Hello and welcome to The Best & The Brightest. I’m Tina Nguyen.

There’s truly no such thing as a predictable week on Capitol Hill anymore, is there? A few days ago, I called up Rep. Jim Jordan to discuss the current budget fight, including the House G.O.P.’s red lines on the border and Ukraine. It was a fascinating and timely conversation, which you can read below. Of course, that was before Mitch McConnell announced today that he will step down at the end of the year—more on that from my colleague, Abby Livingston, below the fold—plunging the Senate into a potentially raucous leadership race of its own.

But first, a few germane items from media ace Dylan Byers…

• Mehdi Inc.?: Former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan is the latest cable news personality to go it alone and brave the digital media business. The combative liberal commentator’s shows were canceled last fall, after which he claims to have raised $4 million in funding. Now, he’s launching a multiplatform channel on Substack (show, podcasts, articles) called Zeteo, from the Greek word meaning “to seek,” and will eventually charge subscribers $6 a month. Will it work? Ask Bill O’Reilly or Megyn Kelly. “It’s the equivalent of busking on the internet,” one veteran media executive tells me. “He has a fan base, decidedly small, and perhaps devoted enough to pay, [but] having an Ancient Greek name doesn’t make it another Axios—or a real business.”

• Mattingly moves: Former CNN morning show co-host Phil Mattingly has struck a deal to become the network’s chief domestic correspondent, a savvy move by his representatives at CAA that likely positions him for future success at the network. Meanwhile, still no word on what’s next for Poppy Harlow…

Now, my timely conversation with Jim Jordan…

As a founder of the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus, both of which were ideological precursors to the MAGA movement, Jordan baffled his allies when he declined to run against McCarthy for speaker of the House. He tried again, with Trump’s blessing, when McCarthy was ousted, but dropped his bid after a secret ballot suggested he didn’t have the votes. Nevertheless, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, he has proven to be one of the few senior members of the House G.O.P. who walks the line between exercising power and exuding populism.

With Congress careening toward another potential shutdown next week, I figured Jordan would have a bird’s-eye view of how the battle lines of the civil war inside his own party might be drawn—especially now that his Biden impeachment inquiry is on the rocks. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Jim Jordan: I think we should pass a continuing resolution through the rest of the year. And when Congress passed the debt ceiling last year, something that most of the House and Senate voted on was an automatic 1 percent cut [in federal spending, triggered if a permanent budget was not in place by January 1] on April 30. We could pass that and send it to the Senate and say, “Look, you guys voted for this. Two-thirds of the Senate and two thirds of the House voted for this. Let’s do it now.”

Then you create an incentive for the policy that we want. Right now, we’re saying, “Oh, we want the policy, and then they’re going to [increase the budget] to a higher number.” But the way to get a real advantage in trying to get something done that the American people want, and elected Republicans want to do, is to say, “We’ll just go with the C.R.” We’re actually already halfway through the fiscal year anyway. So let’s go with the C.R. for the rest of the year, and have that 1 percent cut hang in there for the next two months, and then we can negotiate on policy. Or we’re fine to live with the 1 percent cut because it’s more of a cut that happens to non-defense than defense, which Republicans like. That, to me, is the right strategy.

It does seem like there’s a group of House Republicans who will be upset if any sort of negotiation doesn’t get them certain wins, like policy riders on abortion and transgender issues. How do you view that split between the members who want a conservative budget and the members who want a culture war?

First of all, the best strategy for getting policy wins is the C.R. strategy, because then you have something that everyone’s voted on [previously]. And then you have leverage, because there’s all kinds of elected officials in this town who don’t want that C.R. to kick in with a 1 percent cut. That would save money, that would keep them from getting their earmarks. So that’s how you get the leverage to then get the policies that you’re talking about, which we as a party support.

Second, I would respectfully disagree with this culture war thing. I always hear that from Democrats: Republicans are engaged in the culture war. No, we’re just for normal. We actually think that normal, commonsense policy should be in place. I always use the example: It’s not a culture war to say boys shouldn’t compete against girls. Boys should compete against boys, girls should compete against girls. That’s not a culture war issue. That’s just normal. So what the heck? But the best way to get some of those [wins] is in fact to use the C.R. strategy.

Do you worry that there will be a segment of the party that will abandon the C.R. idea and just lead straight to a shutdown?

We’ve got to work that out. Again, there seems to be part of the conference that is not going to be doing cartwheels over just passing spending bills if they don’t deal with the border situation, or with some of the policy things that you just talked about. There will be people who aren’t gonna like that approach. There are other people who say, “No, no, we can’t even risk the possibility that the Democrats will shut down the government if we insist on actually securing the border.”

So you have that element. And then there’s also, I think, a somewhat different element that may be reluctant to go with the C.R. strategy even though, as I said, it’s passed the House and the Senate, and the White House signed it last year in the debt ceiling agreement. I think there’s concerns with all three from different members of our conference. But the one that makes the most sense to me, which is the one I’ve talked about a couple of times here, is the C.R. strategy.

I think there’s a significant portion of our conference who would be reluctant to have a Ukraine bill on the floor—a stand-alone Ukraine bill or anything else relative to Ukraine. I just think there’s that reluctance. And of course, what was introduced in the Senate, the border security, we felt wasn’t even close to being the kind of real border security/ immigration enforcement language that you need.

Is there a broader suspicion about Ukraine in the conference, beyond the Freedom Caucus?

Oh, I think so.

What are the concerns, specifically?

Well, no one can tell us what the goal is. What’s the objective? And then when they come up with some objective, how do you measure that? Is the goal to drive Russia out of the Donbas region? Is it to drive them out of Crimea, which they’ve had for 10 years and took during the Obama administration? What is the objective? And how do we get there?

We had one colleague who said, “The objective is to show in the eyes of the world that this has been a failure for Russia.” I said, “Okay, but how do you measure that? How do you determine that?” So that, to me, has been the problem.

And then, of course, all the money going over there. We know when we send money to Israel, it’s going to be used to go after the evil people, the bad guys who did the terrible things to Israel: Hamas and Hezbollah. But when you send money to Ukraine, you have this corruption all around over there. So is the money actually being used for the objective that you can’t define? That’s the problem. And then, of course, you couple that with the situation on our border, and you got a lot of members of Congress saying, “Hey, look, when I talked to the folks back home, they’re concerned about all this.”

How do you characterize the anxieties in the conference about the situation on the border?

I mean, there were all kinds of problems with what they rolled out. It just wasn’t gonna accomplish the job. And again, I think the American people are at the point where they’re like, wait a minute. Border crossings are over 7 million [during Biden’s presidency]. I think we’re on pace to get too close to 12 million in the Biden administration in his four years in office. That’s equivalent to the entire population of Ohio. Why don’t we just say timeout?

Now, there’s exceptions: If there’s someone who needs a special surgery or something, we’ll let those kinds of folks come in; and of course, people who have a legitimate legal visa. But all the people coming in here claiming they’re asylum, or asking for asylum, we just need to say no. We’re gonna call for a timeout on that right now. We have to get a handle on this situation and say that no money can be used to process, or release into the country, any new migrants. You put that sentence into the spending bill. That’s the one way I think we in the legislature could actually fix this.

Now, here’s Abby with the latest on the McConnell fallout…

In any case, the leadership race is now officially on, and we’ll likely be without a clear successor until November, according to a round of calls to Senate circles. Every Republican I spoke with anticipated a protracted leadership race between the top three contenders, a.k.a. the Johns: John Barrasso, John Cornyn, and John Thune. “It’s way too early to say we’re anywhere close to an heir apparent,” a plugged-in former senior Senate staffer told me, previewing considerable John-on-John violence.

Leadership races, by their very nature, are curious events. Sometimes they’re wrapped up in a matter of hours, as contenders scramble to contact as many of their colleagues as possible—all at the same time. Such was the case in 2015, when Chuck Schumer easily breezed past Dick Durbin to succeed Harry Reid as the Senate Democratic leader. But that was not to be on Wednesday, as Republican after Republican told me they’re settling in for months of maneuvering. “The G.O.P. of 2024 doesn’t work like that, unfortunately,” a Republican lobbyist who’s spent quality time on the Hill told me.

Moreover, as much as McConnell’s image has taken a beating over the last year following several scary public health episodes, he will go out as a towering figure in the eyes of most of his colleagues. On Wednesday, in a sign of respect, it was widely perceived as counterproductive to lobby colleagues before McConnell went out on his own terms, and to let him have his moment. After all, there are only a handful of Senate Republicans who remember what the chamber looked like without McConnell as their leader. And there are fewer still who have engaged in a seriously contested leadership fight for their party’s top post. My sense is that big news like this—even if it’s expected—will take a moment for Republican senators to process.

Regarding the premature but inevitable horse-race standings, Thune was the first and most frequently mentioned name in my conversations. But I was cautioned about reading too deeply into that consensus. Thune is the second-ranking member behind McConnell, which on the surface seems to make him the indisputably obvious successor. But Cornyn held that post until he was term-limited out, and while he does not have a formal role within the leadership, he has been treated as a person of high stature in the conference, dating back to his time as whip and two tours of thankless duty running the N.R.S.C. in 2010 and 2012. Barrasso’s name came up less frequently, but there could be a viable path due to his courtship of right-wing senators, and Barrasso was the first to endorse Trump for 2024.

While there’s no public indication that other Republicans might seriously pursue McConnell’s post, it’s been floated that a dark horse candidate could emerge with the support of the MAGA wing of the conference. That potential candidate would be a long shot to win, of course, but they could scramble the whip count among the Johns. “Those are the kind of wild cards that will potentially screw with anybody’s calculus,” the ex-senior aide told me. As for Democrats, I poked around a bit, and the general consensus was that they don’t hate Thune or Cornyn, and if either Republican becomes leader, they’ll likely be received in good faith by the other side of the aisle.

Meanwhile, both Thune and Cornyn are close to McConnell, and at least one G.O.P. lobbyist speculated that some kind of succession plan has to be in place. “Anyone who says McConnell isn’t going to have a deft hand in his replacement is dead wrong,” the lobbyist said. Perhaps, but the McConnell exit will inevitably set off a powder keg of unforeseen consequences, and his absence is yet another upheaval to senior congressional leadership. Last term saw McConnell, Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Kevin McCarthy representing their parties and chambers at negotiations. Next term, only Schumer will return to that conference table.

Pelosi’s exit, almost a year and a half ago, created a morale-boosting chain-reaction up the leadership ladder. But Thune and Cornyn are at the peak of their careers, and the vanquished contender may have no other path to rise. (Barrasso still has not served as whip.) It wouldn’t be a shock to see one of these senators, if the race doesn’t go their way, at least contemplate not running for reelection when they’re up again.

After so much stagnation at the top of Congress, the McConnell exit is a bracing reminder to Capitol Hill that change is inevitable. And nowhere are things changing faster than in the Senate chamber, which resembles the dysfunctional House G.O.P. conference more and more with each passing day. The next Republican leader will probably be an establishment figure, but they’ll likely have to manage upheavals more severe than any McConnell faced. Said one of the ex-aides, “[The leadership race] is a huge deal, and it will have a lasting impact on the Republican Party, not just the Republican Senate conference.”