The Collapse of the Bipartisan Border Security Bill: A Political Maelstrom in the Senate

The Capitol Hill adage, “When you have the votes, you vote,” holds a profound significance in the world of legislative politics. However, the recent failure of the bipartisan border security bill in the Senate serves as a stark reminder that this maxim is not an infallible rule. The legislation, which aimed to address the contentious issue of border security and foreign aid, was doomed from the beginning due to a myriad of factors, including delays in releasing the bill text, the manipulation of the narrative by opponents, and the inability of the negotiators to secure sufficient Republican support.

The border security and immigration domain is a complex and intricate aspect of the U.S. code. The negotiators acknowledged that even the slightest modification of the text could trigger unintended consequences. Consequently, the need to work diligently to get things right was paramount. However, time was not on their side. The interregnum between the initiation of the bill and its eventual release created a vacuum for opponents to fill with their own talking points. They seized the opportunity to define the bill, long before its authors could clarify its true intentions.

The allegations against the bill focused on a provision that opponents claimed would allow a minimum of 5,000 people to illegally enter the country per day. Lankford, one of the negotiators, vehemently denied these claims. Nevertheless, the right-wing outrage machine was ignited, and House Speaker Mike Johnson declared the bill “dead on arrival” in his chamber before anyone had even seen the text.

The Senate’s foot-dragging over the legislation enabled conservatives to define what the bill was, long before its authors could say what it wasn’t. The bill was branded as a disaster, and its prospects of passage dwindled significantly. The goal was to earn the support of at least 25 of the 49 Senate Republicans. However, hours after the bill was released, Republican support dwindled to just a few senators. The bill tanked.

This ironic turn of events was particularly disappointing because it was Senate Republicans who had demanded Democrats prepare an earnest border security measure before they would even consider helping Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. A bipartisan negotiation ensued, and then Republicans terminated the effort. Murphy, a Democrat, was exasperated. “The Republicans are a nightmarish mess right now,” he lamented. “I have no idea whether Republicans want to vote on Ukraine. Border and Ukraine. Neither. This is not a great place for the Senate to be when the Republican caucus can’t figure out what they want.”

The international aid bill, which Democrats had always wanted, was now a reality. Meanwhile, the Republican side of the aisle descended into chaos. McConnell, the biggest advocate for Ukraine in either body, found himself in an awkward position. He failed to gauge the temperature of his conference, and his opposition to former President Trump’s efforts to undercut the border plan ultimately prevailed. McConnell lost.

The fact that it took this long for MAGA-aligned senators to publicly criticize McConnell is surprising. However, this is the predicament McConnell now faces. Conservatives, from old tea party loyalists to those linked to former President Trump, have long made things difficult for former House Speakers John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy. McConnell is now experiencing the same issues. Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley have publicly criticized McConnell, with Cruz going as far as to call for his resignation.

McConnell’s success as the longest-serving Senate party leader in U.S. history is largely due to his ability to keep his cards close to his vest. However, the hand McConnell is now playing may not work in his favor. McConnell has suffered multiple health episodes in the past year, and former President Trump would love to replace him if he returns to the White House. Another health issue, coupled with Trump’s hostility towards McConnell, could spell doom for the Kentucky Republican.

Despite the failure of the border security bill, there were some “really, really good things” in the Senate bill, according to Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council. However, these provisions were overshadowed by the bill’s collapse. The border security issue remains unaddressed, and the political landscape is more chaotic than ever. The Capitol Hill adage, “When you have the votes, you vote,” may hold true in some instances, but it is not an infallible rule. The collapse of the bipartisan border security bill serves as a stark reminder of the complexities and uncertainties of the legislative process.

Chad Pergram currently serves as a senior congressional correspondent for FOX News Channel. He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.