Capitulation or compromise

From a New York Times article about budget negotiations between House majority leader Mike Johnson and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer:

It is not clear whether disgruntled right-wing Republicans will try to depose Mr. Johnson as they did his predecessor. But they have already signaled that the latitude some of them afforded him during his first weeks in the job is vanishing, and that their patience is wearing thin with his capitulations to Democrats.

But capitulations makes sense only if the sentence is recast to reflect the view of the hard right: “their patience is wearing thin with what they see as his capitulations to Democrats.”

I’d choose compromises with. To compromise, to come to an agreement, is not to capitulate. And as the article makes clear, the agreement is a matter of compromise, with each side giving up something. If the repeated with — “with his compromises with” — grates, the sentence can be rewritten:

But they have already signaled that the latitude some of them afforded him during his first weeks in the job is vanishing, and that they disapprove of his compromises with Democrats.

The article goes on to say that “Some Republicans suggested that Mr. Johnson was merely bowing to the reality of divided government.”

Which just might involve the possibility of compromise.