This article was first published in the On the Hill newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox on Friday mornings here.
Tucked into the legislative priorities for this week was the farm bill: a typically bipartisan package setting policy for national policy on agriculture, food and rural programs.
Negotiations around this megabill have historically been bipartisan. The bill is usually passed every five to six years with updates and reforms, but that’s largely been stalled over recent years due to policy disagreements on certain climate-related programs and nutrition assistance. The most recent reauthorization was in 2018.
That all came to an ugly head this week — and it nearly derailed everything else that was on Republicans’ must-pass agenda.
The three bills that House Republicans wanted to pass this week were the budget resolution for federal immigration funding, reauthorization of a key government surveillance law, and then the farm bill renewal. But GOP leaders packaged the three of them together for the initial procedural hurdle — under a “too big to fail” strategy of sorts.
But that only increased the drama because at any point it looked like the whole package would fail because lawmakers across the House had problems with all three bills.
When it came to the farm bill, there were several issues at play. One of them stemmed from frustration that proposed amendments originally weren’t going to get a vote in the House — angering several conservatives who felt their priorities weren’t going to be considered. More on that in a moment.
There was a main policy issue in the farm bill that really set it on a downward spiral: an amendment to ease up pollution laws to allow for year-round E15 gas sales. It was granted as a last-minute deal for those in Midwestern states, but it angered oil state lawmakers who opposed that provision.
Cut to Wednesday morning when that procedural vote packaging all three bills together was put on the floor. It wouldn’t be until the afternoon that it would finally pass.
There were revolts on the House floor, sending House Speaker Mike Johnson into a frenzy to make deals and promises to convince his own rank-and-file to advance the bills. That’s where things got really messy.
Because of the E15 disagreements, Johnson told some hardline conservatives that he would delay a vote on the farm bill for another two weeks. That way, the lawmakers with amendments that got ignored could get their debate — and they could continue working out the disagreements about the E15 provision itself.
That deal convinced enough holdouts to advance the package. But it angered the farm district Republicans who have been waiting years for a new farm bill to be passed. So after a tense discussion with those members, Johnson agreed to decouple the E15 provision from the rest of the farm bill and hold them as separate votes.
A few hours later, the House was set to vote on its immigration budget resolution — and all of a sudden Johnson had several factions revolting at once.
You had farm district members and oil district members upset with the plan over the farm bill. And then you had those conservative Republicans upset with the seemingly contradictory promises Johnson made to delay a vote on the farm bill just to put it back on the schedule hours later.
Skip to the end: The farm bill did eventually pass the House. (Sure, it still has an uphill battle in the Senate — but the fight in the House did come to a close.)
But with all that drama, it really underscores another dynamic unfolding in the House that is worth keeping an eye on: With their historically slim majority, Republican leaders can’t afford to anger too many of their members.
That gives any group of two or more members outsize control of the entire chamber — a dynamic that members of the conservative Freedom Caucus have used over the last three years. Now, moderates appear to be flexing that muscle as well.
Stories Driving the Week
- Shutdown over: The House passed a bipartisan spending bill on Thursday funding all of DHS except for ICE and Border Patrol through the end of September, sending the legislation to President Donald Trump for his signature after 75 days at a political standstill.
- All hail the king: The king delivered a joint speech to Congress on Tuesday afternoon, marking the first time the British monarch has addressed U.S. lawmakers since his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, did the same in 1991. Speaking in a calm and even tone, Charles reminisced on the relationship between the two countries over the last 250 years since the United States declared its independence from Great Britain.
- Multimillion-dollar makeover: The Pentagon is officially requesting to change its name from the Department of Defense to the Department of War — a rebrand that could cost millions of dollars and require thousands of edits to federal law.
Senators and staffers banned from prediction markets
A quiet but nonetheless interesting development happened this week in the upper chamber, and we could see that change find its way in the House eventually.
The Senate passed the resolution led by Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, on Thursday, banning senators and their staffers from using prediction markets — a practice that has fallen under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Shortly after it passed, a Senate aide told me she received an email that the policy was going into effect “immediately.”
“United States senators have no business engaging in speculative activities like prediction markets while collecting a taxpayer-funded paycheck, period,” Moreno said in a statement.
It’s such a bipartisan concept that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., actually praised Moreno — and said the House should take it up for consideration as quickly as possible.
Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa has already said she would introduce her own resolution.
“Speaker Johnson should immediately do the same thing in the House, and prohibit House members from playing around in prediction markets as well,” Schumer said. “We must never allow Congress to turn into a casino where members representing the public can gamble on wars or economic crises or elections that would destroy the very principle of representative government.”
The move comes as lawmakers are taking a look at prediction markets and possible insider trading that might be taking place on sites like Polymarket and Kalshi. For example, a Polymarket trader won $400,000 in January by betting then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro would soon be removed from office.
Hours later, President Donald Trump announced the successful mission to capture Maduro.
And then last week, Kalshi announced it had fined and suspended three political candidates who were caught betting on their own races. One of those candidates said they made the bets to purposely get caught “to call attention to the fact that an entire election can be bought.”
Quick Hits
From the Hill: 60 days in, here’s what Curtis says about Congress’ role in the Iran war. … Republicans push to authorize $400 million to fund White House ballroom. … Meals donated to shelters after White House correspondents’ dinner canceled by shooting.
From the White House: What’s driving the Pentagon’s massive budget request. … Is the FCC targeting ABC over Jimmy Kimmel? … White House withdraws National Park Service director nominee.
From the courts: Elon Musk’s $150B lawsuit against OpenAI is about more than money. … Supreme Court hears arguments about Trump ending temporary protected status for some. … Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana map over race-based district in ruling that could change Congress.