We learned something on Capitol Hill this week.

House Republicans can pass a government funding bill without Democratic assistance.

Barely. 217-213.

Republicans could only lose one vote. And that’s all they lost: Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHERE WE STAND WITH A POTENTIAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

The GOP bill even picked up one Democratic yea: Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine.

Passing government funding bills on their own wasn’t always the case for the House GOP. Republicans have held the House majority for more than two years now. The GOP majority consistently leaned on Democrats – serving in the minority – for many of the votes to keep the government open and lift the debt ceiling. But that changed late Tuesday afternoon as House Republicans approved their own bill to keep the lights on.

But before the vote, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., berated Democrats for opposing the temporary spending package, known as a “Continuing Resolution” or “CR.”

“If Congressional Democrats refuse to support this clean CR, they will be responsible for every troop who misses a paycheck. For every flight delay from reduced staffing at TSA. For every negative consequence that comes from shutting down the government,” said Johnson.

It was unclear if Johnson could pass the bill with just Republicans. Especially as the Speaker upbraided Democrats for vowing to vote nay.

“You continually criticize the Democrats,” yours truly said to the Speaker. “Doesn’t that imply that you don’t have the votes on your side? Because you wouldn’t need Democratic assistance to keep the government?”

“No. We will have the votes,” responded Johnson. “We’re going to pass the CR and we can do it on our own.”

A few hours later, the Speaker made good on his promise.

But he had an assist.

Vice President JD Vance came to the Capitol to assuage fears of skeptical House Republicans Tuesday morning. But Vance didn’t quite close the deal.

“I saw some looks in there that didn’t leave me feeling good as to securing the votes of those who may be having questions,” said Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., after the House Republican conclave with Vance.

Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., and others said they needed more assurances about future spending cuts. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said he would “pray” about how to vote on the bill. But heading into the meeting, Burchett conceded he hadn’t yet experienced any political intercession.

“I’m uncomfortable with giving the Pentagon more money, even though overall, we’re cutting,” said Burchett.

By afternoon, Burchett told me he was “closer,” but still not there.

And when the House voted, it passed the bill.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: HERE WE GO AGAIN (AGAIN)

But what made the difference when it came to convincing skittish Republicans to vote yes?

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., told Fox he was “barely” for the CR.

“What’s the ‘barely’ part?” I asked.

“The ‘barely” is Donald Trump. He is the difference maker. I would never support this language. But I do trust Donald Trump,” said Burlison. “He’s not let me down. I think that he is a man of his word. And so I believe him when he’s when he says he’s going to get it done.”

But that was only half of the battle. The bill earned the support of all but one Senate Republican. But 60 votes are necessary to break a filibuster. Republicans only have 53 GOP members. So that would entail assistance from Democrats.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he opposed the bill because it didn’t cut spending. Paul said he didn’t get any blowback from the President or fellow Republicans on his position.

The US Capitol in Washington, DC, on Monday, Nov. 11, 2024.  (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“People know kind of where I am. I’m pretty consistent on opposing debt and opposing spending,” said Paul.

Contrast the silence Paul has heard to how President Trump unloaded on his Bluegrass State colleague, Thomas Massie. Mr. Trump argued that Massie should face a primary for his defection.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., is the only Democrat on the record support the stopgap spending bill.

So, it’s about the math.

With only 52 Republicans primed to crack a filibuster, that means the Senate needs eight Democrats to vote yes. That includes Fetterman. Note that they don’t have to vote yes on the bill. Just to overcome the filibuster. Republicans can pass the bill on their own with a simple majority.

This leaves Democrats as badly torn as any party in recently on any issue.

On one hand, Democrats don’t want to shutter the government. They fear that will imperil already skittish federal workers. And it could lead to additional cuts from Elon Musk and DOGE if federal workers aren’t on the job.

On the other hand, they want to be seen as fighting for their base and rally against President Trump and Musk.

But it is often the darkest before the dawn.

TRUMP’S UNION-ENDORSED PICK CONFIRMED BY SENATE TO LEAD LABOR DEPARTMENT

Democrats must either go to the mat or try to salvage something before the 11:59:59 pm et government funding deadline Friday.

There are rattlings that Democrats may ask for votes on a universe of amendments – none of which would pass. But at least Democrats could save face – telling their loyalists that they fought for their values and tried to stand up to the President and Musk. They could also make the case that a shutdown is worse than keeping the government open.

Fox is told senators would be interested in votes on the following subjects:

• Restoring funding for Washington, DC
• Restricting DOGE and/or efforts by the administration to “impound” money already appropriated by Congress
• A Democratic one-month, stopgap spending bill

Fetterman appeared to be the only Democrat willing to vote for the GOP interim spending bill, but Thursday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced he would vote for it. And it’s possible that a vote on a set of amendments could unlock a few Democratic votes to break a filibuster on the bill.

But tensions are now running high.

Reporters staking out a meeting of Senate Democrats talking about the shutdown heard who they believe was Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand, D-N.Y., screaming at her colleagues through he thick Capitol walls.

Multiple Senate Democrats were utterly silent as they left a lengthy Senate Democratic Caucus. None of the senators approached by Fox were willing to talk – even though some are quite loquacious under other circumstances. In fact Fox even asked several of the Democrats if they were told not to say anything. Several replied “no comment.”

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., talks with reporters in Russell building after a senate vote on Wednesday, February 19, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Quiet on Capitol Hill often means something is up and that lawmakers are trying to broker a very fragile deal. It also means that lawmakers are fuming.

There was genuine fear among Democrats that a government shutdown could permanently imperil the federal government and perhaps trigger additional layoffs of thousands of federal workers.

Here’s the other problem: If the government shut down, no one is quite sure HOW it could re-open. It’s about the math. And the calculus under those circumstances simply did not work to for the House and Senate to eventually pass the same bill and re-open the government. That calculus simply did not seem to work. 

That’s why Schumer made the decision to support the Band-Aid spending bill – as risky as it is. 

Schumer and Trump. (AP/Getty Images)

This is why multiple Senate Democrats refused to comment on what Schumer told them at the closed-door caucus meeting today. That’s why tempers flared and Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was heard yelling through the thick Senate walls.

But this is not without peril for Schumer.

He needs to convince six other Democrats (for a grand total of eight) to support overcoming a filibuster. 

There are 53 Senate Republicans. 60 votes are needed to avert a filibuster. 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a no. So the deficit is eight. Schumer and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) are the first two Democrats to say they are willing to vote to overcome a filibuster. So Schumer needs six more. 

If he can’t find those votes, the government will close. And Schumer will have committed a tremendous tactical error. 

As the saying goes, a leader with no followers is just a man out for a walk.

Former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, used to say that “nothing good” ever happens when Congress has been in session for more than three consecutive weeks.

Members grow angry. Antsy. Tempers are short.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., noted that the Senate has met for ten consecutive weeks.

“Senators have been seeing a lot of each other lately. In fact, too much,” said Thune.

That includes three all-night sessions and weekend sessions. This period is the longest stretch of consecutive weeks for Senate activity in 15 years.

The Senate is scheduled to be out next week for the first time this year. A government shutdown trashes the recess. Senators have barely seen their family members. It’s been a frenetic pace.

That’s why the most powerful people in Washington could have the ultimate say about funding the government: Senate spouses.

And if the Senate aligns with the House, they will have averted a government shutdown.

But barely.

A U.S. District Court judge ruled against a former Fox News producer’s claim that the network ignored sexually inappropriate behavior by ex-anchor Ed Henry.

Jennifer Eckhart, who worked as an associate producer on Fox News Media’s Fox Business Network from 2013 to 2020, sued Henry for sexual assault. Fox News was named in the suit, as Eckhart claimed the network was aware that Henry was sexually harassing women and failed to take action.

Judge Ronnie Abrams disagreed.

“Fox News can … be held liable for Henry’s actions only if its management or supervisors knew or should have known about that purported misconduct yet failed to prevent Henry from harming Eckhart,” Abrams said in her ruling. “On this record, the Court agrees that no reasonable jury could make that finding.”

The court also rejected Eckhart’s assertion that Fox News fired her because she complained about sexual harassment. Eckhart was terminated in 2020 after several poor performance reviews, according to court filings.

Eckhart’s suit said Henry, now 53, manipulated and groomed her when she was 24 by abusing his power over her and her career. The suit alleged that he asked her to be his “sex slave” and threatened punishment and retaliation if Eckhart did not comply with his sexual demands.

According to evidence submitted in the case, Eckhart and Henry began a sexual relationship in 2014 when he was a White House correspondent for Fox News. She said their first sexual encounter, which occurred in Henry’s room at a hotel, was not consensual. Henry said that it was.

Eckhart — who said she met with Henry at the hotel because she believed he could help her career — told the court she did not say “no” or fight him off during the encounter because she “was afraid of what he would do if she protested.”

She met Henry again when he was in New York in September 2015. Evidence showed that he asked Eckhart to send her undergarments to him in an envelope. She complied, fearing “professional consequences” if she refused, she said.

Eckhart then met Henry in a temporary office where she performed oral sex on him, according to court documents. Again, Henry said it was consensual while Eckhart said she complied because she feared retaliation.

(Fox News testimony noted that the company was never aware of Eckhart’s relationship with Henry until she filed her complaint. The two worked in different divisions at the company, and Henry never supervised Eckhart.)

Over the months that followed, the two exchanged sexually explicit messages. They met again in 2017 when Henry was in New York to co-host “Fox & Friends.” Eckhart alleged she was raped on that occasion, while Henry described the encounter as “rough sex.”

Eckhart said Fox News was aware that Henry’s behavior with women was problematic because he was suspended for four months in 2016 for having an extramarital affair with a Las Vegas stripper. The company recommended that he enter a rehabilitation program for sex addiction, which he did, according to evidence in the case.

When Henry returned, he was given a promotion to weekend co-host of “Fox & Friends.”

Although Fox News executives were aware Henry was having extramarital affairs, the company had not received any harassment complaints against him before Eckhart filed one on June 25, 2020, shortly after she was fired. Henry was dismissed six days later after an investigation by outside counsel.

Henry was co-anchor of the three-hour newscast “America’s Newsroom” at the time of his firing. He has since joined the smaller right-wing network Newsmax, which has hired former Fox News journalists and hosts who were jettisoned over sexual harassment allegations.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision, which speaks for itself,” Fox News said in a statement released through a representative. “Discovery in this matter confirmed that Fox News was not aware of their relationship or of Ms. Eckhart’s allegations until after she left the company. The only people who know what happened between Mr. Henry and Ms. Eckhart are the two of them.”

Eckhart’s sexual assualt case against Henry is moving forward. She plans to appeal the ruling on removing Fox News from the case.