Congress

Johnson tries to avoid McCarthy pitfalls as he preps for a speaker showdown

Published

1 year ago

January 3, 2025

Mike Johnson is trying to avoid the mistakes of his predecessor as he faces the toughest test of his political career on Friday.

With his bid to keep his speakership on the line — despite support from President-elect Donald Trump — the Louisiana Republican is looking to sidestep the kinds of side deals with conservative Republicans that ultimately cost Kevin McCarthy his own political future. But that’s a hard tightrope to cross.

Fiscal hawks want Johnson to make commitments, including giving them greater control over how bills move to the floor and slashing spending — pledges that could be untenable for Johnson with a razor-thin GOP margin. And while conservatives believe that Johnson is keeping an open mind on some of their demands, they’re also concerned about whether he will keep the three conservative rebels on the House Rules Committee, according to one Republican with knowledge of the matter, granted anonymity to detail private conversations.

The stakes are huge, and no one knows how it will play out in the coming hours. Around a dozen Republicans are on the fence, despite Johnson working the last several days to lock down the 218 votes he needs. He can only afford to have one Republican vote for someone else on the floor, but several on Thursday indicated they won’t announce how they will vote in advance.

While Johnson says his plan is to win the speakership right away on Friday, he’s also signaling that in order to get there he might show more flexibility with GOP hardliners.

”People are talking through process changes they want, and those kinds of things, and I’m open to that,” he said Thursday as he left a meeting with hardliners. He added that if he doesn’t win on the first ballot, “that’s the process of Congress with a small majority.”

Given the uncertainty, some GOP lawmakers worry that a drawn-out speakership fight will force Johnson to cave and agree to policies that would make it harder for Republicans to pass priorities on the border, energy and taxes. Those goals will already be difficult, as they wrangle with an incredibly thin margin in the House.

The speaker race is House Republicans’ first real test of their ability to unify in the new Congress.

“We need to get that taken care of, get it behind us, and get on with our work on policy,” Republican Policy Committee Chair Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) said in a brief interview, adding that a messy speaker fight would “certainly” make accomplishing the party’s policy goals harder.

Another House Republican lawmaker, granted anonymity to speak candidly, added that Friday “needs to go smoothly or this year is going to be tragic.”

Yet the early demands are already piling up for Johnson: Rep. Chip Roy is angling to be chair of the Rules Committee, while the speaker’s allies urge him to remove the Texas Republican from the panel entirely. The other two conservative members of the panel aren’t clear on their futures either: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the lone Republican who has already said publicly he’ll vote against Johnson, has signaled he expects he’ll likely lose his seat, while Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) recently told Blue Light News that he would like to stay on but he hasn’t gotten guidance from Johnson.

Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz, who is known for regularly causing a ruckus ahead of key votes and then folding, publicly served Johnson with a laundry list of demands last month in order to secure her support. A close friend of Massie’s, Spartz is also seen as the most unpredictable of the undecided members.

“We had a good meeting with the speaker, discussed some things. In a lot of things we agree,” Rep. Victoria Spartz said.

Spartz met with Johnson behind closed doors on Thursday, telling reporters after that she will make a decision about the speaker’s race on Friday — one of many who seem to be waiting until the last minute to weigh in.

“We had a good meeting with the speaker, discussed some things. In a lot of things we agree,” Spartz said.

GOP members from across the conference are warning Johnson against any bigger concessions, like the kind they argue eventually crippled McCarthy’s speakership.

“It will cause problems elsewhere,” said one Republican lawmaker, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

It’s not just the speaker’s race that’s presenting early headaches for Johnson. House lawmakers also have to approve a rules package that governs how the chamber operates, an effort that won’t get Democratic help. Johnson similarly needs near-unanimity to move forward on the package of rules that leaders released on Wednesday, and Massie and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) are both already raising concerns. Johnson can’t pass it if he loses both of them.

There’s a real risk for Johnson if he bends to the demands of his hardliners. His predecessor, McCarthy, cut a flurry of deals before and during the 15 rounds it took him to win the gavel, including making it easier to oust a speaker and giving his hardliners plum positions on the Rules Committee. But those agreements ultimately planted the seeds for the House GOP’s perennial chaos over the past two years, and centrists accused McCarthy of bowing too far to his antagonists, sacrificing leadership’s power and still getting ousted just 10 months later.

Several of Johnson’s holdouts were tightlipped on Thursday as they left his office, though one acknowledged that Johnson “has work to do” to remain speaker. Another, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), added that the group is “keeping our powder dry.” Asked if they feared retribution from Trump if they do not back the incoming president’s pick, Reps. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) and Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) shrugged off the threat. Cloud later clarified in a tweet that he doesn’t want to delay Trump’s agenda but is instead seeking “structural changes” to “how the House operates.”

Norman declined to say if the group would settle for verbal commitments or if they needed to see something in writing, but said they were dug in on the predictable areas: “fiscal discipline, securing the border, pass reconciliation.”

“The president has got four years, but in reality he’s got 12 to 14 months,” he added.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate Republicans want a say on Trump’s Iran deal

Published

1 hour 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.

“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.

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

6 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.

Congress

Senate to confirm Jay Clayton as soon as Thursday

Published

8 hours ago

June 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate could vote as soon as Thursday on Jay Clayton’s nomination to serve as director of national intelligence — a lightning speed pace that will necessitate buy-in from all 100 senators.

Confirming Clayton could help shore up enough votes from Democrats to extend a government surveillance program that expired last Friday over opposition to Trump’s pick for acting director, Bill Pulte.

“He will come out of the committee Thursday, at least hopefully, and then if we get consent, we can move,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview Monday about Clayton, who Trump only nominated for the job late last week.

Democrats “ought to be happy with Clayton,” said Thune, adding that he’s a “good” and “solid” pick.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, floated Sunday to CBS News that Clayton could be confirmed this week if every senator cooperates.

Senate Intelligence will hold a hearing Wednesday on Clayton’s nomination. If every member of the panel agrees, he could then get a committee vote Thursday. 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 will punt Clayton’s confirmation to next week.

Confirming Clayton Thursday would, crucially, limit — and potentially circumvent — Pulte from becoming acting director of national intelligence, which Trump has slated to take place Friday, June 19.

The president’s decision to put Pulte in charge after Tulsi Gabbard’s departure at the helm of the Office of National Intelligence sparked bipartisan pushback, with Democrats saying they will withhold support for extending Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act while Pulte is in the acting role. Congress allowed the key government spy authority lapse last Friday without a deal.

Trump threw another curveball into a FISA extension over the weekend when he posted on social media that he was against reauthorizing Section 702 unless a GOP elections bill is attached. That bill, known as the SAVE America Act, does not have the votes to get through Congress.

Thune threw cold water Monday on tying the two issues together.

“Yeah, he’s, as you know, passionate about getting that done and wants to use every opportunity to take a shot at it,” Thune said of Trump and his desire to enact the elections bill.

But, Thune said, “we can’t get FISA done” if the policies are linked.