By
Members of the House Intelligence Committee made it painfully clear to House Speaker Mike Johnson that he needed to choose responsibly when filling two vacancies on the panel. The Intelligence Committee has made a deliberate effort to steer clear of partisan food fights lately, and it feared that Johnson would screw this up by imposing rabid ideologues on the panel.
What’s more, the Republican speaker had perfectly credible alternatives from his own party who were interested in the slots. Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas, for example, has a background as a Navy cryptologist, so it stands to reason that he’d fit in on the Intelligence Committee.
All Johnson had to do was avoid radicals such as Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson, who was demoted by the Pentagon amid scandalous allegations of wrongdoing, and Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, who was up to his ears in the scandal surrounding efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, even having his phone seized by the FBI.
This week, Johnson nevertheless named Perry and Jackson to the House Intelligence Committee.
Democrats were not pleased. Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, for example, called the appointments “a disgrace and a threat to national security.”
But they weren’t alone. The New York Times reported that the House speaker didn’t even bother to give a heads-up to Rep. Mike Turner, the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican chairman, and PunchBowl News reported that Johnson’s move “is causing angst across the Capitol,” adding, “Several members of the committee — Republicans and Democrats — say they worry about the integrity of the panel in the wake of Johnson’s appointment of the pair.”
Reporter Jake Sherman added that the speaker “really pissed off the members of the Intelligence Committee, who are dumping on him and [saying] this was a stupid, clownish move.” Former Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a retired Air Force pilot, described the move as “insane.”
So, why in the world did the House speaker choose two unqualified extremists for the House Intelligence Committee, even after the panel’s members urged him not to? PunchBowl News’ report added this gem:
Johnson told fellow Republican lawmakers and aides that he made the appointments at the behest of Trump, who wanted Jackson and Perry on the panel.
Oh. So, Donald Trump wanted unqualified loyalists to have access to many of the nation’s most sensitive and highly classified secrets, and the House speaker followed the felon’s directive, as if he were an employee of the failed former president instead of Congress’ most powerful member.
The effects are likely to reverberate. For one thing, Johnson’s position within his conference was already shaky, and alienating members at Trump’s behest won’t do him any favors in the coming months and years.
For another, Kevin McCarthy earned a reputation as one of the weakest House speakers in American history. The more Johnson lets his party’s presumptive nominee call the shots on Capitol Hill, the more he’ll have a similar reputation.
And finally, there are broader consequences to keep in mind. The Times’ report added, “The panel has historically operated in a bipartisan manner, and is largely composed of serious-minded lawmakers rather than strident partisans. The break with tradition prompted fears that the intelligence community might pull back on the sensitive national security information it shares with Congress.”
It’s not surprising that Trump wouldn’t care, but Johnson has a responsibility to take such concerns seriously. This week, he failed spectacularly at a basic task.