Facing pressure from Trump and conservatives, Johnson drags his feet on Intel appointments

Speaker Mike Johnson has two open seats to fill on the House Intelligence Committee. But he’s dragging his feet as he faces conflicting pressures — from conservatives, Donald Trump and current panel membership — over potential replacements.

The House Freedom Caucus is pushing Johnson to pick their former leader, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), according to five Republicans tied to the committee who are familiar with the discussions, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. And those same Republicans, which include several lawmakers, believe Trump is also lobbying the GOP leader to tap Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), his former White House medical adviser.

Since it’s a select committee, Johnson can name anyone he wants to the panel unilaterally. But the speaker is obviously in a politically vulnerable position given his paper-thin margin and a challenge to his leadership last week that was only defeated due to Democratic support. He can’t simply ignore the demands of either his right flank or Trump, who just supported him during that dethroning effort.

The idea of Perry coming onto the panel gives those GOP Intelligence Committee members debilitating heartburn.Those Republicans argue the former Freedom Caucus chair is all but ineligible, noting there is a conflict since he is involved in a federal investigation into efforts to subvert the 2020 election by Trump and his allies.

The panel has oversight powers over the FBI, which seized Perry’s cell phone in August 2022. And Perry sought to litigate what the federal investigators would be able to access on his phone, which the Republicans say makes picking him for Intel out of the equation.

And Perry’s allies are open about their push. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus board, dismissed the idea of a conflict of interest.

“The FBI investigation has offered us B.S. over January 6 … which is part of the problems we have at the FBI. So if there’s more oversight of the FBI, that is a good thing. Not a bad thing,” Donalds said, adding: “I didn’t didn’t realize that the Intel Committee is the end-all-be-all of what happens in Congress. These guys are pissing me off.”

Perry, for his part, wouldn’t directly comment on the pushback. “I’ve not been asked to do anything. And I’d be honored to serve,” he said.

Jackson is a more palatable option for the panel Republicans. That’s partly because the Texan serves on the House Armed Services Committee, which one Republican noted that he has used to build a pre-existing relationship with the Intel panel. And Jackson has voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a litmus test in many of their minds since they played a major role in crafting the final package.

“If you notice, members [of the panel] are typically not bomb throwers,” said Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), who is on the committee and spoke broadly about membership expectations. “It’s the difference between being a show horse and a workhorse. And so I think those are the considerations. Everybody wants to be on there.”

Lawmakers have raised two other potential options: either Johnson leaves the seats open until next year to avoid blowback or appoints placeholders to fill at least one of the seats.

“It is too much effort and political capital, so better to leave them open and start in January,” one of the Republicans, granted anonymity, said.

It’s possible that’s the speaker’s plan, given one of the seats has sat empty for eight months. That opening dates back to mid-September and the retirement of former Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), while a second opened up after Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) left the House last month.

Three of the Republicans said it wouldn’t impact their ability to get committee work done if they don’t fill it for the rest of the term. Republicans currently have a one seat majority on the panel, though much of its work has been bipartisan under the tenure of Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio.) and ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.).

But if they do fill it, one Republican predicted that one spot would go to Jackson, a retired Navy Rear Admiral who has made his interest clear.

“I’ve been interested in it since my first year here. You don’t get it your freshman year, generally, but I made it well known to [former Speaker Kevin] McCarthy that I wanted it and I worked it up and put the packages together. And I’ve been doing that since day one. So the answer is yes,” Jackson said. He has also expressed his interest to Johnson, he added.

Asked if Trump is lobbying for him, Jackson said he wasn’t sure.

There are also discussions about putting in placeholders to temporarily fill the seat. Two of the Republicans pointed to retiring Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), who they said is a serious contender and a former Freedom Caucus member. Plus, there is a broader desire to have another GOP woman on the panel to join Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.).

Still, at least one Republican shared some broader frustration that politics is boxing out lawmakers who they say truly deserve a seat on the panel. Some members pointed to Reps. August Pfluger (R-Texas) and Julia Letlow (R-La.) as examples.

“I know Trump is weighing in heavily for Ronny, but I think that is unfair,” this Republican said, citing how other members have sought to be on the panel for years.

Other Republicans were afraid the politicization of the appointment process was going to drag the panel back into partisan fighting — a regularity during the chairship of both Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that members are eager to avoid. A lot of that animosity was driven by a split over Trump, who was closely allied with Nunes and despised Schiff, who led the first impeachment inquiry into the former president.

But with new leadership on both sides, members have patched up their differences and are fighting to protect the equilibrium they have built.

“Scott, I know, does want to be on Intel. He’s wanted to be on for quite some time. There are other members that want to be on. I think the speaker needs to make a decision, but it’s the speaker’s decision. It is not a decision of the Intelligence Committee. … And he has to make that independent of what everybody else thinks,” Donalds said.

Read Entire Article