football analogy, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) compared the likelihood that McCarthy will formally outrank Jordan next year to “watching Tom Brady sit on the bench, while Drew Bledsoe mismanages the offense.”

And Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a former Freedom Caucus chair, noted that the dynamics that influence Jordan's bond with his leaders will look different in the majority, where McCarthy will need to wrangle a conference that tries divided government with the Biden administration.

"I'm always a big believer that when you're in the minority, it's easier to be conservative than when you're in the majority," Biggs said. "We'll have to see how it is going forward.”

Olivia Beavers and Caitlin Emma contributed to this report. 

Top House Republicans are crafting a strategy to pummel Joe Biden and his Cabinet with investigations — and potential impeachments — next year after winning the majority.

Their right flank may yet wreck the whole plan.

Members of GOP leadership and committee chairs-in-waiting are months into the coordination of headline-grabbing probes to launch should they flip the House this fall, as is likely. At the same time, neither those Republicans nor Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are publicly weighing in on the possibility of a Biden impeachment — which would consume the country and trigger a backlash with unpredictable fallout for the party.

“I think that’s a question for the conference,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who typically doesn't shy away from rhetorical bomb-throwing and just last year called for the president to resign, said of impeaching Biden in the next Congress.

Talk like that is doing little to prevent some of the conference's biggest Trump acolytes from charging ahead with early vows to file impeachment articles even if it risks muddying the party’s messaging. It’s hardly the first time some members have zigged while their colleagues zag, but the rhetorical dissonance comes as party leaders are pressing for unity ahead of November.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and other firebrands have left a trail of breadcrumbs, filing 14 impeachment resolutions since early 2021 that signpost conservatives’ biggest targets if Republicans flip the House. Biden, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Attorney General Merrick Garland are at the top of the list.

Asked about impeaching Biden, Greene said that “I think that my colleagues will move to my position because that’s how their voters feel,” adding that she would “absolutely” be introducing articles next year.

In the president's orbit, Democrats predict that House Republicans are on track for an overreach that will cause them painful blowback in 2024. One senior Democratic aide, addressing McCarthy on condition of anonymity, warned that a narrow GOP majority would embolden his right flank to his peril: “Those members will have his balls in such a vice grip that when they say 'jump', he’ll say 'how high', and it’ll be too late before he realizes the fall will kill them.”

But the calls for caution are also coming from inside the House, where some Republicans warn against getting pulled down a political rabbit hole with no chance of booting Biden from office.

“I hope we don’t" impeach Biden, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said. "I would argue we all know, at the end of the day, there’s not going to be a conviction in the Senate. It just injects poison into the system, causes a lot of turmoil."

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who's expected to lead the Oversight Committee should Republicans take the chamber, demurred recently when asked about a presidential impeachment.

“That will be a decision that Kevin McCarthy will have to make in communication with Jim Jordan,” Comer said.

During a Fox News appearance in August, he forecast that a GOP House would be “eager to try to impeach" Biden.

Asked lately about internal pressure to impeach Biden, however, Comer simply quipped: “I’m not under pressure, because that’s gonna be McCarthy’s job.”

Congressional leaders have typically treated presidential impeachments warily. Trump was only the third president ever impeached by the House. Chatter among Republicans about impeachment during the tea-party-fueled opposition to President Barack Obama never moved forward.

Asked recently about the prospect of impeaching Biden, McCarthy sidestepped: “We just went through four years of watching a political impeachment," he told reporters. "We will uphold the law. We will not play politics with it."

Nonetheless, internal party politics are bound to propel a vocal impeachment push if the GOP wins the House next month. Nearly 140 sitting House Republicans supported challenges to Biden’s 2020 victory that were fueled by baseless Trump-backed claims of widespread voter fraud, and still more GOP backers of those unfounded claims are poised to join Congress next year.

But base fervor doesn't quite translate to votes, and impeaching Biden already appears close to out of reach for the House GOP. Of the Biden impeachment resolutions introduced since January 2021, the most support any counts is eight members. While those numbers could grow next year should Republicans take the majority, a broad swath of moderates, more pragmatic-minded members and even old-school conservatives would still need to be swayed.

Republicans view Mayorkas as a more likely impeachment target than Biden himself, though they would still need to convince leadership and moderates to get on board. Notably, McCarthy opened the door during a recent trip to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Mayorkas "has not lived up to his oath,” said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), who demurred when asked about impeaching Biden.

Jordan, whose committee has purview over impeachments, said that the matter was up to members but that Mayorkas "deserves it" given his handling of the southern border. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said he would also file a Mayorkas impeachment resolution next year, predicting “plentiful” support from GOP colleagues.

Democrats have bristled over the GOP attacks against Mayorkas, warning that the party's immigration rhetoric veers toward xenophobic. A person close to the administration accused Republicans of "launching politically motivated publicity stunts" rather than wanting to address border-related challenges.

But impeachment strategy isn't the only oversight schism already cutting through the conference as it tries to lay the groundwork for its first majority since 2018.

Republicans need to decide if they will form a select committee for what would essentially be a Trump-free Jan. 6 investigation, as some have called for. The current Democratic-run Jan. 6 panel will automatically disband in early January, but Republicans could revive it to pursue their own targets, including reviewing the select committee's finances.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), a Trump ally with a penchant for rattling leadership, said he’s had recent conversations with Republicans about the possible idea. But it's also drawing skepticism from senior Republicans and McCarthy hasn’t backed it.

Another option for House Republicans seeking to erase Trump from the narrative of Jan. 6 failures would be using the Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over elections and Capitol security, to launch an investigation next year. Retiring Illinois Rep. Rodney Davis, now the panel's top Republican, and aspiring Administration successor Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) have both proposed that idea.

“I don't know why you would need a select committee. The Senate didn't need a select committee to do their job,” Davis said.

Then there's a likely House GOP probe of Hunter Biden's overseas business dealings. Gaetz raised eyebrows within the conference recently by meeting with former Trump White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, who is floating himself as a potential staff director next year for an investigation of the First Son.

Gaetz said he met with Gorka “to discuss general strategy for a Republican expected majority, and I wanted his perspective on whether or not he would advise ... one committee owning the Hunter Biden stuff." The Floridian, who praised Comer's work, said a potential select committee is part of discussions he's having.

Comer, whose panel is expected to take the lead on a probe of the president's son, shot down the notion of a select committee. And if one does take shape, a House Republican who spoke candidly on condition of anonymity said bluntly that Gaetz "will never lead that."

The possible future Oversight chair also counseled his colleagues against letting themselves get pulled into the investigative weeds.

"We’ll request information, we’ll dig, we’ll do anything," Comer said. "But I’m not putting my name on anything that’s not factual.”

Jamie Raskin’s got the investigative chops and national profile to get the job he wants next year. Except he’s facing a uniquely congressional challenge: At nearly 60 years old, he might be too junior.

The Maryland Democrat, a constitutional law expert who’s reached a national audience as a Donald Trump impeachment manager and a Jan. 6 select committee member, hopes to snag his party’s top spot on the influential House Oversight Committee next year. He’s running against 72-year-old Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and 67-year-old Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), both of whom outrank him on the panel.

Democrats privately warn that it’s too early to determine a frontrunner, with the race expected to extend until the end of the year. But there’s early jockeying behind the scenes; members got their preferences subtly vetted on the sidelines of House Democrats’ first closed-door caucus meeting since July, one attendee told POLITICO.

Running to lead his party on Oversight is a gamble for Raskin, cutting against the caucus’ penchant for doling out plum positions according to seniority. But amid the potential for a broader post-election shakeup in Democratic leadership — following years of lawmakers’ private kvetching about the inability to move up as octogenarians held onto the top positions — Raskin could find his bid boosted as an array of younger members vault up the ranks.

“We have a wonderful predicament of three great folks running for this, but Jamie’s special," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who is whipping for Raskin, said in a brief interview. He called the Marylander "the entire package."

Each of the three Democrats elbowing for the top spot on the committee — which came open after the current chair, 76-year-old Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) lost her primary — have also begun putting together their own whip teams, looking to shore up early support among their colleagues. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who beat Maloney in a hard-fought primary, is among those whipping for Raskin.

Each camp has their work cut out for them. Maloney isn’t planning to endorse, she told POLITICO, and several members of the Oversight Committee haven’t yet backed a contender. The November election could also shake up the core group of Democrats who will make recommendations on who gets the spot.

Raskin said in an interview that he respects the “principle of seniority” but that assuming the most senior member should automatically be chair is a “rebuttable presumption." That should be true “unless there is a compelling reason to move in another direction," he added.

“I think that this will be a judgment of the caucus about the character of the times that we’re in and whose particular experience and preparation is most indicated by the times,” Raskin added.

Connolly and Lynch both entered the race before Raskin. While they are more senior on the committee and highlighted it when they announced their bids, they're not campaigning on that as their top asset.

Raskin, Lynch and Connolly are each subcommittee chairs — overseeing Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; National Security; and Government Operations, respectively — and their current posts highlight some of the different focuses they would bring to the full committee.

Lynch, for example, said he wants to prioritize voting reforms next year and stressed his experience with hands-on investigations. He's led congressional trips to eastern Europe and the Ukrainian border to reinforce congressional support for Kyiv, pairing those visits with hearings and information requests on Russia.

“I think getting on the ground and helping members understand … that function of the committee, which is the heart and soul of its operation, is something I probably have an advantage in,” Lynch said, who described the race as a “jump ball."

Asked about being the most senior Democrat on the panel who's running for the top spot, Lynch said he thought seniority was “a factor” but “I don’t think it’s the single most important factor. It has been in the past, but I don’t know that it is now.”

Connolly said he thought Raskin had done a “terrific job” with his work on the Jan. 6 select committee, but contended that Oversight had a “slightly different mission.”

“We deal with the nuts and bolts of government. And it’s very granular oversight that may seem obscure, but often those issues are hinges to much bigger things,” Connolly, whose state has a substantial number of government workers, said in a brief interview.

Connolly previously lost to Maloney in 2019's race for the top spot on the Oversight Committee. Lynch also ran that year but dropped out before the caucus voted. Among those backing Connolly include Foreign Affairs Chair Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Reps. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.), while Lynch pointed to Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Reps. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) as some of those supporting him.

Raskin joined the House in 2017, Connolly in 2009 and Lynch in 2001. But Raskin has had more time in the national spotlight more than his opponents, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has handed him some of the most politically sensitive assignments in recent years.

Pelosi named Raskin the lead impeachment manager for Trump’s second trial, which came just weeks after a mob of the former president’s supporters stormed the Capitol and disrupted the formal counting of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College win. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.), another Raskin whip, said his effectiveness in that position "impressed" her.

Months later, Pelosi tapped Raskin for the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, a high-profile perch that's found him and eight other panel member unleashing a steady stream of bombshells stemming from Trump-backed attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

“Becoming Oversight and Government Reform chair embodies the breadth of his work. He's not just an impeachment manager. He’s not just a member of the 1/6 committee. He is somebody who has educated all of us in this country about our democracy, our Constitution,” said Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), who has been talking to members on Raskin’s behalf.

If Democrats lose the House, as expected, whoever succeeds Maloney would be the ranking member — and be on the vanguard of countering GOP probes on everything ranging from Hunter Biden's business dealings to the White House's handling of the pandemic. Raskin, in his own letter to his colleagues last month, noted that the party was “still in the fight of our lives to defend American constitutional democracy.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) — while stressing she spoke for herself and not the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which she chairs — said she was “very supportive” of Raskin.

“I think he would be an incredible chair either in the majority, where we have a lot of oversight to do, or … if we were in the minority he would be a fantastic defender of democracy,” Jayapal said, adding that Raskin has “so much respect across the caucus.”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is also backing Raskin, said his work on impeachment and the Jan. 6 panel give him a “moral authority” that he could bring to the caucus’ top spot on Oversight.

“I think people see, in Jamie’s case, that he would be so perfect for the role that he has a chance to overcome the institutional preference for seniority,” Khanna said.

Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.