Transcript of Immigration Bill Passes, Trump's Grip On Republicans, John Bolton To Plead Guilty

Senators voted all night on immigration enforcement.

They passed the bill after 18 hours of voting but voted not to block the president's agreement with himself for a $1.8 billion fund. What happened to Republican objections?

I'm Michelle Martin. That's Steve Inskeep. And this is Up First from NPR News. How much distance is really opening between the president and lawmakers in his party? A few Republicans are breaking with Trump over the war in Iran, his anti-weaponization fund and his pick to lead national intelligence.

Also, what are the terms of a plea agreement for John Bolton? The president's former national security adviser and longtime critic admits to charges of mishandling classified information. How does his case differ from others against the president's enemies? Stay with us. We've got the news you need to start your day.

Hey, it's Robin Hilton from NPR Music with some big news for everyone who loves The Tiny Desk. We're giving away a trip to D.C. to see a Tiny Desk concert in person, hotel and flights included. Learn more and enter for free at npr.org/tinydeskgiveaway. No purchase or donation required for entry. Must be 18 years or older to enter. Links to the entry page and official rules can be found at npr.org/tinydeskgiveaway.

The Senate has passed a bill overnight that funds immigration enforcement. It took them 18 hours.

It was almost a party-line vote. Just one Republican opposed. Lawmakers failed to approve amendments blocking President Trump's agreement with himself to to establish a $1.8 billion fund. Democrats were outraged by the agreement. Many Republicans said they were, too, but most voted to block amendments that would displease the president.

NPR congressional correspondent Barbara Sprunt has been up just about all night. Barbara, good morning.

Hey, good morning, Steve.

Okay, I want to talk about the amendments Michelle mentioned, but what is the underlying bill that just passed?

Right, so if we cast back to earlier this year, Senate Democrats blocked funding the Department of Homeland Security over concerns about the way it was conducting immigration enforcement, uh, specifically after after federal agents killed two protesters in Minneapolis. Eventually, at the end of April, after a long shutdown, Congress funded the department everything except immigration enforcement, and Republicans decided to use a budget tool called reconciliation in order to fund that, to fund ICE, to fund Border Patrol in a separate bill. And this is that bill. It would fund those agencies for 3 years.

3 years, for the rest of Trump's presidency. Congress wouldn't have to vote on it again. This is a thing the president really wanted. And Democrats took the opportunity to offer amendments to that. What happened?

That's right. Well, you know, it's interesting. I mean, in this votE-A-Rama scenario, both parties can offer amendments, get the other party on the record on various things. And the thing that was most interesting to me were these amendments where there was crossover support. You know, there was some Republican support for an amendment to restrict funding for President Trump's ballroom, another one of his big projects, for example. But the subject that came up again and again was the Trump administration's earlier proposal to create that nearly $2 billion settlement fund you were mentioning to pay out supporters who say they've been persecuted by the government. Uh, there was a proposal from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to prevent that creation altogether. It failed. Uh, but 3 Republicans, including senators in tough races in Ohio and Alaska, voted with Democrats. Another proposal would've redirected the money from that fund to fraud enforcement. That had more Republican support. And Republicans writ large voted against an amendment that would prohibit payouts from any weapon anti-weaponization fund to people convicted of assaulting law enforcement on January 6th. 8 Republicans did join Democrats in voting for it.

Okay.

All those amendments failed. The bill did pass. Why did it get to be so difficult?

You know, in large part because of the White House. There was bipartisan pushback at that anti-weaponization fund. The acting attorney general said it's not going to move forward, which seemed to satisfy senators. But then the president told reporters he didn't actually know if it was scrapped or not. And he said that knowing that there are are these Republican senators who are uncomfortable with the idea. So this moment for congressional Republicans is about passing this priority after all this time. But it's also a moment where there is this increasing tension and conflict with the White House.

And I don't think that's stopping anytime soon, although it seems that the tension is resolved again and again with Republicans just obeying. I just want to note, Barbara, back on Monday, our own Eric McDaniel told us that as many as 30 Senate Republicans were ready to vote against Trump's fund. And then we get to actually voting. And one amendment had just 3 Republicans voting for it, leaving it shy of passing. There were other amendments that never had quite enough votes to pass. Are Republicans still trying very hard not to cross the president even on this fund that they really didn't like?

You know, I think there's at least a handful of Republican senators this morning asking themselves that same question, Steve. You know, some of those GOP amendments that were crafted were made in a way to be as attractive as they could be to the full Republican conference. And as you said, we saw them fail to meet the threshold time and time again.

NPR's Barbara Sprunt, thanks.

Thank you.

The congressional Republicans who challenged the president's agenda this week broke with tradition.

Most Republican lawmakers said little about military intervention in Venezuela and Iran, troops in American cities, sweeping immigration crackdowns, the dismantling of agencies and the consolidation of power in the executive office. Now there are small signs of pushback against a president who's been the dominant force in the Republican Party for a decade.

NPR's Franco Ordoñez is covering this. Franco, good Good morning.

Good morning, Steve.

I want to emphasize small signs of pushback, but what's happening?

Yeah, a few examples, I mean, from the last couple days where Trump may have pushed the envelope a little bit too far. I mean, one was when Trump tapped a housing agency official, Bill Pulte, who has no experience in intelligence, being tapped to be the acting director of national intelligence, a position charged with coordinating more than a dozen intelligence agencies. I mean, Pulte is better known for going after Trump's political enemies. I mean, one senator, Tom Tillis of North Carolina called him an incendiary attack dog on CNBC. Trump also announced that he'd like to nominate his former personal attorney, Todd Blanche, as Attorney General. It was Blanche who championed that very unpopular anti-weaponization fund that you were just talking about with Barbara. I mean, critics called it a slush fund for Trump supporters who felt victimized by the government, including those convicted of January 6th crimes, on top of several Republicans who balked at the fund in the Senate. I mean, just one more example, Steve, in the House, 4 Republicans joined with Democrats to rebuke Trump over the war in Iran.

Yeah, and that's a rare one where enough Republicans actually voted for something that would pass. Why are some Republicans finding their voices?

Well, I mean, it comes down to politics and a bit of the calendar. I mean, Trump was obviously never really a consensus builder. He always led through fear of retribution, and his ability to kind of unify these swaths of the Republican Party as well as bring into the fold new voters was the reason he won in 2016 and 2024. But we're in a definitely different period right now, even from just 2 years ago. Much of that is due to the war in Iran that Trump initiated, and polls show Americans, including some Republicans, are souring on the president's leadership, particularly the economy. I mean, gas prices, as we've reported, have risen to more than $4 a gallon, and that's making everything more expensive.

Just as the midterms are coming.

Yeah, exactly. I mean, all this plays into the midterms. I was talking with John McHenry, a veteran Republican strategist. He told me it's normal to accept a little distance from the president at this point after the primaries.

Part of what's going on, though, is that we are largely through the primaries where the president can do the most damage to people who cross him within his own party and moving on to the general where I think some people either feel a little bit more vulnerable or feel like they need to, you know, in a year that doesn't look great for Republicans right now, want to establish their own record.

Is the president a lame duck then?

Well, I mean, I think that's a little bit early to say. I mean, he's come back so many times before.

Yeah.

After the 2020 election, after the January 6th riots, hits. And frankly, Steve, a lot could change in the next few months, especially if the war in Iran ends and gas prices go down. I mean, Trump could be looking better politically if the economy improves.

NPR's Franco Ordoñez, thanks so much.

Thank you, Steve.

John Bolton agreed to plead guilty.

Bolton once served as President Trump's national security adviser. He later became a tough critic of the president's. His plea for mishandling the classified information would resolve the criminal case the Justice Department brought against Bolton last year.

NPR justice correspondent Ryan Lucas has the unclassified version of this story. He's in our studio, Studio 31. Ryan, thanks for coming by.

Good morning, Steve.

What were the charges against Bolton?

So, look, Bolton was indicted in October on 18 criminal counts for retention and transmission of national defense information, and the allegations in the indictment date to his time as national security adviser, as you said, in Trump's first term. Now, Prosecutors say that Bolton regularly took handwritten notes about what he was doing on a daily basis as national security adviser. So things that he was hearing in meetings with U.S. intelligence officials, military officials, or in talks with, with foreign leaders. And then he would send that very sensitive information, some of it highly classified, to two family members, either in text messages or in email. And I will also say that FBI agents discovered digital or printed copies of some of that. At his home.

Okay, so lots of evidence to back up the allegations. What is the agreement then?

So first off, it's important to say that this is a tentative plea deal. It would still have to be signed off on by a judge, but a person familiar with the matter tells me that under the plea deal, Bolton would plead guilty to a single count of retaining classified information. Uh, he would also face a fine of a little more than $2 million, and he could face anywhere from zero prison time to up to 5 years in prison. But that is much, much less than if he had taken this case to trial, uh, and been found guilty. Now, a judge, as I said, has to still approve any plea deal. And ultimately, it's the judge who's going to decide on Bolton's sentence. Now, I reached out to the Justice Department. It declined to comment other than referring me to a court notice scheduling a rearrangement for Bolton at the end of the month. And that is something that often signals that a plea deal has been agreed to.

People will remember the backstory here. The FBI searched President Trump's residence when he was out of office a few years ago. He was found to be keeping classified information on a stage. In a bathroom. The case against him was thrown out by a judge that he appointed. Now, is there some irony that Trump's Justice Department, that he closely controls, would pursue Bolton over classified information?

Well, look, Bolton has said that he thinks that he is being targeted for political reasons, for being a, a very outspoken critic of President Trump. That is, that is Bolton's view. But look, former prosecutors, former senior intelligence officials who I have spoken with think that this case against Bolton has real legal merit. The investigation, it's important to say, began under the Biden administration. It continued under Trump. The indictment is 26 pages long. It has detailed allegations in it. And it's important to say that the process that led to Bolton's indictment was normal. And that is very different from, say, the first prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey or New York State Attorney General Letitia James. Remember, they were indicted last year after Trump publicly called on the Justice Department to go after them. Right. Career prosecutors thought those cases were weak. They were overruled, and ultimately those cases were tossed after a court found that the prosecutor who secured them was unlawfully put in place. So the list of the president's perceived enemies who have been targeted by the Justice Department is long, and one of the side effects of the Justice Department that is seen as targeting political enemies is that even when an investigation is legitimate, it can be perceived by the public as being driven by politics and revenge.

Ryan, thanks for the insights and for going through the differences there. Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

NPR's Ryan Lucas. And that's Up First for this Friday, June 5th. I'm Steve Inskeep.

And I'm Michelle Martin. Today's episode of Up First was edited by Kelsey Snell, Rebecca Metzler, Anna Yukonanov, Mohamed Elbardisi, and Taylor Haney. It was produced by Ziyad Butch and Mia Dumas. Our director is Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Zoe Vangenhoven. Our technical director is Carly Strange. And our executive producer is Jay Shaler. We hope you'll join us again on Monday.

Richard Reeves is unimpressed by online influencers who peddle ideas about hyper-masculinity.

You're talking about boys and men. Where's your policy agenda? You're good on podcasts, but we've actually done a bunch of stuff for boys and men. Sorry, what have you done?

Ideas about the next era of manhood. That's on the TED Radio Hour podcast. Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.