John,

The last time you heard from me was the day before we voted on the foreign aid package in the House.

One of those votes was the standalone bill on Ukraine. It was mainly intended to resupply them with artillery and anti-aircraft weapons.

The Ukraine bill was the reason this whole package took so long. The Speaker knew his party was mostly opposed to Ukrainian aid and some of them had threatened to fire him if he called it for a vote.

But - after becoming convinced that time was of the essence - he eventually did call it for a vote, and sure enough, the majority of his party voted against it. That’s a major problem for him.

It’s one thing to have your right-flank mad at you. They’re always mad about something. But losing a majority of your party on a very high profile vote is a genuine leadership crisis. There’s no question he’s on the ropes. He’s getting blasted in the press by some members of his party while also facing an avalanche of criticism on social media. I checked out the replies to one of his last tweets about this and holy smokes - thousands of very angry voices.

Fortunately for him, we recessed for the week immediately after the vote, which meant everyone was sent home and - maybe - will have the chance to cool off before coming back.

We’ve still got a few members openly calling on him to be fired, but they might be bluffing. They’re getting a lot of attention just for making the threat and I tend to think that’s what most of them really want, so that might be enough for them.

But to everyone reading this who may be upset with the Speaker for allowing this vote, in fairness, I think we should keep two things in mind:

First, from what I saw, he didn’t tell anyone how to vote. He didn’t threaten anyone. He didn’t even give a speech before the House like he normally would on a big bill like this.

He just allowed us to vote on it, and it passed with about 75% of the House.

Second - and this is the big one - he was acting against his political incentives to call that vote.

If there were one thing about politics I wish the average voter would notice more often, it would be when politicians go against their personal political incentives.

It’s just remarkably telling. Most of what we see in politics is folks following their political incentives and then using the rhetoric of principled conduct to dress it up a little.

So when someone in politics goes against their political incentives - even if I disagree with their decision - I immediately put it in a different category. That becomes a decision that I can at least respect, because I know it’s coming from a place of principle, not just politics.

And so it was with the Speaker and Ukraine. This was massively not-in-his-interest. He could have come up with plenty of reasons not to do it. Instead, he stood in front of a bank of cameras, explained why he thought it was necessary, acknowledged it would be unpopular with some folks in his party, and then called the vote.

That’s rare.

My sense from watching him closely last week was that he genuinely felt that if he didn’t allow this vote and Ukraine fell to Russia, he would carry that on his conscience for the rest of his life. He weighed that against his political career and decided his conscience weighed more.

And look, now that this vote is behind him and he’s made his right-flank super angry, I expect him to pander to them for the rest of the year.

So I reserve the right to disagree with him on lots of stuff in the future.

But what he did last week, that took guts. That wasn’t the rhetoric of principled conduct, that was actual principled conduct.

“Well Jeff, it took way too long and I’m not willing to give him any credit for finally doing the right thing.”

True, it did take too long. But the purpose of acknowledging when politicians act against their political interests isn’t so we can know when to commend them - that part is up to you. Rather, it’s to know when they’re passing the sincerity test. To me, he passed that last week.

And by the way - I can tell you because I work in the building - plenty of members who are publicly disagreeing with him are privately relieved that he called this for a vote. They appreciate that the Speaker took the political hit for them so they have the political luxury of acting aggrieved without suffering the real-world consequence of denying that support to Ukraine. Which means he may have more support among those who voted No than it outwardly appears.

Campaign Update

As I write this, it’s 6:00 a.m. and I’m about to get on a plane. I’m trying to make it back to Charlotte in time for my daughter’s kindergarten orientation. I’m cutting it close, but if we don’t hit any delays I should make it.

Campaigning is taking me all across the state, but the real challenge is fitting it into the schedule in between times when I’m in D.C.

But our family is making it work - it’s just taking everything we’ve got right now, and that isn’t going to change until after the election.

The support we’ve gotten from all of you - in particular, through this newsletter - has been fantastic. It’s completely opened up some new campaign options for us, and I really appreciate it.

If you’d like to support the campaign, you can do that directly here (ActBlue) or here (non-ActBlue). As always, I sincerely appreciate it.

If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

Best,

Jeff

P.S. - The one major monument I hadn’t seen since being in Congress was the Jefferson Memorial. It’s been on my list and I just haven’t had time to stop by. But immediately after our Ukraine vote, I realized I had exactly one free hour before I needed to head to the airport. So I hopped on my bike and rode over. The weather was beautiful. I read the inscriptions on the wall - quotes from his voluminous writing - said hello to some tourists from North Carolina, and hopped back on my bike. A good quick trip. (Also, turns out he’s much taller in person.)