When Speaker Mike Johnson summarily fired House Intelligence<\/a> Chair Mike Turner this week, everyone assumed it was about Donald Trump.<\/p>\n

Actually, it was about power \u2014 not the incoming president\u2019s, but Johnson\u2019s.<\/p>\n

After spending more than a year tiptoeing around a Republican Conference where intervening in even miniscule factional disputes could risk his gavel, the speaker\u2019s<\/a> intel machinations this week represented an uncharacteristic \u2014 and messy \u2014 show of political muscle.<\/p>\n

Out went Turner (R-Ohio)<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

In came Rep. Rick Crawford<\/a> (R-Ark.), a more MAGA-friendly, America First type who, crucially, had better relationships with the House GOP\u2019s hard right \u2014 the fractious bloc that Johnson needs to keep happy as he tries to pass Trump\u2019s agenda with a razor-thin majority in the coming months.<\/p>\n

In, too, came a new crop of rank-and-file Intel members<\/a> \u2014 each of whom helped Johnson with parochial political problems in the House. He rewarded Rep. Pat Fallon<\/a> (R-Texas), who helped run his speaker vote whip operation, and found a consolation prize for Rep. Ann Wagner<\/a> (R-Mo.), who lost out on the Foreign Affairs Committee gavel.<\/p>\n

Problems solved. But, also, problems created.<\/p>\n

The easygoing, always smiling Johnson is quickly learning that wielding power means making enemies \u2014 especially when you bungle the execution.<\/p>\n

Johnson entered his private meeting with Turner armed with a host of internal conference reasons for firing him, but the speaker\u2019s decision to briefly cite \u201cconcerns from Mar-a-Lago\u201d as a justification for his decision vexed Trump\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Perhaps more importantly, he has made a new enemy in Turner, who declined to comment.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s move \u2014 especially, they say, after the Intel chair had played a key role in brokering a deal with Democrats to reject a far-right putsch<\/a> against Johnson.<\/p>\n

$\"From$ <\/p>\n

Many House Republicans think Johnson might come to regret the choice given his slim margin.<\/p>\n

\u201cMike Turner is not going to go gently into that good night,\u201d said one incensed senior GOP aide who isn\u2019t necessarily a Turner fan. \u201cIt is frustrating when we have a two-seat majority, one-seat majority, but you\u2019re angering and embarrassing a very volatile member for what appears to be minimal gain.\u201d<\/p>\n

From the perspective of Johnson and his allies, he had good reason to let Turner loose \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

For some House conservatives, their spat with Turner was about policy: They wanted those powers reined in, and Turner did not. Johnson\u2019s concern was about the chair\u2019s tactics.<\/p>\n

The speaker tried to settle intra-GOP tensions by proposing that the hard-right members pushing for reforms \u2014 Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan<\/a> (R-Ohio) and Rep. Warren Davidson<\/a> (R-Ohio) \u2014 get votes on floor amendments they supported. But Turner refused to allow it, threatening to tank the entire bill<\/a> in an echo of the ultimatums that ultraconservatives frequently deploy.<\/p>\n

That alone would justify a speaker ousting one of his chairs, many lawmakers say. Then, just hours after Johnson told Turner he didn\u2019t get to decide on amendments, the rebuffed chair cryptically warned of \u201c a serious national security threat<\/a>\u201d \u2014 later reported to be Russian plans for a space-based nuclear weapon.<\/p>\n

The news forced White House and congressional leaders to scramble and infuriated Turner\u2019s opponents on Section 702, who viewed his move as a heavy-handed attempt at bulldozing them.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe called a national security emergency to prove a point about why something shouldn\u2019t get a vote on the floor,\u201d one senior GOP aide said. \u201cCompletely out of bounds.\u201d<\/p>\n

Turner would later alienate a fellow Republican on the committee \u2014 its future chair. Crawford bristled at what he believed were Turner\u2019s attempts to curb his investigation<\/a> of \u201cHavana syndrome,\u201d the mysterious affliction reported by some U.S. government personnel abroad that has been dismissed by intelligence agencies, as the Washington Examiner first reported<\/a> (and as Turner allies dispute<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Late last year, Crawford and fellow Intel member Trent Kelly<\/a> (R-Miss.) went to Johnson to express concerns about Turner\u2019s leadership, I\u2019ve 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\u2019s office denied this; Crawford\u2019s did not comment but sent a statement praising Turner.)<\/p>\n

Weeks later, Johnson made his move.<\/p>\n

Now he\u2019s facing major sour grapes from Turner\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

$\"Rep.$ <\/p>\n

Turner wasn\u2019t happy, one said, when Johnson \u201cblindsided\u201d him by putting two close Trump allies on the committee \u2014 Reps. Ronny Jackson<\/a> (R-Texas) and Scott Perry<\/a> (R-Pa.) \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

Even more exasperating, Turner\u2019s allies say, is that he played a key role in saving Johnson\u2019s speakership. At last year\u2019s Munich Security Conference, Turner worked with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries<\/a> to broker a \u201csmoke signal\u201d<\/a> \u2014 if Johnson got Ukraine aid through the House, Democrats would make sure the attempt from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene<\/a> (R-Ga.) to remove him wouldn\u2019t succeed.<\/p>\n

And when reports emerged last year that conservatives would threaten Turner\u2019s gavel over his firm support for Ukraine aid, they said Johnson assured him, \u201cYou\u2019ve got nothing to worry about, Mike.\u201d (People familiar with Johnson’s conversations said the speaker made no such assurance.)<\/p>\n

All this would add up to your standard internecine Capitol Hill political dispute \u2014 until Johnson invoked \u201cMar-a-Lago\u201d in explaining his decision to Turner, which Turner then publicly disclosed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It makes sense that Trump might want him out: While Turner vocally defended Trump during his 2019 impeachment, he\u2019s also been critical on occasion \u2014 saying Trump\u2019s alleged mishandling of classified documents was \u201c of grave concern<\/a>,\u201d for instance, and blasting Trump\u2019s unfounded allegations<\/a> about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, in his district.<\/p>\n

And there is certainly skepticism in Trump\u2019s orbit about Turner\u2019s 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<\/a> framed the move as a win for the \u201cdeep state.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Turner had taken steps to firm up his relationship with Trump \u2014 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<\/a> when Turner was in Palm Beach with other chairmen last weekend.<\/p>\n

Put another way, either Trump insiders really did give a quiet nudge for Turner\u2019s dismissal or \u2014 as many Republicans are speculating right now \u2014 Johnson used \u201cconcerns at Mar-a-Lago\u201d to give himself cover for a difficult decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe\u2019s not the kind of guy who would relish firing somebody,\u201d as one GOP member told me.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cnot about Donald Trump.\u201d<\/p>\n

Inside the House GOP, though, the damage has been done. Among Turner\u2019s allies \u2014 a leadership-friendly cadre that tends to be part of any speaker\u2019s bulwark against the fiery demands of the hard right \u2014 there are new doubts about Johnson\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a shame,\u201d the GOP member said. \u201cPolitics trumps substance, work ethic and experience.\u201d<\/p>\n

And common sense, another added: \u201cYou have a two-seat majority, and you shot one of your members.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"