Speaker Mike Johnson received commendation on Sunday from both a prominent Republican and a progressive Democrat for his decision to allow votes on a $95 billion foreign aid package. This move suggests that he may be able to retain his position as the leader of the House, even if conservative hard-liners follow through with their threat to hold a vote to remove him.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, expressed his admiration for Speaker Mike Johnson’s transformation. During an interview on ABC News’ “This Week,” McCaul praised Johnson’s courage and his commitment to prioritizing the nation over personal interests. According to McCaul, Johnson’s decision to be on the right side of history, regardless of the potential consequences for his job, was a true profile in courage. The chairman commended Johnson for his unwavering dedication to doing what he believed was right.
According to Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, he shares the same opinion.
Over the weekend, the Ukraine aid bill received more opposition from Republicans, including House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, than support.
Greene could potentially remove Johnson from his position with the support of just one other Republican, similar to what happened with Kevin McCarthy last year. However, this may not be necessary if enough Democrats also choose to align themselves with Johnson. Khanna hinted that this is a possibility, even without any further concessions.
“I’ll leave the negotiations to Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, but I believe that not everything in politics should be based on transactions,” Khanna expressed. “In this case, Speaker Johnson demonstrated courage by not only bringing this issue to a vote but also by separating the bills. This allowed individuals to vote according to their conscience on matters concerning Taiwan, offensive aid to Israel, and Ukraine. I commend him for that.”
The House made a significant turnaround on Saturday by voting to advance four foreign aid bills. This decision came as a surprise to Republican leaders like Johnson, who had been advocating for additional funds to Ukraine to be contingent on stricter U.S. border and immigration laws. The approved bills encompass aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and other Indo-Pacific allies.
Despite attempts to negotiate a compromise on that issue, conservatives remained unconvinced. Even a prominent Senate agreement to reform border policy was swiftly dismissed by Johnson and his counterparts as inadequate due to opposition from former President Donald Trump.
Earlier this month, Johnson expressed his support for separate votes on providing additional aid to Ukraine in its struggle against Russia’s invasion, as well as to Israel, which is currently engaged in a conflict with Hamas.
Johnson made a bold statement last week, expressing his preference for sending bullets to Ukraine rather than putting American boys in harm’s way. He emphasized this point by mentioning his own son, who is currently attending the Naval Academy.
During an interview on “This Week,” Karl questioned McCaul about Johnson’s evolving stance and the significant time it took for Congress to come to an agreement on the amount of aid, which ultimately aligned with the initial proposal put forth by the White House last year.
McCaul stated that Johnson initially aligned himself with the stance of hard-line Republicans. However, he later acknowledged that in a divided government, an alternative approach needed to be pursued.
According to McCaul, the former president attempted to fulfill the demands of the Freedom Caucus, but this approach was not feasible in both the Senate and the White House. As time was running out and the situation in Ukraine was becoming increasingly dire, it became clear that this strategy was not going to be successful.
McCaul said that his thinking had been influenced by Johnson’s classified briefings and hearing from Republican leaders on the issue, such as House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner.
According to McCaul, Johnson, who was relatively unknown in the legislative world, had to quickly adapt and learn the ropes after being unexpectedly appointed as the speaker during a tumultuous power struggle within the GOP’s House conference.
According to McCaul, he transformed from a representative of a Louisiana district to the Speaker of the United States. He also had to consider global matters and bear the responsibility of making crucial decisions.
According to McCaul, Mike Johnson’s stock has significantly risen as a result of his actions. He has gained a tremendous amount of respect for doing the right thing, regardless of his position. This has not only earned him respect from his own party but also from the Democrats.
Johnson has often relied on the support of the Democratic minority to advance crucial legislation, such as government funding, in addition to the foreign aid bills that were recently approved on Saturday.
Republicans find themselves in a challenging situation as they hold a slim majority of just a few votes but have struggled to find common ground on several legislative matters.
During an interview on “This Week,” McCaul was asked whether the current dynamics in the House suggest that it is effectively functioning as a “coalition government.” In response, he humorously remarked, “I don’t know, maybe some people enjoy that.”
Critics, including Greene, have criticized lawmakers like Johnson for their ultimatum.
According to McCaul, the motion is being abused when it faces threats every week in Congress. He believes this is a tool that is being misused by a minority, despite the majority of his conference not agreeing with them. McCaul emphasizes the need to address this issue and find a solution.
According to him, Republican colleagues such as Greene, who criticize additional aid for Ukraine as a waste when there are significant domestic issues, have mistakenly embraced the idea that it’s an either/or situation. He believes that it is possible to support Ukraine while also addressing border security. He emphasizes that as a great nation, the United States has the capability to do both and should not get caught up in a political dispute.
“The world is watching, our adversaries are watching, and history is watching,” he expressed. “I kept emphasizing this to my colleagues.”
During a separate interview, Rep. Khanna elaborated on his stance regarding the additional funding for Israel in light of its conflict with Hamas in Gaza. He emphasized the significance of providing support to Israel as it deals with the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terror attack initiated by Hamas.
Ro Khanna was among 37 Democrats who voted against the bill providing individual aid to Israel. However, he made it clear that his opposition was focused on offensive funds, rather than defensive funds that enable Israel to defend itself.
“It was a difficult decision. I mean, let’s face it, this was a stand against giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a blank check for offensive weapons without any conditions, especially when he is talking about entering Rafah…knowing that more women and children will lose their lives,” Khanna expressed. He echoed the growing criticism that Israel’s airstrikes on Gaza have resulted in the tragic deaths of numerous civilians. (Israel maintains that it takes measures to protect civilians.)
Khanna emphasized the need for a change in strategy to address the dire situation in Gaza. He questioned the decision to provide unconditional support to Netanyahu, especially when the international community has been calling for a new approach to alleviate famine, secure the release of hostages, and promote peace in the region.
In response to Karl’s inquiry about his vote against funding for Israel following Iran’s recent direct strikes on the country, which has intensified the ongoing shadow war between them, Khanna clarified that he would have supported funding specifically for defense purposes.
He emphasized the need for a security cooperation effort and a diplomatic architecture in the Middle East involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, stating that without these measures, achieving peace would be impossible.
Khanna expressed doubt about the legislative effort to compel TikTok’s Chinese parent company to divest or risk being banned in the U.S. due to concerns about data security and foreign influence. TikTok has dismissed these concerns as unfounded.
According to Khanna, he doubts that the proposed legislation will pass the test of the First Amendment. He believes that there are other, less restrictive options available and therefore, the legislation is unlikely to be upheld by the Supreme Court.
