[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, Senior Reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, filling in for Brian today. Later in the show today, we're going to have two conversations about young people and work. First, just after 11:00 AM, we'll talk about teenagers deciding to learn a trade, like plumbing or HVAC, instead of heading to a four-year college for an often-expensive liberal arts degree. Then, to wrap today's show, we'll talk about babysitting. It was once the quintessential first job, especially for girls, myself included.

An article in The Atlantic looks at why it's hard to even find a teenager willing to babysit these days or maybe that it's hard to find a parent willing to trust them. Right after this conversation, we'll talk to our own, Nancy Solomon, who will recap last night's Ask Governor Murphy conversation. New Jersey callers, we're going to want to hear from you in about half an hour. First, House Speaker, Mike Johnson, is less than five months into his tenure. The Louisiana Republican was the party's fourth choice after they ousted Kevin McCarthy.

He's faced no shortage of challenges trying to corral his own members and lead the House through a series of issues, aid to Ukraine, funding to keep the government from shutting down, and just yesterday, a stalemate over renewing a warrantless surveillance law that intelligence officials say is essential to their ability to prevent terror attacks on the US. At this point, Johnson is facing a backlash from far-right members of his own party, who say he's giving too much ground to President Biden and the Democrats. Joining us now to unpack the latest from the Capitol is Luke Broadwater, who covers Congress for The New York Times with a focus on investigations.

Luke, welcome back to the show.

Luke Broadwater: Hi, good morning. Thanks for having me.

Brigid Bergin: Luke, I want to zoom out to start and just remind our listeners who we're talking about here. Who is Mike Johnson? Where does he come from? How did he become the compromised speaker way back last October?

Luke Broadwater: Sure. Mike Johnson was a rank-and-file congressman from Louisiana. If you had asked a year ago, nobody would've envisioned him becoming the speaker. Amid the chaos and the carousel of candidates that House Republicans trotted out after they ousted Kevin McCarthy, who was the speaker, a tired and beleaguered group finally settled on Mike Johnson, who was seen as a consensus candidate. He was considered very conservative from the Christian conservative wing of the party, a man of faith. He was conservative enough for the right wing, and he was establishment enough for the establishment.

They settled on Mike Johnson thinking everyone had found somebody that was unobjectionable. The rub here has been that the rank-and-file Mike Johnson was a lot different than Speaker Mike Johnson. Once he became speaker, Mike Johnson changed his position on a bunch of issues. He says that's because he has a different role now, and also because he learned a lot more about the issues. Now, he has access to classified briefings and information he didn't once have when he was a rank-and-file Republican. He says he's more informed now on some of these issues, and that's to account for his change of position.

What's happened is that the right wing, which supported Johnson initially, is beginning to turn on him in increasing numbers.

Brigid Bergin: Luke, since it took all that time to coalesce around Johnson and make him this compromised candidate, how soon after taking the rule did he start to face threats from his own members that they might challenge him in this leadership post?

Luke Broadwater: His honeymoon has been brief. I expected him to have a longer honeymoon. I would say, within a few weeks, people started to become dissatisfied with Johnson.

Brigid Bergin: Wow.

Luke Broadwater: The dissatisfaction has reached ahead recently when Marjorie Taylor Greene, ultra conservative member from Georgia, introduced a motion to vacate. She has not called the vote on that motion. The motion to vacate is a rule that was agreed to under the previous speaker, under which any one member can essentially call for a snap vote to remove the speaker. She has introduced it, but she has not called for the vote yet. She has that hanging over Mike Johnson's head as a leverage point against him.

Brigid Bergin: Luke, we're going to talk a little bit more about that later in our conversation. Before we go any further, I want to invite listeners who might have questions about the speaker to ask someone who's spent a lot of time covering him recently. Listeners, do you have a question about House Speaker Mike Johnson and really how to make sense of everything that is happening in Congress? Maybe, if you live in one of the swing districts here in New York or New Jersey with a Republican House member, how are you thinking about the upcoming election and what your representative has been able to accomplish in this Congress?

For all of our listeners, do you think Speaker Johnson should keep the gavel, and should Democrats help him with that? Any other question you have for my guest, Luke Broadwater, who covers Congress for The New York Times, you can call us at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can also text at that number. Luke, I want to start diving into some of the many controversies Johnson has had to face. One recently is over aid to Ukraine. As you mentioned, he's changed positions. Since he was a rank-and-file member at that point, he had opposed additional funding for Ukraine, but he's come to a new position as of late.

How has he been persuaded, and who has persuaded him?

Luke Broadwater: You're correct. Mike Johnson initially was part of what I would say is the more isolationist wing of the party. When he was a rank-and-file member, he had voted twice against Ukraine aid. He says that's because there wasn't enough oversight of the aid. Since becoming speaker, he's been privy to, in his words, more information. One thing that happened right away was the Chairman of Armed Services and Foreign Affairs and the committees that deal with Ukraine directly had a meeting with him to stress the need for this money, how important it was to stop the march of Vladimir Putin into Europe.

Also, obviously, he had more information from the Intelligence Community from military leaders. He's come around on this. He's been telling people that he will eventually pass Ukraine aid, but he's been putting it off until he accomplishes other priorities. This has angered the far right, who want aid to Ukraine to stop. They don't want any more money spent in Ukraine. They want money spent only domestically. It does imperil his speakership.

What may happen, I don't know if this will happen, but it may, is that if he does move to pass Ukraine aid and the hard right attempts to oust him over it, Democrats have said that that would be a condition under which they would step in to save his speakership. They want to see him actually do it first. He can't just talk about it. Yes, he has had a change of position on Ukraine aid, and we'll see whether or not he follows through with it.

Brigid Bergin: Some of your colleagues reported that Johnson has been talking up elements of a possible aid deal. One involved using seized assets of Russian oligarchs to pay for that aid. Can you explain a little bit about that?

Luke Broadwater: Yes. What Johnson is doing here is he's trying to get Republicans to yes or at least, to not be so angry about Ukraine aid. A number of the things he has floated is, one, yes, using these seized assets to send as the funding for Ukraine aid. Another thing is potentially having the aid be converted into a loan, so Ukraine would have to pay it back eventually. There's also been a talk about cuts elsewhere in the budget to offset the Ukraine aid. He's trying to give the hard right something, where maybe they won't vote for it, but at least they won't try to throw him out of office over it. Oftentimes, congressional negotiations are like this.

If you can give somebody something to mollify them, maybe they don't embrace your plan, but they're not as outraged over it. That's one of the suggestions he's put forward. It's all very tentative and tenuous right now. He has said that he wants to get the foreign intelligence bill reauthorized first before he even tries to do Ukraine because the Ukraine issue angers the Republican base more than almost any other. He knows that supporting Ukraine will fire up his hard right members. That's why he's putting it off till the last.

Brigid Bergin: That's interesting. We're going to talk more about that foreign intelligence bill in just a moment. Just the other piece of that Ukraine aid proposal that he's talked up, which may not be moving quite as quickly is related to trying to change the Biden administration's energy policy, as I understand, specifically as it relates to exporting liquefied natural gas. Again, it sounds like another proposal meant to appeal to other Republican members. Can you talk a little bit about that as well?

Luke Broadwater: Sure. Look, Republicans want to see more domestic energy production. That's something that's very popular with the rank-and-file members. Again, here, this is another effort to give the right something where they can say, "Oh, look, yes, we gave up the Ukraine aid, but in exchange, we now are going to see more LNG production." I think it also helps that this would benefit Louisiana, Speaker Johnson's home state. It would be an American First policy where we're producing the energy here, even if there are environmental concerns about it.

Brigid Bergin: I understand that the Ukraine aid is among the issues that has angered far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia the most. She cites it in her criticism of Johnson. We talked a little bit about that at the top. As you mentioned, she submitted that resolution last month calling for his removal, hasn't called for a vote on it yet. Just to be clear, what initially prompted her to introduce that resolution last month?

Luke Broadwater: According to her, she's been angry about a number of things, and her anger has built over time. The impetus, I think the thing she said pushed her over the edge, was passing essentially the spending bills for the year. She didn't believe there were deep enough cuts in them. She said the spending was above the previous Congress when Nancy Pelosi was in charge. Of course, spending typically grows every year because of inflation, and things cost more every year. Her central argument was about spending.

She also wanted deep cuts to law enforcement, to the Justice Department, to the Intelligence Community because she said those have been weaponized against Donald Trump and Republicans. Those cuts were not included in any of the spending plans. There's a lot of Republicans who still support law enforcement and support law and order and don't believe that they've been weaponized. She was angry about a number of issues, but it was the spending bills that pushed her over the edge.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, if you're just joining us, I'm Brigid Bergin in for Brian today, and my guest is Luke Broadwater, who covers Congress for The New York Times. We're talking about Speaker Mike Johnson and some of the challenges he's faced in his brief tenure as the House speaker. We have some listeners who've called in with some different perspectives on what Johnson said when he took office, how he has held those positions. I want to start with Bobby in Union City, New Jersey. Bobby, welcome to WNYC.

Bobby: Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my call, Ms. Bergin, and good morning to your guest. Now, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, when the speaker of the House first took over the role, he claimed that it was something along the lines of a religious calling, that it was his time, and all of this. I think part of what he said, whether he actually believes that or not, he claims to be very religious. It may have been a way for him to deflect any criticism from both the left and the right by putting himself in that position, by calling himself a faith-based and everything. It does not seem to have worked.

When you're dealing with somebody like Marjorie Taylor Greene, there are people that do not want any compromise, and that's why nothing is getting done. Even Republicans in Georgia, all these different states, they're not getting what they want. A lot of the reason is because there's no compromise in Washington. I just wanted to make the point that when the speaker first took office, he just said that it was a calling for him, that it was his time. Thank you.

Brigid Bergin: Bobby, thanks so much for that call. Luke, before I take another caller, as you said, Johnson has talked about his faith. He's a conservative Christian. Yet, he has faced real struggles with the far-right wing of his party, and that has been an obstacle to really accomplishing much of anything in this particular Congress. What's your reaction to some of what Bobby is raising?

Luke Broadwater: He's right. The Speaker Johnson is a Southern Baptist. He often speak as an authority, as a representative of the evangelical community. For instance, when there'll be a discussion in a committee about evangelicals, he will speak up and say, "Well, I'm an evangelical, and here's what we think about this or that." He said he was going to start every day with a prayer in the chapel at the Capitol. Yes, he's very much put his faith front and center of his speakership. I think that was widely supported. People liked that about him. I think most people on the Hill don't have anything bad to say about Mike Johnson personally.

What's angering the right is that he has changed so many positions. He voted against the spending bills that Kevin McCarthy put forward when he was rank and file. That's a similar vote that the hard right would like. Then, when he becomes speaker, he introduces the same sort of spending bills and passes them, that he once opposed. He was once against Ukraine funding. Now, he is for it. He was once against many of the provisions in the foreign intelligence bill that he now supports, and he's pushing for. They're seeing a remaking of Speaker Johnson's policy positions to be very much like Kevin McCarthy, who they forced out. That's what's causing the dissatisfaction.

Of course, if you talk to Speaker Johnson and people around him, they say he has a much different role now. He's no longer just representing his district. He's no longer just a congressman from Louisiana. He has real responsibility now, things like shutting the whole government down or letting Russia win a war or other very important matters now wrestle on his shoulders. In some cases, you can't take the same positions that he once did.

Brigid Bergin: Luke, we're talking about Representative Greene. We mentioned the fact that she circulated a letter this week, escalating her calls for Speaker Johnson's removal. Can you describe a little bit of what she did there?

Luke Broadwater: Look, it's a number of things. Marjorie Taylor Greene likes to be in the news, likes to be the center of attention. She put out a letter circulated to all the members. Essentially, it was a treatise against Mike Johnson, all his failings, and laying out the case for his removal. She had already introduced this resolution. She already had press conferences on it, so this was another step to keep the issue alive. You could say it was a second warning. She'd warned him once. She's warning him again. Eventually, the threat is she will actually call for the vote.

With these slim numbers, it only takes a couple of people to join her to kick him out and start all the chaos again where Republicans would try to find yet another candidate to elect as speaker.

Brigid Bergin: Here's a little clip of Speaker Johnson commenting on Congresswoman Greene in a press conference just yesterday.

Mike Johnson: Marjorie and I don't disagree, I don't think, on any matter of philosophy. We're both conservatives, but we do disagree sometimes on strategy with regard to what we put on the floor and when and those things. Marjorie is frustrated by the last appropriations package, the spending bills. You know what? So am I. Here's the reality that we have to remind everybody, and you all know in the room because you're here every day, but some people back home don't realize, we have the smallest majority in US history. We've got a one-vote margin right now.

Brigid Bergin: We've talked, Luke, about how Republicans hold this razor-thin majority in the House. Can you talk about how and why their majority has shrunk so much since Johnson took office? Given how narrow it is, how much traction do you think this letter that Greene is circulating will actually get?

Luke Broadwater: Yes. The short answer is Republicans keep quitting Congress. People are very dissatisfied with the chaos in Congress. Many Republicans came to Capitol Hill to try to get things done, to try to pass legislation that could improve their communities. Instead, they encountered chaos, dysfunction, grandstanding, showmanship over work. The list of complaints is so long when you talk to members of Congress. When other opportunities present themselves, some of them are jumping midterm. There was also the incident in which George Santos was exposed as a fabulist and was voted out by his own Republicans, voted out of Congress.

Then, of course, the special election was won by a Democrat. That cost them a seat as well. Their numbers keep dwindling and dwindling. Someone once told me when this Congress started that don't be surprised if the Democrats have the majority by the end of it, I thought that sounded crazy at the time, but so many people have quit. Who knows? The numbers keep shrinking, and that does in fact imperil the speakership of Mike Johnson.

Brigid Bergin: Luke, just before we move on from the Ukraine issue in this context, I just want to share a couple of texts that listeners sent in. The first listener writes, "Don't the Republicans realize that Ukraine aid is not sending money to Ukraine, but sending money to American arms manufacturers so supporting local US economies and workers as we send Ukraine the arms, win-win, perhaps being slightly tongue in cheek there."

Luke Broadwater: No, that's exactly right. The bulk of the money actually goes to places like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin to build weapons for Ukraine. In fact, the writer is exactly right. The money really goes to American companies who then send the weapons to Ukraine.

Brigid Bergin: Another listener notes, "Johnson has not changed position on Ukraine until he makes a decision that we can see. Dems should make a deal to vote to retain him as speaker in exchange for a vote on Ukraine now." That seems to be part of this conversation, right?

Luke Broadwater: Yes. The politics of this are so tricky because any Republican who sides with Democrats or deals with Democrats almost immediately becomes toxic to his own party. If he is seen as overtly working with Democrats to save his speakership, he will become a pariah almost instantly. It has to almost be something that Johnson does on his own, and then Democrats step in independently to save them. He almost has to act like he doesn't want it or like that, he doesn't want to work with them. That's the weird, toxic politics of the Hill.

I was talking with Abigail Spanberger, who's a centrist Democrat from Virginia the other day, and she said, "If they try to kick him out over Ukraine, I will offer a motion to table that, and we have the votes in the middle among the Democrats to save him. I want to see that he is actually doing and is not just talk." That's the key, there's really no trust between the parties in the House, and that adds to the problems.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, I'm Brigid Bergin in for Brian Lehrer today. My guest is Luke Broadwater, who covers Congress for The New York Times. We're going to take a quick break, much more to come, stick around.

[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin in for Brian Lehrer. My guest is Luke Broadwater, who covers Congress for The New York Times. We're talking about the tenuous position, how speaker Mike Johnson finds himself in now trying to manage members of his own party as he also attempts to govern, a real high-wire act if there ever was one. Luke, beyond the Ukraine issue, you wrote about how lawmakers used a procedural maneuver to kill the extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act known as Section 702. First, can you just tell us what that law is?

Luke Broadwater: Yes. After September 11th, Congress authorized certain powers within the federal government in terms of intelligence collecting. One of them is Section 702, which allows the Intelligence Community to collect the communications and data from foreign actors who they believe are involved in terrorism. It's roughly about 250,000 people. Generally, the data is collected from AT&T or Google or different phone manufacturers or telecom companies. What's that issue here if this bill is not renewed is whether or not they can continue to collect and search that data.

There's a battle going on Capitol Hill right now about placing limits on what the FBI and the Intelligence Community can do with the data, what they can look at and what they can't. Intelligence officials have been up on the Hill frequently trying to impress upon the Congress the need to renew this bill. There's deep skepticism, actually both with the right and the left on aspects of the FISA bill, people want to see reforms, and it's very messy. I'm not sure how it will work out.

Brigid Bergin: Well, we have a listener who has written some articles about intelligence law. Robert in Bridgeport, Connecticut, thanks for calling WNYC.

Robert: Thank you for taking my call. Since 2007, I've written three articles, two in The Village Voice and one in Penthouse in 2015, so that was after the Edward Snowden events, arguing that the Law 702, the authorities that were contained within it already existed under existing regulations, which implemented FISA, the right or the authority to wiretap a non-US person outside this country. From within this country without a warrant already existed under existing regulations. I've tried to persuade Charlie Savage, who wrote the article with Luke Broadwater this morning, many times with this. I've called the Times many times.

The articles that I wrote were stimulated to start with by a nonsensical claim the Bush administration made that they needed to get a FISA warrant before they could wiretap the Iraqi captors of two American soldiers in Iraq in May, 2007. The idea that you need FISA, which was passed in order to govern foreign intelligence collection within this country on spies and terrorists in this country, the idea that you needed that before you could wiretap Iraqis, non-US persons in Iraq who were killing US soldiers is ridiculous. It was reported without any eyebrows raised.

I wrote an article for the voice raising questions, and then I discovered this regulation later, which quite clearly states that if you wiretap a non-US person from within this country, as long as the non-US person is outside the country, it doesn't matter where that person calls. You can collect the data without a warrant. That's under 1978 FISA. The Section 702 then is completely redundant. It's been a political theater from the moment it was passed, and every few years, they go through this drama of a reauthorization. There's amendments proposed, amendments defeated, and they tinker with it around the edges.

The authorities already existed from 1978. That's the point I've been trying to make.

Brigid Bergin: Robert, thank you for that call and for your work. Luke, I want to give you obviously an opportunity to respond to that. I think the thrust of what I knew Robert was going to talk about was, from his perspective, that much of what has been going on about the reauthorization of FISA has been political theater. You raised the point already that some of the objections came from both the left and the right. Any reaction to some of what Robert raised there?

Luke Broadwater: Sure. Well, if he's been discussing this with my coauthor on the story, Charlie Savage, Charlie is really the subject matter expert. I cover the Hill. He covers the Intelligence Community. My understanding is that a lot of this is untested in the courts and the Intelligence Community believes that some of it could continue even if FISA is not reauthorized, but it's not clear and that if there were lawsuits over some of their actions without the FISA 702 reauthorization, it's a legal gray area. They could be in jeopardy and perhaps could not do some of the collection, some of the queries into the data that they have been doing. That's the concern on the Hill.

That's the view on the Hill, is that yes, some of this maybe could continue without a reauthorization, but it's not a clear-cut case. A lot of it is untested. If they want to be able to try to keep Americans safe from terrorists, this is the argument from the Intelligence Community, they need this reauthorization.

Brigid Bergin: Luke, how does former President Trump factor into this debate over this surveillance law?

Luke Broadwater: Well, he helped wreck it [chuckles] last night or two nights ago now. There are already deep concerns about this reauthorization. In Congress, the way it works is in order to vote on a bill, almost every bill needs a rule to pass before the bill. The rule sets how the debate can play out on the floor. Generally, the practice in Congress is each party votes for their own rule and votes against the other party's rule. That's a low technical competence.

What's happened in this party, Republicans have become so dissatisfied with their speakers that they've begun voting down their own party's rules, which is practically unheard of in Congress. They're able to kill things before they even get to the floor and can have a debate. Several of the hard right members of Congress had said they were going to try to tank this rule. When President Trump saw that, he tweeted or truthed, "Kill FISA." Then there was a total jailbreak, and 19 of them decided they would kill the rule.

Essentially, the bill and potential amendments to the bill could never even get to the floor for debate or votes on changes to the bill, and it was killed right away.

Brigid Bergin: I want to bring in Gary from Little Ferry, New Jersey, who I think is echoing some of the sentiment that you just explained there in terms of what President Trump's role is with this Congress. Gary, welcome to WNYC.

Gary: Thank you for taking my call. I would just say the right is wrong. This is something different from Ronald Reagan. He must be turning over in his grave. Donald Trump is a traitor. How else do you explain January the 6th? He's no conservative. I hate the media saying that because he's an anti-conservative. He wants to destroy the system. That's why he was against FISA. He wants the Russians to win in Ukraine. Can you believe that, Republicans not supporting aid against Russia? That would never happen not in only 20 years ago, 10, maybe 5 years ago. This man has destroyed the Republican Party. He hates America. He wants America to be last, not first.

The Republicans are nuts, and I haven't been a lifelong Republican.

Brigid Bergin: Wow. Gary, thank you for your call. I hear your passion for sure. Luke, I'm sure you've spoken to voters like that when you've been out covering campaigns. I want to just--

Luke Broadwater: Yes, and--

Brigid Bergin: Go ahead.

Luke Broadwater: There's a number of traditional Republicans on the Hill who feel exactly the same way. They would probably never say it out loud, but they feel like the party has been turned upside down under Trump. Things they used to believe in and stand for, like a strong military opposing Russia, defending against Russian aggression, being really tough on terrorism, really strong on national security, those things have all gone out the door under Trump and that he's flipped the party upside down in many ways, and they don't really see themselves in it anymore.

That's actually one reason why you're seeing some of the people quit the house and why the numbers are dwindling, even though Republicans should have a decent-sized majority.

Brigid Bergin: You wrote a piece recently, Luke, that was really fascinating that speak to some of these challenging personalities. Within the Republican House conference, you profiled GOP Representative, Clay Higgins, also of Louisiana, who has publicly been sharing debunked conspiracy theories about January 6th. Instead of pushing him to the fringes of the party, House leaders made him chair of the subcommittee overseeing border enforcement. Can you tell us a bit about what Higgins has been saying and how those theories are false?

Luke Broadwater: Sure. There's a number of extreme Republicans in Congress. From time to time, it's worth to fact check them and debunk some of the things they are saying. Clay Higgins has been promoting the idea that January 6th was an inside job, that there were agent provocateurs sent by the FBI in ghost buses to pull off the January 6th attack on the Capitol. He does not claim there wasn't violence. He does not claim it didn't happen. He just claims that the federal government set everyone up. There's really no evidence to support any of this. He said they're going to release all this video from inside the Capitol. I've seen all this video.

All the defense attorneys across the country have seen all this video. There's nobody in there who is FBI doing an inside job. [chuckles] He continues to make these claims. Frankly, they're not unique. President Trump has embraced the January 6th defendants. He's recorded a song with them. He has casted them as hostages, political prisoners. These are people for the most part who attacked police, who were very violent on that day. Clay Higgins and others have joined this attempt to rewrite history that January 6th was something like an honorable day where good Americans were set up by an evil deep state, and there's just no evidence to support that.

Brigid Bergin: Luke, what does it tell you about Johnson's leadership or the leadership challenges he faces that he would elevate Higgins to this subcommittee chairmanship?

Luke Broadwater: Well, it's tough. Speaker Johnson has to deal with a varied and fractious caucus. I will note that he inherited a bunch of positions that Kevin McCarthy had set up. What Speaker Johnson did do was appoint Clay Higgins to be one of the impeachment managers against Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security Secretary. If you look at the impeachment managers that he appointed, they include Marjorie Taylor Greene. They include Andy Biggs, who's a prominent election denier in Congress.

He could have appointed a team of former federal prosecutors or some of the people who are seen as establishment or serious politicians. Instead, he appointed a wide range of people, including some people who believe in conspiracy theories. I think he's trying to make all different parts of his conference happy, but it shows you the type of things that people are willing to do to try to stay in power.

Brigid Bergin: For our listeners who maybe did not hear me say former clearly, obviously, we know that President Trump is former President Trump, as we've talked about his role in this Congress, but just put a fine point on that for those of you who have texted us to make sure that we understand that. I got you. I want to ask you, before we let you go, Luke, another question that a listener texted in, "What scenario could bring Hakeem Jeffries to the speakership if Johnson is voted out? Is that something that congressional members are even considering in this current Congress?"

Luke Broadwater: At the beginning of this Congress, I would have said there's a 0% chance of that happening. Now, I think it's something less than nonzero. If Speaker Johnson is kicked out and Republicans cannot choose a successor because they're too divided, is there a chance where there's a handful of perhaps retiring members of Congress, who are Republican, who would vote for Jeffries just to see the place function for the final six months of the year? I think that there's a chance of that. I think it's a small chance. It's a remote chance.

Should Speaker Johnson get kicked out, all it would take is a handful of Republicans to vote for Jeffries along with all the Democrats just to see the place run. That would be a political career killer for those Republicans, so they would almost certainly need to be people who are retiring.

Brigid Bergin: Luke, my last question is, so much of our conversation today has been about the obstacles Speaker Johnson has faced so far, but this is obviously a hugely consequential election year, are there legislative victories that he points to and that he hopes his members will use in their reelection campaigns?

Luke Broadwater: It's hard to say what those could be. They did pass the appropriations bill. He could say he kept the government running, and he prevented a shutdown. For the most part, all Republicans can really do on their own is pass messaging bills. Obviously, the Senate is run by Democrats, and President Biden is a Democrat. If they want to get anything done, they have to work with Democrats. Right now, there's just too many Republicans who don't want to do that. They could perhaps point to some accomplishments from the last Congress when there were a bipartisan infrastructure bill. They could take credit if they voted for that, for the projects coming to their districts.

There was reform on the Electoral Count Act. There were a number of reforms that have happened that were bipartisan in nature, but not all the Republicans voted for them. Really, if there have been any wins, it's been the more moderate members of the two parties that have gotten them done. We haven't seen successes from the right wing.

Brigid Bergin: We're going to leave it there for now. My guest has been New York Times Congressional Reporter, Luke Broadwater. Luke, thanks so much for joining me.

Luke Broadwater: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

 

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.