‘Shocking’: Biden condemns GOP over lack of Ukraine support
lead image
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) declined to endorse President Joe Biden for reelection during a Monday evening interview on CNN.
“I’m not endorsing anybody right now. We’re gonna see what happens. We still got plenty of time,” the centrist West Virginian said. Here’s three reasons the apparent snub shouldn’t really be a shock to anyone.
1. This is quintessential Manchin. The centrist likes leaving himself lots of options and not being boxed in.
In 2020 — months after voting to convict former President Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial — Manchin refused to rule out endorsing him for reelection. That was, of course, before the insurrection of Jan. 6. Manchin now says “I love my country too much to vote for Donald Trump.”
But bucking conventional wisdom has been a long-time trend for the lawmaker. He endorsed GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) reelection bid in 2022. He cut an ad for a West Virginia Republican locked in a bitter primary battle (who ultimately lost).
2. There’s still the possible third-party path: Manchin only took his name out of contention for a possible third-party bid last week, but is still holding open the possibility that someone else takes the plunge. “You just might have still a third-party run from No Labels,” he said of the centrist group. “We’ll just see what opportunities and what type of options you have.”
3. His policy disagreements with the Biden administration are real — and deep. Manchin, who chairs the Energy Committee, has gone to battle over the Biden administration’s implementation of its signature tax, climate and health care law, which he played an outsized role in shaping. “They’re going to try to screw me,” Manchin said at one point in 2023 of the White House.
He’s often voted with Republicans to (ultimately unsuccessfully) ax Biden administration environmental regulations. He’s vowed to oppose all Biden administration EPA nominees over a sweeping plan aimed at curbing power plant emissions. And he declined to hold a confirmation hearing for a key energy regulator over disagreements over climate, effectively ending his tenure.
None of these are terribly surprising for the lawmaker stemming from ruby-red and fossil fuel-heavy West Virginia. But these are not trivial disagreements with the Biden administration.
BOSTON — A cryptocurrency advocate and attorney is challenging Sen. Elizabeth Warren as a Republican, giving the prominent progressive her first serious — though still long-shot — challenger and setting up an election-season clash over crypto.
John Deaton, a Detroit native, launched his Senate campaign on Tuesday “to continue my life’s mission to shake things up for the people who need it most,” he said in a video announcing his bid.
Deaton moved to Massachusetts last month to take on Warren, a Democrat and Congress’ loudest crypto critic.
“Elizabeth Warren, well she promised to be a champion for those in need. Instead, she gives lectures and plays politics and gets nothing done for Massachusetts,” Deaton said in the video.
Warren, meanwhile, released a report Tuesday morning detailing the more $50 billion in funding she’s brought to Massachusetts since taking office in 2013.
“Senator Warren’s record of fighting for key priorities for Massachusetts families has paid huge dividends,” the report says. “It has resulted in critical federal support for infrastructure and broadband, basic research, a cleaner environment, and dozens of projects to support workers, families, and communities in the Commonwealth.”
Deaton is a dad to three daughters, a testicular cancer survivor and a former Marine who opened a law firm in Rhode Island representing asbestos victims. He’s renting a house in Swansea that is now his primary and full-time residence, and is selling his Barrington, Rhode Island, home for $2.5 million, according to real-estate listings and Jim Conroy, a political adviser to former Gov. Charlie Baker who is consulting for Deaton. He also plans to loan his campaign $500,000 to start, POLITICO first reported.
In his 314-page memoir, “Food Stamp Warrior,” Deaton details his childhood in a rough Detroit enclave. He writes that he was raped, had a gun pressed into his mouth on the first day of high school and sold pot in exchange for food stamps for his family.
He also may have shot someone — and to this day, he writes, he doesn’t know if he did. In Deaton’s telling, his close friend was killed in a drug-related drive-by shooting. As he was dying, Deaton, then 17, took his friend’s gun and opened fire: “I kept squeezing the trigger, as bullets shot through the car and blasted the back window into shards. I saw a person in the back slump down, and I’m still not sure if it’s because I hit him or if he ducked.”
Deaton writes that years later, “I couldn’t stop asking myself: Did he kill my friend, did he get hit with a bullet, did he live or die?”
After going through a divorce, Deaton “went on a coke-fueled sex bender,” according to the memoir. Using sites like “Plenty of Fish” and “Sugar Daddy” to find partners, Deaton says he would search for “women in their mid-twenties, decades younger than me.”
He met his current partner, Kristiana, when he hired her as an assistant at his law firm. “Within a couple of years of Kristi working for me,” they struck up a romance. They’ve been together for almost nine years and share a 5-year-old daughter.
After being prescribed opioids following a back surgery, Deaton says he “periodically battled dependency on pain pills.”
Part of what helped pull Deaton out of a self-described “mid-life crisis” was discovering crypto — and the online community of digital-asset enthusiasts that comes with it. Deaton, who has invested in Bitcoin, Ethereum and XRP, gained notoriety in the crypto world when he battled the SEC’s efforts to classify XRP as a security as part of a lawsuit against Ripple Labs.
Crypto, Deaton says in the book, is “a story, one much like my own: it is a story of survival and evolution, not just for the few but for the many.”
Though he is running as a Republican, it’s unclear whether Deaton will embrace Donald Trump, his party’s standard bearer and likely 2024 presidential nominee.. In his book, Deaton references former Trump — but only to draw contrast with him.
“I’ve always believed that money should never define someone. If anything, I’m the antithesis of Donald Trump,” Deaton writes. “You’ll never catch me being flashy or anything like that.”
This story first appeared in Massachusetts Playbook.
President Joe Biden called the behavior of House Republicans “shocking” on Monday for “walking away from the threat of Russia” for not passing aid for Ukraine.
“The way they’re walking away from the threat of Russia, the way they’re walking away from NATO, the way they’re walking away from meeting our obligations. It’s just shocking. I’ve never seen anything like it,” Biden said in remarks to reporters on the White House lawn.
Biden’s frustrations with House Republicans have increased after the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died Friday in prison.
The president urged House Republicans to pass aid for Ukraine on Friday, saying, “It’s about time they step up, don’t you think,” instead of going on an extended recess, which he called a “two-week vacation.”
When asked by reporters Monday if Navalny’s death will make a difference for Republicans in passing an aid package, Biden said, “I hope so, but I’m not sure.”
Last week, the Senate passed a $95 billion bipartisan aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. House Speaker Mike Johnson has thus far resisted taking up the measure that would provide billions in aid to Ukraine amid its ongoing war with Moscow.
Biden said Monday that he would “be happy to meet with [Johnson] if he has anything to say.”
Speaker Mike Johnson hasn’t had much success taming the House GOP’s constantly warring factions. The situation has, if anything, gotten worse under his reign.
Just over three months into his speakership, Johnson’s already caught in the same swamp that eventually drowned Kevin McCarthy. A few firebrands are threatening to force a vote to boot him from the job, conservatives are publicly griping about his decisions and battleground district centrists have indicated they’re fed up with walking the plank on tough votes.
Add two more troublesome groups to that mix, thanks in part to the Louisiana Republican’s predecessor. McCarthy allies who are still smarting over their friend’s ejection have criticized Johnson’s leadership style. And the three conservatives McCarthy installed on the powerful Rules Committee — part of a bargain the Californian struck to win the gavel last year — have hobbled Johnson’s ability to get bills on the floor.
“It is a tough job. He’s doing well,” McCarthy told POLITICO as he visited his old stomping grounds for a recent event. “I think you get better every day at it.”
The former speaker, however, declined to evaluate Johnson’s performance more specifically, saying: “I don’t give grades. I wasn’t a teacher.”
Those parts of the House GOP will likely only split further as Johnson tries to navigate a litany of challenges this year while dealing with an even smaller majority than he inherited. Those obstacles include twin government funding deadlines, a twice-punted surveillance fight and growing concerns that Republicans are poised to lose House control in November.
Here’s a breakdown of who’s in those factions and what to watch.
There’s not a ton of appetite within the House GOP to oust another speaker, especially after the three weeks of pain Republicans endured last time. Still, a few are making threats — and the coming weeks will likely determine if any are serious.
Those members largely aren’t the same ones that delivered the final blow to McCarthy. Many are allies of the former speaker, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) who has stated that she will challenge Johnson if he moves forward with certain votes she opposes.
Greene has threatened to move against Johnson if he grants a floor vote on Ukraine aid, something that looks entirely possible in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) told CNN last week that Johnson would face an ouster vote if he put the Senate-passed national security supplemental — that includes aid for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan but no border provisions — on the floor for a vote.
And Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who was the first to raise the possibility of booting Johnson, has repeatedly criticized the Louisianan for striking deals with Democrats to avert government shutdowns.
Not all conservatives are looking to oust Johnson, but many of them have found other ways to make his life difficult. Namely, jamming up day-to-day governing.
That includes conservatives like Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), who has warned that Johnson leapfrogging them on must-pass bills by leaning on Democratic support will have consequences. Good said leadership should no longer count on the right flank’s support for smaller pieces of party-line legislation that make up most of the House’s output.
Johnson also has to contend with Republicans like Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Dan Bishop (N.C.) and Tim Burchett (Tenn.), who have publicly urged him to get tougher on fighting for conservative priorities.
Plus, conservative Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) played a large role in temporarily snagging Johnson’s drive to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, leading to an embarrassing flop on the floor before a successful second attempt.
It’s not just the right flank causing Johnson some heartburn.
The most prominent rebels in the conference’s ideological middle are a group of New York Republicans from districts won by President Joe Biden. They helped block a spending bill, led the effort to oust former Rep. George Santos, and threatened to take down a rule last month as they tried to force Johnson to cut a deal with them on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction.
Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) indicated on Thursday that Republicans will continue to threaten rules or use other tools to make sure their priorities are known and considered in the House, particularly after their SALT deal was blocked last week. The first-term Long Islander said in a brief interview that “every option is on the table.”
Johnson is also facing another contradictory push among his centrists — namely for more Ukraine aid — that will spark conservative ire. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.) are working with Democrats on a plan that is expected to link military funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan to border security.
But even as they and other House Republicans make the case both privately and publicly for more Ukraine funding, none of the so-called mod squad has said they will sign a discharge petition — a gambit that would require them to join with Democrats to force a floor vote.
Some of the ex-speaker’s closest allies have found themselves distanced from, or even outright criticizing, his successor.
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), a onetime confidant of McCarthy’s, got quietly removed by fellow Louisianan Johnson from a little-known but influential position in leadership soon after the gavel changed hands last fall.
Then there’s Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the Financial Services chair who is retiring at the end of this term. He is perhaps the most blatant in his frequent criticisms of Johnson. He has argued the Louisianan is catering too much to his right flank’s demands — a criticism that was often lobbed at McCarthy.
McHenry argued last week that Republicans weakened their policy hand when they ejected the Californian.
“I think you see many House Republicans that took out McCarthy recognize that we’re in a much worse public policy position now. … We’ve got less done in terms of oversight as a result of this. And our political position is weaker,” McHenry told a gaggle of reporters off the House floor.
But he is not the only one. Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), a close ally of McCarthy, has also been outspoken in his criticisms of Johnson. And Greene has said she is under a different mindset under Johnson, implying she has less respect for the newbie.
McCarthy gave seats on the influential Rules Committee to right-flank gadflies last January — giving some of his most rebellious members huge new sway over what bills can be brought to the floor.
Johnson inherited that headache and didn’t make changes to the panel when he took over in October. While McCarthy allies argue the new members helped them gauge whether a bill would succeed on the floor, Johnson allies say it has handcuffed their ability to govern effectively.
Roy and Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) together typically have the ability to block any bill they don’t like from getting on the floor. And the three Republicans have flexed their legislative powers already — forcing Johnson to scrap a plan to bring competing spy power bills to the floor late last year.
It’s a dynamic that has led Johnson to surpass the panel on critical legislation like funding the government and a tax deal, bringing bills straight to the floor under another process that requires a two-thirds threshold. That means he has to rely heavily on Democratic support, a tendency deeply disliked by conservatives.
Eleanor Mueller contributed to this report.
House Republicans expressed few regrets this week for their decision to oust the scandal-plagued George Santos or even for their inability to hold his seat this past Tuesday.
That loss, in a closely watched special election in New York’s third congressional district, has further narrowed an already-thin GOP House majority. But those Republicans who gave Santos the boot said they’d do it again. Some bristled at the idea that they’d now reconsider. “I didn’t shrink the Republican majority — George Santos shrunk it by his actions,” said Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.). “I’m sorry, you have to have standards in the halls of Congress. And so I don’t regret voting to expel George Santos. He was unfit to serve … Sometimes these decisions are bigger than politics.”
The Santos saga hasn’t just forced Republicans to weigh the ethical transgressions they’d tolerate for a more powerful grip on the House chamber. It has required them to confront the possibility that their formula for winning some battleground seats like his — a combination of tough-on-the-border and tough-on-crime politics — may not be the blueprint they imagined for November.
But few seem eager to see the party make major structural or policy changes after Democrat Tom Suozzi won the special election convincingly. Instead, lawmakers accused Republican Mazi Pilip of running a bad campaign, noted that now-President Joe Biden won the district by more than eight points in 2020, and pointed to myriad isolated factors — everything from poor party financing, to bad weather, to Santos’ “taint” — to explain away Tuesday’s loss.
“Congratulations to the Democrats, they spent $15 million and won a seat Biden won by eight points, by less than eight points,” National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) said, his voice dripping with sarcasm. His takeaway: “If they outspend us three-to-one, they can win Biden plus-8 seats.”
While Democrats did majorly outspend Republicans in the New York race, pouring $14.4 million into political ads in the district compared to the GOP’s $8.5 million, Long Island has raced to the right in the years since Biden’s win. The district had swung so far that Santos won by nearly eight points in 2022 in a race that drew little national attention. Hudson’s dismissiveness belied the hope that many Republicans previously expressed for retaining the seat.
It also wasn’t shared by everyone in the party.
Some members expressed concern that months of dysfunction in the GOP-led House had left them with few clear wins to tout to voters beyond the impeachment of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and the passage of a major immigration overhaul early this Congress that is going nowhere in the Senate.
“I think ultimately we always have to be judged on both what we try to achieve and what we actually achieve,” said Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.). “And we have to achieve more.”
Others, particularly those who originally opposed ousting Santos, said that the original sin the party made was to boot him from the chamber before there was a conviction.
“Don’t expel a Republican member of Congress that hasn’t been convicted of a crime and is a good vote,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who added that she planned to talk to her conference about the perils of Republican infighting.
Santos himself said House Republicans at large regret pushing him out now that their margin has shrunk even further, telling POLITICO that Pilip’s loss meant taking away voters’ “duly elected choice and recalling their election without allowing them to make that decision in November.”
But as the party took stock of Tuesday night’s election, in which their margin was shaved down to a mere two seats, many seemed simply uninterested in, or disinclined to do, any type of second guessing.
That mindset applied to the tactical choices the party had made in contesting the special election.
“I think our committee did a good job. I think our candidate did a good job,” said senior GOP member Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). “You don’t know how much of it was weather related and all that and there’s always a lot of individual factors.”
It applied to the vote to expel Santos, too.
“My vote was not contingent on the outcome of the election. It was based on what I thought was the right thing to do,” said Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), who is running for Senate in 2024. “If it was the right thing to do, then the seat doesn’t matter.”
“I wish we would have won it, but so be it,” said Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.)
Santos was first elected in 2022 in a shocking upset, besting Democrat Robert Zimmerman in a race that many thought would not be competitive. But even before he was sworn in, his lies started to unravel. Among the litany of falsehoods he pedaled: Claiming his grandparents were Holocaust survivors, that he had employees who survived the deadly shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando; and that his mother was in Manhattan during the Sept. 11 attacks.
A damning 56-page report released last year by the House Ethics Committee found that Santos likely broke federal laws by inappropriately spending campaign funds and working to obscure his trail of campaign money. And when the House voted 311-114 to expel him in December, the vote was notably bipartisan, with 105 Republicans lining up against him.
The loss of his seat on Tuesday was one of a string of almost uninterrupted defeats the GOP has suffered across the country since the midterms. Arguably the biggest of those losses was in Wisconsin. In the most expensive state Supreme Court race ever, a liberal candidate blew out a former conservative justice last spring, flipping the balance of power on the court and leading to the potential break-up of the GOP’s durable legislative gerrymander.
Kentucky Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear won reelection in 2023 despite the otherwise deep red tilt of his state. And Democrats took complete control — albeit narrowly — of the Virginia legislature despite a major investment from GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin. Candidates in special legislative elections last year ran, on average, eight points ahead of Biden’s margins.
Still, some Republicans running in competitive districts were not discouraged by Tuesday’s outcome. Republican Alison Esposito, who is challenging Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) in his lower Hudson Valley district in New York, said immigration will continue to be an important issue.
“It is clear that Tom Suozzi did a complete 180 on his views on immigration and securing the southern border,” she said in a statement. “He couldn’t run away from the Biden agenda and his past policy mistakes fast enough.”
Other Republicans, including those who voted to expel Santos, made the case that more distance from the ex-representative would, ultimately, serve the party better.
“Probably there was still some Santos taint,” said Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), in downplaying Tuesday’s results. “So it’s not representative of our prospects.”
Anthony Adragna, Nicholas Wu, Daniella Diaz, Madison Fernandez and Zach Montellaro contributed to this report.
Sen. Joe Manchin said on Friday he will not mount a third-party presidential bid, a relief to Democrats who spent months worrying about his refusal to shut down the possibility of challenging President Joe Biden.
“I will not be seeking a third-party run. I will not be involved in a presidential run,” Manchin said at an event at West Virginia University.
Though few in Washington expected him to actually follow through with an independent candidacy, Manchin’s flirtations with the centrist group No Labels was enough to prompt a party-wide effort to argue that a Manchin run would only help former President Donald Trump. Manchin has acknowledged he could not support Trump — even as he kept his options open, declined to endorse Biden, and expressed hopes of Biden moving toward the middle. He called Biden a “compassionate person” on Friday.
As he retires from the Senate, Manchin’s been touring the country testing out his moderate message and declining to shoot down the possibility of a presidential run. He even floated fellow retiring Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) as a potential running mate on Thursday, though Romney has publicly sought to dissuade Manchin from mounting an independent bid.
The West Virginia Democrat is also not running for his Senate seat, meaning this is likely the last year Manchin serves in office after a long run in his state. Manchin is a former governor, West Virginia secretary of state and state house member. He has a new centrist group, though, called Americans Together, and said in pushing politics to the middle he can still “make a real difference.”
Manchin famously helped cut down Democrats’ agenda during Biden’s first two years as president, arguing his party was trying to start permanent new programs without sufficient funding for them. He also refused to change the filibuster.
In his Friday speech, Manchin expressed frustration with the recent failure of a bipartisan border deal and entrenched opposition to some gun safety reforms. He criticized the political parties as having “weaponized the political process.”
But he showed few second thoughts about not running for public office in 2024.
“I am convinced you can’t fix it from Washington. And I’ve tried for 14 years,” Manchin said. “This will be the least productive, most destructive Congress that we’ve ever had … people just want to get shit done. I want to get it done too.”
A bipartisan group of eight House lawmakers on Friday unveiled a $66.3 billion proposal to fund military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in a bid to break the House logjam on the issue before Kyiv’s war effort sputters.
The measure, spearheaded by Ukraine Caucus co-Chair Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), is a narrower version of the $95 billion aid package passed by the Senate this week. The House counterproposal removes tens of billions of dollars in humanitarian and economic aid for Ukraine and Gaza included in the upper chamber’s bill and leaves the military portion that was in the Senate bill.
The bipartisan bill also includes provisions aimed at tightening border security and winning over Republicans who won’t approve Ukraine aid without addressing the border.
Who’s in: The bill is sponsored by an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. In addition to Fitzpatrick, the bill is co-sponsored by GOP Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Mike Lawler of New York and Lori Chavez-DeRemer of Oregon.
Four centrist Democrats also signed on: Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Ed Case of Hawaii, Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez of Washington and Jim Costa of California.
Long odds: House Speaker Mike Johnson opposes the Senate version, and it’s unclear how he will respond to the new bill. But the new proposal creates yet another bipartisan pressure point as Ukraine advocates look to force a vote on the House floor after months of inaction.
Here are the highlights:
Ukraine: The bill allocates $47.7 billion to support Ukraine.
That total includes $13.8 billion for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative for the Pentagon to sign contracts with U.S. defense companies to provide Kyiv with new weapons and equipment.
Another $13.4 billion would go to the Pentagon to replace weapons sent to Ukraine from U.S. military inventories.
Israel: The measure includes $10.4 billion in aid for Israel amid its war against Hamas in Gaza. That includes $4 billion for Israel’s Iron Dome and David’s Sling air defense systems and $1.2 billion to field the Iron Beam laser anti-missile system.
The Pentagon would also receive an extra $4.4 billion to replenish its stocks of weapons and equipment sent to Israel.
Additionally, the bill includes $2.4 billion to support ramped-up operations by U.S. Central Command as troops respond to face attacks by Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Syria. It also funds replacements for munitions used in the Red Sea to defend U.S. ships and international shipping from Houthi attacks.
Pacific: It also includes $4.9 billion to support Taiwan and other U.S. partners in the Pacific to deter China. That includes $1.9 billion to replenish weapons transferred to Taiwan.
An extra $542 million would address unfunded priorities of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
Instant reaction: At a roundtable with reporters, House Foreign Affairs Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) criticized the bill for not including humanitarian aid to Gaza and Ukraine. He suggested the idea of funding nongovernmental organizations rather than the embattled United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
“There are ways to deal with humanitarian assistance, particularly in Ukraine that I think are more intelligent than just zeroing out the account,” McCaul said.
McCaul, a Ukraine supporter, said Congress ought to pass a supplemental in March to help Kyiv with its planned counteroffensive in April — and that he anticipates Johnson to work in that time frame. McCaul said he would discuss the path ahead with Johnson at an upcoming Republican retreat.
Repo Act: McCaul said he would work to include legislation to allow the U.S. to send money seized from Russia’s Central Bank and other institutions to help Ukraine rebuild.
“I do think [Johnson’s] committed. I think we have to make it palatable,” McCaul said of the legislation. “I know that in my conversation with the speaker, he’s a huge fan of that. It’s a pay-for where Russia pays for its own war crimes, not the American taxpayer.”
McCaul said he is also considering a proposal floated by former President Donald Trump and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that foreign aid comes in the form of loans and not grants.
“I think what the American people are they’re supportive of the weapons; I think they’re not as supportive of government subsidies,” he said. “And I think that loan program idea is a good one.”
A rare alliance of progressive and conservative House lawmakers is trying to raise pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson to hold a vote on reauthorizing a controversial surveillance authority after he delayed it again this week.
Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is joining Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Ben Cline (R-Va.) on a joint statement, obtained first by POLITICO, that warns “repeatedly punting legislation … is unproductive.”
“We have demonstrated a willingness to consider other legislation to reauthorize Section 702, provided that Members have an opportunity to vote on whether the government should end warrantless surveillance on Americans and stop circumventing the Fourth Amendment by purchasing sensitive information on Americans from third parties,” they added.
The group underscores in its statement that its only request is for a vote on those two policy changes as part of the debate over Section 702, a warrantless power that is meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under fire because of its ability to sweep in Americans’ information.
Its statement comes after Johnson on Wednesday abruptly abandoned his second attempt to bring legislation to the floor to reauthorize Section 702, after Intelligence Committee members threatened to defeat a rule to tee up floor debate with a simple majority required for passage.
Outside groups are urging House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner to step down from the high-profile role over his vague public warning about a national security threat — or urging Speaker Mike Johnson to replace him.
Four organizations sent Turner a letter Friday demanding his resignation, arguing his actions “undermined your credibility, your committee, and national security.” If Turner doesn’t voluntarily cede the Intelligence chairmanship — something he’s given no indication he’s considering — they are urging Johnson to remove him from the spot.
“The near-panic you caused by exploiting this potential future threat for immediate political gain is beneath a Member of Congress, and in particular the committee you currently lead, which was formed to rein in — not be a mouthpiece for — warrantless domestic spying. This week is the culmination of months of bad-faith tactics that collectively demonstrate you should not continue as Chairman,” the groups added.
The letter, obtained by POLITICO ahead of its release, is the latest fallout after Turner released a cryptic public statement Wednesday about “a serious” threat, requesting that the White House declassify all information relating to it. The intelligence was later confirmed to be about Russia’s nuclear capabilities in space.
Adam Brandon, the president of FreedomWorks, Jason Pye, the director for rule of law initiatives at the Due Process Institute, Sean Vitka, the policy director for Demand Progress, and Alex Marthews, the national chair for Restore the Fourth, signed the letter.
Several of Turner’s Intelligence colleagues, plus the Wall Street Journal editorial board, have defended his strategy. Johnson and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, held a joint press conference with Turner on Thursday, underscoring the bipartisan support for addressing the threat.
But a coalition combining privacy hawks, members of the House Freedom Caucus and libertarian-leaning Republicans have criticized Turner’s move. They argue it was meant to influence this week’s debate on reauthorizing Section 702, a spying authority that is meant to target foreigners abroad but has come under criticism for its ability to sweep in Americans.
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) called for an investigation, while Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) called for Turner to lose his chairmanship. Like Biggs, each of the four groups represented in Friday’s letter are pushing for sweeping changes to the program that are opposed by Turner, other Intelligence Committee members and the administration.
One person familiar with the underlying intelligence told POLITICO earlier this week that at least some of the information was gathered using 702. Turner also recently traveled to Ukraine and is publicly pushing for Johnson to take up additional aid.
Turner, in a statement this week, defended his strategy, which also involved privately alerting members of Congress that the Intelligence Committee had voted to share information with their colleagues about the national security threat.
“The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence worked in consultation with the Biden Administration to notify Congress of this national security threat,” he said. “In addition, language in the bipartisan notification issued by the Chair and Ranking Member to all Members of the House was cleared by the Administration prior to its release.”
The move by Turner roiled Washington, sparking public questions about what the threat was. John Kirby, President Joe Biden’s top national security spokesperson, told reporters that the administration had not given a greenlight for the public statement.
But several members of the Intelligence Committee defended Turner’s decision, including Democrats on the panel. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a member of the panel, called the timing a “coincidence” and that Ogles should “fucking check himself.” Meanwhile, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said that “anybody who’s familiar with what is the situation here, they should be thanking and hugging Mike Turner. Trust me.”
Himes, meanwhile, told POLITICO that he had privately urged Turner not to release the public statement, saying it was a bad idea. But he also defended the Ohio Republican’s motivations.
“I really don’t think it was three-dimensional chess,” Himes added about the theories that Turner was trying to impact the 702 or Ukraine debates. “I would have handled this differently. But he is a very serious professional when it comes to U.S. national security. So that’s another reason why I don’t think he was playing games.”