Do House Republicans Want a Border Deal or a Campaign Issue?

The Speaker speaks with a forked tongue on his desire for improvements on the border. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Congressional leaders are meeting with the president at the White House today to discuss a potential deal to make border-policy changes in exchange for more aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It’s clear that Joe Biden, House Democrats, and Senate leaders from both parties will be motivated to bring the long-simmering talks to a successful conclusion. Democrats, after all, are mostly following Biden’s lead in offering border concessions to get the supplemental appropriations for key allies unstuck. And Senate Republicans, whether or not they are big supporters of Ukraine, see those border concessions as a unique opportunity to address one of their constituents’ top concerns. As Mitch McConnell’s deputy John Thune told Punchbowl News, Republicans have more leverage now than they’ll likely ever have:

“There is absolutely no way that we would get the kind of border policy that’s being talked about right now with a Republican majority in the Senate” …

“This is a unique moment in time. It’s an opportunity to get some really conservative border [policies] that we haven’t been able to get for 40 years.”

Under a GOP majority and a Republican president, there wouldn’t be enough Democrats willing to give Republicans the necessary 60 votes for a border package, Thune argued. Similar efforts failed under Trump the last time, partially for that reason.

Unfortunately for the dealmakers, House Speaker Mike Johnson either doesn’t share that logic or fears the ever-rebellious troops on his right flank are dead set against any deals with the opposition, particularly in an election year. There are two indicators of his disposition against a border-Ukraine deal even if Democrats go a long way to make it palatable to Republicans. The first is his consistent argument that only something very close to a draconian border bill (H.R. 2) the House passed on a strict party-line vote last May will suffice. In other words, he’s looking for surrender more than a compromise. But the second sign this might go nowhere is more recent and dispiriting, as another report from Punchbowl News suggested: “On a House GOP conference call Sunday night, Johnson said Congress can’t solve the crisis at the border until Donald Trump or another Republican is in the White House.”

Now, you can interpret that if you wish as simply a reflection of the lack of Republican trust in Biden to strike or implement an acceptable deal; they are, after all, in the habit of calling the president a corrupt and senile puppet of the “radical left,” if not an actual conspirator working to “replace” today’s “real Americans” with criminal immigrants. But the more straightforward explanation of Johnson’s obduracy is that he wants to preserve the border “crisis” as a campaign issue for Trump and his party in November. Indeed, he may fear that cutting a deal might anger Trump, and he can’t risk that.

Beyond that, inaction is always going to be Johnson’s first and best option given the chaotic condition of his conference. Short of totally militarizing the border instantly and authorizing mass deportations, there’s no border deal that can possibly satisfy the hard-core House Freedom Caucus folk who are already angrily grumbling about the Speaker’s efforts to keep the federal government open this week. So it makes more sense for Johnson to reject whatever border deal he is offered and pretend that only the triumphant return of his candidate Trump and a GOP trifecta that gives Republicans control of Congress can fix the problem. If that means the situation at the border that Republicans are describing as an existential threat to America’s integrity as a nation doesn’t get better right away, then who’s going to be blamed for that? Joe Biden. So spurning a deal is a win-win for House Republicans, a majority of whom don’t want to help Ukraine anyway.