Politico

President Joe Biden said Monday that he could not guarantee that the federal government will not default on debt payments due later this month, putting the onus on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to back Republicans off their strategic obstructions to Democratic attempts to raise the debt limit.

“I can’t believe that will be the end result because the consequence is so dire,” Biden told reporters after making a speech on the issue from the White House. “I don’t believe that. But can I guarantee it? If I could, I would, but I can’t.”

McConnell has thus far been adamant that GOP senators will not vote to increase the debt limit without significant concessions on government spending reductions, suggesting instead that Democrats should raise the debt ceiling via the complicated and time-consuming budget reconciliation process. Democrats and other Senate observers have warned that doing so could take weeks, and brush perilously close to the mid-October deadline projected by the Treasury Department.

Biden repeatedly chastised Senate Republicans for repeatedly blocking Democrats from passing a debt limit increase in recent weeks.

“What they’re doing today is so reckless and dangerous in my view,” he said. “Not only are Republicans refusing to do their job. They’re threatening to abuse the power, their power, to prevent us from doing our job saving the economy from a catastrophic event.”

“I think, quite frankly, it is hypocritical, dangerous and disgraceful. Their obstruction and irresponsibility knows absolutely no bounds,” he continued.

Biden’s admission is the most blunt to date of the risk that the ongoing standoff poses to the “full faith and credit” of the United States and its standing in the global economy. The president said that going through reconciliation is “fraught with all kinds of danger for miscalculation.”

Biden’s remarks came not long after McConnell sent a letter to the White House urging the president to talk Democrats into going it alone on reconciliation.

“I respectfully submit that it is time for you to engage directly with congressional Democrats on this matter,” McConnell told Biden in his letter, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. “Your lieutenants in Congress must understand that you do not want your unified Democratic government to sleepwalk toward an avoidable catastrophe when they have had nearly three months’ notice to do their job.”

Biden told reporters he only received McConnell’s missive “10 minutes before I walked in here,” and his remarks indicated he would be unreceptive to the minority leader’s suggestions.

“Republicans say they will not do their part to avoid this needless calamity,” Biden said during his speech. “So be it. But they need to stop playing Russian roulette with the U.S. economy. Let the Democrats vote to raise the debt ceiling this week, without obstruction or further delays.”

Nevertheless Biden said he intends to talk with McConnell in the coming days in hopes of forging a way forward.

The first Women’s March of the Biden administration headed straight for the steps of the Supreme Court on Saturday, part of nationwide protests that drew thousands to Washington and other cities to demand continued access to abortion in a year when conservative lawmakers and judges have put it in jeopardy.

Many thousands of women filled a square near the White House for a rally before the march. They waved signs that said “Mind your own uterus,” “I love someone who had an abortion” and “Abortion is a personal choice, not a legal debate,” among other messages. Some wore T-shirts reading simply “1973,” a reference to the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal for generations of American women.

Elaine Baijal, a 19-year-old student at American University, took cellphone photos with her friends and their signs as the event started. She said her mother told her of coming to a march for legal abortion with her own mother in the 1970s.

“It’s sad that we still have to fight for our right 40 years later. But it’s a tradition I want to continue,” Baijal said of the march.

Organizers say the Washington march will be among hundreds of abortion-themed protests around the country Saturday. The demonstrations just before the start of a new term for the Supreme Court that will decide the future of abortion rights in the United States, after appointments of justices by former President Donald Trump strengthened conservative control of the high court.

“Shame, shame, shame!” marchers chanted while walking past the Trump International Hotel on their way to the Supreme Court. Some booed and waived their fists at the Trump landmark.

The day before the march, the Biden administration urged a federal judge to block the nation’s most restrictive abortion law, which has banned most abortions in Texas since early September. It’s one of a series of cases that will give the nation’s divided high court occasion to uphold or overrule Roe v. Wade.

The Texas law motivated many of the demonstrators and speakers.

“We’re going to keep giving it to Texas,” Marsha Jones of the Afiya Center for Black women’s health care in Dallas, pledged to the Washington crowd. “You can no longer tell us what to do with our bodies!”

Alexis McGill Johnson, the president of Planned Parenthood nationally, told of women forced to drive many hours across state lines — sometimes multiple state lines — to end pregnancies in the weeks since the Texas law went into effect.

“The moment is dark … but that is why we are here,” Johnson told the crowd packed into Freedom Square and surrounding streets. With the upcoming Supreme Court term, “No matter where you are, this fight is at your doorstep right now.”

At an unrelated event in Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins called the Texas law “extreme, inhumane and unconstitutional” and said she’s working to make Roe v. Wade the “law of the land.”

She said she’s working with two Democrats and another Republican, and they’re “vetting” the language of their bill. Collins declined to identify her colleagues, but said the legislation will be introduced soon.

An opponent of women’s access to abortion called this year’s march theme “macabre.”

“What about equal rights for unborn women?” tweeted Jeanne Mancini, president of an anti-abortion group called March for Life.

The Women’s March has become a regular event — although interrupted by the coronavirus pandemic — since millions of women turned out in the United States and around the world the day after the January 2017 inauguration of Trump. Trump endorsed punishing women for getting abortions and made appointment of conservative judges a mission of his presidency.

With the sun beating down Saturday, Ramsay Teviotdale of Arlington, Virginia — who when asked her age said she was “old enough to remember when abortion wasn’t legal” — was one of the few wearing the hand-knitted pink wool caps that distinguished the 2017 Women’s March.

Without Trump as a central figure for women of varied political beliefs to rally against, and with the pandemic still going strong, organizers talk of hundreds of thousands of participants nationally Saturday, not the millions of 2017.

Teviotdale said this does not lessen the urgency of the moment. “This Texas thing — no way can it stand. It’s the thin edge of the wedge,” she said.

The march is part of “a fight to secure, safeguard, and strengthen our constitutional right to an abortion,” Rachel O’Leary Carmona, executive director of the Women’s March, said in a statement. “And it’s a fight against the Supreme Court justices, state lawmakers, and senators who aren’t on our side — or aren’t acting with the urgency this moment demands.”

Latina comedian and activist Cristela Alonzo hosted Saturday’s rally in Washington, which featured speeches from many advocates and providers of abortion access. Actress Busy Philipps and swimmer Schuyler Bailar were to take part.

Security in the capital was much lighter than for a political rally a few weeks ago in support of Trump supporters jailed in the Jan. 6 insurrection. No fence was placed around the U.S. Capitol, with the Capitol Police chief saying there was nothing to suggest Saturday’s rally would be violent.

After seven Senate terms and three runs for president, Joe Biden has mastered his folksy image. But behind “the Delaware way” are secrets in Joe’s family tree and son Hunter’s foreign deals. National political correspondent Ben Schreckinger tells Playbook’s Ryan Lizza about what he uncovered while investigating his book, “The Bidens: Inside The First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power.”

Read an excerpt of Ben’s book in Politico Magazine here.

On the Biden family’s reputation:

“Joe Biden has a reputation as someone with his foot in his mouth who can be clumsy when he speaks, who gets himself in trouble. And I think that obscures how good he’s been and how good the family has been at telling their story … and projecting an image that emphasizes the tragedies that they’ve endured, the resilience — the fact that Joe Biden was left for dead not just politically after 1987, but very nearly died. … So there is a real comeback story and just a very touching story of someone who has endured a couple of very big tragedies in their life that has made Joe Biden relatable to a lot of people and have a very genuine connection with a lot of people. At the same time, that’s a story that has been told over and over again in the context of creating a political mythos, trying to win political power by winning votes.” — Ben Schreckinger

“This family really is extremely tight-knit. That’s not a show for the cameras. That’s one of the most universal things I hear from people in reporting is no, they really are that close. It explains why Donald Trump, who’s someone who’s pretty good at ferreting out the weaknesses of his political enemies, seized on Hunter because there is real baggage there. And some of it has to do with a troubled personal life, which is attractive for somebody like Trump to sort of throw that into the mix. But there are enough issues around potential conflicts of interest and the like with Hunter Biden’s dealings over the years. Enough that we don’t know, that there is more to learn and that it’s not just about Donald Trump picking on someone who has some personal problems.” — Ben Schreckinger

On ‘the Delaware Way’:

“The most important thing to understand about Joe Biden and Delaware and what it means for who he is, is this concept of ‘the Delaware way,’ which is something that Joe has explicitly invoked as a model for Washington. He has said that we need more of the Delaware way in Washington. … Washington is too acrimonious. The Delaware way is a much cozier way of conducting politics, much less adversarial. It’s about bringing people together or being bipartisan, reaching a consensus agreement. But there’s also a downside to the Delaware way. It has its critics who say this is essentially cronyism.” — Ben Schreckinger

On the intersection of Joe Biden’s private and public worlds:

“After the death of Neilia and Joe’s infant daughter, Amy, he is wracked with guilt over deciding to remain in the Senate. He’s occupied in Washington. He has these two young sons who are being raised largely by Val and Jimmy [Biden’s sister and brother]. So he creates a rule where they, at any time, can say ‘wild card.’ They don’t have to go to school. They don’t have to do whatever their other plans were supposed to be. They can go with their father to Washington or wherever he’s going. And so the first thing that he does is sort of tear down the walls between his day job and what his family is doing. And you see this play out later where there’s questions about Hunter tagging along on trips on Air Force Two around the world and meeting with business contacts as part of that.” — Ben Schreckinger

“Joe Biden said on the campaign trail … that he’s never discussed his relatives’ business dealings with them or with anybody else, ever. … But there is an issue with that statement because Tony Bobulinski has come forward and said, ‘Well, that’s not true. I spoke with Joe Biden about Jimmy and Hunter’s plans, attempts to go into business with these Chinese businessmen from CEFC,’ this energy company, in 2017 in Los Angeles. He was clearly familiar, at least with the broad outlines of this. The White House hasn’t contested that statement.” — Ben Schreckinger

Vice President Kamala Harris’ office is working behind the scenes to mend relationships with pro-Israel Democrats after not pushing back on a student who, in asking her a question, accused Israel of “ethnic genocide.”

On Thursday, Harris’ senior staff contacted the influential Democratic Majority for Israel to clean up remarks she made Wednesday at George Mason University where Harris was visiting a classroom of students. “We were pleased Vice President Harris’s senior staff reached out to us today to confirm what we already knew: Her ‘commitment to Israel’s security is unwavering,’” said Mark Mellman, the president of the group.

A senior adviser to Harris also reached out to Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fl.) the co-chair of the Bipartisan Anti‐Semitism Taskforce, a source familiar with the outreach told POLITICO.

Deutch and his office did not respond to a request for comment. But the source said it was “fair to say that the group of House Democrats that super care about this noticed it and talked about it.” Harris’ office also called Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Thursday afternoon, the source said.

The incident involving Harris took place on Wednesday, when a student attending an event with the VP to promote voting, said that Israel was conducting an “ethnic genocide” in Palestine and felt that the U.S. was ignoring protests even though Harris had been discussing the power of demonstrating. Harris responded: “Your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth cannot be suppressed, and it must be heard.”

Israeli news outlets jumped on the comments. “VP Harris to student who accused Israel of ‘genocide’: Your truth must be heard,” went the headline in The Jerusalem Post. The Times of Israel also chimed in: “Kamala Harris doesn’t reject US student’s ‘ethnic genocide’ claim against Israel.”

Mellman quoted Harris’ senior staff as reassuring them that the vice president “strongly disagrees with the George Mason student’s characterization of Israel.”

Mellman also signaled that he wanted to move on from the dust-up, saying: “The Biden-Harris Administration, as well as President Biden and Vice President Harris personally, have exemplary pro-Israel records, for which we are immensely grateful.”

This is a developing story.

The Biden administration’s Pacific strategy will face a major test later this year when India makes good on a controversial $5 billion arms deal with Russia, an agreement that could trigger U.S. sanctions at a time when Washington is trying to pull India closer.

The deal for five Russian-made S-400 air defense systems has long been a concern in Washington, but with delivery expected in December, the White House will be forced to decide how to manage the complicated relationship between the two countries.

In play is the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, a 2017 law with broad support in Congress that punishes countries for making major arms deals with Russia, the world’s second-largest arms exporter.

To date, the only countries sanctioned under the law are Turkey and China, both for buying the same S-400 system slated to arrive in India. It’s a precedent that could put the Biden administration in an awkward position with a key ally.

The government of Narendra Modi appears to have made the decision to go forward with the system, and “they’ve not backed down for the last three years despite the threats of sanctions,” said Sameer Lalwani, director of the Stimson Center’s South Asia Program.

“They planned around it, they made this commitment and reaffirmed it. They’re not blinking on this and so we can play this game of chicken as much as we want, but the consequences will be worse for us,” he said.

Modi was in Washington last week to meet with Biden and the other leaders of the The Quad — India, Australia, Japan and the U.S. — to discuss a range of regional issues, but American and Indian officials would not confirm the S-400 was on the agenda.

India has for decades been a customer of weapons made in the U.S., Russia, France and Israel. But in recent years successive administrations in Washington have tried to wean India off Russian gear, with important wins. But Russia maintains a grip on some major systems, selling nuclear-powered submarines and warships to the Indian armed forces.

The S-400 air defense system, however, looms large.

In 2020, the Trump administration kicked Turkey out of the F-35 program and imposed sanctions under CAATSA after Turkey received its first S-400, a major step against a longtime NATO ally.

Being removed from the F-35 club was a bitter pill for the Turkish government, but Washington and its NATO allies had spent years publicly and privately warning Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan against consummating the deal. Turkish leadership remained defiant throughout, however. Just this past week, Erdogan said he was prepared to buy a second S-400, pledging “nobody will be able to interfere in terms of what kind of defense systems we acquire, from which country, at what level.”

The Indian government “was definitely watching all of that in great detail and all along the way we continued to warn them,” said R. Clarke Cooper, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs under the Trump administration, now at the Atlantic Council. The message to the Indian government after inking the deal with Russia in 2018 was “‘look, you take delivery of the S-400 you’re going to potentially jeopardize interoperability with the United States, and you’re going to potentially jeopardize interoperability with other partners that you value,” Cooper said.

The 2017 CAATSA law came in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and was aimed at dissuading countries from buying Russian equipment while also punishing the country’s arms industry. Given the size of Russia’s arms exports to the Asia-Pacific region, however, the Trump and Biden administrations worked to balance the law against antagonizing burgeoning allies with a long history of buying Russian gear.

India is a key part of that balancing act, and how the U.S. treats India’s dealings with Russia will have an impact on how other nations will expect to be treated.

The Indian Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request to comment on the potential for sanctions.

Since CAATSA went into effect, the message to countries with long-standing relationships with the Russian defense industry has generally been, “keep your AK-47s, but if you really are looking to have a modern military alongside the United States and partners, don’t put that at risk,” Cooper said. “I would be surprised if the Biden team is having any different kind of conversation with the Indian government.”

A senior administration official, who was not authorized to discuss the issue and asked for anonymity, said India’s planned defense purchases from Russia are no secret, but “we urge all of our allies and partners to forgo transactions with Russia that risk triggering sanctions,” under CAATSA.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has not made any determination about sanctions, and “CAATSA does not have any blanket or country-specific waiver provision,” the official said. Any transaction with Russia’s “defense or intelligence sectors must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”

In Turkey’s case, the worry inside NATO was that the powerful Russian radar system that tracks targets for the S-400 would pump valuable information back to Moscow about how the F-35 and other aircraft operate. Leaders in Brussels said there was no chance they would put their F-35s anywhere near that radar system, even if it were operated by an ally.

India remains a massive market for arms exporting countries, accounting for 9.5 percent of all global arms imports in 2020 bested only by Saudi Arabia, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

And billions of that spending will continue to go to Russia.

“Whatever happens, whether it’s sanctions or whether it’s a waiver, the real challenge for the administration is figuring out how to avoid having to deal with this over and over and over again,” said Stimson’s Lalwani.

In 2023, India will receive the first two of four new frigates from Russia, and in 2025, will begin leasing its third nuclear-powered submarine from Moscow, all major deals already sealed.

“The question will be whether this is going to trigger a wave of sanctions each time,” Lalwani said. “So the other reason the administration will have to work this out with Congress is so this Sword of Damocles isn’t hanging over the relationship for the next five to 10 years because those deals have already been made and signed.”

In March, Senate Foreign Relations Chair Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) sent a letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warning, “if India chooses to go forward with its purchase of the S-400, that act will clearly constitute a significant, and sanctionable, transaction with the Russian defense sector … it will also limit India’s ability to work with the U.S. on development and procurement of sensitive military technology.”

While those major deals will force Washington to reckon with its own policy choices, the industrial competition between the American and Russian defense industries will remain fierce.

In May, the State Department approved the sale of six P-8 submarine-hunting aircraft to India, adding to the 12 Boeing-made aircraft the country already operates. The deals all carry the provision that 30 percent of the manufacturing take place in India, part of Modi’s Make in India program.

A major prize awaits in the coming months, when India decides who will build its new fleet of up to 110 multirole fighter planes. Lockheed Martin is working to sell India on its F-21 fighter, a derivative of the F-16.

Boeing is offering its F-15EX Eagle II and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which is competing with Saab’s Gripen E/F, Dassault’s Rafale, and Eurofighter’s Typhoon, which is produced by a consortium of Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo. Russia is thought to be offering both its MiG-35 and Sukhoi Su-35.

The Obama administration’s designation of India as a major defense partner in 2016 was meant as a sign of Washington’s desire to draw closer to New Delhi, while nudging the Indian government to begin shunning some Russian gear.

The deal grants India access to U.S. defense technologies at a level comparable to NATO allies, and came just after Russia lost a $3 billion deal to Boeing to build Apache and Chinook helicopters.

The United States and its influential defense industry are not about to walk away from these deals and a growing relationship with India at a time when the country has become a close ally in deterring China. But with India not about to walk away from its relationship with Russia, Congress and the White House will soon have to decide how much they’re willing to accept.

House investigators probing the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol took a rare and little-noticed step on Wednesday, subpoenaing a current House staffer working in the office of Rep. Carol Miller, a West Virginia Republican.

Amid a round of 11 subpoenas targeting the organizers of a rally that preceded the violent attack on the Capitol, the Jan. 6 select committee demanded documents and testimony from Maggie Mulvaney, a former Trump campaign aide who was listed on permitting paperwork as “VIP Lead” for the event.

But just three days before the assault on the Capitol, Mulvaney — the niece of former congressman and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — began working as a senior adviser to Miller. House records show her employment began at the start of the new Congress even as she completed her commitment to help organize the rally.

Tatum Wallace, Miller’s communications director, said their office is “awaiting guidance from House Counsel,” after which they will provide an update.

Aides to the Jan. 6 committee declined to comment on the decision. Mulvaney did not respond to a request for comment.

Legal experts, including former attorneys for the House, say the step by the Jan. 6 committee may set a new precedent. The House has rarely turned its subpoena power on its own, and when it has, it’s been in the context of investigations by the Ethics Committee, a bipartisan panel explicitly charged with internal disciplinary matters.

While there’s little doubt the House has the legal authority to subpoena its own employees in matters of national significance, doing so may be a new frontier for an institution already mired in distrust and discord.

“In the Jack Abramoff scandal at one point the FBI surreptitiously ‘wired’ a staff member to gather incriminating evidence as the Member for whom he worked and that sent shock waves through the Capitol,” said former House counsel Stan Brand in an email. “This could have a similar impact.”

“While not necessarily a legal rubicon, I believe it does have the potential to impact the Member/staff relationship which is built on loyalty and trust,” Brand continued, adding that “exposing staff to subpoenas could affect how members regard their staff (as potential witnesses against them).”

Jan. 6 investigators have already flirted with taking unprecedented steps, like subpoenaing the phone records of members of Congress believed to have been in contact with Donald Trump and the White House ahead of the Jan. 6 attack. Those steps could become necessary, they emphasized, in part because of the unprecedented nature of the assault itself — an attack on a pillar of American democracy that threatened the peaceful transfer of power.

The committee has also taken the rare step of issuing immediate subpoenas without offering witnesses a chance to comply voluntarily first. That decision, the panel’s chair Bennie Thompson and other members have said, is to prevent Trump allies from protracted stonewalling that could permanently derail the probe. Trump himself stymied multiple congressional inquiries during his presidency by miring the House in lengthy court battles, and the Jan. 6 committee is eager to avoid a repeat.

“The concerns about setting precedents must take a backseat to the 1/6 committee getting the truth and if that means subpoenaing congressional staff, members of Congress, congressional phone records, or anything else, those concerns must predominate,” said Norm Eisen, counsel to the Judiciary Committee during the 2019 Trump impeachment. “The concern with truth must predominate.”

Typically, members of Congress and their staffs are protected from legal processes by the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution. Courts have generally taken a broad view of conduct that can be viewed as official business by lawmakers — and the Supreme Court has ruled that staff members generally enjoy the same protections because they are extensions of their bosses.

But Eisen, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, emphasized that these protections apply only when there are encroachments by other branches of government — and that in any case, the conduct in question here likely can’t be portrayed as part of Mulvaney’s official business.

“In my view, they’re striking the right balance because of the central importance of their inquiry to our nation’s future,” Eisen said.

Maggie Mulvaney isn’t the only Hill staffer of interest to the Jan. 6 committee. The panel has asked the National Archives to produce communications from the Trump White House related to Thomas Van Flein, the chief of staff to Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), and Judd Deere, a former White House aide who now works for Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.).

But the committee has not specifically targeted those aides, and the decision to subpoena a sitting staffer raises new and potentially uncomfortable questions about how the House may wield its subpoena power in the future.

“This is, of course, a much more politically charged issue and will raise the issue of retaliation the next time Republicans are in power,” said a former House official who has been involved in similar investigations. “But that is where both the House and Senate are headed, or already there.”

One lingering question: What does Mulvaney know? Her role in the rally is murky.

Mulvaney notified her office that she would be taking two days off to help with the event, where her job was to escort VIPs who arrived at the White House to their seats, according to a House source familiar with the situation. But there are still questions about the nature of conversations she had with top White House officials about the event as well, which the committee is looking to explore.

“According to press reports, those working with you and [Women for America First] to organize the January 6th rally collectively communicated with President Trump, White House officials including Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and others about the rally and other events planned to coincide with the certification of the 2020 Electoral College results,” Thompson wrote in his letter accompanying the subpoena to Mulvaney.

Mulvaney is being asked to turn over documents by Oct. 13 and testify by Oct. 21, making her an early witness that can help the committee piece together conversations held by key players.

The Justice Department and courts have similarly regarded the Jan. 6 attack as a unique moment in American history that warrants unprecedented steps to confront.

Federal authorities have arrested more than 600 people for participating in the Capitol breach, which left more than 130 police officers injured and multiple rioters dead. Several D.C. and Capitol police officers who responded to the attack later died or took their own lives.

Joe Biden’s National Security Council (NSC) is bringing on an experienced press operative to bulk up its communications, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Adrienne Watson, communications director at the Democratic National Committee, will be deputy spokesperson at the NSC under spokesperson Emily Horne and will start in early November, according to one official. The hiring of Watson, who has a background in rapid response communications, comes after the NSC and national security adviser Jake Sullivan faced rough headlines over their handling of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The NSC had a temporary deputy spokesperson in the early days of the administration — Elizabeth Trudeau, who was on temporary detail from the State Department until late March and then eventually went to the Pentagon.

Watson’s experience is more political than Trudeau, who had spent much of her career at the State Department. Watson’s four-plus years at the DNC included jobs as press secretary and war room director. Before that, she ran communications at the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC Correct the Record in 2016 and also worked on Capitol Hill for three moderate Democrats. Watson declined to comment.

“Good communicators shape stories, but great ones can change organizations,” said DNC executive director Sam Cornale. “I’m hard pressed to think of someone who has meant more to the strength of the DNC and our Biden-Harris team than Adrienne Watson.” Asked who Watson’s replacement would be, Cornale declined to comment.

Watson also earned respect from counterparts at the Republican National Committee. “Smart hire,” Michael Ahrens, the RNC’s communications director last cycle, said in a text message. “Adrienne is a smart and effective communicator.”

During the 2016 election, past colleagues of Watson’s recall her pitching opposition research on Donald Trump up until the campaign’s end, even after Democrats thought they were going to win.

The move comes as many parts of the White House have been beefing up their communications operations amid a number of political and policy crises. The National Economic Council recently hired operative Jesse Lee and Vice President Kamala Harris’ office also recently brought on two longtime communicators Lorraine Voles and Adam Frankel.

Democrats wanted clarity Tuesday from Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema after back-to-back meetings with President Joe Biden. They didn’t get it.

During a private meeting with the president, Sinema made clear she’s still not on board with the party’s $3.5 trillion social spending plan and is hesitant to engage on some specifics until the bipartisan infrastructure package passes the House, according to a person who spoke with her.

“This is the third time she said she has told the president, ‘I’m not there,’” the person said, quoting Sinema as telling the president: “‘I’ve been very clear with you from the start.’”

Sinema has problems with both the price tag and some of the tax increases devised to pay for it. After returning from his White House meeting, Manchin said that he did not give Biden a topline number and made “no commitments from my standpoint.”

Sinema and Manchin’s approach to the negotiations has frozen Biden’s jobs and families plan and potentially may lead to a high-profile failure of a bipartisan infrastructure bill on the House floor as progressives threaten rebellion. But without more details from the moderate duo, any hope of a bicameral agreement on Biden’s agenda is a pipe dream.

Manchin and Sinema met with Biden separately Tuesday, the second time in less than a week that they paid a visit to the White House to lay out their concerns and haggle with the president over reducing Democrats’ plans to spend $3.5 trillion. Sinema also returned to the White House to hash out details with staff as Manchin huddled separately with Biden for more than an hour.

Even as the House tees up a vote on the senators’ bipartisan physical infrastructure bill for this week, Manchin and Sinema have yet to publicly indicate how far they’re willing to go on Democrats’ party-line legislation addressing climate change, child care and a host of other party priorities.

The back-and-forth between Biden and the two senators is making Democrats anxious about the prolonged timeline for the negotiations. And many are in the dark about what spending figure either of them would support, let alone their policy objections.

“What I know is that the longer these debates hang out there the easier it is for the opposition to mislabel and twist what we’re trying to do,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “If we’re going to come to an agreement it would behoove us to do it sooner rather than later so that we can go out and start explaining it to people.”

Privately, patience is waning in the Senate Democratic caucus.

“I’m worried my colleagues are going to shoot themselves in the foot,” said one Senate Democrat, who spoke under condition of anonymity. “We should find a solid number and move on.”

For months, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have insisted on a “two-track strategy,” which meant Democrats would not pass the bipartisan infrastructure package without the party-line social spending bill. But by setting up a vote Thursday on the bipartisan physical infrastructure bill, Pelosi is effectively de-linking the two, prompting consternation among progressives who don’t want to lose leverage on the social spending plan.

“The agreement from the beginning was that all the pieces would move together… and that one piece wouldn’t be broken off and moved ahead of the others,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). “Both Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in the House and the Senate all said that’s the deal. I want to make sure we hold to that deal. I don’t want to see that deal broken.”

Manchin and Sinema have consistently signaled that they do not support the package costing $3.5 trillion. During last week’s meeting, Biden urged Manchin to come back to him with a number that he could support. But Manchin has indicated that he’s in no rush to make a decision.

“We had good honest, straightforward negotiations. There were no commitments made at all, no commitments from my standpoint, just good negotiations talking about the needs of the country,” Manchin said. As far as a topline spending number, he said: “We haven’t talked about it, no. Just talking about the need. I’m looking at the needs of the country.”

Sinema’s office declined to comment for this story.

Meanwhile, Democrats face a lengthy to-do list with little time.

“We’re reaching a point where we need to bring this to closure. I think that’s obvious,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “We have four major challenges on us at once: Funding the government, dealing with the debt ceiling, bipartisan infrastructure bill and reconciliation. That’s a big agenda. I think a breakthrough on one of those will help.”

Democratic leaders are starting to acknowledge that any social spending package that passes the House and Senate will have to take a major haircut from $3.5 trillion blueprint both chambers of Congress approved in August. But that’s not stopping some progressives from expressing their frustration with Thursday’s vote on the bipartisan physical infrastructure bill.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) even called for progressives to vote the legislation down, should the White House and Senate moderates fail to reach an agreement. Meanwhile, Murphy added that he may have taken a different approach to the bipartisan infrastructure bill had he known it would be de-linked from the social spending plan.

“Clearly the rules are changing, sometimes that’s necessary given changing realities. But it can be pretty frustrating,” he said.

On the other side of the Capitol, House Democrats are paying unusual attention to Manchin and Sinema and are largely in a holding pattern until the two senators make a decision on a topline. Pelosi has indicated to members that she will not move legislation that can’t pass the Senate.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the No. 5 House Democrat, said he remained hopeful that the conversations with Manchin and Sinema would lead to a tangible result “so we’ll know what’s possible in the House.” And Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) indirectly said Sinema is the House’s biggest problem during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday, predicting Manchin will get on board but expressing concern that a senator from a Biden-won state won’t give a number she’s willing to support.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a leading progressive who met with Sinema recently, said of the duo: “They need to tell us what they don’t agree with. And we need to actually be able to negotiate.”

Still, Democrats are refraining from making any predictions about when Manchin and Sinema might make up their minds. And even as they wait it out, for the most part they’re declining to criticize the two moderates publicly, well aware that they will need their votes for any legislation that passes the Senate.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) reiterated Tuesday that she is “still waiting” for Manchin and Sinema to offer specifics about what they want.

When asked if she was frustrated with the two of them, she replied: “Just a tad.”

Heather Caygle and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.