Johnson, Mike (1972- )

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Johnson Floats Voting on Senate Ukraine Bill, With Conservative Policies as Sweeteners

      by

      The Republican speaker has weighed bringing up a $95 billion Senate-passed bill to aid Ukraine and Israel in tandem with a separate package geared toward mollifying G.O.P. critics.Shortly after congressional leaders met with Japan’s prime minister in Speaker Johnson’s ceremonial office in the Capitol on Thursday morning, the conversation turned to Ukraine aid.Mr. Johnson was in the middle of another agonizing standoff with the ultraconservatives in his conference, after they had blocked legislation to extend a major warrantless surveillance law that is about to expire. His chief Republican antagonist, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, had intensified her threat to oust him. But on Ukraine, he offered his counterparts an assurance.“We’re going to get this done,” he vowed.His comments, confirmed by multiple people familiar with the meeting, were consistent with what Mr. Johnson has been saying for weeks, both publicly and privately: that he intends to ensure the House will move to assist Ukraine, a step that many members of his party oppose.Even as right-wing Republicans have sought to ratchet up pressure on their speaker, Mr. Johnson has continued to search for a way to win the votes to push through a Ukraine aid. He is battling not only stiff resistance to the idea among House Republicans, but also mounting opposition among Democrats to sending unfettered military aid to Israel given the soaring civilian death toll and humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza.Mr. Johnson has yet to make any final decisions on how he plans to structure a new round of American military assistance to Ukraine.Some Republicans have increasingly expressed interest in structuring the aid as a loan, an idea that Mr. Johnson has publicly floated and that former President Donald J. Trump previously endorsed. Mr. Trump raised again the idea again after a private meeting with Mr. Johnson at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Friday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      What is FISA, and What Does It Mean for U.S. Surveillance and Spying?

      by

      Under Section 702, the government is empowered to collect, without a warrant, the messages of Americans communicating with targeted foreigners abroad.The House on Friday passed a two-year reauthorization of an expiring warrantless surveillance law known as Section 702, reversing course after the bill collapsed days earlier when former President Donald J. Trump urged his allies to “kill” it.But disappointing privacy advocates, the House narrowly rejected a longstanding proposal to require warrants to search for Americans’ messages swept up by the program.Here is a closer look.What is Section 702?It is a law that allows the government to collect — on domestic soil and without a warrant — the communications of targeted foreigners abroad, including when those people are interacting with Americans.Under that law, the National Security Agency can order email services like Google to turn over copies of all messages in the accounts of any foreign user and network operators like AT&T to intercept and furnish copies of any phone calls, texts and internet communications to or from a foreign target.Section 702 collection plays a major role in the gathering of foreign intelligence and counterterrorism information, according to national security officials.Why was Section 702 established?After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush secretly ordered a warrantless wiretapping program code-named Stellarwind. It violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, which generally required a judge’s permission for national security surveillance activities on domestic soil.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Help Ukraine Hold the Line

      by

      After more than two years of brutal, unrelenting war, Ukraine is still ready and has the capacity to defend its democracy and territory against Russia. But it cannot do so without American military assistance, which the United States had assured the Ukrainians would be there as long as it was needed.A majority of Americans understand this, and believe that curbing the revanchist dreams of Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, is America’s duty to Ukraine and to American security. A survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Ipsos found that 58 percent of Americans favor providing economic help to Ukraine and sending more arms and military equipment to the Ukrainian government. And 60 percent of respondents said that the U.S. security relationship with Ukraine does more to strengthen American national security than to weaken it.While that support has declined somewhat since the beginning of Russia’s invasion, and it is weaker among Republicans, many Republican members of Congress also support continuing military aid. So it is distressing that the fate of Ukraine has fallen prey to internecine Republican politicking. House Speaker Mike Johnson has the power to do the right thing, but time is running critically short.Without American artillery, as well as antitank and antiaircraft shells and missiles, Ukraine cannot hold off an army that has a far deeper supply of men and munitions. “Russia is now firing at least five times as many artillery rounds as Ukraine,” as Andrew Kramer of The Times reported. As summer approaches, Russia is expected to prepare a new offensive thrust. Mr. Johnson knows this. He also knows that, if he brings it to a vote, a $60.1 billion aid package for Ukraine would most likely sail through the House with bipartisan support. Many Republican members and most Democrats want to pass it. The Senate passed it in February.Yet so far, Mr. Johnson has avoided a vote, fearing that a clutch of far-right House members, who parrot the views of Donald Trump and oppose any more aid for Ukraine, could topple him from the speaker’s post. To placate them, the speaker has said he will produce a proposal with “important innovations” when legislators return to work on Tuesday. These may include lifting the Biden administration’s hold on liquefied natural gas exports, including a proposed terminal in his home state, Louisiana; calling the aid a loan; or seizing billions of frozen Russian assets.None of those conditions are wise. Tying aid for Ukraine to unrelated political goals, such as undoing President Biden’s climate change agenda, may be typical of congressional horse trading, but it turns Ukraine into a pawn in partisan conflict. “This is not some political skirmish that only matters here in America,” Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, said on his visit to Washington last month. The speaker’s decision, he said, “will really cost thousands of lives there — children, women. He must be aware of his personal responsibility.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Is Financially Ruining the Republican Party

      by

      Donald Trump is someone you should think carefully about hitching your financial fortunes to. The guy is a gifted carnival barker, no doubt. But when it comes to serious business, he is a bad bet. Many of his ventures, from vodka and steaks to casinos and “university” degrees, have flopped like dying fish. Declaring corporate bankruptcy seems to be one of his favorite hobbies. And even when he wriggles away from failure largely unscathed, the other parties involved aren’t always so fortunate. Where money is involved, anyone still foolish enough to crawl into bed with him should be prepared for the experience to end in tears.Which leads me to gently note: Hey, Republican Party, pay attention! You are being herded toward potential financial ruin. The red flags are smacking you in the face. Wake up and smell the grift!One might assume that a presidential nominee who generates as much devotion as Mr. Trump would be a financial boon to his party. One would be wrong. With Mr. Trump, everything is about Mr. Trump. Other candidates and committees are an afterthought, left to squabble over his scraps. Which might not be problematic if the party’s money machine were whirring along smoothly. But it is not. Whether we’re talking about the battle for Congress or the basic health of the state parties, the G.O.P. is going through a rough financial patch, fueled in no small part by the MAGA king and his minions.The most recent campaign finance reports show that his campaign coffers are notably lighter than President Biden’s. Crunching the numbers, Axios noted recently, “The Biden campaign and the D.N.C. ended February with more than twice as much cash on hand ($97.5 million) as Trump and the R.N.C. ($44.8 million).” While the Republican base may be smitten with Mr. Trump, plenty of big-money donors are skittish about bankrolling his nonsense. The former president has been scrambling to close the gap, leering at potential funders as if they were contestants at the Miss Universe pageant.Now with Mr. Trump the de facto nominee, some top donors will hold their noses and start paying their tributes. But how do you build a strong party when at least part of your money is going to the nominee’s eye-popping legal bills? Being multiply indicted costs big bucks (more than $100 million and counting in his case). The former president has avoided paying those expenses with his own money so far — court costs are for suckers! — instead relying on his fans’ donations to accounts related to his 2020 election-fraud lies. But those accounts are drying up. Fresh income streams must be found. Anyone need a $59.99 Bible?Asked last month if she thought Republican voters would support the Republican National Committee footing Mr. Trump’s legal costs, Lara Trump, soon to be the committee’s co-chair, declared, “Absolutely.” I mean, what else is a good daughter-in-law supposed to say? Still, this possibility has raised enough eyebrows among donors that another Trump lackey, Chris LaCivita, who now oversees the R.N.C.’s operations, has vowed that committee funds will not be used for such.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Congressional Leaders Strike Deal on Final Spending Bill Ahead of Shutdown

      by

      Lawmakers resolved disputes over Department of Homeland Security funding, paving the way for an agreement. But they may still be unable to meet a Friday deadline to avert a brief partial shutdown.Congressional leaders said on Tuesday morning that they had reached an agreement on the final package of spending legislation to fund the federal government through the fall, though it was unclear whether they would be able to pass it in time to avert a brief partial shutdown over the weekend.House Republicans, Senate Democrats and the White House had been at loggerheads over funding levels for the Department of Homeland Security. For days, they had been litigating disagreements that threatened to imperil the spending package that also funds the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies. They are facing a midnight deadline on Friday to pass the measure and avert a lapse in funding.A breakthrough on Monday night, in which Democrats and Republicans were able to agree to homeland security funding levels for the rest of the fiscal year, allowed negotiators to finalize their deal.“An agreement has been reached” that will enable Congress to fund the government through Sept. 30, Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement. “House and Senate committees have begun drafting bill text to be prepared for release and consideration by the full House and Senate as soon as possible.”Still, the delay in striking the deal could pave the way for a brief lapse in government funding over the weekend. It will take congressional staff time to draw up text of the bill, which wraps six spending measures into a sizable piece of legislation.House Republicans have demanded that Mr. Johnson abide by an internal rule that allows lawmakers 72 hours to consider the text of a bill before they vote on it, though previous House leaders have at times abandoned that guidance.And any number of senators may create procedural hurdles for the bill’s passage and demand votes on proposed changes or object to its quick consideration. Those tactics could push final passage past 12:01 on Saturday morning, when funding is set to expire.Late last year, Mr. Johnson chopped the spending process in half, creating two partial government shutdown deadlines instead of one, in an effort to avoid asking members to take a single vote on a huge catchall to fund the entire government, which Republicans have objected to repeatedly.Earlier this month, lawmakers were able to negotiate and pass a six-bill $460 billion spending package that just barely met the first deadline on March 8, and are now repeating the process — this time haggling over funding for more politically fraught agencies — before the second deadline at the end of this week. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ken Buck Cuts Short House Term, Leaving Republicans Down Yet Another Member

      by

      The Colorado Republican, who announced his retirement last fall, said he would leave Congress at the end of next week, further shrinking his party’s already minuscule majority.Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, announced on Tuesday that he would leave Congress at the end of next week, cutting short his final term in office in a move that will further shrink his party’s already tiny majority.The decision, which caught House Republican leaders by surprise, is the latest in a long string of losses for Speaker Mike Johnson and his party, who will control just 218 out of the chamber’s 435 seats after Mr. Buck departs.In a brief statement, Mr. Buck, a veteran conservative, thanked his constituents and said he hoped to remain involved in the political process while also getting to spend “more time in Colorado with my family.”Last year Mr. Buck said he would retire at the end of this term, citing his party’s election denialism and the refusal by many Republicans to condemn the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol. His plans were seen as unlikely to affect the ultimate balance of power in the House, given that Republicans would be all but certain to hold his solidly conservative district in eastern Colorado.And losing Mr. Buck, who has broken with his party on some major issues — including the recent impeachment of Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary — was not exactly seen as costing the party a loyal vote.But Mr. Buck’s decision to leave months before the end of his term on March 22, the same day as the deadline for Congress to pass a package of spending bills to avoid a partial government shutdown, creates yet another headache for House Republicans who have lurched from chaos to crisis for more than a year, leaving them with even less of a cushion to wield their small majority.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Mayorkas Was Impeached by the House. What Happens Next?

      by

      Republican members of the House impeached Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, with a simple majority vote on Tuesday. It sets off a series of choreographed rituals that dates back to the impeachment of former President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Here’s a look at what happens next.A ceremonial processionOnce the House approves two articles of impeachment laying out the accusations against Mr. Mayorkas as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities, they are then walked over to the Senate.The Senate as a court of impeachment for the trial of Andrew Johnson.Library of CongressThe day after President Johnson was impeached, in February 1868, the articles of impeachment were delivered to the Senate by Representative Thaddeus Stevens, Republican of Pennsylvania. Mr. Stevens was so ill that he had to be carried through the Capitol.Once the articles are delivered, the Senate, acting as a High Court of Impeachment, would schedule a trial during which senators would consider evidence, hear witnesses and, ultimately, vote to acquit or convict. They could also vote to dismiss the charges.The Senate trialThe House speaker names impeachment managers from the chamber who would be tasked with arguing the case against the impeached official, serving as the prosecution team in the Senate trial.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Couldn’t Shut Down the Border. Can Biden?

      by

      President Biden could take some steps without Congress, but the idea that he has unfettered power to seal off the country is far too simplistic.President Biden is pleading with Congress for new authority to shut down the nation’s overwhelmed southern border, declaring that he has done “all I can do” and urging lawmakers to “give me the power” to fix it.“We don’t have enough agents. We don’t have enough folks. We don’t have enough judges,” Mr. Biden said on Monday. “Why won’t they give me the help?”A Senate bill introduced over the weekend tries to do just that. But it is fiercely opposed by House Republicans, who insist the president has simply failed to wield the power over immigration that he already has.Who’s right?While it is true that there are some steps Mr. Biden could take without Congress, the idea that he has unfettered power to seal the country off is far too simplistic. The United States also has laws that require the government to consider asylum claims from people fleeing persecution. Any attempts to circumvent that would almost certainly face legal challenges.The proposed legislation would clear away legal, practical and financial roadblocks to stiffer enforcement at the border that both parties say they want.Veterans of decades of political and policy debates over immigration said the bill would give Mr. Biden explicit new authority to deny asylum claims, expel people from the country more quickly and keep track of migrants while they are in the United States.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More