Scott (00:12):
Can you guys hear me? Okay, great. It's great to see you guys. We are grateful that the Speaker of the House has decided to continue this tradition of the fireside chat here at the House Republican Conference here in Doral. We also thank the Congressional Institute for having us. You have had a meteoric rise in American politics, starting from the days when I first met you at the Republican Study Committee, obviously catapulted into the Speaker's office. Now, you find yourself in the middle of a war with Iran. The president yesterday addressed the House Republicans. He talked about a short-term excursion, but in the same breath in talking about Iran, he said that should Iran continue its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, that death, fire, and fury would reign upon them. Not the nicest words.
(01:19)
How do you see the war playing out, Mr. Speaker? Is this a short-term excursion, or is this something that's going to be a much more prolonged campaign?
Mike Johnson (01:32):
I can tell you that from all the briefings that I've gotten inside the SCIF, in the situation room and elsewhere, they're giving the same information, essentially, that they're saying publicly. And that is that this was a limited operation and excursion. I don't call it a war. We've not declared war. This was an operation limited in scope and time. Entirely consistent, not only with the Constitution, but within the tradition of previous presidents and recent years in our lifetimes, Scott. This is how it's been done. I'm apt to note Barack Obama's excursions into Libya for seven long months, dropping bombs. And no Democrat in Congress ever said that he needed authorization for that.
(02:13)
But what my understanding was, from all the briefings that I got, that this was limited in scope to the mission that has been well articulated by the president and Secretary of War, Secretary of State, that we had to take out the capability of their ballistic missiles. They were producing them at a rapid rate in Iran, at a scale and a scope that was too quick for our allies in the region to keep up. And it presented a real and eminent danger. We had information that they might well fire on us, and it was imminent. And that it would hit our personnel, our citizens, our installations there, our equipment. And we could not wait for mass casualties on the American side before the commander-in-chief decided that he had to strike. And so, that's what this was.
(02:54)
So, take out the capability of the ballistic missiles, their nuclear ambitions, which goes along with that, and then decapitate their Navy. And in my estimation and from everything I know, Scott, we're very close to completing that mission. So, I think it will be very short term, as the president said as recently as 12 or 18 hours ago here.
Scott (03:13):
But if this does drag out for a month, two months, three months, is there a role for Congress then to step in, and either do a War Powers Resolution or a formal declaration of war? At what point does Congress need to assert itself?
Mike Johnson (03:33):
We'll have to see. We have asserted ourselves. The president, up to this moment, and his administration have complied in every way with every provision of law. They have informed us both before, after, and during the operation. We've been in almost constant contact about it. They're keeping Congress apprised, which is the legal obligation. If it comes to a declaration of war, then Congress would step in and act, and exercise its authority. But we all know that that has not happened in many decades in spite of the various excursions that we've been involved in. This commander-in-chief desires peace. He's demonstrated that on the world stage. He's ended eight wars as he's always reminds us, and he's trying to end the others. But this was a situation with an avowed enemy of the United States that had killed American citizens, presenting imminent harm to our troops and personnel and citizens, and the president acted accordingly to protect America's interest. And I think that's appropriate.
Scott (04:27):
The president yesterday also talked about that this was a beginning of building a new country. Mike McCaul told my colleague over here, Kyle from NBC, that we are very good at breaking things. We're not very good at putting them back together.
(04:47)
Do you support nation building in Iran? Do you think that's something that we should be involved in?
Mike Johnson (04:53):
I don't. I don't think it's our role. Look, it has long been noted, everyone around the world, all my colleagues at the G7, the G20, the speakers of the parliaments, the free countries around the world, everybody acknowledges we talk about this publicly and privately, that America has a very important role to play in the world. We have held this position since World War II. Ronald Reagan used to quote Pope Pius, I think the 12th, who said the leadership of the free world was placed upon the shoulders of the United States of America after World War II. It is not a position that we sought or asked for, but that's how it developed. And we emerge as a superpower, and we are the good guys. We are the defenders of freedom and liberty, and freedom-loving people all around the world benefit from a strong America. These are undisputed objective facts.
(05:37)
Does that mean that we should be intervening everywhere around the world, and nation building, and doing all of these other endeavors? No, because we don't have the resources or the appetite to do that. That's not our responsibility. Our responsibility, in my view, is to project peace through strength. The capability that we have is unmatched on the globe. We have the greatest military in the history of mankind, far superior to our adversaries, as demonstrated every day. We can project force better than anyone around the world, but we carry that weight and that responsibility very carefully. And I don't think that a regime change in Iran, if it happened and is in the process of happening, that's a great thing for the people there. They've lived under a tyrannical terrorist regime, and maybe they get a taste of freedom. But they need to rise up as the president has tried to encourage, and they need to take that opportunity, and they need to secure that for themselves. I'm sure that there are friends and allies around the world who will help in some ways, but it is not America's responsibility to do that.
Scott (06:37):
I know you speak with the president almost on a daily basis. You spoke to him just here yesterday at Doral. Given how quickly the situation in Iran is moving, have you had any conversations with him today?
Mike Johnson (06:53):
Ironically, he called me when I was on stage presenting about three hours ago. I turned it over to Steve Scalise and I walked off-stage to get it, and then he was on another call. So, we're playing phone tag right now. I don't know.
Scott (07:05):
Okay. So, nothing you can share.
Mike Johnson (07:07):
Not in the last few hours, Scott. I'm not going to break news.
Scott (07:09):
Okay. You mentioned earlier today the supplemental that you are expecting the White House to request from the Congress. You said that is inevitable.
(07:20)
Are there any other details you can share with us about the scope of that or how soon we might see that supplemental?
Mike Johnson (07:30):
It was not a surprise, because I'm sure most in the press corps understood that we were anticipating another supplemental, and had been for some time. We don't know the scope of it yet. We don't know how the operation, the mission in Iran, will affect that. We're 10 days into the operation. So it's a little early yet, but the Secretary of War and the Secretary of State and the president know that we're anticipating that, and we need to all work together with that request and make sure that we are fully funding the military because it's a dangerous moment.
Scott (08:03):
Is that $50 billion amount that we've heard thrown out there, is that in the ballpark of what you're hearing?
Mike Johnson (08:10):
I don't know. It'd be a hypothetical. I don't want to... It'd be conjecture on my part. I'm not even sure, really, where that number came from, but we'll have to see. It's a very precise thing. We don't just come up with arbitrary numbers. We have to count. We have to see exactly what's needed. Our appropriators do a great job in that space. And we're the team that is trying to make government work more efficiently and effectively for the people, but a fully and well-funded military is a core principle and important priority for us because we have to maintain the safety and security of the people.
(08:41)
At the State of the Union, the president remember asked the now famous question, "Please stand in applaud if you think the number one job of the federal government is to protect American citizens and not illegal aliens." And of course, all the Republicans applauded and the Democrats sat awkwardly for over a minute. But at least, that's our priority.
Scott (08:58):
Okay. I got one more Iran question for you, and then we'll move on to the agenda, which I assume is what you want to talk about. Sources have told NBC, the Washington Post, and others that Russia has been providing intelligence to Iran about the location of US forces. Obviously, that sounds very serious.
(09:18)
As a member of a Gang of Eight, are you aware that this is, in fact, happening? And what do you think the response should be by the United States?
Mike Johnson (09:28):
We've not had a gathering of the Gang of Eight since, I think, maybe a few days after the operation began. So, that was new information when it came out yesterday, and I'm here and have not been in the SCIF for confidential briefing. But the president commented yesterday, if indeed Russia is helping them, they're not doing a very good job. And so, we'll leave it at that. It would be a very serious thing if Russia were intervening in that way. I hope that it is not true, but we'll have to see how that develops. I'm not sure.
Scott (09:56):
Do you think that additional or tougher Russia sanctions should be looked at in a more serious way?
Mike Johnson (10:04):
Yes. I've been an advocate for strong sanctions on Russia for a long time. And frankly, Congress had not moved yet, because we were allowing the administration the latitude they needed to have negotiations and try to end the war in Ukraine. But certainly, if there's a new and provocative action like this, that would probably be something that the Congress would be very interested in acting upon. I think we have to make it so painful for Vladimir Putin that he finally puts down the weapons, and it may take some time yet for that to happen.
Scott (10:40):
Okay. Let's switch gears to reconciliation. Obviously, you guys are here talking about your legislative agenda for the year, your campaign strategy for 2026. For the record, I did not doubt you when you said you could get reconciliation done by the 2nd of July.
Mike Johnson (10:57):
The only one.
Scott (10:59):
But I will say that there's a lot of us in this room here who are skeptical that you can do a reconciliation 2 this year. And another person that's very skeptical is Jason Smith, your Ways and Means chairman, who is instrumental in reconciliation 1. Just a few minutes ago outside, he said, "I would love to do a reconciliation two. I would also love to look like Brad Pitt."
Mike Johnson (11:28):
I'm a little more optimistic than Jason Smith as normal, my good brother. He holds an important role as the chair of Ways and Means, but I've encouraged him, as I've encouraged all of our colleagues. Look, let's be realistic about it. It will not be as big, but it can be just as beautiful. Reconciliation 2.0 can be just as beautiful. I am in the process, as is necessary, in a single vote razor-thin margin majority like I have, to find consensus. Basically, to find unanimity. And so, we have a big whiteboard. This is not a metaphorical thing. We literally have a big whiteboard. There are circles drawn on it. There's about seven primary caucuses inside the House Republican Conference. And I'm working on a Venn diagram to see where all those circles join in the middle, and what those small subset of issues are, where we can literally get every Republican vote because that's what's required.
(12:18)
So, it takes a lot of time and effort. I would have loved to have unveiled that package this weekend. Or not that year, yet there, because I have a few little pockets of people who have concerns about different aspects of it. So, it's a long process. But I think if we put that together, it'll be much smaller in scope. But I do think that it's something that is still a priority for the leadership team. It certainly is for me. And part of the reason is very practical, Scott, because there's a wide chasm between the two parties right now. The Democrats are in no mood to do anything, even if it's completely in the good of the country, because their polling tells them they're not fighting Trump enough, as absurd as that sounds. So by way of example, they're keeping the Department of Homeland Security closed right now, at this very dangerous moment where we have active terrorist threats and activities around the country, and they're willing to play politics with that. And it doesn't bode well for bipartisan legislation going forward.
(13:14)
I'm a realist. I understand, really, the only tool we have in the toolbox to do something that's very important that Democrats may not be willing to go along with. Even if it benefits every single American citizen, I don't think they'll do it. And so, we can't take reconciliation off the table. We may have to use that.
Scott (13:28):
But do you have... Last year, a year ago, we were here and you unveiled the contours of what reconciliation 1 would look like. Do you have the contours after having these discussions, these closed-door sessions with your members? Do you have any contours of what that looks like?
Mike Johnson (13:45):
I do, using my football metaphor. In the playbook, I've got three pages of potential pieces that can fit in reconciliation 2.0. And what I'm working to do right now is whittle that list down. I'm eliminating, by process of elimination, some of the provisions that we don't have 100% buy-in on in an election year. It's dicey sometimes. But great policy, great ideas. And I'm convinced that we can get a small handful of those issues that we can run through and make a really meaningful contribution, because our number one objective for the remainder of the year, top priority is to continue to work with President Trump and the administration to reduce the cost of living for hardworking American families. It's very simple, mission set, and there's several things we can do in reconciliation to achieve that objective. That's one of the focuses that I have going forward.
Scott (14:35):
Okay. So no topics, no specific topics that you're ready to share with us today?
Mike Johnson (14:39):
No, but stay tuned. We're getting very close to that.
Scott (14:41):
Okay. We have heard the president speak, almost on a daily basis now, about the Save America Act. We heard him just last night at his press conference. This is past the House. This would require voter IDs at the ballot box, proof of citizenship when people register to vote, but now Trump has thrown a wrinkle into this, saying that it should also include things like no men in women's sports and no gender transition surgeries for children.
(15:13)
So, how do you anticipate you would tackle that? Are you going to revote on a new version of the Save America Act?
Mike Johnson (15:23):
I was talking to the president about that last night. Clearly, we all agree on those objectives. And it is aptly named the Save America Act because those are two additional provisions that are about 90/10 issues with the public, and they expect and anticipate that Congress would do the right thing and protect the country with those provisions. Can we squeeze it into the existing bill and send an amended version over to the Senate? I think we can do that in the House. We're looking at the mechanisms to do it. If the Senate were able to move the existing legislation that we've already sent over, I suppose it's possible they could amend it there and send it back to us in a different form, and we'd pass it then. I have to work with Leader Thune on that. I don't tell him how to run the Senate and he doesn't tell me how to run the House, but we do coordinate as best we can.
(16:09)
And I know he's got... I would assume that every Republican in the Senate is in favor of the provisions you just named. Half of them... I mean, not half of them, almost all of them are co-sponsors on the original Save Act. And I think they could get it done. They just need Democrat votes or they have to go down the road of the talking filibuster, and there are real challenges to both of those things. So, we certainly have our fingers crossed and get it done.
Scott (16:34):
I think Leader Thune did say that he thought you should take it up again and revote.
Mike Johnson (16:39):
Did he say that?
Scott (16:40):
I believe he did.
Mike Johnson (16:41):
All right. Give me what you asked for.
Scott (16:43):
President Trump has said that if Congress can't send him the Save America Act to his desk, then he's not going to sign anything else into law. Is this the end of legislating for this cycle as we know it?
Mike Johnson (16:59):
No, it's not. And I'll talk with him about that. We'll work with him. As you know, under the Constitution, if legislation was sent to the president's desk and he didn't sign it for 10 days, it would become law automatically. But I understand what he's trying to emphasize, the importance of this priority, how critical it is to... Not just to him, but to the American people, and to all of us. And so it takes no convincing among House Republicans to agree to that priority, but I think he wants to send a signal, to the Senate in particular, that he's very serious about this. And I think the signal's been received.
Scott (17:31):
Okay, let's change gears to the midterms. I remember right before the 2024 election, we were in Hellertown, Pennsylvania at a Ryan McKenzie event at the old Steel Club. I don't know if you remember. It's probably all a blur to you because you go to so many of these campaign events. But at that event, you told me that you were going to win the House, the Senate, and the White House. And that turned out to be true. And you said the way that you were going to do it was through this new coalition that the Republicans were building, which included winning more Hispanic votes, more Black votes, more Jewish votes, and union workers. But now we are seeing, certainly Hispanic voters, after this ICE raid campaign by the Trump administration. We are seeing some of those Hispanic voters turning against Trump. I think there was a NBC poll that showed that only one-third of Latino voters now support the president, down from 46%.
(18:36)
So my question is, in order for you guys... You've said you're going to defy the odds, defy history, and keep the majority, but how do you go about doing that? Do you somehow preserve that coalition that you had built, or do you see a new coalition forming?
Mike Johnson (18:54):
No. Listen, we had a huge demographic shift in the 2024 election, as you referenced. And all of those groups and others who came into the Republican Party, not reluctantly, but they came with hopeful anticipation, two reasons for that. We were presenting common sense solutions to the challenges they were facing, and the Democrat Party left them behind. As I say all of the time, I said earlier this morning, "This is not your Father's Democratic Party." They do not resemble what a generation ago. They did. Their platforms are radically different now, and most of them are avowed socialist or Marxist, and they're going too far-left. So all of those people, we can hold and have a durable governing common sense majority for their foreseeable future. We got a little hiccup with some of the Hispanic and Latino voters for certain, because some of the immigration enforcement was viewed to be overzealous, and everybody can describe it differently.
(19:41)
But here's the good news. We're in a course correction mode right now. We're going to have a new Secretary of Homeland Security. Mark Wayne Mullin is going to do a great job in that role. I'm sure that he'll be confirmed by the Senate. He's a thoughtful guy. He'll bring a thoughtful approach. You have somebody like Tom Homan, who has 40 years experience in the field, and was decorated by former Democrat presidents for his acumen and expertise. He went into Minneapolis and brought calm to the chaos there. That's what you're going to see. And I think that the Hispanic and Latino voters who came to us, came for a number of reasons. They were very animated about the open border and all the negative secondary effects that came from that, but they're also concerned about the cost of living and the lack of jobs and all these other things that everyone's concerned about.
(20:23)
So we have a great record to run on, Scott. The reason we're going to win the midterms, the reason we're going to defy history and do it, is because a number of factors have a very boring 90-minute slideshow that I could show you this morning. Show you all the reasons we're going to win. But we have great candidates. We have a fundraising advantage right now. We have much better policy and a strong record to run on, and all these demographics of people are going to feel the positive effects of that. We're anticipating extraordinary economic growth going into this year and the midterms. All boats will rise. Salaries and wages will go up. You have bigger tax refunds and bigger paychecks. And the average family, $10,000 more money in their pocket because of Republican policies.
(21:00)
I think these people will see that we did what we said we were going to do. We calmed down the immigration enforcement concern. We uphold the rule of law, but we do it in a way that honors the dignity of everyone. And they'll understand that our party is with them, cares about them, and this is the permanent home where they should be.
Scott (21:17):
But if history stands, you know the party in power always loses seats in the midterms, and you have barely any seats that you can afford to lose. If you do lose the midterms and you lose the majority in the House, will you follow in the path of Nancy Pelosi, who decided to remain and run for minority leader, with the path later on to return to the speakership? Or will you say, "Look, I've reached the pinnacle of American politics. I've done all I can do. I've exceeded expectations from everybody around me, and I'm going to ride off into the sunset"?
Mike Johnson (21:56):
There's no riding off in the sunset. There's too much to do. And I don't think about alternatives. I am laser-focused on the goal, like I have been everything. They have written my epitaph 20 times. They said that I wouldn't last three weeks, then I wouldn't last three months as speaker. I think we're almost two and a half years in now. They said we couldn't do the Big Beautiful Bill. They said we wouldn't win the midterms in 2024. I got headlines from some of your outlets the night before the election in 2024, saying we're going to lose the majority. I don't buy it. I don't believe it. I look straight ahead. I focus on the vision and the goal, and we get it done every single time. We're going to do it again.
(22:25)
Here's why this is different. History is going to be different this time. It's going to be defied, the trend. Lots of reasons for it, but among them is that we've never had a midterm like we're having right now. First of all, the chasm between the two parties has never been so wide. This is a choice election, as I articulated earlier today, between common sense and crazy. And every metric of public policy will be able to demonstrate that, show that we did it in word indeed. We did the right thing for the American people and they will appreciate that. We also have a president. They're never before, Scott. You can't name a time in history when a second-term president, who is not on the ballot, again in the middle of his second term has been so active like President Trump is going to be. He's engaged. He's going to run like it's 2024. He's going to do the rallies and do the events, and he's already doing it now. He's going to be heavily involved, and he is still the turnout machine for our side, as well as the other side. I acknowledge that.
(23:19)
But the president's going to be deeply involved in it because he understand the stakes are so high. The American people are going to understand he is on the ballot, at least in a metaphorical sense, because if we were to lose the midterms, everybody knows the chaos that would ensue. So, I think there's so many factors in our favor. I think the energy and excitement's going to be on our side. I can't wait for the midterm convention that we're going to have before early voting starts in the fall, where we parade all of our stars across the stage and we talk about all the great things we've done for the American people. This is a midterm like none other. So I'm telling you, do not bet against the House Republicans. I've told you all that before. I'm telling you again. Remember I said this.
Scott (23:58):
Taylor's given me the hook here. I got a lightning around 30 seconds. Best part of being Speaker of the House.
Mike Johnson (24:05):
The collection of sports memorabilia. I get the coolest stuff when people bring... You all should come in. I got every LSU thing, every championship thing now, and people give me little [inaudible 00:24:12].
Scott (24:12):
I've seen your football in Jersey before.
Mike Johnson (24:14):
Awesome.
Scott (24:14):
Worst part of the job.
Mike Johnson (24:17):
I don't know. I don't focus on that, but it's difficult. Look, it really is about a 20 to 22-hour endeavor at this point. It's very complicated, very widespread set of responsibilities, but I'm not complaining. I'm honored to have the position, and I'm going to do my duty and the best I can every day.
Scott (24:33):
Somebody that you rely on for council in the House Republican Conference other than Scalise, Emma, Lisa McClain.
Mike Johnson (24:40):
It's a wide array of members. I'm very close to my classmates. We all came in together. I'm going to miss a guy like Jody Arrington, for example, who's leaving us soon. And Darrell Issa's been a great friend and advisor. We're losing some real talent in retirements, but I'm happy for them. And I'll say, in spite of the false narrative, there's only five competitive Republican seats that someone is retiring out of. Only five. And in 2018, we were in, I think it was maybe 22 or 23 seats that was in that category.
(25:09)
So, we're comfortable about that. We know we can win the seats where people are leaving, but some of the wise council is leaving the building. I'm going to miss them.
Scott (25:16):
And finally, finish this sentence. My relationship with Hakeem Jeffries can best be described as...
Mike Johnson (25:24):
Collegial. I like Hakeem as a person. We have very different worldviews and very different policies, but we get along well because I think we understand one another, have some sympathy for one another. And we have a lot more in common on a personal side than most people recognize. So, I like Hakeem a lot.
Scott (25:41):
Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for your time. Thanks to all of you for being here, and to the Congressional Institute for having us.
Mike Johnson (25:47):
Thanks for doing it. Nice jacket.
Scott (25:54):
Thanks you all.
Mike Johnson (25:54):
Okay. Appreciate you.