Congress

Why Can’t Mike Johnson and John Thune Just Get Along?

Published

1 year ago

January 16, 2025

Ask Congress’ top two leaders about each other, and you’ll hear all the expected pleasantries — on the surface.

When I asked Speaker Mike Johnson about Senate Majority Leader John Thune at a Blue Light News Live event Tuesday, he was quick to praise the South Dakotan as a “principled” and “experienced” counterpart. He called Thune a straight shooter and spoke graciously about a recent dinner they’d shared with their wives.

Thune, in turn, commended his “strong working relationship” with Johnson in a “Meet the Press” interview earlier this month and said he was ready to give “deference to how he runs the House.”

Dig a little deeper, though, and it becomes obvious that all is not well in cross-Rotunda relations at the moment.

On fundamental questions of legislative strategy, Johnson and Thune remain at loggerheads as Trump prepares to take the oath of office — risking delays in enacting President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda and hinting at potential trouble in what’s quickly shaping up to be one of the most important relationships in Washington.

Both men have separately suggested, in blunt terms, that more needs to be done to get Republicans in the House and Senate singing from the same song sheet as Trump prepares to lead the choir.

“We intend for the House to be the leader on this, because that’s the way it’s designed to work,” Johnson told me, laying out the challenges of his super-slim majority and “much more diverse caucus.”

Thune suggested to NBC it was the Senate that would need to lead: “He’s got a lot of folks that are headed in different directions,” he said, adding that the House “will need to be … working closely as a team” to deliver on Trump’s sweeping agenda.

“We intend for the House to be the leader on this, because that's the way it's designed to work,” Johnson told me.

Right now, that teamwork isn’t happening. Not by a long shot.

Despite Trump endorsing Johnson’s pitch for “one big, beautiful” domestic policy bill that packages border security and energy measures together with tax cuts, Thune and his conference have refused to get fully on board. They’re moving forward with their own budget blueprint, allowing for an initial “skinny” border bill, leaving the rest for later.

And after Johnson sketched out a plan to raise the federal debt ceiling as part of that one-bill effort — writing it into the budget reconciliation procedures Republicans will have to use to avoid a Democratic filibuster — Thune balked.

In private conversations before the holiday break, I’m told, Thune told Johnson his plan would have trouble passing given just how averse some hardcore conservatives are to ever raising the borrowing cap.

Johnson marched the idea forward anyway — only for Thune to pour cold water on it this week, this time publicly: He told POLITICO’s Jordain Carney on Monday Republicans have no plans to include the debt ceiling instructions in their own budget blueprint.

Surely, inter-chamber rivalries are nothing new on Capitol Hill. Even under unified GOP control, House conservatives have long scorned Republican senators as moderate squishes, while those same senators chortle at the House hard-liners’ pie-in-the-sky policy ambitions.

Yet the stakes right now could hardly be higher, with Trump’s agenda hanging in the balance and neither Johnson nor Thune fully yielding in ongoing strategic debates. While both men say they have a good rapport, tensions have trickled down, with their inner circles each beginning to snipe at the other side.

Thune allies, for instance, gripe about Johnson backing away under pressure from his members after, they say, initially endorsing the two-track approach. Johnson allies, meanwhile, insist it’s Thune who had gotten out over his skis — and that senators, who are used to calling the shots, are just sensitive about having their strategy dictated by a closely divided House.

“It is interesting that no one has just conceded to the other,” Brendan Buck, a former top staffer to speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan, told me. During the first Trump term, he noted, “we were aligned on the strategic question.”

Buck was quick to add, “I also don’t think that it means these folks can’t work together.” But they have to start working together — and, from Trump’s perspective, it needs to happen yesterday.

This time eight years ago, Republicans under Ryan and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had not only already decided to prioritize an overhaul of the Affordable Care Act, they had adopted the budget blueprint to make it possible.

Same went for Democrats after Joe Biden’s election in 2020: Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer were in lockstep (at least at first) with White House plans to quickly pass a massive pandemic-era stimulus bill, followed by a bigger domestic policy swing. They had their budget in place by Feb. 5.

Under the best case scenario laid out by Johnson this week, it will be late February before Republicans find themselves similarly situated this time — and even then, the one-bill-versus-two-bill question might not be settled.

The inability to answer central strategic questions now foreshadows much bigger problems ahead. When lawmakers actually put pen to paper to write the tax and border bills, a whole host of other, finer-grained but just as politically sensitive disagreements will arise, making the Thune-Johnson working relationship essential.

Thune doesn't have a long working relationship with Johnson — or much of a relationship at all.

That’s especially true given Trump’s lack of distinct policy preferences and his obvious reluctance to play referee between the chambers — as became clear in recent weeks as the GOP flip-flopped between the one-bill and two-bill plans while struggling to deal with Trump’s demand for a quick debt limit hike.

Part of the challenge is that Johnson and Thune don’t have a long working relationship — or much of a relationship at all. Beyond hailing from different chambers, they’re products of different generations and different styles of Republican politics.

They also secured their leadership posts in very different ways — with Johnson hugging Trump close, while Thune mastered the inside game with fellow senators who relish their independence. Now they’re both learning the ropes as they go, leaving little time for get-to-know-you pleasantries.

At the same time, those close with the two men say they’re cut from the same cloth in some important ways. They’re known as honest brokers who are trusted by Republicans of different ideological bents — not backstabbers or schemers. They’re both calm, level-headed and inquisitive, not preachy firebrands.

And even as they’ve made their clashing positions known publicly, the two have been careful about not slandering the other, and aides say they’ve tried to give each other space to manage their own members. That would explain why Thune suggested to reporters on Tuesday that a one- or two-track strategy would work, while Johnson softened his push for handling the debt ceiling in reconciliation — even though each has members who continue to firmly disagree.

Yet they’re clearly in competition when it comes to winning Trump’s ear. I took note last month when Thune showed up at the Army-Navy football game after Johnson announced he planned to use the opportunity to lobby Trump on his reconciliation strategy. Conversely, Johnson used an audience with Trump on New Year’s Day (without Thune present) to persuade the president to back the one-bill plan.

And as Johnson made clear on stage with me Tuesday, that jockeying is going to continue, both in public and in private.

He described how he personally wrote lengthy texts to Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — both fans of Thune’s quick-hit approach to a border bill — to explain his complicated math problem.

“I have a much more complex decision matrix than the Senate does,” he said. “And sometimes I feel like that may be underappreciated by some of our colleagues in the other chamber.”

You hear that, Mr. Leader?

Congress

Capitol agenda: Trump leaves Congress in dark on Iran deal

Published

32 minutes ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Republicans want a say on a deal President Donald Trump is touting to end the monthslong war in Iran.

The absence of publicly released text for the “memorandum of understanding” Vice President JD Vance reportedly signed with Iranian officials Sunday sparked bipartisan scrutiny on Capitol Hill about what the deal might entail.

Senators in both parties agreed: More information needs to come to Congress soon, and any agreement touching on the future of the Iranian nuclear program would have to eventually be subject to a congressional vote.

“If you want a deal to last, it can’t be an executive agreement,” said Sen. James Lankford. “We’ve got to have a vote of Congress to be able to solidify [it] long term.”

The Trump administration said it expects release of the memorandum of understanding no later than Friday.

The agreement reportedly includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, but it’s not clear to what degree Iran will be required to abandon its nuclear program. The White House circulated talking points to Hill Republicans Monday touting the deal, including that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and “energy prices … are coming down,” according to a copy of the document reviewed by Blue Light News.

“If it’s a secret deal, then how can I take it seriously?” Sen. Thom Tillis told reporters.

Weighing heavily on several lawmakers is the possibility of an agreement landed by the administration looking very similar to the last Iran nuclear deal, consummated more than a decade ago by then-President Barack Obama amid a bipartisan uproar over trading sanctions relief and cash concessions to the Iranian regime in return for curbs on its nuclear ambitions.

Democrats believe Trump should’ve never abandoned that deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — in his first term, while GOP defense hawks despised it from the start.

“If [the Iranians] can enrich [uranium] anywhere at all, then it’s the same as JCPOA,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham of the Trump administration’s forthcoming deal. “If they can’t enrich, then that makes it a good deal.”

One legacy of that 2015 controversy: the GOP-controlled Congress at the time passed legislation allowing for congressional review of any agreement dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. That law gives members the ability to kill a deal via a disapproval resolution that could be subject to presidential veto.

In the absence of further details, senators mainly agreed that they wanted a chance to formally review and vote on Trump’s deal — even as some Republicans predicted the administration would find a way to avoid that happening.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there is “probably some expectation” that his chamber would ultimately vote on the agreement while declining to weigh in on the particulars.

“I just don’t know enough about it yet, and I don’t think even the people who follow this stuff closely up here know that much about it,” he said, adding that he expected Vance or other administration officials to brief members on the deal at some point.

What else we’re watching:

— DEMS NONCOMMITTAL ON SPEEDY CLAYTON CONFIRMATION: It’s unclear if Senate Republicans will be able to move at the lightning speed they’d hoped to in confirming Jay Clayton to serve as director of national intelligence by the end of the week. If every Senate Intelligence member agrees, Clayton could get a committee vote Thursday following his Wednesday hearing. Confirming Clayton on the Senate floor hours later would require getting agreement from every senator to speed up the process. Opposition from a single member would punt a vote to next week.

— THUNE AIMS FOR HOUSING BILL PASSAGE THIS WEEK: Thune is hoping his chamber can pass an updated version of a bipartisan housing affordability bill by the end of the week. The legislation comes after talks between Thune, Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott and ranking member Elizabeth Warren. Two Senate Democratic aides granted anonymity to discuss ongoing plans said the bill was also discussed with the House and the White House.

Katherine Hapgood contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate Republicans want a say on Trump’s Iran deal

Published

12 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump is touting a deal that would end the monthslong war with Iran — and potentially ease some of the political headwinds bearing down on Republicans.

GOP lawmakers still have lots of questions.

The absence of publicly released text for the “memorandum of understanding” Vice President JD Vance reportedly signed with Iranian officials Sunday left an information vacuum on Capitol Hill, where senators of both parties were left airing concerns about what the deal might entail.

Even most Republicans agreed: More information needs to come to Congress soon, and any agreement touching on the future of the Iranian nuclear program would have to eventually be subject to a congressional vote.

“If you want a deal to last, it can’t be an executive agreement,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “We’ve got to have a vote of Congress to be able to solidify [it] long term.”

The bipartisan scrutiny of the long-brewing agreement is a legacy of the last Iran nuclear deal, consummated more than a decade ago by then-President Barack Obama amid a bipartisan uproar over trading sanctions relief and cash concessions to the Iranian regime in return for curbs on its nuclear ambitions.

Trump withdrew from the deal in his first term, and now he is back with an agreement that — pending release of the text and final negotiations yet to come — could end up looking like Obama’s deal. That has raised the hackles of both defense hawks who despised the original agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and Democrats who believe Trump never should have left it in the first place.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of those defense hawks, told reporters that he was “pulling for a deal,” while also making note of serious discrepancies in the terms that have emerged thus far.

“The MOU being described by us sounds really very good; the MOU being described by Iran sounds awful,” Graham said.

“If they can enrich [uranium] anywhere at all, then it’s the same as JCPOA. If they can’t enrich, then that makes it a good deal,” he continued, adding in a separate conversation that he was “skeptical that Iran will ever go there” to cease enrichment.

The Trump administration said it expects release of the memorandum of understanding no later than Friday.

The possibility that Congress would take any kind of vote on the agreement is also a legacy of the 2015 deal. Amid bipartisan concern about the Obama administration’s pursuit of nuclear talks, the GOP-controlled House and Senate that year passed legislation allowing for congressional review of any agreement dealing with the Iranian nuclear program.

That law, however, does not require Congress to approve a deal — it rather gives it the ability to kill a deal via a disapproval resolution that could be subject to presidential veto. That means each chamber would have to effectively muster a two-thirds majority to block Trump, something it did not come close to doing in 2015.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there is “probably some expectation” that his chamber would ultimately vote on the agreement while declining to weigh in on the particulars.

The lack of specificity was par for the course on Capitol Hill Monday, with many senators expressing exasperation that text of the signed agreement has not yet been released.

“If it’s a secret deal, then how can I take it seriously?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters.

The agreement reportedly includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, but it’s not clear to what degree Iran will be required to abandon its nuclear program. Vance indicated in a series of interviews that the administration will attempt to ensure Iran does not develop or obtain a nuclear weapon but left details regarding civilian nuclear facilities and potential uranium enrichment unaddressed.

The White House circulated talking points to Hill Republicans Monday touting the deal including that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and “energy prices … are coming down,” according to a copy of the document reviewed by Blue Light News. The administration also argued in the memo that the agreement “beats” the Obama-era agreement.

In the absence of further details, senators mainly agreed that they wanted a chance to formally review and vote on the deal — even as some Republicans predicted the administration would find a way to avoid that happening.

“I don’t expect that to happen,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said about a vote. “They’ll try to write it around the treaty requirements, so I don’t expect we’ll vote on it.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the administration should send the deal to Congress “if they want it to be something other than a political agreement, like the JCPOA was.”

Most congressional Republicans have been eager for Trump to find a way out of the nearly four-month war, which has driven up energy prices ahead of the November elections. Thune predicted Monday that a deal would “have a very positive impact on the economic situation in the country and that obviously will translate into the political situation in the country.”

Some of Trump’s most vocal allies on Capitol Hill praised the agreement Monday.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said has had conversations with senior White House officials and he was “very hopeful.” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who is likely the next Senate GOP campaign chair, added on X: “President Trump deserves our trust and support as he works to bring peace to the Middle East.”

Democrats were largely keeping their powder dry Monday on how they would handle a vote on the agreement. Some could find it hard to oppose a deal that ends hostilities on negotiated terms roughly similar to what was secured under a Democratic president in 2015.

But plenty of Democrats questioned what was gained by the conflict.

“We still don’t know the details,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor. “The American people need to know exactly what’s in the deal. … We know this for certain: We are worse off than before Trump began his foolish war of choice.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Thune is ‘hopeful’ Mitch McConnell will return this week

Published

17 hours ago

June 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday he hopes his predecessor as top Republican, Mitch McConnell, returns this week from a hospitalization.

Thune said he had not yet spoken directly with the 84-year-old Kentuckian but is getting “readouts from his staff.”

Asked about McConnell’s condition or if he knew if he would be back this week, Thune told reporters, “I’m hopeful that he’ll be back this week.”

A McConnell spokesperson said Sunday that he had been admitted to the hospital but did not provide details on his condition or why he was hospitalized — a break from recent prior instances where the seven-term senator was hospitalized.

A former McConnell staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity was told the senator was doing much better Monday without any further details on what put him in the hospital.

Daniel Desrochers contributed to this report.