What now for the ‘Dreamers’ after the Senate failed to act?

The much-awaited Senate debate on immigration produced a flop this week — no legislation, not even any memorable speeches in the manner of Senates past.

Yet the debate did clarify one key point: President Trump, who just last month said he would “take the heat off the Democrats and the Republicans” and sign any compromise Congress could reach, instead sided with his hard-line aides and killed just such a bipartisan measure with a veto threat.

For now, that leaves the fate of the so-called Dreamers largely up to the Supreme Court, which could signal its intentions as early as today.

I’m David Lauter, Washington bureau chief. Welcome to the Friday edition of our Essential Politics newsletter, in which we look at the events of the week in Washington and elsewhere in national politics and highlight some particularly insightful stories.

IMMIGRATION STALEMATE

There’s little doubt the Senate would have passed the bipartisan compromise if Trump had backed it.

The measure, as Lisa Mascaro and Brian Bennett reported, would have provided $25 billion for border security, including Trump’s often-promised border wall, in return for legalizing the status of some 1.8 million Dreamers, immigrants who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children, and giving them a 10-year path to citizenship.

It won 54 votes, short of the 60-vote super-majority needed to shut off a Senate filibuster. Senators agreed, however, that with administration backing, the remaining votes almost surely would have materialized.

Instead, the administration insisted on a hard-line measure that failed overwhelmingly, losing 39-60 — a stark repudiation of Trump’s position.

That vote came after officials sharply attacked the bipartisan bill, and White House aides, cloaked by anonymity in briefings for reporters, savaged some of its key Republican sponsors.

The bill Trump insisted on would have imposed steep cuts in legal immigration in return for resolving part of the illegal immigration issue that has stalemated Congress for more than a dozen years. The proposal fully reflected the immigration-restriction agenda pushed by Trump’s top domestic policy aide, Stephen Miller.

In the run-up to the debate, administration officials had talked up possible compromises, Bennett reported. One idea was to include provisions guaranteeing that legal immigration would be maintained for 13 years at the current level of just over 1 million people a year. In the end, those proposals, opposed by hard-line groups, went nowhere also.

SEE YOU IN COURT

Last fall, Trump ordered an end to the Obama administration’s DACA program, which shielded Dreamers from deportation and allowed them to work legally. Under his order, the program was set to begin expiring on March 5.

But two federal courts have effectively eliminated that deadline. Judges in California and New York ruled that the administration must keep DACA in place until legal claims brought by Dreamers and several states can be considered.

In the aftermath of the Senate votes, some lawmakers floated the possibility of including a short-term extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as part of the next federal spending bill, which is due in late March.

Before then, however, the Supreme Court likely probably shape the battlefield.

As David Savage explained, administration lawyers have asked the high court to step in and overturn the pro-DACA court rulings on a speeded-up schedule.

If the court agrees, it could resolve the status of DACA by late June. But the justices could refuse the administration request and tell the Justice Department to first take the issue to the federal appeals courts. That would have the likely effect of keeping the status quo, with DACA still in force, well into next year.

The justices could indicate which way they’re headed as early as this afternoon.

To get live updates on the decision, sign up for our breaking news alerts here and follow our Essential Washington blog.

A DEADLY SCHOOL SHOOTING, LITTLE RESPONSE

The latest massacre at a school, this time in Florida, brought little response from President Trump — just a short, relatively anodyne speech on Thursday morning that praised the “dignity of life,” called for more work on mental health and carefully avoided any mention of guns.

Responding to mass shootings poses challenges to Trump. He has gained important political support among conservatives by faithfully backing the National Rifle Assn.’s positions, much as he has done with opposition to abortion, another intensely held position on the right.

On both issues, however, advocates know that until a few years ago, Trump stood on the other side of the debate. That makes them suspicious of his personal views and alert to any sign of wavering.

Moreover, as Christi Parsons wrote, Trump has struggled to show empathy in the aftermath of national tragedies.

In cases that allow him to lash out angrily at a perceived enemy, he knows what to say, as he’s shown several times in responding to crimes where the suspect was an immigrant. But in cases that call out for a more soothing touch, he often appears at a loss.

A tribute telling the stories of those who died in the tragedy highlights their heroism and the pain many families have felt since the attack on Valentine’s Day.

As for the shooter, a 19-year-old once expelled from the South Florida school, it has come out that the FBI received a warning call about the teenager’s plans to become a “professional shooter” roughly five months ago.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SCANDAL THREATENS KELLY

The shooting in Florida did provide the White House with a rationale for canceling the daily press briefing, sparing White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders another uncomfortable grilling.

For more than a week, officials have struggled with questions about how they handled accusations of domestic violence against Rob Porter, a top White House aide who had to resign last week. Two of Porter’s ex-wives have accused him of physical abuse.

The problem deepened for the White House earlier this week after FBI Director Christopher Wray undermined the White House account of how Porter’s case was handled, as Joe Tanfani and Noah Bierman reported.

The case has harmed the standing of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly. Depending on which account one believes, Kelly either brushed aside the accusations or showed an astonishing lack of curiosity about why a top aide handling top secret documents for more than a year was unable to obtain a security clearance.

As Laura King and Michael Finnegan reported, Trump has talked with friends about replacing Kelly, but so far has not acted — a familiar pattern for the president.

House Republican leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) and White House budget director Mick Mulvaney have both been talked about as possible replacements, but aides to both have said they’d prefer to keep their current posts.

THE MIDTERM OUTLOOK

Some Republican strategists fear the Porter case, along with the admission by Trump’s personal lawyer that he paid $130,000 to a former porn star, Stormy Daniels, who has alleged an affair with Trump, could deepen the party’s already serious problems with women voters.

Another issue for the GOP is whether Trump voters will turn out for an election without Trump. A chunk of Trump’s support in 2016 came from people who don’t consistently show up for elections. If they sit out the midterm, more Republican-held seats will be at risk. Mark Barabak explored the issue from Spokane, Wash., where turnout could determine the political fate of Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the top Republican woman in the House.

RUSSIAN MEDDLING AHEAD

Another issue for the midterms will be continued efforts by Russia and perhaps other adversaries to meddle in U.S. elections.

Some of Trump’s top national security officials warned Congress this week that Russia’s efforts continue unabated — a striking contrast with Trump’s own refusal to take the issue seriously.

As Evan Halper and Chris Megerian wrote, the warnings come amid growing concerns by elections officials around the country, and outside experts, that U.S. voting systems remain badly at risk. Government officials at all levels have done little to fix the problem, they wrote.

THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION

As officials warn about meddling this year, the investigation into Russia’s efforts in 2016 continues.

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates is reportedly nearing a plea agreement with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, adding another high-level cooperating witness to Mueller’s investigation.

And former White House strategist Steve Bannon has undergone some 20 hours of interviews with Mueller’s investigators. At the same time, however, Bannon continues to refuse to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee.

Who are the top prosecutors on Mueller’s team? David Willman has this in-depth profile of one of the leading lawyers, Andrew Weissmann, a long-time prosecutor with a reputation for hard-charging tactics — and sometimes going too far.

REMEMBER ‘DRAIN THE SWAMP’?

When Trump first started to use the slogan “Drain the swamp,” it was tied to his accusations that Hillary Clinton and her allies had ethical problems. As his own administration deals with a flood of ethics accusations, which have already led to the resignation of one Cabinet member and investigations of four others, Trump has shifted the meaning, Noah Bierman wrote.

“Drain the swamp” now refers to practically anything Trump dislikes — an example of the “Alice in Wonderland” approach the administration often takes to the meaning of words.

DEFICITS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE

Nearly lost among all the other news, Trump released his budget on Monday for the coming fiscal year. The document includes a long list of proposed cuts in domestic programs — from small-dollar symbolic moves like shutting down the National Endowment for the Arts to huge reductions in food stamps, Medicaid and other health programs.

One reason the budget got little attention is that no one expects Congress to adopt those cuts — lawmakers ignored similar proposals last year.

But the budget did mark a milestone of sorts. As Christi Parsons wrote, even if Congress were to adopt all of Trump’s proposed cuts, the budget would still produce a flood of red ink, with deficits persisting across the entire decade.

The budget marked an admission by the administration that the GOP call for balancing the federal budget is now a dead letter — although one that Republicans will predictably revive the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.

A $30-MILLION PARADE

And on the subject of spending, Mulvaney testified on Capitol Hill this week and was asked about Trump’s proposed grand military parade in Washington.

The price tag, he testified: $10 million to $30 million.

LOGISTICS

That wraps up this week. My colleague Christina Bellantoni will be back Tuesday with the weekday edition of Essential Politics. Until then, keep track of all the developments in national politics and the Trump administration with our Essential Washington blog, at our Politics page and on Twitter @latimespolitics.

Send your comments, suggestions and news tips to politics@latimes.com.

If you like this newsletter, tell your friends to sign up.

David.lauter@latimes.com

@davidlauter