🔰Happening Now: Speaker Mike Johnson Discusses the Trump Agenda At GOP Retreat

I am Emily Brooks from the show. This is a fireside chat with Speaker Johnson, but we are in Florida, so not really any fire. Maybe a dehumidifier. But we are here at the GOP retreat. Republicans are working away at how to execute Trump's legislative agenda. You said on the campaign trail a couple of months ago that leading House Republicans was not even like herding cats. It's more like exotic animals. So with that in mind and the high stakes of the legislative agenda, how are you... How is the zoo? And how are you feeling about execution with this slim majority? Thanks for being here, everybody. Thanks, Emily, for the opportunity. The zoo is great. The team is unified. In fact, I would say energized as well. We had an extraordinary inauguration week. There is a new day in America. We say the beginning of a new golden age. I think you all felt it. Those of you that were on Capitol Hill felt there's been an atmospheric change, a seismic shift of some kind in the Capitol. And it's felt around the country. A lot of our members left after inauguration week, went home for a couple of days, and then joined us here in Florida. And the field reports are just as you might expect. Everyone in the country is excited. The president had an extraordinary first week in office. And I said to the group here, and I said it publicly in the press conference yesterday, President Trump accomplished more for the American people in his first week in office than Joe Biden did in four years. So we've begun something really important here. And our purpose of being at the retreat is to finish up our work and planning for the first big legislative item and to get the ball moving. And we're excited to do that. So on that, President Trump said last night a lot of things that he wants to see in this bill. No tax on tips. No tax on overtime. No tax on Social Security. Record investment in interior enforcement and deportation flights. Record investment in border security personnel. Is it feasible to get all of that done in the reconciliation package while also meeting the demands from some members to have this be deficit neutral? Yes, I think all this is possible. We're working out the sequencing of the plays. As you've all heard me make football metaphors many times, the analogy is that we've been working on a playbook for almost a year. We believed that we would come to this moment of unified government. We would have the White House and the Senate and the House. And so we had to prepare for that eventuality. We did not want to make the mistakes that were made in 2017, the last time that all the stars aligned for us, because, frankly, there was not a playbook prepared. So our job was to do that. So we got all the ingredients together. We drew up the plays, and now we're working out the sequencing. And how all of that works together is very important. We are the team that is deeply concerned about the nation's debt and the deficit. And I'm a fiscal conservative, a lifelong fiscal hawk myself, and so that is something I think we have a responsibility to guard against while at the same time accomplishing all these things that are needed for the people. We've got to fix everything, and we will. And you've been talking today on pay-fors, cuts, cost of savings. Have you made any decisions about what's going to be in this? Some, and we're in the process of working through this. The idea of a work retreat is so that everyone can come here in the room and continue the conversations. Now, we've been doing this in earnest over the last many weeks, actually months, but in earnest the last few weeks, certainly in this Congress since it began in early January. We've had 94% of the 220 House Republicans, now we're at 218, soon to be 217, but 94% of those Republicans have been deeply engaged in the conversations. They've gone to the scores of discussion sessions, whiteboard sessions that we've had, listening sessions, they've been engaged in that and been part of the debate and the dialogue and the discussion. And it's all been very healthy and very productive. And so that leads us up to where we are now. This is the next step in that process, and our objective by tomorrow when we leave is to have a blueprint for the budget resolution that will unlock basically and begin the reconciliation process. So all this is in sequence, this is exactly on the timeline that we planned, and we feel very good about where it's headed. There are a number of other legislative deadlines and items. One is the debt limit. President Trump has said that he does not want Democrats to have any leverage over the debt limit increase, and so there have been multiple ideas we've heard. One, putting it into legislation, attaching it to regular government funding that expires on the 14th or a wildfire disaster for California. What decisions have been made on that? No final decision yet, but part of the decision matrix is that we're looking at the pros and cons of those various angles. I was originally thinking that we would include it in the reconciliation process because that's just a partisan exercise that doesn't require Democrat votes. I think there's some concern in the Senate that that might be difficult to do on a partisan basis, and so it may wind up being a bipartisan exercise. So where that fits in and in what sequence is part of the discussion here, and we'll make that determination here in the coming week or so. Okay. Let's talk about also the next election cycle, 2026 midterms. You said yesterday that Republicans will gain seats in 2026, despite the history of the party in power, the president's party, losing seats in midterms. Well, you also said that you expected to gain seats in the last election cycle. We all know that you lost a couple. So what makes you optimistic that this time will be correct? Well, don't discount what we did here last time, okay? We had a very unfavorable map, and we held the majority, not without great effort, of course. I mean, we traveled nonstop around the country, over 350 campaign events, 250 cities and 40 states, logged enough miles to serve the globe five and a half times. I keep saying this to myself because it helps me with therapy, you know, getting through that. But it worked, and we kept the majority, and everyone and most of you in this room wrote that that would not happen. But we're going to defy the historic trend this time, and here's why. Only twice in 85 years has the president's party gained seats in a midterm election. Normally, when your president wins, his party loses a good chunk of seats in the House. That's not going to happen this time, and there's a number of reasons for that. But we have a very favorable landscape this coming election that we did not have this time. In fact, the tables have flipped. We were defending 16 seats. We had Republicans in 16 Democrat seats last time. It's different now. This time, we'll have 13 Democrats who were seated in districts that President Trump won. We have 21 Democrats that the president came within five points of winning. So we're going to play offense to go take back and gain some of those seats. We only have three Republicans right now that are seated in districts that Kamala Harris won. So it's a very favorable map for us. We are the group that defies conventional wisdom and sometimes gravity and surprises everyone and breaks some of these traditions and makes history. We're going to do it again, and that's going to happen in two years. And I think we have a broad coalition of new folks who have come into the party. And if we execute on this agenda and we deliver, as we said we will, I think we'll hold that, and I think we can hold it for a decade. But I think 2026 is going to be a good term for us. What about some of the seats that you lost in states like New York, California? Do you think you'll be targeting those seats? I mean, some of those districts are on the margin, and so they'll be, I think, a target-rich environment for us in that regard. Some of those were heartbreaking losses. I mean, very small margins in the loss. The California seats and New York were particular frustrations for me because I spent a lot of time personally in those districts. California, they drug out the vote tally. California seemingly can't count votes like every other state and country in the world. It takes them weeks or months to tally the votes. And, you know, it was a great disappointment because all three of those seats that we lost there, we were ahead on Election Day, and then gradually it was whipped away. It raises a lot of questions. We're not going to go back and relitigate that. But I'll tell you that there will be a lot of attention paid to, you heard the president say when he was in California visiting the wildfires, they really need voter ID in California. They need to clean up some of their election integrity measures, and that's something that there will be a lot of attention paid to. But we are going to contest those areas, and I think we can win back some of those seats, and I think it's going to be a good thing for the country. On that voter ID, you know, you seemed open to linking that to wildfire aid yesterday. Do you really think you can do that and get wildfire aid and get Democrats to vote for it? I don't know if it's linked to wildfire aid. I just know that voter ID in California is a very important thing. We passed the SAVE Act in the last Congress, and Chuck Schumer let it die on his desk. We're going to pass the SAVE Act again in this Congress. We have to do everything that we can to ensure that we have free and fair elections. It's a very important issue to the American people. I heard it all over the country, blue states, red states, everywhere in between last year when I was traveling around. And I think we did a good thing by restoring people's trust this time around, but there is always more to do in that regard, and we have to make sure that, for example, illegal aliens who are in the country are not voted in elections. And unless voter ID and citizenship verification is – there's a means to do that, which is what the SAVE Act would have ensured, that's always going to be a question in people's minds, and it's a problem. Well, Trump has been very busy with executive actions and orders over the last week. Most recently, of course, last night he ordered freeze on federal grants. The White House has clarified that that was not meant as a blanket pause. There has just been a federal judge that paused that directive. But, you know, a number of Democrats are saying that this is not a weak action. Some Republicans have expressed nervousness about what this means for their constituents. Do you have any concerns about that order to freeze grants? I don't. I fully support it. We got a two-pager from OMB today to members of Congress explaining, I guess, an answer to some of the FAQs, frequently asked questions. It is a temporary pause. For some programs it could be an hours-long pause. It is not a big thing. Some of the programs have already been approved. But this is, I believe, an application of common sense. We want to make sure that the executive orders of the new president are being fully complied with with regard to these programs. So I think these will be quick reviews. I don't think this is a major interruption of programming or anything. And it specifies in the OMB guidance that any direct aid to individuals is not included in this. So I think this is something that the American people will approve of. I think they want us to be good stewards of the precious treasure of the American taxpayer. And the Biden administration engaged in a lot of abusive spending, abuses of the programs. And we have to make sure that that is not continuing. So this is the appropriate thing for a new administration to do. I think it will be quick. And I think it's going to be harmless in the end. And, you know, between this grant freeze directive, firing the inspector general without notifying Congress, causing foreign aid payments, Trump is really pushing the limits of his executive authority and testing that. Are you comfortable with how he's doing that? Do you have any worries about the president? Well, so far as what he's done to this point, I mean, he's been using his executive authority, I think, in an appropriate manner. He got a mandate from the American people, let's not forget. He ran on restoring common sense and fiscal sanity and ensuring that the government would be more efficient. I mean, it was a major theme of the campaign. And I think the taxpayers and the people of this country understand that we're in dire fiscal straits. And it's time for a reset, that we limit the size and scope of government, that we make sure it's working more efficiently. The Doge announcement at the end of the campaign, towards the end of the campaign, was one of the most exciting things that people had heard in a long time. The Department of Government Efficiency, what a concept. So his executive orders are entirely consistent with exactly what he said on the campaign trail. And I think they're being applauded by the vast majority of the American people. It's time to think differently about this. And I think he got the mandate to do it with 77 million popular votes. And by the way, we got almost 75 million popular votes for the House, the largest popular vote tally for House Republicans ever. We see that as instruction from the people to do this good work. And I think what he's doing is consistent with that. Well, he certainly does seem to think he has a big mandate on who he was talking about last night, talking about all of the campaign money that he still has in his account, and saying that he doesn't think he can use this for another run. But he turned to you, a constitutional lawyer, and said, what do you think? I don't think I can run again, but what do you think? What do you think? That was tongue-in-cheek, of course. I can't change the Constitution, but there are means to do that. I don't think he's suggesting a constitutional amendment. I think he's having support with the media. I think that's what that was. You're not taking that seriously? I take everything he says seriously. But I think that was clearly a tongue-in-cheek. We laughed about it. Well, you do have a very close relationship with the President. We even had an issue of The Hill that had a picture of you at the UFC fight with Trump, calling you MAGA Mike. And, you know, I very rarely, if ever, hear you criticize President Trump publicly. But when you do have disagreements, do you air those to him? Do you bring them up? I mean, we've had different ideas on legislation and strategy before. But I don't agree with my wife 100 percent of the time. This is part of the relationship. And I think one of the reasons I think he respects this relationship that he and I have is that I give him counsel. I was one of his attorneys at one point. I did impeachment defense duty twice. And the job of a counselor, somebody who is ostensibly an advisor, somebody who brings a different perspective, is that you're not supposed to be a yes man. I'm not. And I think that's healthy. I think he respects it. And so we've had really healthy, productive discussions about ideas that we had that were different. But, no, I don't criticize the President publicly. I don't criticize any Republican. I believe in Reagan's 11th Commandment. You know, you don't speak evil of another Republican. I try not to criticize Democrats, certainly and personally. Policies are atrocious, and we could do that all day long. But I don't make it personal. That's just the way I live. So, coming back to reconciliation, you know, you indicated a desire to move one bill, but there are still some Republicans saying we better move two. We've had Trump senators as recently as this weekend. Is this set at one bill? Trump said he didn't care either way. Is this set at one? Listen, we have a very aggressive timetable on which we have to operate because the first hundred days will evaporate pretty rapidly if we don't work quickly. And there are lots of different ideas and opinions on this. But the reality of the House is that the one bill strategy makes the most sense, and that is because we have a very diverse conference. We have, you know, almost 218 Republicans at this point. We have interests and district-level specific concerns that are just not at issue in the Senate. And so our math is more complicated. Remember that the Senate Republicans have a wider margin than the House Republicans do, I think, probably for the first time in history. And so the nuance happens in the House and not the Senate. So with regard to reconciliation, when I can only spare one vote or one to two, three votes max, this has got to be a member-driven process, bottom-up, and we have to build consensus along the way. That's what we're doing. And the one bill strategy ensures the highest probability of success for us to check all the necessary boxes and fulfill our campaign promises, and that's what we're going to do. You've really put a focus on having a member-driven process. But it's a very diverse House Republican conference, a lot of conflicting ideological ideas. But at some point, you've got to make a play call. So how are you going to approach that when it comes to things like demands? Demands for cuts and using everybody? Do you think that you keep everybody happy? Of course I do, yes. We're right on schedule. No, we really are following the timeline that we set out months ago. We're right on schedule. You're being here. This is part of it. The retreat is part of it. The blueprint is planned to be prepared by tomorrow, by the time we leave, for the budget resolution, and we stick to the schedule. What you'll see is the resolution will be marked up in the Budget Committee on the 1st of February. We'll get that. We'll get that done, send it to the Senate. The Senate will do their part. If they come back with any amendments to ours, we'll address all that. That's through the month of February, and then in March, we begin the committee process, where it goes through the more detailed analysis and debate and discussion inside the room about how we get to the granular details of all the cuts and make sure this thing meets with everybody's criteria, and it will. And then by the time you get through March, then you're in April, and we're putting it before a vote, the reconciliation package. We're planning to do that before Easter, as we said, and then go to the Senate. And if we stay on our schedule, then we're sending it to the President's desk by the end of April or early to mid-May. That will be right in time. And this is important for us because the tax provisions, for example, which are one of the most important things here, it's really important to get that locked in so that the American people can see and feel, experience the benefits of that prior to that 2025 election. We want them to know that we did right by them, we fulfilled our promises, and they can see the effect of it. So there's a lot of reasons that we press go and we're moving aggressively, but rebuilding the economy is a primary obligation of ours, a primary responsibility we have, and all that we're doing in reconciliation is a big part of it. Will there be cuts to any mandatory spending? Well, the President said very clearly, and he said as recently as yesterday, we're not going to affect Social Security benefits or Medicare benefits, and obviously we all are in agreement on that, and we'll protect those things. But there is some mandatory spending that you have to address along the process when you're talking about cuts. We have to be good financial stewards, and we've got to restore fiscal sanity, and so we've got to reevaluate everything that we're doing. So stay tuned on the specifics. I mean, we have long list menu items. We've been doing this for weeks, and members are working through their priorities. And will the package be deficit-neutral? That is the objective. Actually, I would like to have it deficit-reducing, but we're putting the fine points on all that now. But that is a commitment we have. Why? Because the number one threat to our nation right now is our debt. It's not China, Russia, Iran, or North Korea. It's the debt. And we take that very seriously. Congress has kicked the can down the road for decades, and we're out of road. And so we understand that it's our responsibility to fix this, to change the trajectory that we're on, and that will be the greatest lasting contribution that we can make for our children and grandchildren and for everyone. Social Security and Medicare, for example, are within a nine-year window of insolvency right now. I mean, there are some harsh realities that the nation faces in a very dangerous moment of world history. So we take all that into account as we're working through these tough issues, and there are going to be difficult choices to be made. But we're going to do what's right by the people that sent us here, and it will be a success in the end. When you were first elected speaker, a lot of people were saying, why would anybody want this job? It's the worst job in the world. Do you think it's the worst job in the world? I don't really have time to evaluate that. People ask me all the time, are you enjoying it, are you having fun? And my honest answer is I really don't have time to think about that either. I mean, I've sort of regarded myself as a wartime speaker. I got the job under very circuitous circumstances, and it was unexpected. And we had to launch a plane and build it while it was flying. And Newt Gingrich says Johnson has the most challenging speakership since the Civil War and all that. There's a lot of reasons for that. The margins are the smallest in history. The country has been pretty widely divided. We have lots of challenges on the horizon and new things that we never anticipated before. But I'm kind of excited, in a way, by the challenge of that. I feel called to do the job. And I know that sounds evocative to some people, but I believe I'm supposed to do this, and it's a responsibility. And that's what keeps me going. So I really don't have time to sit around and reflect upon it, honestly. I just do the job. Every day is sort of a tyranny of the urgent. And you work through crisis by crisis by crisis, and you get to the next day, and you hope you're doing well for the country. And I think at the end of the day, I hope that's the story that's told. You said this several times, that you feel like a wartime speaker. Is that in terms of the literal wars happening around the world, or is it because of the war within the Republican Party? Well, I don't regard it as a war in the party, but these are difficult, challenging times. We all know that. We have factors to contend with right now that previous Congresses did not have to contend with. That's part of what Newt Gingrich and other observers talk about. You know, the advent of social media, for example, the 24-hour news cycle, things that previous generations were not even a factor. And you have to weigh all that in. And, yeah, I mean, I do mean it literally. We have been in a time of war around the globe, and so there's that added complexity to what we do. But I mean it metaphorically as well. It's just, you know, there are culture wars going on. There are political wars going on. It just makes it for a very challenging season. But we're going to get the job done, and we have. And I genuinely love all my colleagues, and I know what they bring to the table. And I think what I try to do every day is make sure everyone has the opportunity to be of their highest and best use to our conference, to our cause, to our country, that we leverage their skill sets and their experiences that they bring to the table, and that everybody is playing a role here representing their constituents well. And if that's the real objective and you're a servant leader and you're trying to bring the best out of everybody, then it tends to happen eventually. And that's the goal every day, solve these problems and let everybody be a part of it. Last question. Thank you so much for your time today. I know that your faith is a very core part of who you are. Do you think that this job has more strengthened your faith? It's strengthened my faith. Look, I make no bones about this. I believe that we are one nation under God and that he has blessed America in extraordinary ways. And I believe we are blessed to live in the greatest nation that has ever been on the earth, and that he is still sovereign and right in court over all of this. And so I'm comforted by what John Quincy Adams said, the hellhound of slavery. You know, he kept bringing the resolution to end slavery over and over, and they asked him why because he kept failing. And he said, duty is ours, results are God. And it's a very liberating way to live. We do our very best. We do our responsibilities the best we can. We try to treat everybody well, be kind to others. And then ultimately the results are up to a power higher than me. So it has been strengthening of our faith. I believe God has blessed our efforts and that he has a plan for our country. And I know some people are offended to hear me say that, but I don't really much mind it. Thank you so much. Thanks. Thanks, Graham. Appreciate it. And thank you all for being here.