Mike Johnson Is Caught Between His Hardliners And A Hard Place

Hello it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕️

On Thursday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had won over the right flank of his conference by promising at least $2 trillion in spending cuts to pay for the Trump tax cuts. 

By Friday, he was facing a mutiny from the moderate flank, as his vulnerable members acknowledged that such massive cuts would have to come from programs including Medicaid and food assistance programs. 

“I ran for Congress under a promise of always doing what is best for the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania,” said Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-PA), a newly elected member who sits in one of the swingiest districts. “If a bill is put in front of me that guts the benefits my neighbors rely on, I will not vote for it. Pennsylvania’s Eighth District chose me to advocate for them in Congress. These benefits are promises that were made to the people of NEPA and where I come from, people keep their word.”

His office also noted that Medicaid recipients comprise over 25 percent of his district. 

The very public shot across the bow is the latest warning from the House Republican frontliners, who are publicly queasy about extending Trump’s tax cuts — which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy — on the backs of programs like Medicaid and SNAP, which serve low-income Americans.  

“I don’t know where they’re going to get the cuts,” Rep. David Valadao (R-CA), a perpetual survivor who voted to impeach Trump, told reporters on Thursday.

Making Johnson’s positioning even more impossible, he can only afford to lose one vote on any legislation that won’t attract Democratic support. And that’s before he works out how to get his members to agree to hike the debt ceiling by $4 trillion, as included in the plan — something some of them have never once voted to do in their whole congressional careers.

— Kate Riga

Here’s what else TPM has on tap this weekend:

• Josh Kovensky has the details on how exactly Donald Trump’s USAID funding freeze will maim the United Nations’ World Food Programme operations in the Middle East.
• It wasn’t just the public confirmation hearing: Khaya Himmelman unpacks written testimony that Kash Patel gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee, during which, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) claims, Patel may have perjured himself.
• Emine Yücel looks at Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) explicit calls for Russ Vought to use impoundment to continue carrying out Trump’s destructive agenda.

The Destruction Is The Point

It’s one thing to know that there’s a lot being destroyed; it’s another to quantify it.

Thanks to a useful tip this week, we can catch a glimpse of the on-the-ground impact of at least one of the Trump administration’s destructive and debilitating funding freezes. I obtained an assessment that the UN World Food Programme, the world’s largest humanitarian organization, provided to USAID officials outlining how the freeze would maim its Middle East operations.

The numbers that WFP provided in the email, sent on Feb. 12 to USAID officials, are staggering.

In Jordan, WFP would stop being able to feed 310,000 refugees by May. In Egypt, WFP would see a “full break in resources” for 250,000 Sudanese refugees by April. In Lebanon, which faces a crisis both of internal refugees and Syrian refugees, WFP said that it would stop cash transfers to 570,000 Syrians in February, and that 140,000 Lebanese receiving food parcels would be affected starting in April. In Yemen, WFP told USAID, the organization will have to shut down entirely by March.

WFP tried to frame the memo in national security terms. Instability in Lebanon could “leave openings for other actors to fill,” the document reads; in Egypt, rising hunger amid Sudanese refugees could increase “the risk of social instability and economic tensions in a key regional ally of the U.S.”

It’s a good pitch, but it collides with a reality that’s setting in across government, and the world: the destruction is the point.

— Josh Kovensky

Patel May Have Perjured Himself in Written Testimony, Too 

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Kash Patel this week, despite the fact that evidence suggesting he may have perjured himself — in both his oral testimony and now in written testimony, too — continues to mount. 

This week, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dick Durbin (D-IL) in both a letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and in remarks on the Senate floor, presented evidence against Kash Patel, claiming that he personally orchestrated a purge of senior law enforcement officials at the FBI. 

According to Durbin, “highly credible information from multiple sources” suggests that Patel, working closely with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, as well as members of the FBI Director’s Advisory Team, directed a string of firings at the FBI, while still a nominee — as an act of political retribution. 

TPM received a copy of Patel’s written responses to questions posed by close to a dozen members of the Senate Judiciary Committee following Patel’s January 30 confirmation hearing. Looked at in light of Durbin’s allegations, Patel may have perjured himself in his written testimony, too, according to Durbin’s office. 

Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ), in a written question submitted on January 31, asked Patel if he believes that “involvement in the federal criminal investigations and prosecutions of President Trump alone, without other evidence of wrongdoing, misconduct, or unsatisfactory job performance, is grounds for the demotion, reassignment, or termination of FBI personnel?”

“Personnel decisions should be based on performance and adherence to the law. If I’m confirmed, every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for case assignments,” Patel responded. 

Booker also asked Patel if he thinks that involvement in investigations related to the January 6 Capitol riot, is alone grounds for dismissal from the bureau. Patel, according to his written testimony, responded with the following: “Personnel decisions should be based on performance and adherence to the law. If I’m confirmed, every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for case assignments.”

In these same written responses, Patel also dodged all questions related to his prior knowledge of forced resignations or terminations within the bureau. When asked explicitly if he had heard anything about the officers who had been fired, he said, more than once, “not that I recall.”

Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) similarly asked Patel if he had ever discussed dismissing FBI members with President Donald Trump. He, once again, responded with, “Not that I recall.”

“If I’m confirmed, all FBI investigations will be opened only if there is an articulable legal and factual basis,” Patel added. 

— Khaya Himmelman

Words Of Wisdom

“The president is right. He should stay the course. He has a constitutional right and duty to defend our tax dollars. Russ Vought can use impoundment.”

That’s Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) during a Fox Business interview this week claiming that President Trump should continue to ignore Congress’ power of the purse in order to continue making unilateral and sweeping decisions about the federal budget by freezing federal funds and gutting federal departments and agencies.

On top of all of that, he’s explicitly calling for impoundment. 

Hate to break it to you, Mr. Roy, but the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 makes it clear that an executive official or the president cannot unilaterally change congressionally authorized and appropriated funds (though that seems to not matter to the Trump administration).

I would suggest some history lessons on Nixon’s attempts to impound federal expenditures authorized by Congress.

— Emine Yücel