House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) decision to shake up the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee sent shockwaves both inside and outside the committee, raising questions about the influence of the MAGA right and the extent to which national security issues have become sensitive issues. This has sparked concerns on both sides about what will happen. We need to respond to the approaching Trump era.
Prime Minister Johnson is a defense hawk who has traditionally focused on national security since the days of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who led the House Republican Party. ) refused to reappoint him as chairman of the party. committee. Instead, the House speaker chose to give the top job to Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), the most senior Republican on the committee and one of the more skeptical of aid to Ukraine.
The changes, solidified by Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Thursday, bring a Trumpian feel to the top of the Plum Board.
Mr. Turner is an ardent supporter of Ukraine, but Mr. Crawford voted against a multibillion-dollar aid package for Kiev last year. In a statement announcing his appointment as chairman, Crawford expressed concern that “abuses within our national security apparatus are undermining trust in our organization.” And while Mr. Turner voted to certify the 2020 election, Mr. Crawford opposed certifying the electors in both Pennsylvania and Arizona.
The unexpected nature of the roster changes has raised questions among panel members about the committee's future approach, with anger directed at Mr Johnson.
“It came out of nowhere. There's no good explanation,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said of Turner's firing. “Mike Turner has a lot of experience and expertise to draw on. It's not clear what Johnson has in mind for the future, so we all have questions and concerns.”
“There's too much confusion in one of the most important committees in Congress,” Crenshaw said, adding, “This all happened under Mr. Johnson's leadership.”
Another member of the committee, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), pointed to President-elect Trump's apparent influence on the decision. “Mar-a-Lago vetoed Mr. Turner,” one Republican lawmaker told The Hill.
“This is an alarming trend of a kind of purge of people who are not Donald Trump's henchmen,” Castro said.
Spokespeople for Johnson and Trump denied that the president-elect had instructed the chairman to remove Turner from the committee, emphasizing that the chairman made the decision on his own. As Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr Johnson has unilateral powers to appoint the panel's chair and members.
“This is not Mar-a-Lago or Trump's decision. This is the Chairman's decision. A lot of thought goes into these things. “It's important to know that it's time for a new start,” Johnson said in response to a question from The Hill, citing “abuse” within the intelligence community.
“We have to wipe out all this. It's going to be a period of reform and so on,” he added.
But that reaction didn't stop lawmakers on both sides of the aisle from worrying about the president-elect's influence going forward.
“I don't think he was loyal enough to President Trump,” said Rep. Chrissy Hoolahan (D-Pennsylvania), a member of the committee, regarding Turner's ouster. “This is really, really alarming, and President Trump hasn't even taken office yet. And there's been such a shift, a huge sea change. In my opinion, Speaker Johnson He simply usurped many of his powers, Article I powers, at the request of the president.”
Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said he believed Trump's involvement was motivated by conflicts with law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
“What's very clear to me is that Donald Trump has a personal interest in candidates for national security and federal law enforcement positions. A lot of that is due to the frustrations he feels and “I think it has to do with the interest in putting supporters in these positions,” he said. “I have said repeatedly that this is concerning for our national security. When we talk about these positions, we need to do it in a bipartisan way. They are nonpartisan and they are above politics. Because that's what our national security requires.”
Turner's firing comes as commissioners on both sides of the aisle say they feel the Intelligence Committee has finally reached a good place. They are former committee chairmen Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who used the panel as a forum for disputes over President Trump's impeachment and the Russia probe. They point out that the transition has come from the difficult years of feuding between the two countries and Trump's impeachment. It aimed to limit its influence on the 2016 Trump campaign and return to the more bipartisan approach the committee had seen for years.
Mr. McCarthy appointed Mr. Turner as part of a fresh start, and he has built a good relationship with Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and even lower ranking members.
Following Turner's resignation, committee members are concerned about the next chapter of the commission.
“I think Mike Turner tried to work in the best interest of the country in a bipartisan manner, but I'm concerned because that was a change from Devin Nunes.” [about] What's going to happen?'' Mr Castro said before Prime Minister Johnson announced Mr Crawford as the new chairman.
Another member of the committee, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), said he was concerned that Turner was “being punished for doing bipartisan work.” .
“First, Donald Trump appears to have some kind of veto power over the appointments of members to various committees, which is alarming in itself. And second, as you know, , he clearly had a problem with Mike trying to bring more bipartisanship to the committee. And there's nothing more urgent than having more bipartisanship in Congress. The same is true, of course, regarding national security issues,” he said.
For Democrats, Turner's firing is just the latest in a series of alarming national security moves by MAGA factions, especially as Trump has vowed to go after the “deep state.”
Krishnamoorthi pointed to President Trump's nominations of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence and Kash Patel as FBI Director. And Johnson was joined by Rep. Ronnie Jackson (R-Texas), President Trump's former White House physician, and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania), whose cellphone was seized by the FBI in 2022. His appointment to the Information Commission raised eyebrows. Both.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York praised Turner's “impactful” record as intelligence chairman and called Johnson's decision “disgraceful.”
“Mike Turner is a strong advocate for the safety of the American people and the free world, and his unjust ouster will likely be praised by our adversaries in Russia and China,” he added.
There may have been other factors contributing to Turner's dismissal. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has offended some with cryptic announcements on the national security agenda, prompting the declassification of Russia's nuclear program in space. One Republican lawmaker said Johnson's office views the move as a mess that must be cleaned up.
Another factor fueling the conflict between Republicans is the fight over how to handle reforms to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This controversial law allows the government to spy on foreign nationals overseas.
It has become a target of MAGA-affiliated members and privacy hardliners who see it as a backdoor to collect information on Americans and want to add a warrant clause to the law.
In his capacity, Mr. Turner spearheaded the effort to update FISA 702 without a warrant amendment, which he narrowly won in April of last year. Some say the victory increased anger among conservative hardliners against the former speaker.
“[House Freedom Caucus] “They seem to only care about one thing: FISA,” Crenshaw said.
Crenshaw also said that as part of this fallout, Rep. Turner was recently blocked from attending a National Security Council meeting. But he said complaints about FISA 702 are likely to hit a wall with many other new intelligence candidates who support the provision.
“If you have people trying to eliminate some of these rational defense types, that's not going to work. We're going to win, but all you're doing is creating bad blood in the process. ” Crenshaw said.
Crawford is also a supporter of FISA 702, but in a statement Thursday he cited the kinds of concerns Freedom Caucus members have expressed about the law. It will be up to him to shepherd the law through to its next reauthorization before it expires in 2026.
“Without active oversight and vigorous protection of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights, the IC is likely to succumb to its mission and circumvent U.S. law,” Crawford said. . “We are committed to upholding the constitutional rights of Americans in all of our work, while working to support the IC in doing everything necessary to gather essential intelligence from foreign adversaries.” Masu.”
As they are still members of the committee, questions remain about the future course of their work.
“The committee can adapt. I mean, we all work well together. But there's definitely going to be some disruption with Mr. Turner's appointment, because Mr. Turner has done a lot of good things and the committee… “It brought the focus back to where it should be,” said one Republican committee member, who requested anonymity.
But Democrats said they would remain wary of President Trump's efforts to change the commission.
“I will do everything in my power to avoid being drawn into politics and being drawn into Donald Trump's loyalty test,” Crow said.
