Politics

(MADISON, WI) — A closely watched Wisconsin Supreme Court election takes center stage as Republican-backed Brad Schimel and Democratic-backed Susan Crawford are set to debate on Wednesday, locked in a race for a seat that is technically nonpartisan but has become the center of a political firestorm.

The April 1 election will determine which of the candidates, vying to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, will help determine the ideological bent of the court, which currently leans liberal. The winner will join the bench as the court grapples with hot-button issues such as abortion access and redistricting.

The race could also preview how voters in the battleground state feel a few months into President Donald Trump’s second term.

“They’re using it as a test as to President Trump’s popularity,” Janine Geske, a law professor at Marquette University and a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, told ABC News. “He took Wisconsin in the election. And the question is, how will this election go?”

The debate, hosted by ABC affiliate WISN-TV and the Marquette University Law School, will air online and on ABC News affiliates across Wisconsin at 7 p.m. Central time on Wednesday.

Schimel, the candidate backed by Republicans, is a former state attorney general who is a circuit court judge in Waukesha County.

“I got in this race 16 months before Election Day because I recognize … you gotta meet voters where they are,” Schimel told WISN in February.

Crawford, backed by Democrats, is a Dane County circuit court judge and a former private attorney. She at points represented Democratic-aligned groups such as Planned Parenthood, an organization supporting abortion access.

“I have spent a lot of time talking about my record, my background as a prosecutor, as a lawyer representing people in court and standing up for their rights,” Crawford told WISN in February.

Over $40 million has been spent on ad reservations, both aired already and for future reservations, in the race, according to advertisement tracking firm AdImpact. (Recent polling from the Marquette University Law School showed a sizable percentage of voters do not have an opinion on either candidate.)

The election is also seen as one indication of Elon Musk’s influence beyond Washington, where he has overseen major cuts to the federal government.

A conservative group affiliated with Musk, Building America’s Future, has spent more than $1.6 million on television ads in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, while another one Musk backs, America PAC, has spent over $6 million on get-out-the-vote efforts and digital media, according to state campaign finance records. The expenditures are marked as either opposing Crawford or supporting Schimel.

Musk himself has not weighed in much directly about the race, but he posted on X last month urging people to “vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud!” Schimel has said he has never spoken to Musk and told reporters in February, “I don’t have any agenda that I’m working alongside anyone.”

These groups’ investment in the race has sparked pushback from Democrats.

“Wisconsin voters don’t like Elon Musk running our federal government and they don’t want him buying elections in Wisconsin either,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement on Monday.

Crawford’s own support has not been free of scrutiny. Schimel and his supporters have pointed to major donors seemingly supporting Crawford, including liberal billionaire George Soros and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat. According to state campaign finance records, those individuals donated to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford.

Crawford has said she has made no promises to any donors and has also emphasized her independence.

While this election is being eyed nationally as the first major race of 2025, experts and supporters of either candidate say it also could have major impacts for the state of Wisconsin, including on issues such as redistricting, voting rights and abortion access.

For example, there is a Wisconsin Supreme Court case regarding if the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion, which the court might consider after the new justice is seated.

Wisconsin has an 1849 statute on the books that would effectively limit all abortions in the state, although the law is not enforced.

If the court were to determine in a different case that the statute is still in effect and later that abortion access is not protected by the Wisconsin Constitution, it could mean abortion is determined illegal in Wisconsin, Chad Oldfather, another law professor at Marquette University, told ABC News.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Schimel had previously indicated support for leaving the 1849 law in place. More recently, Schimel told WISN that on abortion access cases, “I treasure life even when it’s not planned, but I respect that the law puts this in the hands of voters, and I will respect their will. … [My] personal opinions? No, they don’t have any role.”

Crawford, on her end, told WISN she has made no promises to any abortion access advocacy groups but said she is proud of the work she did as a lawyer “fighting for people’s rights,” including when representing Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

Women Speak Out PAC, a group that is affiliated with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a group that opposes abortion access, launched canvassers and volunteers to get out the vote for Schimel. SBA has made a six-figure investment in the race.

“Lives are literally on the line in this race, and they depend upon Wisconsin voters showing up for Brad Schimel. … If Schimel doesn’t win, the court will be a tool of the Left,” Kelsey Pritchard, political communications director for SBA, told ABC News in an interview.

EMILY’s List, a political group that supports female candidates who support abortion access, has donated to Crawford and ran a digital fundraising campaign to encourage others to donate.

“As Trump, MAGA Republicans, and unelected billionaires like Elon Musk try to rip away the freedoms we’ve fought so hard for, electing Judge Susan Crawford to the Wisconsin state Supreme Court means protecting these rights that are under attack,” EMILY’s List President Jessica Mackler said in a statement to ABC News.

ABC News’ Hannah Demissie, Soorin Kim and Will Steakin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In dramatic fashion, House Republicans passed a bill to fund the government through the end of September 2025 — a major victory for Speaker Mike Johnson, who has previously relied on Democrats for bipartisan support to avert a shutdown.

The House voted 217-213 to pass the spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, days before some funding runs out.

Following the House vote — which saw just a single Republican defection — Johnson thanked President Donald Trump, who helped convince GOP holdouts to support the bill.

“We are united in our mission to deliver the America first agenda,” Johnson said in a post on X.

The spending bill now heads to the Senate — where it requires 60 votes to pass, and its fate is uncertain.

The House’s approval has left Senate Democrats divided on the “stark” decision ahead.

What will Senate Democrats do?

“There are really only two options: One is vote for a pretty bad CR. Or the other is to vote for a potentially even worse shutdown,” said Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, following the House vote. “So it’s a very tough choice,”

Democrats met for two hours Tuesday with no consensus on how they planned to handle the vote on the bill — and the fissure is palpable.

Some Democrats are clearly leaning toward casting a painful vote to oppose the House package and effectively shut down the government.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., branded the House-passed CR a “shutdown bill” that Republicans will bear responsibility for in a floor speech Tuesday night.

“A budget is a reflection of our values,” Warren said on the floor. “This proposal makes crystal clear where Republicans’ values lie. After months of bipartisan talks, they’re walking away from the negotiating table and offering a non-starter House bill that forces us to the brink of a full government shutdown. The Republican shutdown playbook is dangerous, and it will hurt working families.”

Though she did not expressly state how she plans to vote on the package, she said House Democrats were right to oppose the measure, and said the Senate should follow suit.

“Democrats in the House have showed us they are united,” Warren said, when asked if Senate Democrats should be united in their opposition to the House package. “Why should it be different in the Senate?”

Separately, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries suggested Tuesday that Senate Democrats should oppose the measure.

“The strong House Democratic vote in opposition to this reckless Republican spending bill speaks for itself,” Jeffries said.

Senate Dem: Vote ‘like a bad dream’

Pointing to the “stark” choice Senate Democrats face, King said he has concerns that the “uncharted” territory of a shutdown under the new Trump administration that has already laid off federal employees.

“A shutdown is uncharted territory when you’ve got an administration that at least in some ways probably would welcome a shutdown because that would give the president almost unlimited power: deciding who is essential who is not unessential, folding up agencies,” King said. “So that is the dilemma that is being discussed.”

The House has left town for the week after passing their bill. If Democrats in the Senate want to avoid a shut down on Friday night, they’ll have to furnish at least eight votes to do it, with Republican Sen. Rand Paul already stating he’ll oppose the package.

It’s unclear what route they’ll ultimately choose but some members are clearly plagued by the choice.

“They made a bunch of changes, I want to see what they’re changing,” Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo. said.

“I’m not happy … It’s one of those things once we go through it, it’s going to feel like a bad dream. I’ve got to go through it.”

House vote: 1 Republican ‘No,’ 1 Democratic ‘Yes’

In the House vote, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie voted no — despite pressure from the president in the form of a primary threat. In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump suggested that the defection warranted mounting a primary campaign against Massie.

To pass the measure Tuesday afternoon, Johnson relied on some GOP support from Republicans who had never voted in favor of a continuing resolution.

Rep. Jared Golden was the only Democrat who voted with Republicans. All other Democrats voted against the measure — potentially previewing the posture of Senate Democrats.

“This CR is not perfect, but a shutdown would be worse. Even a brief shutdown would introduce even more chaos and uncertainty at a time when our country can ill-afford it,” Golden posted on X.

He also slammed Democrats for using what he called “messaging gimmicks” about the bill.

The bill funds the government at current levels through Sept. 30, 2025.

What’s in the bill?

The 99-page bill decreases spending overall from last year’s funding levels, but increases spending for the military by about $6 billion.

While there is an additional $6 billion for veterans’ health care, non-defense spending is about $13 billion lower than fiscal year 2024 levels.

The legislation leaves out emergency funding for disasters, but provides a boost in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations.

It also increases funding for W.I.C. by about $500 million, a program that provides free groceries to low-income women and children.

Now that the House has dispatched its bill to the Senate, it’s not yet clear how it will fare as it will require significant bipartisan support to pass the upper chamber.

Vote was major test of Johnson’s leadership

The spending bill was a major test for Johnson. In the absence of Democratic support, Johnson could only afford to lose one Republican vote before a second defection killed the bill.

In a statement following the vote, Johnson said Republicans “stood for the American people” and blasted Democrats who he said “decided to double down on partisan politics.”

Johnson had crucial allies in Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who lobbied House Republicans to shore up support ahead of the vote.

In the final hours before the Tuesday vote, Trump worked the phones, reaching out to the House Republicans who remained undecided.

On Tuesday morning, Vance attended a closed-door House conference meeting where he urged House Republicans to get on board with the vote and emphasized the importance of not shutting the government down, members said to ABC News.

Government funding is set to lapse at the end of the day on Friday, March 14.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., the first transgender person elected to Congress, continues to face attacks from her Republican colleagues, who have repeatedly misgendered her on the House floor and in committee hearings.

On Tuesday, it happened again during a House foreign affairs subcommittee meeting.

Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, introduced McBride, saying: “I now recognize the representative from Delaware: Mr. McBride.”

McBride then responded, “Thank you, Madame Chair,” hitting back at Self.

However, as McBride started her line of questioning, Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., the ranking member of the subcommittee, interjected.

“Mr. Chairman, could you repeat your introduction again, please?” he asked.

Self argued, without elaborating, that he was following “the standard on the floor of the House.”

Keating grew irate with Self, asking him to repeat his introduction of McBride. However, Self doubled down.

“I will. The representative from Delaware: Mr. McBride,” Self said.

McBride sat there as a back-and-forth ensued between the chairman and the ranking member.

“Mr. Chairman, you are out of order. Mr. Chairman, have you no decency?” Keating said.

“We will continue this hearing,” Self responded, attempting to move the committee hearing along.

“You will not continue it with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way,” Keating said.

However, Self still did not change his rhetoric. Rather, he called for the hearing to be adjourned.

In a statement to ABC News Tuesday, McBride said she was “disappointed” by the decision to end the hearing early.

“I was prepared to move forward with my questions for the Subcommittee on nuclear nonproliferation and US support for Democratic allies in Europe,” she said.

This is not the first time McBride has been misgendered or has been the center of policy changes as it relates to transgender people.

Before McBride was sworn into office, Republican members worked to place a ban on transgender women from using women’s restrooms at the U.S. Capitol.

In late November, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced as policy that transgender women cannot use women’s restrooms at the Capitol and in House office buildings, as well as in changing rooms and locker rooms.

“It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol,” Johnson said in a statement announcing the policy. “Women deserve women’s only spaces.”

Then, before giving her first floor speech on Feb. 8, McBride was misgendered by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill.

“The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. McBride,” Miller said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The law firm Perkins Coie has filed suit against the Trump administration over an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last week that targeted the firm for its work representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Attorneys representing Perkins Coie filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with a request for a temporary restraining order to bar enforcement of the executive order.

“The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice,” the lawsuit said. “Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients.”

It’s the first legal challenge in what Trump has previewed will be a wave of executive actions seeking to punish law firms that have represented his perceived political enemies.

The order, signed by Trump on March 6, mandates that lawyers working for Perkins Coie have their security clearances stripped and aims to terminate any government contracts that might exist with the firm or other entities that it represents. It further bars agencies from hiring employees of Perkins Coie and prohibits employees from the firm from accessing government buildings.

“Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly,” the lawsuit said. “The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients — and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all — are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied.”

In his signing of the order, Trump pointed to Perkins Coie’s work in the 2016 campaign and ties to the “Steele Dossier,” which detailed a series of highly salacious allegations about Trump that were later investigated by the FBI and determined to be unsubstantiated.

Marc Elias, who left Perkins Coie to start his own firm in 2021, brokered an agreement with the research and intelligence firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump leading up to the 2016 election. Fusion then hired a former British spy, Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier.

As Perkins Coie’s lawsuit noted, however, the two attorneys singled out in the executive order’s actual text “have not been with the firm for years.”

“The retaliatory aim of the Order is intentionally obvious to the general public and the press because the very goal is to chill future lawyers from representing particular clients,” the lawsuit said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As Tesla’s bottom line continues to slide downward, Elon Musk on Tuesday received maybe an unsurprising endorsement from a potential new owner of one of his EVs: President Donald Trump.

Musk, joined by his 4-year-old son X, delivered five Tesla models, including a Cybertruck, to the White House Tuesday afternoon, just hours after Trump, who does not currently drive, vowed to buy one to support Musk.

“I just want people to know that you can’t be penalized for being a patriot,” Trump told reporters during a photo op with the cars and Musk. “People should be going wild, and they love the product.”

The president got into the seat of one the cars and claimed that he was going to buy one of the cars and leave it at the White House for his staff to use.

“I’m going to let people at the place use it, and they are all excited about that I’m not allowed to use it,” he said.

Trump’s announcement came as Tesla has been taking a massive hit over the last two months, including recent protests and slumping sales overseas.

Stock in the company has dropped every week since Musk went to Washington, wiping out more than $700 billion in market value. And Musk’s personal net worth has dropped $148 billion since Inauguration Day, according to the Bloomberg Billionaire Index.

“This means a lot, and also thank everyone out there who is supporting Tesla,” Musk said.

Trump previously criticized EVs, claiming that they are too costly, inefficient and not in demand.

However, he admitted in August on the campaign trail that he had to change his tune after Musk endorsed his candidacy.

“I’m for electric cars. I have to be because Elon endorsed me very strongly,” he told a crowd at a rally.

However, since taking office Trump has vowed to end federal incentives for EV purchases and signed an executive order that undid President Joe Biden’s goal to have half of all cars sold in 2030 be an EV.

It is an unspoken rule that current and former presidents aren’t allowed to drive on open roads.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told food industry leaders in a closed-door meeting on Monday that he wants them to remove artificial color additives from their products by the end of his time in office, according to a memo describing the meeting, which was obtained by ABC News.

At the Washington gathering, which included the CEOs of Kellogg’s, Smucker’s and General Mills, Kennedy said it is a top priority of the Trump administration to rid America’s food of the artificial dyes, wrote Melissa Hockstad, president and CEO of the Consumer Brands Association, a trade group, who penned the memo.

Hockstad addressed the memo to “Consumer Brands Member CEOs.”

“The Secretary made clear his intention to take action unless the industry is willing to be proactive with solutions,” Hockstad wrote.

Kennedy has long championed removing artificial coloring from America’s food, and the effort has become a pillar of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.

In January, the Food and Drug Administration revoked its authorization of one type of red food dye — Red No. 3. The dye is known to cause cancer in laboratory animals but was allowed to be used by manufacturers for years because scientists didn’t believe it raised cancer risk in humans at the level typically consumed.

The FDA, under then-President Joe Biden, acted after longtime pressure by consumer advocates.

But a different type, Red No. 40, remains on the market and hasn’t been studied by the FDA in more than 20 years. FDA and health officials said there is no evidence though that it is harmful, and food manufacturers said they need to be able to rely on ingredients generally recognized as safe.

In the memo, Hockstad said her association will work with HHS leaders about removing “roadblocks” so food companies can help meet Kennedy’s goal.

“We will be working with your teams to gain as much alignment as possible about how we move forward and ensure the industry is positioned in the best possible way as we navigate next steps forward,” she wrote. “But to underscore, decision time is imminent.”

A spokeswoman for the Consumer Brands Association confirmed the authenticity of the letter, which was first reported by Bloomberg, but did not provide further comment.

The spokeswoman provided ABC News with a copy of a thank-you letter Hockstad sent Kennedy after the meeting.

“The industry is committed to delivering safe, affordable and convenient product choices to consumers,” she wrote. “We will engage with you and the administration on solutions to improve transparency, ensure ingredient evaluations are grounded in a science and risk-based process and increase healthier options for consumers.”

Vani Hari, an activist and founder of Food Babe and Truvani who delivered 400,000 petition signatures to the Michigan headquarters for Kellogg’s last year asking the company to remove artificial food dyes, applauded Kennedy.

“I have been working on this issue for over a decade and I am thrilled Secretary Kennedy laid out an ultimatum,” Hari told ABC News in a statement.

“These food companies have already reformulated their products without dyes in so many countries, now it’s time for them to do the same in America. Americans deserve the same safer foods other countries get,” she continued.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Then-candidate Donald Trump, at a campaign rally last August as the 2024 race for the White House was heating up, made a promise to voters to quickly bring economic relief if elected.

“Starting on Day 1, we will end inflation and make America affordable again,” he said at a rally in Montana, where he told supporters: “This election is about saving our economy.”

A week later, he made a show of displaying cartons of eggs, bacon, milk and other grocery products outside his New Jersey golf course as he railed against the Biden administration’s policies.

“When I win, I will immediately bring prices down,” Trump said at the time.

Trump started to change his tune not long after his victory, however, saying in an interview with Time magazine, published in December, that bringing down food costs will be “very hard.”

Now, seven weeks into his administration, Trump is declining to rule out the possibility of a recession and is warning of short-term “disturbance” for American families from his tariff policies.

During his first major speech to Congress and the nation since his inauguration, Trump last week defended his imposition of steep levies on key U.S. trading partners like Canada, China and Mexico.

“Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again. And it’s happening, and it will happen rather quickly. There will be a little disturbance, but we’re okay with that. It won’t be much,” he said.

Since then, his back-and-forth on tariffs for Canada and Mexico roiled the stock market, with the S&P 500 recording its worst week since last September.

During an interview on Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures,” Trump was asked if he is expecting a recession this year after the Atlanta Federal Reserve projected negative GDP growth for the first quarter of 2025.

“I hate to predict things like that,” Trump responded. “There is a period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big. We’re bringing wealth back to America. That’s a big thing, and there are always periods of, it takes a little time. It takes a little time, but I think it should be great for us.”

He was pressed on his hesitation to strike down the possibility later Sunday as he spoke with reporters on Air Force One.

“I’ll tell you what, of course you hesitate. Who knows? All I know is this: We’re going to take in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs, and we’re going to become so rich, you’re not going to know where to spend all that money,” he said. “I’m telling you, you just watch. We’re going to have jobs. We’re going to have open factories. It’s going to be great.”

Stock losses continued Monday and Tuesday after Trump’s comments. More tariffs are being implemented against steel and aluminum products on Wednesday, and Trump’s pledging to move forward with “reciprocal” tariffs starting on April 2.

The White House on Tuesday also declined to rule out a recession, as officials sought to cast the market turmoil as a “snapshot of a moment in time” before Trump’s policies bear their intended impact.

“We are in a period of economic transition,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters when asked directly if she could reassure Americans there wouldn’t be a downturn.

Leavitt blamed the Biden administration for what she said was an “economic disaster” left to Trump — despite Biden overseeing a soft economic landing — and pointed to other indicators she said were positive signs for Americans, including a boost in manufacturing jobs last month and reports of companies looking to expand operations in America.

“The American people, CEOs, and people on Wall Street and on Main Street should bet on this president,” Leavitt told reporters. “He is a dealmaker. He is a businessman and he’s doing what’s right for our country.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A top official leading the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney said she was fired from her post one day after refusing to recommend that actor Mel Gibson’s access to firearms be restored, according to a new interview and a statement provided to ABC News on Tuesday.

In an interview with the New York Times, pardon attorney Elizabeth Oyer said the request to add Gibson’s name to a memo of people who should have their gun rights restored came at the last minute, after attorneys for Gibson had written directly to senior DOJ officials citing a recent special appointment he had received from President Donald Trump.

After she refused, Oyer said she received a call from a senior official in Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s office who repeatedly pressed her to reconsider, citing Gibson’s close personal relationship with Trump.

On Friday, Oyer posted on LinkedIn a termination letter from Blanche, which did not include any justification for her firing.

“Unfortunately, experienced professionals throughout the Department are afraid to voice their opinions because dissent is being punished,” Oyer said in a statement to ABC News. “Decisions are being made based on relationships and loyalty, not based on facts or expertise or sound analysis, which is very alarming given what is at stake is our public safety.”

A DOJ official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, disputed Oyer’s account, telling ABC News the spat over Gibson’s gun rights was not a factor in removal.

Gibson’s access to guns is prohibited due to a 2011 “no contest” plea he entered to a misdemeanor charge of battering his former girlfriend.

Oyer, who has led the Office of the Pardon Attorney since 2022, told the New York Times she was recently put on a working group tasked with assembling a list of candidates who could have their gun rights restored. After assembling a list that was then circulated to Blanche’s office, she was instructed to add Gibson’s name, a development that she said was troubling.

“Giving guns back to domestic abusers is a serious matter that, in my view, is not something that I could recommend lightly because there are real consequences that flow from people who have a history of domestic violence being in possession of firearms,” Oyer said.

It is not clear whether the recommendation will move forward now that Oyer has been removed. Gibson notably was seen just this weekend alongside FBI Director Kash Patel attending a UFC fight in Las Vegas.

A representative for Gibson did not respond to a request for comment.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As nearly a dozen House Republicans remain undecided, Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday urged House Republicans to get on board and support the GOP-led government funding bill, according to several members leaving the 40-minute-long closed-door meeting.

The spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, is slated for a vote in the House Tuesday afternoon, and Vance told Republicans that the bill forces Democrats to take a tough vote, members told ABC News.

Vance also emphasized the importance of not shutting the government down, members said to ABC News.

In the absence of Democratic support, the vote represents a major test for Speaker Mike Johnson — as it remains unclear if the Trump-backed legislation can even pass in the GOP-controlled House.

Johnson needs near-unanimous GOP support and can only afford to lose one Republican before a second defection would defeat the bill if all members are voting and present. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie said he will vote against the measure and Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick told reporters he’s also leaning against voting for the bill. Several others are undecided, including Reps. Tony Gonzales, Andy Ogles, Tim Burchett, Cory Mills, Eli Crane and Brian Fitzpatrick.

Despite the uphill climb, GOP leaders expressed confidence that they’ll get the bill across the finish line — even as Democrats remain united in opposition.

“No, we will have the votes. We’re going to pass the CR,” Johnson said at the GOP leadership news conference. “We could do it on our own.”

Majority Leader Scalise told ABC News’ Jay O’Brien that he’s confident the bill will pass, arguing Vance’s message will “pull people even further.”

“Well, on a big vote like this, you always have members that wait until the very end and then they’re going to vote yes, and I’m feeling very confident we’re going to get this bill passed,” Scalise said.

Missouri Rep. Eric Burlison raised concerns with the language in the bill, but added he will ultimately support the measure because he trusts President Donald Trump.

“Donald Trump, I mean, he is the difference maker. I would never support this language but, I do trust Donald Trump,” Burlison said.

Trump has played an outsize role this time around — the first shutdown threat of his second term — practically begging Republicans to support the measure. The president even placed phone calls on Monday to some lawmakers who are on the fence in an attempt to shore up the votes, according to a White House official.

“The House and Senate have put together, under the circumstances, a very good funding Bill (“CR”)! All Republicans should vote (Please!) YES next week. Great things are coming for America, and I am asking you all to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country’s “financial house” in order,” Trump said on Saturday in a post on Truth Social.

Trump added, “Democrats will do anything they can to shut down our Government.”

On Monday evening, Trump threatened to lead the charge against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in the primaries, after the congressman said he would vote no on the continuing resolution Tuesday.

“Congressman Thomas Massie, of beautiful Kentucky, is an automatic ‘NO’ vote on just about everything, despite the fact that he has always voted for Continuing Resolutions in the past,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He’s just another GRANDSTANDER, who’s too much trouble, and not worth the fight.”

Asked if he agreed with the president’s promise to primary Massie, Johnson said he will “vehemently disagree” with Trump.

“Look, I am in the incumbent protection program here, that’s what I do as speaker of the House,” he joked before adding, “Thomas and I have had disagreements, but I consider Thomas Massie a friend. He’s a thoughtful guy. I guess he’ll tell you he’s doing what he thinks is right on this, I just vehemently disagree with his position. I’ll leave it at that.”

Across the aisle, House Democrats appear poised to stick together in opposition of the GOP-led government funding bill.

“We cannot support this bill,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said walking into a conference meeting Tuesday morning.

“House Republicans put a partisan measure on the floor this week. It will gut veterans’ health care. It will enable Donald Trump and Elon Musk to continue to cut the federal government. House Democrats are voting no,” Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar later added.

While Johnson has at times benefited from Democrats crossing party lines to push bills through, as of now, it doesn’t look like he’ll get a life raft from them.

Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar and Marcy Kaptur, who represent Trump-backed districts, said they aren’t going to be voting for the funding bill, arguing there weren’t many incentives in the bill to garner their support.

“I haven’t met one yet,” Rep. Kaptur said when asked if she knew of any Democrats that would support the bill. “But perhaps there’s someone out there, but I’m unaware of it.”

The 99-page bill would decrease spending overall from last year’s funding levels but increase spending for the military by about $6 billion.

While there is an additional $6 billion for veterans’ health care, non-defense spending is about $13 billion lower than fiscal year 2024 levels.

The legislation leaves out emergency funding for disasters but provides a boost in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations.

It also increases funding for W.I.C. by about $500 million, a program that provides free groceries to low-income women and children.

ABC News’ Hannah Demissie and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are slated to vote Tuesday on their spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, that would fund the government at current levels through Sept. 30, 2025, and Speaker Mike Johnson is projecting confidence that Republicans have the votes to pass the bill.

In the absence of Democratic support, the vote represents a major test for Speaker Mike Johnson — as it remains unclear if the Trump-backed legislation can even pass in the GOP-controlled House.

Johnson needs near-unanimous GOP support and can only afford to lose one Republican before a second defection would defeat the bill if all members are voting and present. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie said he will vote against the measure and Georgia Rep. Rich McCormick told reporters he’s also leaning against voting for the bill. Several others are undecided, including Reps. Tony Gonzales, Andy Ogles, Tim Burchett, Cory Mills, Eli Crane and Brian Fitzpatrick.

Johnson, at a news conference with House Republican leadership on Tuesday morning, claimed he had the votes ahead of Tuesday afternoon’s vote.

As he railed against Democrats for their opposition to the measure, Johnson was asked by a reporter if that implied he doesn’t have the support among his own caucus.

“No, we’ll have the votes. We’re going to pass the CR. We can do it on our own,” Johnson contended.

President Donald Trump has played an outsize role this time around — the first shutdown threat of his second term — practically begging Republicans to support the measure. The president even placed phone calls on Monday to some lawmakers who are on the fence in an attempt to shore up the votes, according to a White House official.

“The House and Senate have put together, under the circumstances, a very good funding Bill (“CR”)! All Republicans should vote (Please!) YES next week. Great things are coming for America, and I am asking you all to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country’s “financial house” in order,” Trump said on Saturday in a post on Truth Social.

Trump added, “Democrats will do anything they can to shut down our Government.”

Vice President JD Vance is also lobbying House Republicans. On Tuesday morning, he attended a closed-door meeting with the caucus, but did not respond to question including what his message is to members on the funding bill.

On Monday evening, Trump threatened to lead the charge against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in the primaries, after the congressman said he would vote no on the continuing resolution Tuesday.

“Congressman Thomas Massie, of beautiful Kentucky, is an automatic ‘NO’ vote on just about everything, despite the fact that he has always voted for Continuing Resolutions in the past,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “HE SHOULD BE PRIMARIED, and I will lead the charge against him. He’s just another GRANDSTANDER, who’s too much trouble, and not worth the fight.”

Asked if he agreed with the president’s promise to primary Massie, Johnson said he will “vehemently disagree” with Trump.

“Look, I am in the incumbent protection program here, that’s what I do as speaker of the House,” he joked before adding, “Thomas and I have had disagreements, but I consider Thomas Massie a friend. He’s a thoughtful guy. I guess he’ll tell you he’s doing what he thinks is right on this, I just vehemently disagree with his position. I’ll leave it at that.”

Across the aisle, Democratic leaders are urging their caucus to vote against the measure.

“It is not something we could ever support. House Democrats will not be complicit in the Republican effort to hurt the American people,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Monday.

The 99-page bill would decrease spending overall from last year’s funding levels but increase spending for the military by about $6 billion.

While there is an additional $6 billion for veterans’ health care, non-defense spending is about $13 billion lower than fiscal year 2024 levels.

The legislation leaves out emergency funding for disasters but provides a boost in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations.

It also increases funding for W.I.C. by about $500 million, a program that provides free groceries to low-income women and children.

ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.