Ever since Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) agreed to even just the framework of a government spending deal with Democrats on Sunday, the House has been in chaos.
First, it was conservatives raging against the deal, calling it “a sham.” While there wasn’t much talk of an effort to boot Johnson, some Republicans—like the perpetually dissatisfied Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)—made it clear it was an option on the table.
But the discontent was strong enough that conservatives took their anger a step further, blocking the House GOP’s legislative agenda as a signal of their opposition. A dozen hardliners voted down a rule—a procedural vote that, until lately, was a huge taboo for the majority to oppose. Their mutiny, however, was a reminder that, without near-unanimous GOP support, any Republican speaker, no matter if he’s one of the conservatives’ own, is an endangered species.
ADVERTISEMENT
Johnson seemed to get the message, meeting with conservative leaders on Thursday and—in their minds, at least—suggesting that he would go back on his deal with Democrats and insist on deeper spending cuts.
“No one wants to shut down, but we cannot continue hemorrhaging like we are, so that was made loud and clear,” influential Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) told The Daily Beast.
“And to his credit, he’s listening,” Norman said of Johnson.
But as that news made its way around Capitol Hill, Johnson cast doubt on his conservative allies’ interpretation of what he said.
As he exited his office Thursday—while on the phone—the speaker told reporters that he “made no commitments” about renegotiating the deal. “We’re having thoughtful conversations about funding options and priorities,” Johnson said.
But that doesn’t seem to mean he’s committed to the deal either.
Just a few months into the job, Johnson already appears to be at a crossroads in his speakership. He can go back on his word with Democrats, jeopardize his future ability to negotiate with anyone on Capitol Hill, and insist on a new deal. Or he can tell the conservatives to live with the deal and dare them to act.
If he goes with the first option, he’d be extremely unlikely to get any more concessions, would needlessly raise expectations, and in the end likely have to agree to the same deal he already accepted—only he would have managed to piss off everyone in the process.
But the alternative—Johnson sticking to his guns—isn’t exactly palatable either.
Standing by the deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (R-NY) means incensing his right flank, throwing away any chance of getting a Republican majority to back his negotiated spending plan, and guaranteeing he has to work with House Democrats.
Both options suck for Johnson, but his choice will be telling.
If Johnson’s focus is attending to the business of governing, he can still fund the government with Democratic support. But if he wants to preserve his speakership, he plays a dangerous game provoking the same people who just defenestrated former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) over his similar willingness to work with Democrats and similar unwillingness to shut down the government.
The position is exactly the sort of one that recent GOP speakers have strenuously tried to avoid. But if there’s one saving grace to Johnson’s predicament, it’s that he’s so new he can still blame McCarthy—and argue that throwing him out now, once again, will only make the House GOP’s problems worse.
Although he’s facing stiff conservative pressure to play hardball and potentially shut down the government, there are far-right lawmakers who recognize that jettisoning Johnson isn’t going to solve anything.
“When Speaker Johnson has to negotiate some of these things to make sure we keep the government open, you’re going to get people on our side that are going to say, ‘This is absolutely crazy. We shouldn’t do it,’” conservative Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), who opposes ousting the speaker, told The Daily Beast this week.
“But if those members actually go ahead and remove Johnson, then what are we going to get?” Nehls asked.
Johnson’s indecision on a path forward has—for the moment—quelled outrage on both sides toward the speaker. Conservatives, like Norman, say they are pleased with the direction talks are heading. Meanwhile, Republicans supporters of the topline deal feel confident that Johnson will ultimately stand by his word to avert a shutdown.
“Government shutdowns are stupid,” the moderate co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) said. “They make no sense. They hurt our country, and I think Mike realizes that.”
Still, the clock is ticking. Funding for about half of the government expires on Jan. 19, with the rest expiring on Feb. 2. If Johnson is planning to renegotiate the deal, he has to make that clear imminently to avoid a shutdown. And given some of the demands of the far-right, Johnson siding with them is no guarantee to avoid a shutdown. (On Thursday, some Freedom Caucus members suggested attaching a sweeping and entirely partisan immigration bill to a temporary funding extension—a complete nonstarter for Democrats that would almost certainly mean a temporary funding bill goes nowhere.)
As Johnson tears his perfectly coiffed hair out, the Senate is moving forward with a short-term spending bill to buy time to pass their larger appropriation measures at the agreed upon levels—an approach many House Republicans still have problems with.
Republican Study Committee Chair Kevin Hern (R-OK) wants to take a short continuing resolution—until March, say—off the table.
Short of nudging Johnson in their direction with a public pressure campaign—which Johnson has reportedly complained about in a conference meeting—the Freedom Caucus members don’t have much recourse besides another procedural motion to remove the speaker. But other than Roy, few conservatives have actually threatened to oust Johnson.
Even Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good (R-VA) told The Daily Beast Wednesday that he was “not thinking about it.”
“We’re tackling the policy and legislation, not personal performance,” Good said.
These angry House Republicans can, of course, keep tanking rule votes and blocking a Republican majority on the House floor, but that strategy may just empower Johnson to work more closely with Democrats—a contingency that’s seeming more inevitable by the minute.
“Speaker Johnson realizes in order for him to pass any legislation, he's going to need Democrats to get on board with him, because there's not enough Republicans that are going to agree to get anything passed without Democrats,” Nehls said.
And yet, a big part of the problem for Johnson is that he’s trying to appease the most unappeasable Republicans.
Johnson built his brand in Congress as one of those staunchly conservative Republicans, closely aligned—perhaps even secretly a member of—the Freedom Caucus.
It was those members who helped propel him to the speakership. And now, he’s feeling the heat from his dearest allies. (Johnson has even called Roy one of his “closest friends.”)
Johnson does have support elsewhere in the Congress, particularly from the conservatives who adamantly want to cut government spending but don’t want to abandon governing.
Fiscal hawk Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) made it clear he has a much bigger problem with Freedom. Caucus holdouts—a group Schweikert was once part of—than he does with Johnson. He said his former cohorts were “fighting over crumbs.”
“That’s my frustration is this noise keeps us from actually working on the drivers of the real debt,” Schweikert said..
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)—a member of the House Appropriations Committee—said the right-wing’s demands are divorced from a fundamental political reality, where the House must contend with the Senate and White House, both currently controlled by Democrats.
“I wish we controlled 100 percent of the federal government. We control one-half of one-third,” Diaz-Balart said. “So inevitably, you’re gonna have to negotiate with the White House to get anything done and negotiate with the Senate to get anything done.”
“The problem is,” he continued, “that some people here think that as soon as you do that—in other words, as soon as you get anything done—that you’re somehow doing something evil.”
Diaz-Balart pointed out that, by not agreeing to the topline appropriations figures and passing a new budget, Republicans will have to swallow extensions to last year’s spending bill, which was written when Democrats still controlled both chambers.
Before The Daily Beast could even ask another appropriator, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT), about the House GOP’s dynamic, he launched right into his frustrations. If the hard-right Republicans actually wanted to bring down spending and achieve their anti-woke agenda, he argued, they should have supported Republican-led spending bills rather than repeatedly sinking them like they’ve been doing for months.
“It’s hard for me to give validity to yelling about the train being late in the station when you’re the same guy that’s blown up the bridges along the way,” Zinke told The Daily Beast.
