Politico

President Joe Biden has a matter of months to convince gloomy voters that he’s built a thriving economy. Democrats now think he’ll get a hand in doing so from an unlikely source: the Federal Reserve.

Biden allies who spent the last year fearful that the Fed’s effort to curb inflation would tip the nation into recession have suddenly changed their tune with the central bank on the verge of pulling off a so-called soft landing.

The rate-hiking campaign that ballooned people’s borrowing costs and weighed on economic forecasts appears over, without major damage to the job market in its wake. And after a brief pause, Fed officials are indicating they may reverse course and start actually cutting interest rates. They got another green light signal on Friday when the Commerce Department reported that inflation grew by just 1.9 percent over the last six months, putting it under the 2 percent yearly level that the Fed has long made its target. Biden, in a statement, called it “a significant milestone.”

That shift, he and other Democrats hope, will serve as a definitive signal to voters that the economy has emerged from a sea of challenges far stronger than before — just as the presidential race hits full stride.

“Lowering the interest rates would be huge,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster for Biden’s 2020 campaign, calling it a key element in making Americans more optimistic about the future. “What’s important for voters is not so much the absolute level of the economy, but the direction of the economy.”

The White House has no plans to break its long-standing silence on the Fed, much less demand that Chair Jerome Powell take specific actions — an approach that marks a sharp departure from former President Donald Trump’s practice of routinely pressuring the bank’s policymakers.

But the mere act of feeling anticipation, rather than dread, for the Fed’s next moves represents a newfound sensation for much of the Democratic Party. Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s 21-month bid to rein in soaring inflation involved 11 rate hikes, pushing the bank’s benchmark interest rate to its highest point in more than two decades.

The aggressive push frustrated leading Democrats who were concerned it would derail the economic recovery that Biden had orchestrated to that point. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led open rebukes of the Fed earlier this year, with Warren accusing Powell of putting millions of jobs at risk.

And though the White House has maintained a strict policy against commenting on the Fed, some Biden aides — convinced inflation was being driven largely by lingering supply chain problems — privately worried that the bank was misreading the moment.

The U.S. nevertheless averted a recession, buoyed by continued job growth and a surge in Americans’ willingness to spend.

“The soft landing has happened. We’re there, we’ve landed, our feet are on the ground,” said Seth Harris, the former deputy director of Biden’s National Economic Council. “The question is, how long before people start feeling that?”

The gap between the macroeconomic news that the White House has begun openly embracing and the lagging public sentiment about the state of the economy is now the predominant concern facing the administration. With prices still elevated, polls consistently show voters mired in a sour economic mood.

The White House has spent recent weeks emphasizing specific areas where prices are now coming down. But the Fed, Harris and others argue, can play its own broadly influential role in bolstering voters’ view of the economy as on the upswing. The central bank could choose to lower rates as soon as early 2024, and with inflation nearing the Fed’s target, some Wall Street analysts project three separate cuts throughout the year.

“There’s a lot of ongoing bitterness about the extent of past inflation, but in terms of current conditions, I think the highest interest rates in a generation are one of the last things that really shout abnormal to a lot of voters,” said Tobin Marcus, a former economic adviser to then-Vice President Biden and current head of politics and policy at Wolfe Research. “I do think that bringing those down could have a fairly significant effect.”

There are varying views on when and by how much the Fed might begin cutting rates, even among those officials charged with the decision-making. But already there are early indications that the Fed’s shifting stance may be reverberating through the economy.

The stock market rallied to new highs over the past month, as it became clearer Powell’s rate-hike drive was nearing an end. Consumer confidence in December hit its highest point since the summer, according to the Conference Board’s latest reading. More concretely, mortgage interest rates have dipped, a move that’s made home buying somewhat more affordable.

And critically for Biden officials who bristled over the monthslong predictions of a recession, the Fed’s fresh talk of easing rates has driven a change in the conversation among the economic experts who play an outsized role in shaping perceptions of the economy.

“I think it will slowly start to dawn a little bit more on people who convey the news about how the economy’s doing,” said Mike Konczal, the director of macroeconomic analysis at the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank. “We’ve gone from determining who gets blamed to determining who gets credit.”

There’s still some trepidation over whether a soft landing will prove to be the turning point in how voters view the Biden economy. The president remains well underwater when it comes to his handling of the economy, and there’s little guarantee conditions will all keep trending in the right direction.

The labor market could abruptly falter, robbing Biden of one of his strongest selling points. Inflation has not yet reached the Fed’s target rate of 2 percent, meaning any setback could prompt the central bank to abandon all talk of rate cuts. And there’s the perpetual political hurdle the White House faces of ensuring that Biden and his policies get credit for any shift in voter attitudes toward the economy.

“What I fear is that everyone is going to credit the Fed with the soft landing,” said Harris. “When rates went up, employment did not go through the floor, and I really want folks to focus on the fact that the economy now is different because of fiscal policy that Biden and Democrats drove through — not merely because of monetary policy.”

Top Biden officials have taken a series of year-end victory laps to that effect, touting the administration’s work to unsnarl supply chains and pass sweeping investments in climate and infrastructure that, they say, juiced the economic recovery.

On the campaign trail, Biden is betting that he can win over skeptical voters with a two-pronged strategy that both emphasizes his accomplishments and details all the popular policies that Trump is likely to roll back if he’s returned to office.

“Republicans are against so many critical actions that help working and middle-class people,” Biden said during a Wednesday speech in Wisconsin. “These are the same Republicans that enacted tax cuts to overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy to the tune of a $2 trillion additional deficit.”

Biden officials have expressed confidence those tactics will begin to pay off in 2024 as more voters tune into the presidential race. But there’s hope among Democrats that lower rates might give voters a boost in the meantime that, in turn, brightens Biden’s political prospects — and turns the Fed from a source of frustration into a well-timed friend.

“A lot of the tenor of next year will be, we got through the reopening, we got through a lot of tough stuff,” Konczal said. “If you can’t convince people things are good, you can at least tell them the bad things are increasingly in the rearview mirror.”

Americans are souring on U.S. support for Israel as its war against the Palestinian militant group Hamas approaches a third month and the Israel Defense Forces faces increasing accusations of disproportionately targeting civilians in the Gaza Strip, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday.

At the same time, support for aid to Ukraine remains firm overall but is flagging among Republicans, the poll said.

“While Israel’s war effort continues to get full throated support from the GOP, it’s clear Republican voters are losing patience with supporting Ukraine,” university polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a statement.

Just 45 percent of voters surveyed said they backed sending more military aid to Israel, a decrease from last month when 54 percent voiced support for more military aid.

While the poll found that Republicans are still in favor of more assistance for Israel’s war effort, and a majority of voters still generally say that supporting Israel is in the interest of the U.S., 58 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of independents said they opposed aid for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Sixty percent of Hispanic and 56 percent of Black voters also disapprove of more military aid to Israel, according to the poll.

Sympathy for Israel broadly has also dropped, from 54 percent in November to 49 percent this month. Voters are also split on whether Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks was appropriate.

Since Hamas launched those attacks, the U.S. has been one of Israel’s main allies in the international community, providing it with verbal and military support as it seeks to eliminate the Iran-backed militant group from the Gaza Strip. But this stance has prompted backlash from Arab Americans and progressives at home, as well as other countries who have called for a cease-fire and condemned Israel for its conduct in the war. Mounting civilian casualties have prompted allegations that the Israel Defense Forces are deliberately targeting hospitals, schools and other civilian installations.

Meanwhile, 55 percent of voters say they back aid to Ukraine as it repels Russia’s invasion, even as the war effort stalls and winter limits progress on the battlefield. But the partisan gap is wide — 77 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents support more military aid to Ukraine, while 51 percent of Republicans oppose it. This comes as Congress attempts to broker a compromise deal that would allow for Ukraine aid and ensure greater funding for border security.

The Quinnipiac poll surveyed 1,647 self-identified registered voters nationwide between Dec. 14 and 18. It has a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) hailed the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling barring former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot, calling it “a plain reading of the text of the 14th amendment.”

Coons, a national co-chair of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, defended the court’s ruling Tuesday night that Trump’s involvement in the Jan. 6 riot violated the section of the 14th amendment that bars those who have engaged in insurrection from holding office.

“I’ll remind you this provision was written to prevent those who were part of the confederacy who took up arms against the United States in our civil war from returning to federal elected office,” Coons said during an interview with CNN Wednesday.

“I was here on January 6. We had an impeachment trial for President Trump after the events of January 6. I think it’s undeniable in my view that he participated in an insurrection and, as such, should be disqualified from holding federal office,” he added.

It’s one of the more forceful defenses of the highly politicized ruling from a Democrat and key Biden ally as members of the party try to strike a balance between supporting what many view as a legitimate legal argument while avoiding an exaggerated celebration that could inflame Trump’s base.

Celebration may be premature even for those who would like to see Trump banned from the ballot. The case is almost certain to wind its way to the Supreme Court (Trump has already said he plans to appeal), where it’s unclear whether it will be held up by the body’s conservative majority.

Biden on Wednesday declined to weigh in on the legal argument behind the ruling. But he did tell reporters that there is no question the former president was responsible for leading an insurrection.

“It’s self-evident. You saw it all,” Biden said.

The Biden administration is increasingly confident that a pact it brokered to deescalate fighting in eastern Congo will hold through the country’s elections — a key step toward preventing a larger conflict between Congo and Rwanda.

Congolese forces and Rwanda-backed rebels have clashed in eastern Congo with increasing frequency since May, worrying U.S. officials that the violence would lead to a direct confrontation between the two countries. Over the last month, top officials from the National Security Council and the intelligence agencies helped broker a series of agreements that led to a pause in fighting.

U.S. intelligence shows forces aligned with both sides are broadly adhering to those commitments, officials said. Rwanda-backed rebels have pulled back their offensive equipment from some of their previously held positions and Congolese forces have grounded their drones.

As a result, the administration expects the armistice to stay in place until after the Congolese elections on Friday and through until at least Dec. 28, the date agreed upon by both countries, according to two U.S. officials. Both were granted anonymity to speak openly about sensitive ceasefire negotiations.

The fact that both Congo and Rwanda appear to be adhering to the U.S.-brokered ceasefire underscores Washington’s influence in a region where its main foes, including China, are also jockeying for power.

For years, Beijing has invested in the mining industry in Congo. It now controls more than 80 percent of the country’s cobalt market — the largest in the world — allowing it to prop up its expanding electric vehicle production. The Biden administration has signed multiple agreements with Congo to try and catch up.

As for trying to keep the peace in eastern Congo: “This is not something that the Chinese have raised their hand to be involved in,” the first U.S. official said.

Officials cautioned that the situation is fluid and that tensions between Congo and Rwanda are likely to rise in the coming days. One of the U.S. officials described the situation on the ground as in the “danger zone,” adding that the U.S. is in near constant contact with leaders in both countries about complying with the ceasefire agreement.

“This is going to take intense diplomacy and engagement to keep it going,” the first U.S. official said. “It has been an everyday engagement. It’s tenuous.”

If both sides continue to abide by their commitments under the deal, officials said they expect aid workers to be able to reach previously impassable areas and for thousands of displaced people to return home.

It was looking much different in early November, when satellite images and other intelligence indicated that forces on both sides were gearing up for a larger cross-border conflict.

That intelligence was briefed urgently to President Joe Biden and national security adviser Jake Sullivan convened his team Nov. 6 to draw up a plan to deescalate the situation on the ground.

“Jake understood the seriousness of this problem and what could potentially happen in terms of a massive humanitarian crisis if issues weren’t resolved,” the first official said. “He was focused on … what we could do that was different that would have a higher probability of lowering tensions.”

Biden dispatched Director of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to the region Nov. 19 and 20 to present the U.S. plan. The U.S. told both sides that Washington would share information about force movements in an attempt to ensure compliance of the pact.

Both sides broadly agreed. But in the days following Haines’s trip, fighting continued in Mushaki, a strategic town in North Kivu province with a direct access road to the eastern city of Goma. Rwandan-backed rebels captured Mushaki on Dec. 7.

The fighting caused confusion within the Biden administration as officials had assessed that both Congo and Rwanda were amenable to what the U.S. had presented during Haines’s trip.

The U.S. was eventually able to negotiate an initial ceasefire Dec. 10 to allow for the withdrawal of Rwandan-backed rebels from Mushaki and to allow for humanitarian organizations to deliver aid. Haines brokered an extension to that ceasefire with the presidents of Congo and Rwanda the following week via telephone.

“If we weren’t able to have those direct lines of communication between both governments and some other actors, we wouldn’t have been able to deescalate,” the second official said.

President Joe Biden honored the late Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor at a funeral service Tuesday at the Washington National Cathedral, celebrating her legacy as an “American pioneer.”

Biden said that O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, “empowered generations of women” and demonstrated that “a woman can not only do anything a man can do, but many times do it a heck of a lot better.”

Speaking to pews full of members of Congress, Supreme Court justices and White House officials, Biden recalled O’Connor as “gracious and wise, civil and principled.” He said she profoundly believed the Supreme Court was a “vital line of defense for the values and the vision of our republic — devoted not to pursuit of power for power’s sake, but to make real promise of America.”

The president applauded O’Connor for “the sacred cause of democracy she devoted her life to,” calling it “one that we must continue.”

O’Connor became the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court after she was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At her Senate confirmation hearing, Biden — who was the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time — quickly voiced his support for her. She went on to serve as a critical swing vote on the court until she stepped down in 2006 to spend more time with her husband, who was suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer’s. O’Connor died on Dec. 1 at the age of 93 of complications from dementia.

Addressing O’Connor’s family, Biden said he understood how hard it was to watch both O’Connor and her husband, John, who died in 2009, struggle with disease. Biden saw his own son, Beau, battle brain cancer before his death in 2015.

“I hope you hold on to what has never truly lost: The love both of them had for you; a love you had for them,” Biden said.

“I hope you find comfort and another profound consequence of her service: The countless families that she helped by speaking so openly about your family’s experiences,” Biden continued, referring to O’Connor’s candidness about her husband’s illness.

All nine current Supreme Court justices and several of their spouses, along with retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, filed into the cathedral shortly before the service began. They took seats directly behind the O’Connor family and across the aisle from Biden.

Several of the justices chatted amiably as organ music boomed through the massive church before the funeral got underway.

Many of O’Connor’s clerks also sat in the pews, after serving as pallbearers Monday when the late justice lay in repose for a public viewing at the high court. By tradition, a rotating series of former clerks also flanked her casket for hours as mourners filed by to pay their respects.

In addition to Biden, O’Connor was eulogized Tuesday by historian and biographer Evan Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and one of her sons, Jay O’Connor.

“In nearly a quarter century on the court, she was a strong, influential and iconic jurist,” Roberts said. “The time when women were not on the bench seems so far away because Justice O’Connor was so good when she was on the bench. She was so successful that the barriers she broke down are almost unthinkable today.”

Vice President Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff paid respects to O’Connor during her lying in repose at the Supreme Court on Monday. In a statement following O’Connor’s death, Harris said she would remember the justice for her “kindness, intelligence, and deep love for our country.”

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — Wilmington police say a 46-year-old driver believed to be drunk accidentally plowed into a parked SUV that was guarding President Joe Biden’s motorcade Sunday night while the president was leaving a visit to his campaign headquarters. The president and first lady Jill Biden were unharmed.

While Biden was walking from the campaign office to his waiting armored SUV, the sedan struck a U.S. Secret Service vehicle that was being used to seal off the area surrounding the headquarters for the president’s visit. The driver then tried to continue forward into the closed-off intersection, before Secret Service agents surrounded the vehicle with weapons drawn and instructed the driver to put his hands up.

Wilmington police said Monday their investigation determined the driver, a 46-year-old Wilmington man, accidentally struck the SUV and he was charged with drunk driving and inattentive driving.

A loud bang and sound of crunching metal echoed on the quiet street as Biden paused and looked over toward the sound, surprised, before he was ushered into the vehicle. Jill Biden was already seated inside, and the two were driven swiftly back to their home. His schedule was otherwise unaffected by the incident.

Steve Kopek, a U.S. Secret Service spokesman, said the president’s motorcade departed without incident and the driver was not considered a serious threat to the president.

WILMINGTON, Del. — A car plowed into a parked SUV that was guarding President Joe Biden ‘s motorcade Sunday night while the president was leaving a visit to his campaign headquarters. The president and first lady Jill Biden were unharmed.

While Biden was walking from the campaign office to his waiting armored SUV, a sedan hit a U.S. Secret Service vehicle that was being used to close off intersections near the headquarters for the president’s departure. The sedan then tried to continue into a closed-off intersection, before Secret Service personnel surrounded the vehicle with weapons drawn and instructed the driver to put his hands up.

Biden paused and looked over toward the sound, surprised, before he was ushered into the vehicle, where his wife was already seated, before being driven swiftly back to their home. His schedule was otherwise unaffected by the incident.

The Secret Service did not immediately comment on the incident.

Vice President Kamala Harris has been telling colleagues in the administration that she wants the White House to show more concern for the humanitarian damage in Gaza, where Israel is locked in a bloody and prolonged battle with Hamas, according to three people familiar with Harris’ comments.

President Joe Biden is among the officials Harris has urged to show more sensitivity to Palestinian civilians, these people said.

In internal conversations about the war in Gaza, Harris has argued that it is time to start making “day after” plans for how to handle the wreckage of the war once the fighting ends, one senior administration official said.

One person close to the vice president’s office said she believes the United States should be “tougher” on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; she has called for being “more forceful at seeking a long-term peace and two-state solution,” this person said.

The people characterizing Harris’s role and comments from the vice president and her team were granted anonymity in order to discuss private conversations.

Harris’ private push to shape the White House message about the war reflects the extent to which Democrats — even the top two officials in the country — are struggling to walk a careful line about the Israel-Hamas war, amid a gruesome conflict that has rattled the Democratic political coalition down to the local level.

It also underscores the delicacy of the tight political partnership that Harris has developed with Biden, despite some longstanding differences in perspective. She has long been more attuned to criticism from the left than her more moderate running mate, and more determined to align herself with younger and more progressive constituencies in the Democratic Party.

In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which left more than a thousand civilians dead and hundreds more kidnapped as hostages, Harris urged Biden to make sure he condemned Islamophobia at the same time as he spoke out against anti-Semitism. The Washington Post reported last month that Harris convinced Biden to add a line denouncing Islamophobia in his Oct. 10 speech on the outbreak of war.

Since then, Biden, Harris and other administration officials have grown increasingly willing to criticize Israel’s approach to battling Hamas, including this week when the president issued a stark warning to the Israeli government about the potential political consequences of its ferocious military offensive.

The president condemned what he called “indiscriminate bombing” — a criticism he’s previously leveled — and called on the hardline Netanyahu government to “change” its methods.

In recent weeks, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have also rebuked Israel for the toll of its military operation on ordinary Palestinians, with Austin cautioning that Israel risked a “strategic defeat” if it continued incurring such heavy civilian casualties.Harris herself has modulated her rhetoric over time. In early November, she said the U.S. would not “create any conditions on the support” it offered Israel in the war. Since then, parts of the Democratic base have grown more skeptical of Israel’s approach to the war and international sympathy for the embattled nation has appeared to fray.

More recently, Harris has spoken out about Israel’s military tactics in stern terms. After meeting in Dubai with leaders from Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, Harris reiterated that Israel had a right to defend itself — but added that “it matters how” Israel goes about that task.

“The United States is unequivocal: International humanitarian law must be respected. Too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Frankly, the scale of civilian suffering, and the images and videos coming from Gaza are devastating. It is truly heartbreaking.”

After those comments in Dubai, Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, told reporters at the White House that there was no difference between how Harris and the president assessed the war and its impact on civilians.

“There’s no daylight on that,” Sullivan said.

A senior administration official disputed that there was any divergence in perspective or priorities between Biden and Harris, and said that humanitarian concerns had been at the forefront of their thinking from the start.

“From day 1, the President, the Vice President, and their advisers have been aligned and adamant that humanitarian aid must be provided, civilians must be protected, and we must remain committed to a Palestinian state,” a senior administration official granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations told POLITICO. “No one needed to be convinced of that; there were no outliers. This has been the consensus view and remains the consensus view from the President on down.”

The official added that “the President and Vice President have been consistent in public and private about these policy priorities.”

Despite the administration’s insistence that no gap exists, the perception that Harris has inched toward a more critical position than Biden’s has rippled through Democratic groups and advocacy organizations deeply involved in the debate over Israel and its conduct in Gaza.

“She’s using stronger language regarding the Israelis needing to not harm civilians,” said Wa’el Alzayat, CEO of the Muslim advocacy group Emgage, who speculated that Harris’s personal identity might play a role in her thinking.

“She’s a woman of color who is attuned to various racial and social justice issues so this might be a reflection of that,” Alzayat said, noting that Harris’s efforts could be aimed at “chipping away at the terrible numbers” Biden is recording with young people in polls these days.

A pro-Israel Democrat who is close to Harris also said there had been “blowback” among some pro-Israel advocates over her recent comments. This person argued that the administration’s record of shipping weapons to Israel and seeking more aid from Congress was more important than any gradations in rhetoric from top officials.

Harris has played a limited outward role in the administration’s diplomacy around the war, but as on most matters she has been a close partner for Biden in private. She has joined Biden on 14 calls with Netanyahu, according to her office, as well as calls Biden has made to the leaders of the Palestinian Authority, Qatar and Egypt.

Her remarks in Dubai during the COP 28 climate summit represented her most prominent public involvement in the Israel-Hamas war so far.

Harris has suggested that conversations with friends have influenced her thinking about the war. In London last month, she told reporters that she had a friend who had lost relatives in Gaza to the war.

“I have a friend, who I talked with recently, who has family in Gaza and has lost a number of the members of her family — innocent civilians,” Harris said. “So, let me start by saying that it is absolutely tragic when there is ever, anywhere, any loss of innocent life, of innocent civilians, of children.”

Harris has also made a point, according to her office, to talk to both Israeli and Palestinian community members, including those who have lost family members in Gaza. Her office said Harris spoke recently with the families of two American hostages, Liat Beinin and Abigail Edan, who were freed by Hamas during the recent pause in fighting.

For certain segments of the electorate that have soured on Biden over his defense of Israel’s response to the Hamas attack, Harris’s approach has earned plaudits. Arab American and Muslim leaders said that they were pleased to see Harris’ remarks in Dubai — though they are looking for more than words at this point.

“I thought it was encouraging,” said Warren David, president of the media organization Arab America. “At the same time, it doesn’t really mean anything, it’s empty, if there’s no action being taken.”

He added, “if she’s influencing the president to stop the genocide in Gaza, I welcome that.”

Alexander Ward contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden might be able to end a stalemate on border security and Ukraine aid. First he needs to navigate an ugly intraparty Democratic fight.

White House officials came to Capitol Hill Tuesday to bless negotiations on new border restrictions, which Republicans have said they need in order to greenlight cash for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. But Hispanic legislators and immigrant advocates are deeply worried that the president will agree to restrictive new border regulations that resemble former President Donald Trump’s agenda in order to secure billions of dollars for Ukraine.

“I am concerned about how far the White House will go in agreeing to the concessions that the Republicans want — concessions relating to making permanent changes to asylum and some other aspects,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). “It’s pretty frustrating.”

Alienating the progressive wing of the party is almost a necessary ingredient of finishing a border deal. The days of every Democrat teaming with a handful of Republicans to cut bipartisan deals is over. With a Republican House and Speaker Mike Johnson in power, any workable agreement almost by definition has to make the left uncomfortable, at the very least.

“The president’s got to be moving in ways that are disruptive. The situation at the border is not sustainable. And that means that you have to either accept it when it’s not sustainable, or you’ve got to address it. And that’s going to cause some consternation within our party,” said Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

The hand-wringing is already in full effect. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) is lamenting the decision to link border policy to foreign aid and Democratic leaders’ exclusion of Hispanic lawmakers from the negotiating room. And he has repeatedly voiced his concern to both senior White House officials and Senate Democratic leaders.

Padilla said Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has assured him and other members that they’d be briefed on the details before there’s a final agreement.

An internal Democratic clash could pose significant problems for the White House if progressives can pull together to oppose a final deal. The hurdles from such a rebellion are likely to be higher in the House than Senate, where liberals’ opposition to border policy and conservative opposition to Ukraine funding could pose a toxic combination.

“I’m an absolute no on any bill that’s going to change asylum status, or remove parole,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). “We shouldn’t be scapegoating immigrant lives over our supplemental.”

The exclusion of the Hispanic Caucus from the talks has struck a nerve among the influential Democratic bloc. Its members had requested an in-person meeting with White House chief of staff Jeff Zients, an ask that went unfulfilled.

Instead, a Biden administration official called chair Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) on Monday, according to a person familiar with the situation, but offered few details about what was on the table and made no commitment to consult the group moving forward.

Hispanic and progressive lawmakers lined up Wednesday to denounce the White House’s reported concessions in the talks. Barragán said they’d “hold the line” against changes: “We are urging the Biden administration to say no — to not take the bait.”

Even Democrats from battleground districts, like Rep. Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, sounded a note of alarm.

“They’re going to be in for a rude awakening if they think that we’re just going to go with what the administration negotiates,” Vasquez said.

White House officials and Senate negotiators have yet to put all of their ideas on paper, stressing that nothing is final. But they have discussed new expulsion authority, changes to asylum, nationwide expedited removal and mandatory detention.

Those discussions have provoked outrage among progressives who see Biden as poised to implement policies resembling Trump’s — not a welcome comparison in the Democratic Party, to say the least.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) has spoken with his colleagues at length, explaining to them what the situation is like in his state and hoping to curtail Democratic opposition. He said he did not expect big whip count problems in the Senate, but added he was less certain about the House.

“That’s usually the nature of a compromise,” Kelly said. “Folks are going to have to be willing to accept something they could not agree with 100 percent.”

Still, Biden’s leadership could prove critical to navigating the challenging moment. With his party bogged down by his sagging approval ratings and challenging battleground polling, the president can argue that a border deal isn’t just good policy but also good politics.

Of course, liberals disagree with that argument. Padilla said Biden has more to risk by alienating his supporters who oppose Trump-era immigration policies.

The proposals on the table represent “a not insignificant shift in policy when President Biden campaigned, talked about restoring the soul of the nation and staying true to our democratic values and the principles of the founding fathers,” he said. “This is anything but — to revert back to Trump-era policies, whether it’s Title 42 [removal authority] or incarcerating children.”

Yet other Democrats are urging Biden to take the reins.

“The president has to get involved,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

The GOP is growing more confident that Biden will want a deal, despite objections from within his own party. Key White House aides and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas are now intimately involved in the negotiations, with Mayorkas’ involvement particularly rankling Republicans.

That animosity has, in turn, boosted GOP hopes for Biden to step in, with Republicans calling on the president to take an active role in negotiations.

Mayorkas “should be impeached. Or resign, or just go away. I have no confidence at all in him, but he’s not going to be the decision-maker. His boss is,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Advocacy groups — from immigrant rights to youth voter organizations — are speaking out against the talks as well. NextGen America, which endorsed Biden for a second term as early as May, said it was “extremely concerning that the White House has signaled a willingness to support these policies.”

And Immigration Hub sent a memo late Tuesday to Zients as well as Neera Tanden, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, and Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to the president. The advocacy group warned the White House that “extreme concessions on immigration” would have “immense and detrimental consequences on critical battleground voters, including Latinos, Independents and the base.”

It’s not like Republicans are enjoying this moment, either: They are almost certainly going to lose votes from a dozen or more senators and many more House members simply for trying to fund Ukraine. They say they’re used to it.

“I get that the noise on their side is on the far left. But the middle of the country is looking at this and going: ‘What’s wrong with you guys?’” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), who added he’s certain to lose votes on any deal due to conservative opposition to Ukraine funding. Democrats are “not accustomed to this,” he added.

Even so, many Democratic senators have accepted that the party is going to split in the coming weeks if negotiators can somehow clinch a deal either this month or next. They say that’s the necessary cost of giving Ukraine the U.S. aid it says it desperately needs.

“I assume that the extremes on each end are not going to vote for something,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “The goal is to find a compromise that the majority can support.”

Myah Ward contributed to this report.