THE LIFE of the Senate’s bill to increase border security in exchange for sending aid to Ukraine was wretched and short. Its three main negotiators released the text on Sunday. On Monday it had the support of Mitch McConnell, the chamber’s top Republican. By Tuesday it was dead. “It looks to me, and to most of our members, as if we have no real chance here to make a law,” Mr McConnell conceded.

But that is only because of the petulant actions of those members. Republicans’ negative reactions in both chambers of Congress were overwhelming and swift—considering the bill is 370 pages long. Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, posted on X (formerly Twitter) that the bill would be “dead on arrival” in the lower chamber. That is despite voters’ approval: a recent poll from YouGov suggests that a narrow plurality of Americans support the compromise.

Senators used to be more willing to do the hard work of governing than House members. They were supposed to be the grown-ups. Indeed, the willingness of the bill’s chief negotiators to try to craft a bipartisan compromise on an issue as toxic as immigration in an equally toxic political environment was something of a throwback to a more congenial time. But that distinction has faded as the Republican Party writ large has come under the thumb of Donald Trump, who has delighted in campaigning on border chaos, and who would not be denied the opportunity to keep doing so. “Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill,” the former president wrote on his social-media platform, Truth Social.

Republican senators quickly fell into line. James Lankford, a senator for Oklahoma who had spent months as the lead Republican negotiating the bill, delivered a defiant message to his party on the Senate floor. “You can do press conferences without the other side,” he said, “but you can’t make law without the other side.”

The bill’s death is a blow to President Joe Biden, who supported it in large part because he needs to secure the border to help his electoral prospects. In a non-election year, the bill’s border provisions would be a Republican dream. It is far more conservative than any attempt at bipartisan immigration reform in this century. It would grant the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the power to shut down the asylum system to those crossing illegally if the number of people trying to cross exceeds a certain threshold. But there would be limits on how long the emergency power could be used, and the small number of migrants who show up at a port of entry with an appointment would still be processed. The bill would make it harder for migrants to pass their preliminary asylum interviews, limit parole at the border—a presidential authority that Republicans say the Biden administration has used too liberally—and expand detention.

The bill contains some carrots for the many Democrats squeamish about restricting asylum. It would create a path to residency for Afghans who had helped American forces prior to their disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. It would slightly expand legal immigration by offering 50,000 additional immigrant visas each year for five years, and protect the children of long-term visa holders from deportation. But it notably does not contain a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, nor relief for migrants brought to America as children.

More than border security is at stake. The $118bn bill included $60bn to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, $20bn for border enforcement and the immigration system, $14bn for Israel and $10bn for humanitarian aid to be spread across Gaza, the West Bank and Ukraine, among other things. How the president can accomplish these objectives without funds appropriated by Congress is now unclear. Mr Biden can tweak the immigration system using executive action. But America needs a lot more asylum officers and Border Patrol agents, and that takes a lot of cash.

Also unclear is Congress’s ability to accomplish anything at all. Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, is pushing for a foreign-aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It is in effect the border bill minus the border provisions. Such a bill might get 60 votes in the Senate, where support for Ukraine among Republicans is stronger than in the House.

But any one House member can call a vote for Mr Johnson’s removal as speaker. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a MAGA congresswoman from Georgia, has threatened to do so should he move to fund Ukraine. The mutiny against former speaker Kevin McCarthy last year proves that is not an empty threat. Even with a speaker, and that is a low bar, the House is flailing. On February 6th Mr Johnson failed to convince his slim majority to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, and to pass aid for Israel.

The approaching election, Mr Trump’s long shadow and the intransigence of the House Republican caucus mean that little governing will happen on Capitol Hill this year. The only thing Americans can be sure to expect is more political theatre. ■

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.