GOP infighting and indecision is already threatening to disintegrate the border deal, even before Senate negotiators release the long-awaited bill text.

As senators returned for a critical two-week sprint in D.C. before a lengthy recess, Republicans are starting to doubt whether the agreement — which would be tied to billions in foreign aid — can pass their chamber. GOP leaders first set out to find a compromise that could win a majority of Republican senators over, but that's only grown more challenging as conservatives, Speaker Mike Johnson and former President Donald Trump hammer the deal.

Asked if the agreement appears to be on a path toward passing the Senate, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) replied: “It certainly doesn’t seem like it.”

“There are a number of our members who say, ‘Well, I'll join a majority of the Republicans but if it doesn't enjoy that sort of support, then count me out,'” Cornyn said in an interview. “The whole idea of passing something that the House won't even take up is another challenge."

There are two main reasons for the growing questions about the bill’s future: Trump's attacks and Johnson's vows not to take it up. And the two seem related; Johnson said Tuesday he had talked to Trump about the issue “at length” though he denied they are opposing it for political reasons.

It’s a frustrating nadir for a senators in both parties, who have spent more than three months trying to connect an immigration and border deal with billions in Ukraine funding. Republicans, including Johnson, explicitly demanded that Ukraine funding can’t move before border security policies. Now, it seems they've cooled on any bipartisan deal at all, and are instead demanding that Biden use his existing executive powers to secure the border.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said that Johnson is trying to kill the bill in the Senate so he doesn’t have to deal with his own complicated politics.

“He would probably love for this to die in this Senate so that he doesn't have to answer to his members who want Ukraine funding," Murphy said.

And Johnson’s position has a real effect on Senate Republicans, who may need to provide a dozen or more votes just to clear the 60-vote threshold — depending on how many Democrats defect. But it needs more GOP votes than that for any hope of moving the House.

Those dynamics have raised a persistent and frustrating question among some plugged-in Republicans: Will this even come to the Senate floor?

“The very people who demanded that we have something on the border as part of the supplemental, suddenly all these months later say they don't want something on the border,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who hasn't committed to voting either way. “The fact, by the way, that the House may not take it up even if we do pass it. That’s not irrelevant. Why would a bunch of us spend political capital on a cause that can’t pass?”

Cramer praised Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) for leading negotiations on a deal and keeping the conference informed, lamenting that “now a bunch of Republican senators are throwing him under the bus because it’s more convenient politically than explaining the merits of it.”

Johnson and conservatives have criticized the agreement for not automatically kicking in the border shutdown authorities until migrant encounters crest an average of 5,000 per day. Meanwhile, the text of the bill is still under wraps, allowing the party's right flank to continuously rile up the base by speculating the legislation will only be a boon to Democrats.

Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) were among the senators on Tuesday criticizing the agreement and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s leadership. McConnell appointed Lankford to lead the Republican negotiations.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) indicated that Russia could be behind some of the messaging against the bill: “I suspect that a lot of the internet rumors are very well coming from overseas, where they would love to see this shut down because some people would rather not see funding for Ukraine.”

“You've got a narrative out there that is taking hold, not really founded in facts. But I think at some point unless you're able to win the debate based on the merits of the policy, that the hill is getting steeper,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a Lankford ally.

Several members of GOP leadership were noncommittal on Tuesday about the legislation amid the fierce political crosscurrents, and Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who runs the party’s campaign arm, said he’s heard some “real concerns” from constituents. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said senators are “really anxious” to see the actual text and that she couldn’t divulge her leaning until then.

“People ought to wait and see all the provisions that James [Lankford] has negotiated. And then they’ll realize that it’s an enormous improvement over the current crisis,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Yet even when text comes out, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said it will have “to be public for quite a long time” before it can advance. The Senate is scheduled to go on a two-week recess at the end of next week.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly suggested a vote could take place soon. Meanwhile, a House committee is working to advance articles of impeachment against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who consulted closely with Senate negotiators.

“Are they going to impeach him because people are coming across the border? Then pass the goddamn bill,” said a frustrated Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). “Then you might have some talking points if he doesn’t follow through on it.”

Ursula Perano contributed to this report.

House Democrats are ramping up their criticism of a GOP-led effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ahead of next week’s committee vote.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the Homeland Security panel, sent a letter to Committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.), accusing him of breaking House precedent and denying Mayorkas due process as the chair moved toward marking up articles of impeachment.

The letter, obtained exclusively by POLITICO, underscores how Democrats are likely to respond during next week’s committee vote and as Republicans move toward a floor vote as soon as the week of Feb. 5, on what would be a historic recommendation to oust a Cabinet secretary.

Read the full letter.

“This unserious impeachment is a testament to partisan politics over rules and reason,” Thompson wrote.

“Given the grave importance of impeachment — which you once described as ‘probably the most extreme remedy that our constitution affords for taking someone out of office’ — this Committee should do better. At the very least, it should follow the rules and practices established over more than two centuries of congressional history,” he added.

Thompson, in his letter, laid out several points of contention, including the House not formally authorizing an impeachment inquiry into Mayorkas. Instead, the House voted last year to send an impeachment resolution from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to Green’s committee, which had been doing a months-long investigation into Mayorkas and his handling of the border.

Thompson also accused Republicans, among other things, of violating ethics rules, denying Mayokras the chance to testify and denying Democrats’ hearing request.

Republicans and DHS have gone back-and-forth over Mayorkas’ testimony. Green has accused the secretary of refusing to testify as part of the impeachment investigation and also asked him to submit written testimony as a backup. A DHS spokesperson said earlier this month that Mayorkas had offered to testify publicly, but “the Committee failed to respond to DHS to find a mutually agreeable date.”

The committee is expected to vote to impeach Mayorkas along party lines next week after every Republican on the panel released a joint statement backing the step. Republicans will then need to work over a handful of skeptical members within their own ranks, given their razor-thin, two-vote majority on the floor.

“After our nearly year-long investigation and subsequent impeachment proceedings, and having exhausted all other options to hold him accountable, it is unmistakably clear to all of us — and to the American people — that Congress must exercise its constitutional duty and impeach Secretary Mayorkas,” Republicans on the panel said in a joint statement.

Senate Republicans won’t get the free-for-all GOP presidential primary they predicted (or hoped for). Some still aren’t ready for it to be over.

As the primary boils down to former President Donald Trump against former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, some still-on-the-fence Republicans said Monday that Haley should keep going and give the party a choice against Trump. Haley has no official Senate endorsements while Trump has 27 — more than half the conference — but that doesn’t mean she lacks fans.

“She’s great … and I’m really proud of her. I think it’s good to have that discussion and highlight the different candidates. So, I’d love to see her stay in,” said Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), the No. 4 GOP leader, who is officially neutral even after Trump won her state's caucus.

Haley’s showing in New Hampshire's Tuesday primary will cast a shadow the following weeks leading up to South Carolina, with one question on most Republican minds: Is there any appetite for a one-on-one primary battle with Trump, or is the whole thing over already? There are 22 unaffiliated GOP senators, ranging from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to rank-and-file members. If Haley is crushed, some of them will are likely to swing around to Trump quickly.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she hopes Haley will stay in the race, “but obviously it’s going to depend on what the margin is tomorrow ... I hope she does very well.” Collins, who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, stayed neutral in the 2024 primary because she had many friends in the race at the outset.

“They’ve got to look at the data and look at the path and make the decision that’s right for her,” unaligned Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said of Haley. “Statistically, it’s a steep hill. I have tremendous respect for Nikki. She’d make a good president.”

A couple other senators, Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota and Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer simply said they needed to see what happens in New Hampshire before commenting. Another neutral senator said it’s pretty much over either way.

“The handwriting is on the wall,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who said he will support the eventual GOP nominee. “The sooner we can unify behind a single candidate the better our chances of beating President Biden, which I think is the ultimate objective.”

Even some of those who desperately want to beat Trump aren’t seeing much of a path. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said that Haley has "run a very effective campaign, but what was once a long shot has become a very long shot.”

And what about an endorsement from New Hampshire's 2012 primary winner? “I’m not going to curse her with that pronouncement,” Romney said. “But I won’t be supporting President Trump.”

Rep. Nancy Mace on Monday endorsed former President Donald Trump's bid to return to the White House, the latest chapter in her series of conflicting statements about the former president.

"I don’t see eye to eye perfectly with any candidate. And until now I’ve stayed out of it. But the time has come to unite behind our nominee," she said in a post on X. "To be honest, it’s been a complete shit show since he left the White House."

That's a marked difference from how the South Carolina Republican spoke about Trump after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, though her stance had clearly started to soften in the years since. Here's a timeline of Mace's evolving relationship with the former president:

Jan. 7, 2021, after the attack on the Capitol: Mace took to television to say of Trump: “everything that he’s worked for ... all of that — his entire legacy — was wiped out yesterday. We’ve got to start over.”

Jan. 13, 2021: Mace votes to acquit Trump for the events of Jan. 6 but says in a floor speech: "I believe we need to hold the president accountable. I hold him accountable for the events that transpired for the attack on our Capitol."

Jan. 17, 2021 on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We need to rebuild the Republican Party. We need to rebuild our country. And I am counting on my colleagues to join us, to be that new voice for the Republican Party to lead us out of the crisis going forward because our country is counting on us."

Feb. 9, 2022: Trump endorses Mace's primary rival, Katie Arrington, in the GOP primary for her House seat. In a statement, he calls Mace “an absolutely terrible candidate” who has been “disloyal" to Republicans.

Feb. 10, 2022: Mace appears in front of Trump Tower in New York to seek his support, despite him endorsing her rival just the day before. "I was one of his earliest supporters," she said.

June 14, 2022: Mace defeats Arrington for the Republican nomination despite Trump's endorsement of her rival. She goes on to win another term in November.

June 11, 2023: Mace hit the Biden Justice Department for indicting Trump over his handling of classified documents, saying "whether you agree with Donald Trump politically or not, most of America sees this for what it is, as weaponizing the executive branch to take out your political enemies.”

June 21, 2023: Mace says of her past relationship with Trump: “I’m willing to bury the hatchet to save the country, and I know President Trump is too."

October 2023: Mace prompts significant GOP blowback after she votes with seven other Republicans to oust then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his post, a surprise defection.

January 22, 2024: The South Carolina Republican endorses the former president just a day ahead of the New Hampshire primary.

A lawyer for Kevin Morris is accusing House Republicans of misrepresenting the Hunter Biden confidant’s closed-door testimony this week.

Morris’s lawyer, in a letter to Oversight Chair James Comer, accused the Kentucky Republican of including “cherry‐picked, out of context and totally misleading descriptions” in his public readout of the private deposition.

“You did not treat Mr. Morris fairly and engaged in your standard practice of partially and inaccurately leaking a witness’s statements. … I demand you now release the entire transcript of Mr. Morris’ interview,” Bryan Sullivan, Morris’s attorney, wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO.

An Oversight Committee GOP spokesperson rebuffed Sullivan’s accusation, predicting that the “transcript will affirm Chairman Comer’s readout of the interview with Kevin Morris,” an attorney who has also advised Hunter Biden.

“The Committee intends to release the transcript soon but we do not have it from the court reporter at this time,” the spokesperson added.

In a lengthy statement released Thursday after the deposition, Comer said Morris was “paying Hunter Biden’s tax liability to insulate then-presidential candidate Joe Biden from political liability.” He added that “since Kevin Morris has kept President Biden’s son financially afloat, he’s had access to the Biden White House and has spoken to President Biden.”

But Sullivan, in his letter, said Comer’s statement is “intentionally misleading” and gives “the impression that there is some sort of deeper relationship with President Biden.”

“Mr. Morris testified that he has only had cursory communications with President Biden at public events like Mr. Biden’s daughter’s wedding, and said basic courtesy things as ‘hello’ and ‘how are you’ and President Biden making comments about Mr. Morris’ unkempt hair style that lasted a few minutes,” Sullivan wrote, adding that Morris also “testified that he has only been to the White House a few times.”

Sullivan also accused Comer of misrepresenting political donations Morris made, details of loans Morris gave to Hunter Biden including using quote marks around the word loan in his public statement, and a previous email Morris had sent about the money

Morris is the latest closed-door interview conducted as part of Republicans’ sweeping impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, which has largely focused on the business deals of his family members. Lawmakers, and staff, from both parties took part in the interview, which is one of several scheduled as Republicans look to wrap up their probe in a matter of weeks.

Republicans voted last year to formalize the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, but still appear short of the votes to actually recommend booting him from office. Though they’ve found evidence of Hunter Biden using his last name to try to bolster his own influence, and poked holes in previous statements by Joe Biden and the White House, they’ve struggled to find direct evidence that actions taken by Joe Biden as president or vice president were meant to benefit his family’s business deals.

Hunter Biden plans to testify behind closed doors as part of House Republicans' sweeping impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden on Feb. 28.

Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) announced the private deposition with the president's son on Thursday, following a week of negotiating with his lawyers. Just last week, Republicans were threatening to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a prior subpoena.

“Hunter Biden will appear before our committees for a deposition on February 28, 2024. His deposition will come after several interviews with Biden family members and associates. We look forward to Hunter Biden’s testimony,” Jordan and Comer said in a statement.

Republicans view Hunter Biden as a key witness in their impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, which has largely focused on his family’s business agreements.

House Republicans have paused their efforts to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress, as they negotiate a new date for a closed-door interview.

The House Rules Committee will no longer tee up a contempt resolution for a floor vote during its meeting on Tuesday, two people familiar with the decision told POLITICO, contrary to Republicans’ previous plans.

A leadership aide familiar with the decision, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, added that “negotiations are now underway for him to comply with the subpoena, so we are holding on the contempt vote while they work to set a date.”

The House was previously expected to vote Thursday on making that referral to the Justice Department. That would have handed the ultimate decision on whether or not the president’s son would face charges over his failure to comply with the House subpoena to U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves. Four individuals have been held in contempt of Congress during the Biden administration, and the Justice Department pursued charges against two of them.

Republicans would need near-total unity in order to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress this week. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) is working remotely until next month as he undergoes treatment for blood cancer. He also told Republicans during a conference call on Sunday night that Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) will be absent this week as he recovers from a car crash.

The vote looked increasingly unlikely after Hunter Biden’s lawyers, in complete reversal of their prior position, alerted GOP investigators on Friday that he would comply if they issued a new subpoena. Republicans originally subpoenaed Hunter Biden last year for a deposition on Dec. 13, which he skipped and countered by demanding a public hearing.

Both GOP investigators and party leadership signaled after the letter that while they would formally keep the contempt vote on the books, their thinking would change if they could reach a deal that resulted in Hunter Biden sitting for a deposition. The House is currently scheduled to leave for a one-week recess on Friday and canceled votes on Tuesday due to inclement weather.

A spokesperson for the Oversight Committee GOP said on Tuesday that they are currently working with Hunter Biden's attorneys to schedule his appearance.

"Negotiations are ongoing this afternoon, and in conjunction with the disruption to member travel and canceling votes, the House Rules Committee isn’t considering the contempt resolution today to give the attorneys additional time to reach an agreement," the spokesperson added.

House Republicans view Hunter Biden as a key witness in their sprawling impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Republicans voted to formalize that inquiry late last year, even as they remain short of the votes to impeach Biden.

The GOP investigation has largely focused on the business deals of Hunter Biden and other family members. While Republicans have found evidence of Hunter Biden using his last name to boost his own influence and poked holes in previous statements by the White House and Joe Biden, they haven’t yet found direct evidence showing actions taken by Joe Biden as president or vice president were meant to benefit his family’s business arrangements.

House Republicans are one step closer to holding Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress after he skipped a closed-door deposition last month.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 23-14, along party lines, to send a resolution and a report recommending the president’s son be held in contempt to the full House. The Oversight Committee is also expected to vote on Wednesday.

It paves the way for a dramatic showdown on the House floor, where Republicans will need near total unity among their two-vote majority to refer the president’s son to the Justice Department. Should they get there, DOJ will ultimately decide if Hunter Biden – who is already facing two criminal cases– will get slapped with new charges.

“He blatantly defied two lawful subpoenas. Hunter Biden’s willful refusal to comply with the committee subpoenas is a criminal act,” Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday.

Hunter Biden also made a brief surprise appearance at the Oversight Committee meeting, prompting GOP anger. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said in the room: "I think he should be hauled off to jail right now." He left as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tried to start questioning him.

Speaker Mike Johnson, asked about the appearance, told reporters that doesn’t change that Hunter Biden hasn’t complied with the GOP’s subpoenas, and that he supports efforts to hold him in contempt. Spokespeople for Johnson didn’t immediately respond to a question on Wednesday about how quickly a vote could be scheduled on a contempt resolution.

House Republicans view Hunter Biden as a top witness in their sweeping impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, which has largely focused on business deals by his family members. GOP investigators are in the final stages of that probe, which has also looked at Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents and the years-long federal investigation into Hunter Biden.

While the House GOP has found evidence of Hunter Biden using his last name to bolster his own influence, and poked holes in previous statements by Joe Biden and the White House they’ve struggled to find clear evidence that proves Joe Biden took actions as president or vice president that were meant to bolster his family’s business deals.

Republicans are starting off the year juggling priorities, including an effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that has gained new momentum after being on the backburner for months. That’s on top of calls to add Attorney General Merrick Garland and Defense Secretary Austin Lloyd to their list of Biden administration officials in line for impeachment.

At the same time, they’ve got a quickly approaching Jan. 19 deadline to avoid a partial government shutdown, with no plan yet for how to avoid it.

Wednesday’s vote comes after Republicans subpoenaed Hunter Biden late last year to meet with congressional investigators on Dec. 13. Instead, he skipped the closed-door interview, speaking briefly to reporters outside the Capitol to defend his father and reiterate that he would be willing to take part in a public hearing.

“Republicans do not want an open process where Americans can see their tactics, expose their baseless inquiry, or hear what I have to say. What are they afraid of? I am here,” Hunter Biden said at the time.

The move angered congressional Republicans, who said they received no heads-up about the move. They had publicly warned that they would pursue contempt if he didn’t appear before the deposition.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers have defended their decision to not comply with the GOP subpoena, arguing that a closed-door hearing would set up the possibility that his testimony would be selectively leaked. His legal team, the White House and congressional Democrats have roundly criticized Republicans for pursuing contempt – reminding them of comments by Comer earlier last year where he appeared open to a public hearing.

“We are here today because the chairman has bizarrely decided to obstruct his own investigation and is now seeking to hold Hunter Biden in contempt after he accepted the chairman’s multiple public offers to come answer the committee’s questions under oath before the American people,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at Wednesday’s Oversight hearing.

White House spokesperson Ian Sams said in a statement that “House Republicans are less than ten days from sparking a partial government shutdown that many of their far-right members are rooting for, but instead of working full-time to avoid it, they are wasting time on political stunts.”

Republicans have since rejected a public hearing, however, unless Hunter Biden first speaks with them behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden is scheduled to appear in court in California on Thursday over federal tax charges. Republicans’ effort to hold him in contempt could force the DOJ to weigh another politically contentious decision.

Congress has held 10 people in contempt since 2008, but only two have faced federal charges, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Congressional investigators spoke with Hunter Biden’s art dealer this week. Republicans are also still working to set up a closed-door interview with Joe Biden’s brother, James Biden, whom they subpoenaed last year.

House Republicans kicked off their push to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday with a new proposed standard for recommending the ouster of a Cabinet official: "gross incompetence."

Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee claim that surging migration on the U.S.-Mexico border shows Mayorkas is in “dereliction of duty,” pointing to record-high crossings in recent months. Democrats have dismissed their effort as a political attack that misuses a congressional tool designed to punish egregious behavior such as criminal activity — but the GOP made clear it sees Mayorkas' management as meeting the standard.

“The constitutional history is overwhelmingly clear on this subject. The Founders designed impeachment not just to remove officials engaged in criminal behavior, but those guilty of such gross incompetence that their conduct had endangered their fellow Americans, betrayed the public trust, or represented a neglect of duty,” Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said.

The GOP's move to impeach Mayorkas without evidence of criminal or other improper activity beyond its policy dispute with him is unprecedented. Republicans argue that Mayorkas is not upholding existing immigration laws, but Democrats counter that the entire affair is designed to appeal to their base in an election year.

"They know their already razor-thin majority is slipping away and think impeaching Secretary Mayorkas, even though there's absolutely no basis for it, will keep them in control of the House," said Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the committee.

While the authority to impeach Cabinet secretaries is clear in the constitution, it has only happened once before in the nation’s history; the House impeached Defense Secretary William Belknap in 1876 over bribery.

Wednesday's hearing was the first of what is expected to be a series of impeachment proceedings in the panel. While Mayorkas has been invited to appear in an open hearing, he has not yet responded to the committee. It is not yet clear what specific charges the House GOP will bring, if or when articles of impeachment are eventually drafted.

The hearing featured top law enforcement officials from Missouri, Montana and Oklahoma, who testified about the impact that the situation at the border is having in their states. It came as Mayorkas remains actively involved in bipartisan Senate negotiations on border and migrant policy changes designed to shake loose a major foreign aid package that's stalled on the Hill.

“Mayorkas is gearing up President Biden’s policies — that’s what a secretary is going to do,” top border negotiator Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told reporters. “So, you can swap secretaries. The policies are going to be exactly the same.”

Lankford’s stance, and his willingness to engage with Mayorkas on border policy, illustrates how little traction the House's impeachment push has in the Senate. The upper chamber is unlikely to remove him from office, if or when the House ever formally votes to impeach. While a handful of Senate Republicans are cheering on the House GOP, more are wary and don’t want the topic landing on their plate.

Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

Gallery owner Georges Bergès told the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday that Hunter Biden knows the identities of the individuals “who purchased roughly 70% of the value of his art,” according to Oversight Republicans.

But that percent, a person familiar with the meeting cautioned, represents approximately three of the 10 buyers who purchased Hunter Biden artwork. Bergès, the individual added, told the committee he did not disclose the identity of any of the buyers to the president’s son, and did not say during the interview that Hunter Biden knew the identity before the sales.

Instead, the individual said, Bergès indicated Hunter Biden knew the identity of one buyer through public reporting and a second because he saw the artwork at the individual’s house. Bergès also confirmed entertainment lawyer Kevin Morris, who has reportedly lent the president's son a significant amount of money, purchased Hunter Biden’s art for $875,000, according to committee Republicans.

During his meeting with lawmakers, Bergès also said he had no contact with the White House about Hunter Biden’s artwork, according to Republicans and the person familiar with the interview.

That disclosure could raise new questions regarding past reports by The Washington Post and others that White House officials helped craft the ethics agreement around Hunter Biden’s art work, which has drawn criticism from a former Obama ethics chief who argued it lacked transparency and urged Hunter Biden to cancel any sales.

But then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters in August 2021 that “we have spoken extensively to the arrangements, which are not White House arrangements; they’re arrangements between Hunter Biden’s representatives and ones that we, certainly, were made aware of.”

Bergès spoke with committee members and staff behind closed doors after Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) subpoenaed him for a deposition late last year, as Republicans make Hunter Biden’s business arrangements a key part of their impeachment effort against President Joe Biden.

Republicans have not yet found clear evidence directly linking decisions made by Joe Biden as president or vice president to his son’s business deals. Bergès, according to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), “stated he had no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.”

In addition to Bergès, House Republicans issued a subpoena last year to speak with Elizabeth Naftali, who bought Hunter Biden artwork.

An attorney for Naftali, in a letter to Comer last year, said that she purchased work by the president’s son “solely because she liked the art, and the prices were reasonable” adding that “never at any time did she have direct or indirect contact with anyone at the White House regarding any art purchased.”