Congress

A split at the top: Why Thune and Johnson are at odds this week

Published

7 months ago

November 20, 2025

Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune have largely worked in lockstep since January. This week, they hit a rough patch.

The two men are known for rising above whatever theatrics are embroiling their respective conferences. But in recent days they became enmeshed in just that, when they publicly split and shadowboxed over a pair of internal GOP dilemmas over politically toxic issues.

The fissure emerged when Johnson trashed a measure that Thune tucked into last week’s government funding deal to allow senators to sue the government and reap damages for electronic records seizures. With the Louisiana Republican calling the provision “a bad look,” the House Wednesday unanimously passed a bill to repeal it in a major rebuke.

Johnson suffered his own loss at the hands of Thune this week when the South Dakota Republican rebuffed the speaker’s calls to amend the House’s Jeffrey Epstein disclosure bill to include more protections for victims and whistleblowers. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, after months of Johnson trying to slow it down in the House and ultimately succumbing to an end-run by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

In an interview Wednesday, Thune downplayed the episodes, calling the phone records provision a “Senate issue” to work through and noting the congressional debate over the Epstein files “took on a life of its own” in the final stages.

“We work very well together. Communicate regularly. There are always going to be hiccups along the way,” Thune said. “And I’ve served in the House. They are very different institutions and different cultures and ways of doing things but we make it work.”

The split marked an unexpected round of turbulence for the mild-mannered GOP leaders, who meet weekly when both chambers are in session and are generally viewed as having a good working rapport.

Now they face two huge challenges they will need to navigate together: Obamacare subsidies are set to expire at the end of next month, threatening health insurance premium hikes for millions of Americans, and the leaders face competing factions in both chambers when it comes to how to respond. In January, Thune and Johnson will once again have to rally their members around a bill to avoid another government shutdown. At stake in all the fights is how the GOP’s handling goes over with voters ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

The friction points reflect a well-worn dynamic of congressional life — the House and Senate operate at times in split-screen political realities despite Thune, Johnson and their conferences belonging to the same party.

Thune, like most of the Senate, didn’t know Johnson before the low-key House member ascended to the speakership in the fall of 2023. But the two men developed a rapport before Thune took over as GOP leader in January. They are viewed as more aligned in their day-to-day operations and temperament than some of their predecessor pairings, including former Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell and the House’s former top Republican Kevin McCarthy.

“They work well together. And they get along well,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a close Thune ally, said of the two GOP leaders. “They not only have a professional relationship, they like each other.”

Another Republican senator who knows Thune and Johnson said they had “worked very well together” so far, adding that some tension between the two chambers is “probably healthy.”

“They’re very similar,” said the senator, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the leaders.

That doesn’t change the fact that senior House Republicans, including some Johnson allies, are still smarting over the inclusion of the payout language for senators in last week’s funding package. It was designed to give special recourse to Senate Republicans who had their phone records seized during Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s 2020 election interference. House Republicans have said they didn’t learn about it until after the Senate passed the bill and it was the House’s turn to act on reopening the government.

For an angry swath of House Republicans, the episode reinforced their long-standing anxieties about being jammed by the Senate and painted Johnson — who also said he didn’t find out about the provision until after Senate passage — as embarrassingly out of the loop.

Johnson quickly promised the House would vote on separate legislation to repeal it, and the House passed the rollback Wednesday night with zero opposition. Thune also got an earful from his own members during a closed-door lunch Wednesday, including from typical leadership allies like Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a former Senate staffer, said Wednesday as he made the case for repealing the provision ahead of the vote that the House needed to “hip check” the Senate.

Johnson, meanwhile, told reporters that Thune was “a trustworthy, honest broker, and that’s why I was so surprised when we found out about that [phone records] provision.”

Across the Capitol, Senate Republicans believe Johnson dropped a hot potato in their lap in the form of the bill to release the Epstein files. Johnson presided over bitter infighting for months over the bipartisan push to force a vote on the matter. By the time Johnson agreed to it, he was on the verge of being on the losing side of an open rebellion within his ranks and seemingly at odds with Trump, who suddenly urged Republicans to support it Sunday night.

Johnson framed his pivot around a hope the Senate would alter the bill before clearing it for Trump’s signature.

“I talked to John Thune over the weekend. I just texted him. We’re going to get together. We’ll talk about this,” Johnson told reporters as he left the House floor Tuesday following the 427-1 vote to release the files.

But Senate Republicans, including members of leadership, never had an appetite for making changes. Many GOP senators privately made clear they didn’t want Thune to drag out the Epstein discussion as Johnson had, and Thune never publicly opened the door to amending the bill.

Two people granted anonymity to discuss private party dynamics said that if Thune had bowed to Johnson’s push for changes, it would have risked keeping Republicans mired in the Epstein issue for weeks.

“What was [Thune] supposed to do with a bill that passed the House 427-1 … had no objections in the Senate and the president said he’d sign?” one of the people said.

“That is House drama,” said another GOP senator granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation. “We don’t need that over here.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: House floor freezes over

Published

9 hours ago

July 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Last July 4 recess, House Republicans were triumphantly celebrating the massive victory of clearing the party’s tax and spending bill.

Fast forward a year and Speaker Mike Johnson can’t even get enough votes to open his chamber’s floor for debate.

“Who needs Democrats when you have your own party derailing the Trump agenda,” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis said Tuesday.

A rebellion by a small band of conservatives now jeopardizes members’ top priorities as the legislative calendar ahead of the midterms rapidly shrinks. Progress on the annual Pentagon policy bill, fiscal 2027 government funding bills, Iran war funding measure, third party-line reconciliation bill and more is frozen in the party’s paralysis.

Frustration at the roughly dozen Republicans who refused to support a procedural vote to unlock floor business exploded Tuesday afternoon as members watched their legislation become collateral damage. The hard-liners want Johnson to do more to force the Senate to pass an election security bill.

“We’ve got knuckleheads taking down the rules, that’s frustrating,” Rep. John Rutherford said in an interview. “They think they’re putting some kind of pressure on the Senate, but you don’t put pressure on the Senate by shutting down the House floor.”

Anger from the hard-liners had been simmering for days even as Johnson tried to appease the group by effectively attaching the SAVE America Act to the must-pass defense policy bill.

Several hard-liners who voted against the procedural rule, like Reps. Chip Roy and Andy Harris, also cited what they said was a broken promise from Johnson to hold a vote on an immigration bill before the July 4 recess, among other concerns.

Now lawmakers will return July 13 to a chaotic mess of a to-do list.

They’ll need to use valuable floor time to pass the defense policy bill, including votes on more than 300 amendments. A stack of fiscal 2027 spending bills GOP appropriators wanted to pass before recess awaits them, as does an $88 billion emergency funding request from Trump for the Iran war and farm aid.

And hanging from a thread: the GOP’s hope to clear another party-line bill to help members campaign before the midterms.

A meeting initially set for today between House Budget Republicans and GOP leaders to discuss the next steps on a third reconciliation bill was canceled in light of the schedule change.

Another casualty of the frozen floor: Republicans left town unable to vote on a ceremonial resolution commemorating the one-year anniversary of the tax-cut legislation that remains the GOP’s major legislative victory in Trump’s second term.

To pull off that final vote, Johnson had to muscle near complete unity from his members and plow through months of lawmaker angst and discord to meet Trump’s self-imposed deadline of Independence Day.

Johnson tried to project optimism amid his conference’s meltdown Tuesday.

“We don’t have time to waste because we’re coming up on an election and the end of Congress,” Johnson told reporters. “It’s frustrating, but we’ll get everybody together and then do it again. This is life in a small majority.”

With just eight legislative days on the calendar between now and Congress’ August recess, and 16 days more between then and the November elections, Johnson’s optimism faces the brutal reality of a short timeline.

What else we’re watching:

— BENNET, DEGETTE LOSE PRIMARIES: Stunning losses for two of Colorado’s most prominent Democrats Tuesday were the latest sign of boiling anti-establishment rage among the electorate. Sen. Michael Bennet will return to the Senate to finish out the last two years of his term after losing the Democratic primary for Colorado governor. And in the 1st District, Democratic socialist Melat Kiros defeated 15-term Rep. Diana DeGette.

— NYC SOCIALIST SWEEP COMPLICATES REDISTRICTING PLAN: It’s no secret Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is spearheading a mid-decade redistricting drive to win control of the House. But the results of last week’s primaries in New York City add a new wrinkle to that project: How will he handle foes from within his own party?

William Steakin and Joe Anuta contributed to this report.

Congress

The left won big in NYC. Now it has to survive a redistricting effort.

Published

12 hours ago

July 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — It’s no secret Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is spearheading a mid-decade redistricting drive to win control of the House. But the results of last week’s primaries in New York City add a new wrinkle to that project: How will he handle foes from within his own party?

On June 23, a trio of far-left congressional candidates routed establishment Democrats aligned with the Brooklyn lawmaker. Come 2028, when New York officials hope to redraw those three seats along with the rest of the state’s congressional boundaries, Jeffries would be one of the people influencing the process.

Any changes to districts won by an insurgent wing of the party — making them more moderate or shoring them up as progressive strongholds — will be closely watched by both establishment officials alarmed by the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America and young voters wary of Jeffries and the party machinery.

“You had people yelling ‘you’re next’ at a screen showing Hakeem,” said Basil Smikle Jr., the former head of the state Democratic Party, referring to democratic socialists calling for Jeffries’ defeat at a primary night watch party. “That tells you everything you need to know about the scrutiny that is going to come to anything he does, including his process.”

When it comes to redistricting in the Empire State, much remains undecided and undone. Midterm results in November will provide a clearer view of the electoral landscape, especially in competitive races in the Hudson Valley and on Long Island. Democratic leaders have not even won approval for their redistricting plan from voters — polling so far has been grim. And Jeffries himself has given no indication of his plans beyond a desire for New York to pledge its sword in the national redistricting wars.

But Jeffries, who is aiming to become the first Black speaker of the House, will regardless be buffeted by competing interests should the state move forward — not least the mutual animosity between himself and the democratic socialists winning races in his backyard.

A proposed redistricting map from 2022 provides a peek at how Democrats believed they could maximize gains in Congress throughout the state. In New York City, that meant dramatic changes to two districts won by leftist challengers last week.

The home turf of Brad Lander, a progressive who defeated incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in Brooklyn and Manhattan, would have been drawn into a district encompassing deep-red Staten Island in a bid to oust GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis.

And the district won in a landslide by Assemblymember Claire Valdez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, would have had the northern part of her highly educated, affluent base along the Brooklyn-Queens waterfront lopped off.

Ph.D. candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier, a fellow DSA member, beat incumbent Adriano Espaillat by the narrowest margin last week. Her district, however, currently resembles what was cooked up in Democrat’s 2022 proposal.

That map was ultimately thrown out by the courts, in large part for procedural problems. But Democrats remain focused on Malliotakis’ seat, and flipping it would require some rejiggering of the surrounding areas that could impact freshmen legislators.

“There will be new lines in 2028 and, generally speaking, the newer members are the most at risk,” said Chris Coffey, chief executive of Tusk Strategies. “But it’s hard to predict what will happen or how the new lines will shake out.”

Some political observers expect Jeffries to at least consider ways to protect his delegation while simultaneously weakening Republicans. Prominent members of the left have already expressed a desire to primary Rep. Ritchie Torres, who handily won reelection in the Bronx. And Rep. Grace Meng won her race by a smaller margin than many expected for a ten-year incumbent.

“You have an opportunity to remake the map and change the delegation in smart ways,” said one Democratic strategist. “The question is: how do you do that?”

Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of DSA’s New York City chapter, said the organization generally supports using mid-decade redistricting to gain Democratic representation in Congress, but that tinkering with the districts freshly won by Lander and Valdez in particular would likely have unintended consequences.

“Claire Valdez is already basically a packed DSA district, so if they change that district very much, it suddenly makes any neighboring district easier terrain for us,” he said. “I think that also goes for NY-10 [where Lander is the Democratic nominee] as well. I’m curious to see how they navigate that.”

Jeffries’ office offered no indication that he’s thinking about anything beyond giving Democrats an edge nationally. The minority leader has mounted an aggressive push to redraw congressional maps in blue states to counteract Republican partisan gerrymandering elsewhere. And the results of that war will help decide control of Congress for years to come.

“Leader Jeffries is focused on passing the constitutional amendment to ensure New York has a fair and competitive congressional map that can help stop the nationwide MAGA power grab in places like Florida and Texas, and create additional opportunities to elect House Democrats in 2028 and beyond,” spokesperson Justin Chermol said in a statement.

There have also been overtures toward intra-party peace as of late.

The minority leader congratulated all of the Democratic contenders on their primary wins. Lander has embraced Jeffries’ speakership run — as has Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who was a driving force in getting all three progressives through the primary. (Valdez and Avila Chevalier have remained mum on who should lead the House.)

Additionally, the mere specter of shifting lines could create more comity between ideologically disparate officials who would want to stay on mapmakers’ good side. And laws governing the redistricting process also prevent the state from diluting minority representation in certain districts.

Jeffries will be joined in the redistricting effort by the New York State Democratic Party and the state Legislature, which must approve the maps. Both the state Senate and Assembly saw a leftward shift last week, meaning lawmakers would be sensitive to any changes that appear to negatively impact their political bedfellows.

“I don’t know about anyone else, but the Senate is not interested in using redistricting to take sides in a civil war,” said state Sen. Michael Gianaris, who spearheaded past redistricting efforts and will step down from his seat at the end of the year.

Redistricting is a fraught process in any year. Republicans and good-government groups will cry foul at any hint of gerrymandering. Various neighborhoods will balk at being shifted to a new representative. And the results can be unpredictable. In 2024, leftist Rep. Jamaal Bowman emerged a winner from the redistricting process only to go on to lose reelection.

But Tuesday’s primaries have upped the stakes for Jeffries and state Democrats even further, even as they try to focus on the national picture.

“A lot of people are going to be watching who weren’t watching before,” Smikle Jr. said.

Congress

Tom Kean Jr. kept his depression a secret. Colleagues are questioning that decision.

Published

12 hours ago

July 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

When Rep. Tom Kean Jr. revealed Tuesday his extended absence from the House was due to inpatient treatment for depression, he ended months of speculation but also fueled a delicate conversation: Just how much privacy are elected officials entitled to?

The New Jersey Republican offered only scant details about his condition during the four months he went missing. And while colleagues of both parties expressed sympathy for his mental health challenges and gratitude that he has now returned, many hedged their comments by saying Kean could and perhaps should have said something earlier.

“Certainly everyone has a right to privacy and to health care and to the mental health care that they need,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter, an Oregon Democrat and physician, while adding that members are obligated to be “transparent and forthcoming.”

“You give up the right to privacy in a certain respect when you run for office and represent that many people,” she said. “And so I do challenge our colleagues to be more transparent when these things happen.”

Even Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Kean should have said more sooner at a news conference Tuesday: “If it were me, I would have been more specific about that, and I encouraged him to be.”

Kean appeared to anticipate that he might be criticized for saying so little as he missed more than 100 votes — no matter how sensitive his diagnosis might be. In the floor speech he gave upon returning Tuesday, he described himself as a “private person by nature” and said he “was still trying to understand what was happening” when his office first attributed his absence to a “medical issue.”

“When I said I hoped to return in a matter of weeks, I believed it,” Kean said. “Those were the best estimates the doctors could provide.”

Other parts of his approach, however, raised eyebrows. His social media accounts continued as if he was still at the Capitol, fueling more questions about his malady. Reports of an empty house back in New Jersey and an aide’s offhand comment that there were “no cameras” where Kean was only added to the speculation.

Many fellow House members spoke carefully Tuesday about Kean’s condition while also making clear that it should not excuse him from accountability for how his absence was handled.

“I think many of us have a tremendous degree of empathy and understanding for a mental health diagnosis,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “There’s a valid discussion here about when it comes to the volume of an absence, what is our responsibility to our constituents in communicating around that?”

Attitudes and practices surrounding mental health care in big-time politics have been transformed since 1972, when Sen. Thomas Eagleton of Missouri lost his No. 2 spot on the Democratic presidential ticket after his bouts with depression were publicized.

While the subject remains taboo among some, more lawmakers have talked openly about their mental health struggles as the disease has grown in prevalence among the general public.

When Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was hospitalized for clinical depression three years ago, he almost immediately explained his health issues and offered routine public updates.

Fetterman’s transparency was met with plaudits and empathy from his congressional colleagues at the time, but he later said in an interview that he had regrets about opening up.

He blamed “people in the media” for having “weaponized” his illness, he told the New York Times a year ago: “It shook me that people are willing to weaponize that I got help.”

Others have been similarly candid. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) opened up in 2023 about overcoming a debilitating mix of anxiety, depression and the side effects of drugs used to treat them. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) and Becca Balint (D-Vt.) have spoken about their struggles, too.

Torres quickly responded to Kean’s announcement in a social media post, noting that while he sympathized, those in elected positions also have “a duty of transparency.”

Balint in an interview questioned whether staying silent on the issue for months served to “perpetuate the stigma” around mental health challenges.

“I’m glad that he is being open in public about it,” she said, while adding, “I wish that he had done that months ago, to even just make just a general statement.”

Rep. Lauren Boebert, who had questioned Kean’s whereabouts before his announcement, was among the small number of members who were not so understanding and called his long absence “ridiculous.”

“I think there’s this dose of depression that comes with every congressional pin that’s issued,” the Colorado Republican said. “Life is depressing. Life is hard. Get to work.”

While few Americans can afford to miss months of work for mental health treatment like Kean, depression-related work absences have become a major issue as the prevalence of the disease in the U.S. has only grown. Depressed workers are many times more likely to miss work because of the condition but are also less likely to self-disclose depression issues.

Several Democrats and Republicans were supportive of Kean immediately after his announcement and applauded him for coming forward with the diagnosis.

“It’s helpful to the American people and to others with depression to be able to acknowledge that this is what’s happening and it’s not a sin, he’s not a bad person, he’s not a weak person,” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a co-chair of the Congressional Mental Health Caucus, said in an interview. “It’s a brain disease, and I want him to be well.”

Beyer also said he was “disappointed” that Kean “felt he couldn’t disclose it,” though said he does not know the fellow congressman well and did not wish to criticize him.

Beyer, who has been open about his son’s schizophrenia diagnosis, said mental health issues should not be a “secret thing tucked away in the closet.”

Kean, for his part, let very few fellow politicians into his confidence. The two other Republicans in the New Jersey delegation, Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Chris Smith, said they had not heard from Kean in months despite calling and texting him out of concern.

Despite what Van Drew described as “radio silence,” the two other New Jersey Republicans defended Kean’s decision to not reveal his diagnosis.

“I was just concerned for him,” Van Drew said. “When you go through something like that, you … choose how you’re going to reveal it. So he decided to do it this way, and that’s fine. It’s his decision.”

Smith said he was optimistic Kean’s public disclosure even now could help reduce the stigma surrounding mental health issues. Asked about how much privacy members of Congress are entitled to on personal matters, he said, “There’s a balance.”

“He thought this is probably the best way to do it, and so I respected it,” Smith said.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), a Navy veteran who has been open about having post-traumatic stress disorder, said in an interview he was among a select few who knew months in advance about Kean’s diagnosis. He defended Kean’s decision to keep mum.

“If you’ve got a medical condition, that’s up to you to disclose,” he said. “Anybody that’s saying they should have done this or that — really, they need to get a life.”