Congress
The Real Story Behind Mike Turner’s Firing
When Speaker Mike Johnson summarily fired House Intelligence Chair Mike Turner this week, everyone assumed it was about Donald Trump.
Actually, it was about power — not the incoming president’s, but Johnson’s.
After spending more than a year tiptoeing around a Republican Conference where intervening in even miniscule factional disputes could risk his gavel, the speaker’s intel machinations this week represented an uncharacteristic — and messy — show of political muscle.
Out went Turner (R-Ohio), a brash, prickly defense hawk who had been elevated by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and had become an internal headache for Johnson due to what many saw as his hamfisted handling of a divisive intraparty debate over surveillance powers.
In came Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), a more MAGA-friendly, America First type who, crucially, had better relationships with the House GOP’s hard right — the fractious bloc that Johnson needs to keep happy as he tries to pass Trump’s agenda with a razor-thin majority in the coming months.
In, too, came a new crop of rank-and-file Intel members — each of whom helped Johnson with parochial political problems in the House. He rewarded Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), who helped run his speaker vote whip operation, and found a consolation prize for Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.), who lost out on the Foreign Affairs Committee gavel.
Problems solved. But, also, problems created.
The easygoing, always smiling Johnson is quickly learning that wielding power means making enemies — especially when you bungle the execution.
Johnson entered his private meeting with Turner armed with a host of internal conference reasons for firing him, but the speaker’s decision to briefly cite “concerns from Mar-a-Lago” as a justification for his decision vexed Trump’s inner circle, who said that the president-elect had nothing to do with the matter and accused Johnson of trying to paper over his own political considerations.
Perhaps more importantly, he has made a new enemy in Turner, who declined to comment.
The former chair is not exactly a beloved figure on Capitol Hill. He can be brusque, even condescending, some say. But he has a close group of allies on national security issues who are now aghast at Johnson’s move — especially, they say, after the Intel chair had played a key role in brokering a deal with Democrats to reject a far-right putsch against Johnson.
Many House Republicans think Johnson might come to regret the choice given his slim margin.
“Mike Turner is not going to go gently into that good night,” said one incensed senior GOP aide who isn’t necessarily a Turner fan. “It is frustrating when we have a two-seat majority, one-seat majority, but you’re angering and embarrassing a very volatile member for what appears to be minimal gain.”
From the perspective of Johnson and his allies, he had good reason to let Turner loose — dating back to what they describe as a pattern of bad behavior during the heated internal debate over reauthorizing so-called Section 702 powers that intelligence agencies had used to spy on Americans.
For some House conservatives, their spat with Turner was about policy: They wanted those powers reined in, and Turner did not. Johnson’s concern was about the chair’s tactics.
The speaker tried to settle intra-GOP tensions by proposing that the hard-right members pushing for reforms — Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) — get votes on floor amendments they supported. But Turner refused to allow it, threatening to tank the entire bill in an echo of the ultimatums that ultraconservatives frequently deploy.
That alone would justify a speaker ousting one of his chairs, many lawmakers say. Then, just hours after Johnson told Turner he didn’t get to decide on amendments, the rebuffed chair cryptically warned of “a serious national security threat” — later reported to be Russian plans for a space-based nuclear weapon.
The news forced White House and congressional leaders to scramble and infuriated Turner’s opponents on Section 702, who viewed his move as a heavy-handed attempt at bulldozing them.
“He called a national security emergency to prove a point about why something shouldn’t get a vote on the floor,” one senior GOP aide said. “Completely out of bounds.”
Turner would later alienate a fellow Republican on the committee — its future chair. Crawford bristled at what he believed were Turner’s attempts to curb his investigation of “Havana syndrome,” the mysterious affliction reported by some U.S. government personnel abroad that has been dismissed by intelligence agencies, as the Washington Examiner first reported (and as Turner allies dispute).
Late last year, Crawford and fellow Intel member Trent Kelly (R-Miss.) went to Johnson to express concerns about Turner’s leadership, I’ve learned from two knowledgeable officials. In Caesar-like fashion, they later pitched themselves for promotions if Turner went down: Crawford for chair, and Kelly for vice chair. (Kelly’s office denied this; Crawford’s did not comment but sent a statement praising Turner.)
Weeks later, Johnson made his move.
Now he’s facing major sour grapes from Turner’s allies, who hail from the old-school Reaganite wing of the party. They argue Turner was sacrificed to placate the hard right even after he showed himself willing to be a team player.
Turner wasn’t happy, one said, when Johnson “blindsided” him by putting two close Trump allies on the committee — Reps. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) — but worked hard anyway to bring them into the fold. When Perry asked for an endorsement in a close reelection battle last year, Turner gave it.
Even more exasperating, Turner’s allies say, is that he played a key role in saving Johnson’s speakership. At last year’s Munich Security Conference, Turner worked with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to broker a “smoke signal” — if Johnson got Ukraine aid through the House, Democrats would make sure the attempt from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to remove him wouldn’t succeed.
And when reports emerged last year that conservatives would threaten Turner’s gavel over his firm support for Ukraine aid, they said Johnson assured him, “You’ve got nothing to worry about, Mike.” (People familiar with Johnson’s conversations said the speaker made no such assurance.)
All this would add up to your standard internecine Capitol Hill political dispute — until Johnson invoked “Mar-a-Lago” in explaining his decision to Turner, which Turner then publicly disclosed.
It makes sense that Trump might want him out: While Turner vocally defended Trump during his 2019 impeachment, he’s also been critical on occasion — saying Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents was “of grave concern,” for instance, and blasting Trump’s unfounded allegations about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, in his district.
And there is certainly skepticism in Trump’s orbit about Turner’s relationship with the intelligence community. According to three people who spoke to my colleague Robbie Gramer, plans to have a top Turner aide, Adam Howard, assume a senior role at the National Security Council went awry after a conservative online platform framed the move as a win for the “deep state.”
But Turner had taken steps to firm up his relationship with Trump — and the incoming president had taken note.The president-elect texted to thank Turner for supportive TV appearances during the campaign and even brought him a birthday cake when Turner was in Palm Beach with other chairmen last weekend.
Put another way, either Trump insiders really did give a quiet nudge for Turner’s dismissal or — as many Republicans are speculating right now — Johnson used “concerns at Mar-a-Lago” to give himself cover for a difficult decision.
“He’s not the kind of guy who would relish firing somebody,” as one GOP member told me.
Needless to say, such a move would not go over well with the president-elect, and after Turner disclosed the comment, Johnson quickly launched into clean-up mode and told reporters the decision was his alone and “not about Donald Trump.”
Inside the House GOP, though, the damage has been done. Among Turner’s allies — a leadership-friendly cadre that tends to be part of any speaker’s bulwark against the fiery demands of the hard right — there are new doubts about Johnson’s judgment.
“It’s a shame,” the GOP member said. “Politics trumps substance, work ethic and experience.”
And common sense, another added: “You have a two-seat majority, and you shot one of your members.”
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.
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.
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.
- Senate to confirm Jay Clayton as soon as Thursday
- Senate eyes vote on updated housing affordability legislation
- Capitol Agenda: The new faces of the Freedom Caucus
- Capitol agenda: Trump leaves Congress in dark on Iran deal
- Thune is ‘hopeful’ Mitch McConnell will return this week
- Senate Republicans want a say on Trump’s Iran deal
- Thune is ‘hopeful’ Mitch McConnell will return this week
- Trump questioned Mike Collins about his hardline abortion stance before endorsing him
- RFK Jr. is popping up in battleground districts
- We’re about to find out how powerful Brian Kemp really is with Georgia Republicans
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words