As recently as October, the original plan on Capitol Hill was to respond to international crises abroad with a U.S. aid package that would benefit, among others, our Ukrainian allies. Congressional Republicans rejected that plan, replacing it with a radical plot: GOP officials said they’d only consider an aid package if Democrats agreed to a dramatic overhaul of immigration and border policies.

As regular readers know, the goal was to force Democrats to the negotiating table, and the gambit worked like a charm: Democrats not only agreed to months of talks, they also — to the surprise of Senate Republicans — accepted a great many concessions in the hopes of striking a compromise deal.

That deal is now done and publicly available. NBC News reported overnight:

Senators released the long-awaited text of a bipartisan agreement to impose tougher immigration and asylum laws Sunday, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer eyes votes on the package this week.

There’s no shortage of moving parts to this, so let’s do some Q&A.

What’s in the bill?

The 370-page package covers an enormous amount of ground, and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democratic negotiator, released what his office described as “a one pager” that’s actually five pages. (There’s also a 14-page section-by-section overview available.)

That said, the $118 billion legislation, co-authored by Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma and independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, is largely in line with recent reporting. In addition to aid to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, the package overhauls the existing asylum system, increases border security, increases funding for deportations, and increases funding for detention centers. There’s even some money for new border barriers and changes to the U.S. fight against fentanyl.

NBC News’ report added that the agreement “would be the most aggressive border security and migration overhaul bill in decades if it passes Congress. It would raise the standard to get asylum, send away those who don’t qualify and expedite cases for those who do.”

Isn’t this roughly what GOP officials said they wanted from the start?

Yes. The legislation would create some new pathways for legal immigration, which many Republicans now also oppose, but by and large, Democrats have effectively paid the GOP its ransom.

So, Republicans are broadly supportive of the plan, right?

Wrong. In the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has expressed support for the compromise, but several members of this conference — each of whom are closely aligned with Donald Trump, who’s spent weeks publicly and privately lobbying against the deal — have condemned the agreement.

In the House, meanwhile, the entirety of the GOP leadership team categorically rejected the legislation almost immediately after its unveiling, declaring that it would never even be considered in the lower chamber. The phrase “dead on arrival” was ubiquitous in party circles.

What about the Senate Republicans who’ve been supportive of the effort?

There are some GOP senators who are likely to endorse the legislation, though Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who’s generally been an ally to the negotiations, told The Washington Post something important: “I, for one, think it is a mistake to send this bill to the House without a majority of the Republican conference.”

In other words, Tillis is supportive of the bill, but as far as he’s concerned, it should have a majority of the minority in the chamber — which almost certainly won’t happen.

What about Democrats?

The White House is on board, as is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. But two Senate Democrats — California’s Alex Padilla and New Jersey’s Bob Menendez — wasted little time in saying they really don’t like the bill. If they balk, Senate passage will become even more difficult, making House opposition a moot point.

Let’s say for the sake of conversation that the bill somehow passes the Senate. What difference does it make if it’s going to die at the hands of House GOP leaders?

To hear Democrats tell it, the package would very likely pass the House if it were brought to the floor for a vote. With this in mind, we’ll probably soon hear quite a bit in the coming days about a possible discharge petition, which would allow proponents to circumvent Republican leaders and force the legislation onto the floor for an up-or-down vote.

Is this realistic?

I have my doubts. Last year, rank-and-file GOP members were so afraid to sign a discharge petition that they were willing to push the country closer to a debt-ceiling catastrophe. It would only take a handful of House Republicans to break ranks, but those members probably don’t exist.

What will the House pursue instead?

House Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing a bill that would provide aid to Israel — and do nothing else.

Will it pass?

Probably not. Most House Democrats see this as a bad-faith scam, while far-right Republicans are balking at the fact that GOP leaders haven’t even tried to pay for their new bill.

What’s next?

Schumer is likely to get the process rolling in earnest with a procedural vote on Wednesday. Watch this space.