Lawfare Archive: Mike Johnson’s National Security Agenda

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast: Lawfare Archive – Mike Johnson’s National Security Agenda

Release Date: July 4, 2025
Original Episode Release: November 7, 2023
Hosts: Benjamin Wittes and Molly Reynolds

---

Introduction

In this archival episode of The Lawfare Podcast, Benjamin Wittes and Molly Reynolds delve into the national security agenda of House Speaker Mike Johnson. As Johnson assumes one of the most powerful positions in the U.S. government, the discussion highlights the multifaceted national security challenges he faces. The conversation explores key legislative efforts, the complexities of bipartisan support, and the strategic maneuvers necessary to navigate a narrow Republican majority in the House.

---

1. Mike Johnson’s Legislative Priorities

Molly Reynolds outlines the key components of Speaker Johnson’s agenda.

• Israel Aid Legislation
  Timestamp: [05:39]
  Johnson introduced a $14.3 billion aid package solely for Israel, diverging from the Biden administration’s proposal that bundled aid for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and border security. Reynolds notes, “Johnson chose to cleave the Israel piece off and bring that to the floor by itself... including some what were billed as offsets, so cuts elsewhere” ([05:39]).

• Ukraine Aid Challenges
  Timestamp: [08:00]
  The attempt to secure additional aid for Ukraine faces diminishing support within the House Republican Conference. Reynolds explains, “Support for Ukraine aid among House Republicans is declining... with fewer opportunities to attach it to other legislative vehicles” ([08:52]).

• Funding for Taiwan and Border Security
  Timestamp: [33:46]
  The discussion touches on why Taiwan and border security funding are addressed through supplemental measures rather than the regular budgeting process. Reynolds suggests it’s an effort to garner broader Republican support by addressing pressing issues concurrently ([34:20]).

---

2. Israel Aid: Bipartisan Support and Political Obstacles

Molly Reynolds examines the dynamics surrounding the Israel aid package.

• Bipartisan but Not Unanimous Support
  Timestamp: [14:46]
  Reynolds points out, “There are large bipartisan majorities supportive of Israel, but not universal... Some Republicans are averse to spending additional money overseas unless it is offset” ([14:46]).

• Offsetting with IRS Funding
  Timestamp: [16:32]
  To secure Republican votes, Johnson’s package includes cuts to IRS enforcement budgets, a move that Reynolds characterizes as a strategic misstep: “The additional funding for enforcement at the IRS is extremely unpopular among Republicans” ([16:36]).

• Implications of the Offset Strategy
  Timestamp: [18:18]
  Wittes critiques the effectiveness of the offsets, noting they don’t balance the budget: “It ultimately adds more money to the federal deficit because... you spend less money on tax enforcement” ([18:30]).

---

3. Ukraine Aid: Diminishing Support and Legislative Hurdles

The conversation shifts to the complexities of securing aid for Ukraine.

• Declining Republican Support
  Timestamp: [21:28]
  Reynolds highlights a trend of decreasing support for Ukraine aid within the House Republicans: “The trend has been going away from votes for Ukraine aid, not towards it” ([21:28]).

• Senate vs. House Dynamics
  Timestamp: [27:11]
  While Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, maintain support for Ukraine, the House faces internal fractures. Reynolds states, “Support for additional aid to Ukraine among Senate Republicans is starting to get a little squishy” ([27:11]).

• Strategic Legislative Vehicles
  Timestamp: [29:21]
  The limited legislative opportunities to pass Ukraine aid are discussed, with Reynolds explaining the challenges of attaching aid to other bills without jeopardizing broader support ([29:21]).

---

4. Government Shutdown and Funding Strategies

Johnson’s approach to avoiding a government shutdown is scrutinized.

• Laddered Continuing Resolution
  Timestamp: [36:53]
  Johnson proposes a “laddered” (interpreted as “staggered”) continuing resolution with different expiration dates for various federal agencies. Reynolds critiques the feasibility, noting the lack of consensus and coordination with the Senate ([38:38]).

• Political Ramifications
  Timestamp: [40:29]
  The proposed strategy is seen as a reflection of deeper partisan divides: “It gets back to this fundamental issue... difference between the two parties in terms of how they view government” ([40:29]).

---

5. Taiwan and Border Funding: Supplemental Measures Explained

The rationale behind addressing Taiwan and border security through supplemental legislation is explored.

• Administration’s Strategic Inclusion
  Timestamp: [35:37]
  Reynolds interprets the Biden administration’s inclusion of Taiwan aid and additional border security funding as efforts to secure Republican support by tackling multiple national security concerns simultaneously ([35:37]).

• Policy Changes vs. Funding
  Timestamp: [35:37]
  Republicans seek not just additional funding but also policy changes related to border security, indicating a desire for more comprehensive reforms alongside financial support ([35:37]).

---

6. FISA 702 Reauthorization: A Lingering National Security Concern

The final topic addresses the reauthorization of FISA Section 702.

• Coalition Complexities
  Timestamp: [48:38]
  Reynolds discusses the unique coalition required to reauthorize FISA 702, noting that it involves unconventional alliances across party lines: “The pro-702 coalition is sort of unusual... weird cross-cutting coalition” ([48:38]).

• Potential Outcomes
  Timestamp: [50:24]
  The uncertain future of FISA 702 reauthorization is highlighted, with Reynolds suggesting that its progress depends on behind-the-scenes negotiations rather than public debate ([50:24]).

---

Conclusion

The archived episode provides an in-depth analysis of Speaker Mike Johnson’s national security agenda, emphasizing the intricate balance of bipartisan support, strategic legislative tactics, and the challenges posed by a fragmented Republican majority in the House. As Johnson navigates issues ranging from foreign aid to domestic funding, the conversation underscores the complexities of governance in a highly polarized political landscape.

---

Notable Quotes

1. On Israel Aid Offsets
   Molly Reynolds, [16:36]: “The additional funding for enforcement at the Internal Revenue Service is extremely unpopular among Republicans.”

2. On Ukraine Aid Support
   Mitch McConnell, [27:39]: “Additional assistance to Ukraine is a national security imperative.”

3. On Government Shutdown Strategies
   Molly Reynolds, [39:07]: “Federal employees... will start doing work to prepare for the possibility of a shutdown. That is work, that is time spent doing that.”

4. On FISA 702 Coalition
   Molly Reynolds, [48:38]: “The pro-702 coalition... is sort of a weird cross-cutting coalition.”

---

Final Thoughts

This episode serves as a comprehensive resource for understanding the legislative and political maneuverings surrounding national security issues in the U.S. Congress. For those interested in the intersections of law, policy, and national security, the in-depth discussion between Wittes and Reynolds offers valuable insights into the challenges and strategies shaping current U.S. governance.

Transcript

[Benjamin Wittes]

The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of [e-mail] lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull, and the Aftermath.

[Boost Mobile Advertiser]

Listen up. You can get the new iPhone 16e with Apple Intelligence for just $49.99 when you switch to Boost Mobile. We pulled so many all nighters to give you this deal and hey, stop messing with the mic.

[Molly Reynolds]

I'm just helping this catch people's attention.

[Kartrax]

This is a great deal.

[Boost Mobile Advertiser]

Exactly, so it doesn't need all that.

[Molly Reynolds]

Fine.

[Boost Mobile Advertiser]

Head to your nearest Boost Mobile store right now.

[Molly Reynolds]

Visit your nearest Boost Mobile store for full offer details. Apple Intelligence requires iOS 18.1 or later. Restrictions apply.

[Hesu Jo]

Ever feel like you're carrying something heavy and don't know where to put it down? Or wonder what on earth you're supposed to do when you just can't seem to cope? I'm Hesu Jo, a licensed therapist with years of experience providing individual and family therapy, and I've teamed up with Better Help to create Mind if We Talk? A podcast to demystify what therapy's really about. In each episode, you'll hear guests talk about struggles we all face, like living with grief or managing anger. This Then we break it all down with a fellow mental health professional to give you actionable tips you can apply to your own life. Follow and listen to Mind if we talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget your happiness matters.

[Mary Ford]

I'm Mary ford, intern at Lawfare, with an episode for the Lawfare Archive for July 4, 2025. On Tuesday, President Trump's one big beautiful bill passed in the Senate, with Vice President Vance casting the tie breaking vote. The domestic policy bill has faced challenges in the House of Representatives, though, as a coalition of Republicans have voiced concerns over the cost of the bill and demanded changes that could prevent the bill's power passage altogether. Facing pressure from President Trump and after a night of cajoling his party, Speaker Mike Johnson was able to open the floor for a full debate and vote on Thursday morning. For today's Archive episode, I selected an episode from November 7, 2023 in which Lawfare editor in chief Ben Whittis sat down with Molly Reynolds to talk about the then newly elected speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. Woodis and Reynolds spoke about Johnson's national security agenda, government shutdowns, and Johnson's transition into a job many said he was unprepared for.

[Benjamin Wittes]

I'm Benjamin Wittes, and this is The Lawfare Podcast. November 7, 2020, 23. We have a new speaker of the House, and his name is Mike Johnson. And you already knew that. But what you didn't know was that every single one of the issues on his plate is a national security issue, at least in the short term. It's kind of an amazing portfolio. And so we did the only thing we do when these situations arise. We invited Molly Reynolds, lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Senior Fellow, into the Jungle Studio to talk it all through. We talked about Israel aid, we talked about Ukraine aid, we talked about Taiwan assistance, we talked about the border, we talked about FISA 702, and we talked about government shutdowns. It's a rollicking conversation through a crazy bunch of issues that are all on the front burner of the new Speaker's stove as he takes over a job for which he appears to be wholly unprepared. It's The Lawfare Podcast, November 7th. Mike Johnson's national security agenda. So, Molly, we have a new speaker. Every podcast in the world is doing we have a new speaker podcast episode. And I would feel silly about doing one ourselves, except that we have a unique angle on Speaker Mike Johnson, which is not that we had to google him. It's not that he doesn't have a bank account or any of the other things that people are talking about, Mike Jensen, or that he believes that the dinosaurs were on the ark or whatever, but that all the issues that he is confronting in his first few weeks are as molten core lawfare legislative issues as Congress deals with. So let's start by having you run down what is on Speaker Mike Johnson's agenda as he assumes the third most powerful constitutional office of our government.

[Molly Reynolds]

Sure. So I will start with a sort of legislative package that the House took up last week. So we're recording this on Monday, November 6th. And that was. And then I'll talk a little bit about the sort of brewing possible shutdown, partial shutdown, the debate over keeping the government open, which certainly extends beyond the Lawfare universe, but certainly has core lawfare interests in it as well. So last week, Mike Johnson brought to the floor of the House a measure that provided $14.3 billion in aid for Israel. This was a departure from the supplemental propos proposal that the Biden administration had put forward, the sort of the previous week, which would have contained both money for Israel and then also assistance for Ukraine. We can talk More about that sort of how the ongoing debate over additional aid to Ukraine has really gotten disadvantaged by, if you are a sort of person who wants more money to go to Ukraine, how it's sort of gotten disadvantaged repeatedly by these broader dynamics and this broader dysfunction in the House Republican categories Conference. So the Biden administration's proposal would have had money for Israel, including some humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza. It would have had assistance for Ukraine. It would have had some additional aid to Taiwan, and then it would have had some money to support security along the US Mexico border. Mike Johnson and the House decided to sort of cleave the Israel piece of that off and bring that to the floor by itself last week, where it did pass, it got a handful of Democrats, despite the fact that in bringing it to the floor, he chose probably out of political necessity, to include some what were billed as offsets, so cuts elsewhere. In reality, they weren't actually cuts because they were to the enforcement budget of the Internal Revenue Service. And it turns out when you cut money from the enforcement function at the irs, it actually reduces the overall amount of money the government has.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Right. Some people at the federal government work to bring in money.

[Molly Reynolds]

Exactly, exactly. Many of them work in the Internal Revenue Service. So anyway, so Johnson chose to sort of make his first foray into this, these legislative waters. This, this package that was just funding for, for Israel, leaving open the question of whether the House will take up additional funding for Ukraine for a later date. The Senate, meanwhile, has indicated, both Chuck Schumer and frankly Leader, Minority Leader McConnell have indicated that it is very important to them to move Ukraine funding. So this Israel only package is really seen as sort of a non starter in the Senate. And we can sort of talk more about the fate of the other piece in the Senate as well.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Okay, so by my count, you just identified five distinct national security issues in a very brief introductory statement. One was Ukraine aid, Israel aid, border funding, Taiwan. And the fifth is this little poison pill on the Israel aid program side, which is the idea that you have to offset with what we will from here on in call a pay for, because that's the cool congressional terminology for it.

[Molly Reynolds]

All congressional terminology is cool then.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Exactly. And so we're gonna go with the cool terminology, the pay for. In addition, there are two other major issues, at least that the House has to deal with by the end of the year. The first is by the 17th, not shutting down the government. And the second, an issue that we haven't talked about in months, but we are running out of time, is FISA702, which from the intelligence community's point of view is roughly speaking like the debt, not raising the debt ceiling. And so it seems to me he walks into office right around the 1st of November, seven big national security issues on his plate, none of which he gets to avoid and simply not deal with. Right. If he wants to put his head in the sand and pretend these issues aren't there, he can't really do that. Right. Because either Mitch McConnell.

[Molly Reynolds]

Yeah. So it's a combination of, for some of them there are these action forcing mechanisms. So you mentioned 702, which I like your analogy, that for the intelligence community it is the equivalent of not raising the debt limit. Before we even get to that, there is the deadline to prevent a partial government shutdown, which comes the end of next week. And then there are other ones where the sort of political realities mean he can't ignore them. I think Israel definitely falls into that category. I think Ukraine does as well. And in that case, it's really a clash between the, the Senate and the Senate's interests and especially Mitch McConnell's ability to continue to sort of hold Senate Republicans together as a pro Ukraine aid force in all of this. And then I think this, particularly this question of additional, whether it's just additional funding for operations at the border or it is also, as Senate Republicans are reportedly increasingly pushing for sort of additional, as they refer to them, policy changes related to the border. And it's a little less clear to me exactly what those would look like. But it may well be the case. And you've sort of started to see some reporting in this vein that some sort of policy change in reference to the border is something that Democrats might have to accept as in exchange for getting some of these other things that they are interested in.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so let's go through these one by one. But before we do, I want to clear the decks of a overarching, I think misconception that affects a lot of people on both the Israel and Ukraine aid stuff. When people hear Israel aid or Ukraine aid, they think of Congress writing a big check to the Israelis or the Ukrainians. And my understanding is that for the most part that is not what's happening in either case, that what's happening is the executive branch, DoD is giving them arms. And in many cases that has already happened. And the question is the funding is for the US to spend money on Raytheon and General Dynamics to replenish its own stockpiles of weapons, having essentially turned over certain percentages of our stockpiles to other governments. Is that, is that fair?

[Molly Reynolds]

So with the caveat that I'm not an expert in this, but that is also my understanding that. And so, for instance, if you look through the Biden administration's request for the supplemental, which again, across those four policy areas, Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and the border, came in at about 106 billion. Doll, if you look at the Israel section of that, it explicitly names that a major component of that is to replace U.S. stocks that have been routed to Israel. So, yes, I think that you're generally right on that.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Okay, so we're going to say Israel aid and Ukraine aid just because it's a good shorthand. But keep in mind as you listen to this, that in most cases with the Ukraine stuff, there is some direct budget support. But I think it's the a small minority of the funding at issue. The overwhelming issue is replenishment of U.S. stocks. All right, so let's start with what should be the easy one. The overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress are, whatever people who don't like Israel may think of the subject, very pro Israel and very eager to help the Israelis fight Hamas. So why is Israel aid controversial in the sense that you can't simply snap your fingers and get it done?

[Molly Reynolds]

Yeah. So there's sort of two reasons, one of which is unavoidable and the other one of which has sort of is potentially avoidable, but has come. It's come to be clear that it's a political reality for Speaker Johnson. So the unavoidable is that while you are absolutely correct that there are large bipartisan majorities who are supportive of Israel in both chambers, it is not universally true that all the members of either the Democratic caucus at either chamber or all the members of the Republican conference in either chamber want to vote for additional aid to Israel on the Republican side of the aisle. Some of that is because there are simply some members of the Republican conference who are not interested in spending additional money overseas, period. Unless it is, and we'll get to this in a minute, unless it is, quote, unquote, offset or paid for. On the Democratic side of the aisle, there are some members who are not enthusiastic about additional aid aid to Ukraine. And so that shouldn't actually sort of mathematically the majorities are big enough that that shouldn't matter. But I think it's important to say that the majorities are large and bipartisan, but they're not universal. I think on the other challenge is this. It became clear as the debate was developing in the House that On the Republican side of the aisle, there were not going to be enough Republican votes to pass this on its own without an offset or without paying for the aid. Once that became clear, Johnson and sort of his, his team elected to make the thing that they were going to offset the Israel aid with this cut.

[Benjamin Wittes]

To the irs because they're so conceptually related.

[Molly Reynolds]

They're so conceptually related. The additional funding for enforcement at the Internal Revenue Service is extremely unpopular among Republicans. It came in large part as a. As part of the Inflation Reduction act, which is one of President Biden's biggest legislative accomplishments. So it's sort of a twofer. It's both a thing that they don't like because they don't like spending more money on tax enforcement, and it's the thing that they don't like because it's part of one of Biden's crowning achievements. So basically, once it became clear that sort of in the very narrow majority that Republicans have in the House, there were not going to be enough votes to pass $14.3 billion for Israel without some sort of offset, then the question was, well, what offset do we use? And they chose to pick this IRS funding, which then immediately sort of jeopardized the ability to get Democratic votes for it at all. Because both the nature of the offset and also there are Democrats who rightly said, I think, you know, we don't usually look for pay fors when we're doing emergency spending for major US Allies. You know, sometimes we look for them sometimes in good faith, sometimes in bad faith for things like additional spending on natural disasters, but we don't usually do it in this situation. So why would we do it now? And if we're going to do it now, why would we do. Why must we do it on this thing that has nothing to do with foreign aid spending? And also, really, as seems to us Democrats, designed to sort of split the party on purpose, to sort of set up some of the more vulnerable Democratic members to open them up to criticism that they are not sufficiently supportive of Israel if they vote against this because of the nature of the package.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And of course, the other dimension of the pay for, which couldn't have been more designed, more carefully designed to make it look ridiculous, is that it doesn't save money.

[Molly Reynolds]

No, it doesn't. It, it ultimately adds more money to the federal deficit because it, you know, you, you spend less money on tax enforcement. The next consequence of that is that you bring in less money in taxes and you sort of put those things together and it does not, does not pay for in any real way the money that you're spending.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so it seems to me there's sort of three issues on the table with respect to the Israel money. One is, is there the votes? And the answer to that seems to be yes, although as you rightly note, there are some. You wouldn't have a unanimous vote in either House. Number two, is the pay for a legitimate thing to attach to this or to anything of the kind. And then number three, can you detach it from the Ukraine aid? Now, part of me says, hey, if Ukraine aid is popular in both houses and Israel aid is popular in both houses, it shouldn't matter if you have two votes or one vote, but it really does. And the administration cares a lot about keeping them linked. And as best as I can tell, Mitch McConnell cares a lot about keeping them linked. So walk us through why it matters if you attach Ukraine aid to Israel aid or detach it.

[Molly Reynolds]

So I think the biggest reason it matters is because support for Ukraine aid, especially in the House Republican Conference, is not nearly as robust as support for Israel aid and has been declining over time. So if we sort of look at the size of the anti Ukraine aid block in the House Republican Conference, it has gotten bigger over time, not smaller. Over the summer, there was, as part of the consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, a vote to strike authorization for $300 million of funding for Ukraine that got 89 Republican votes in September, just before the shutdown or the sort of threatened shutdown. We did not actually have a government shutdown in September, just over half the House Republican conference, about 101 members, voted to strike or voted against security assistance, Ukraine. So if you've been watching this over time in the House, the trend has been going away from votes for Ukraine aid, not towards it. And then I think for most of the year, the kind of consensus among folks who watch the debate over assistance to Ukraine has been that you probably have one more big bite at the apple for aid to Ukraine. And as we get closer to the end of the year, the available apples keep getting eaten. And so you have fewer, fewer opportunities.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And when you say the available apples, you mean the legislative vehicles?

[Molly Reynolds]

Exactly, Exactly. So the idea. So it seems like a million years ago, but towards the end of September, when the House and the Senate were debating what a measure to keep the government open would look like, the Senate was pushing very hard for that measure to include additional aid to Ukraine. Not as much as the Biden administration had asked for. Not as much as I understand it really. Anyone who's paying attention to Ukraine thinks that the US needs to give Ukraine. But there was, there was a chance to do it then. And the sort of particular sequence of events meant that the Senate was faced with the prospect of either voting for something the House had passed that did not have Ukraine aid or running out of time and having the government shut down. And they told, they decided to avoid the shutdown rather than sort of risking insisting to the House that they had to, they had to pass Ukraine aid. So that happened. One of the, I think a thing that's gotten a little bit missed over time, but I'll mention is that there were reports that in sort of the immediate aftermath of that deal to keep the government open without any additional assistance for Ukraine in the package, that, that next week the House and the Senate were going to act on some language that would give the Biden administration more flexibility with existing funds. They did not do that because the next thing turns out the next thing that happened was that Republicans deposed Kevin McCarthy and then nothing happened for three. So I'm saying this because again, like the closer we get to the end of the year, the fewer opportunities there are mechanically to try and address additional aid for Ukraine and certainly the fewer opportunities there are politically because there are, given the increasing unpopularity of aid to Ukraine among Republicans in Congress, there are fewer sort of things that you could try to attach it to that would build the kind of coalition necessary to get it across the finish line.

[Matt]

Hey, it's Matt here from P1 with Matt and Tommy. And this episode is sponsored by ebay. Picture this, you're halfway through a DIY car fix, tools scattered everywhere, and boom, you realise you're missing a part. It's okay because, you know, whatever it is, it's on ebay. They've got everything, brakes, headlights, cold air intakes, whatever you need. And it's guaranteed to fit. Which means no more crossing your fingers and hoping you ordered the right thing. All the parts you need at prices you'll love. Guaranteed to fit every time. Ebay things people love.

[Kartrax]

This is Kartrax with Turtle Wax. Your car says a lot about you. So if we asked your car what it would say about you, what would it say? Listen, you dropped one of those tiny cheeseburgers under the seat like last week and now we're both dry heaving at the stench. Do us a favor, grab some Turtle Wax and let's get to work. This has been car tracks with Turtle Wax. You are how you car.

[Grainger Advertiser]

If you work as a manufacturing facilities engineer, Installing a new piece of equipment can be as complex as the machinery itself. From prep work to alignment and testing, it's your team's job to put it all together. That's why it's good to have Grainger on your side. With industrial grade products and next day delivery, Grainger helps ensure you have everything you need close at hand through every step of the installation. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so I know this is a naive question, but I am going to ask it anyway. And if it forces a knowing smile to your lips of my naivete listener, please understand that I asked this question knowing that it would prompt this there's a 700 mile front or 600 mile front in Ukraine with a huge number of Ukrainian soldiers who are deployed and currently fighting and the casualty rate is actually remarkably high. It seems to me from the outside that the, you know, the possibility of demoralizing and conveying to this group of people, people who are actively fighting in trenches, that the United States in fact, doesn't have their backs and can't be relied upon and that the United States Congress is a very, very fickle date with respect to large weighty things does not seem to be detaining House Republicans at all. And I guess the question is, is that simply right or is there any sense of urgency among the House leadership to get stuff done so that but this thing in particular, so that we don't convey to a fighting force that we helped stand up, that we will not be there when it counts?

[Molly Reynolds]

Yeah, it's a good question. And do you think this is a place where we see this really stark division between Republicans in the House and Republicans in the Senate? And to be clear, I do think that sort of support for additional aid to Ukraine among Senate Republicans is starting to get a little squishy.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Not with McConnell.

[Molly Reynolds]

No, not with McConnell. McConnell himself has done some things that Mitch McConnell does not usually do. Like, it pains me to say this because I am not a person who makes much of what happens on the quote, unquote, Sunday shows, but McConnell has gone on them to sort of make a vigorous case for why he thinks additional assistance to Ukraine is a sort of national security imperative. And that is not a thing that Mitch McConnell usually does.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And he's also, I want to say this is I'm not in the habit of praising Mitch McConnell, but he spoke very movingly and with evident, I mean, insofar as he experiences emotion, this was clearly something he cared about. And I actually found myself quite moved by it.

[Molly Reynolds]

Yeah. So it's, and it's clear that sort of the personal commitment on the part of McConnell from wherever it is sourced is real and that he has done quite a lot to keep support for additional assistance to Ukraine as alive among the Senate Republican Conference as it has been. But that has not happened in the same way in the House. That's not to say that there aren't champions of additional assistance to Ukraine within the House Republican Conference, but just the sort of larger and overall more fractious nature of the conference and the fact that there are a number of sort of the conference's most vocal and public members who have. Whose support for this, if it was there in the first place, has certainly evaporated over time. And so I think that the division between the two chambers is really sort of what we're seeing here.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Do you think that the, ultimately the votes, if you had a, you know, we used to say over the last 18 months, with respect to Ukraine aid, ah, if you put it up for a vote, it has 350 votes in the House. Whatever it being the aid in question, the problem is getting it to a vote. Is that still true or is that number much closer to even than it was?

[Molly Reynolds]

The number is smaller. Like the number of votes we get is smaller than it was a year ago. But I still think that if you brought it to the floor, you would have bipartisan support for it and that the major obstacle in the House continues to be bringing it to the floor on a standalone basis. And then the question of if you are trying to put it in a bigger package, is it important enough to sort of risk threatening the overall legislative vehicle? And again, back in September, when there's a question of do we try to avoid a shutdown with aid for Ukraine or do we try to avoid a shutdown without aid for Ukraine? The sort of let's avoid the shutdown forces won the day. And that's part of what has ramped up the pressure to need to act soon. Because again, to use my analogy from earlier, we ate one of the apples.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Right. And we ate also from just from the Ukrainians perspective, we ate up time.

[Molly Reynolds]

Yes.

[Benjamin Wittes]

You know, we call them apples, but they call them, you know, the longer we go without passing this, the more anxious they get. All right, so that brings us then to the question of unity or disunity among these two bills. Right. So the House wants to do them separately and presumably have offsets on or pay fors on both of Them and they presumably want them smaller. The administration and the Senate wants them together and big and without offsets. So I guess the first question there is does Mike Johnson's job depend on his holding this particular line or does he have the latitude to say I'm taking this one for Brother Mitch.

[Molly Reynolds]

So I would not imagine he says that he's taking it for brother Mitch, since Mitch McConnell is himself not the most popular figure among certain elements of the House Republican conference. But I think this is a specific question, a specific version of a broader question that we will be learning the answer to about Mike Johnson, which is to what degree does Mike Johnson have running room on issues of various kinds that Kevin McCarthy did not have and that the sort of anti McCarthy faction in the conference would not have made it clear. They also would not have given Steve Scalise or Tom Emmer had they been elected speaker. So if back in the, you know, many moons ago, and by that I mean the whatever two weeks when Jim Jordan was running for speaker, the sort of most, I don't know if I want to say persuasive, but a case for a Jordan speakership was that because like Jordan is from that end of the conference, that maybe the conference would have let him cut deal, that part of the conference, the sort of Matt Gaetz's of the world would have let him cut deals that they never would have let let Kevin McCarthy cut. That some of it was just about sort of being against McCarthy being against what they called the uniparty. So the idea that you have some Republicans who are really just in cahoots with Democrats. So there's this question about does Mike Johnson as himself a creature of the more conservative part of what is again on the whole a very conservative conference, but he's from the more conservative wing of it. Is he trusted more by some of the most radical members to let him cut some deals. I think that's probably less true or less relevant on things like Ukraine aid and more on say a measure to keep the government open and to ultimately fund the government for the balance of the year. I don't know though. And I think that part of it is that he is. You made a joke at the top about needing to google him, but he is genuinely a new figure to many folks, least experienced person to be elected speaker in more than 80 years in terms of his tenure in the House. So just a lot we don't know about kind of how he will operate. And I think the question you just asked is kind of one specific version of that Broader question.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, so then there's these other two hanging issues, Taiwan and the border. Why do either of them need to be dealt with in a supplemental rather than. I mean, they're not. They're kind of the thing you would think that we would just deal with in the process of budgeting. Why are we talking about Taiwan and the borders? You know, that issue's been going on for the entirety of the Biden administration. Why are we talking about it in supplemental territory?

[Molly Reynolds]

Yeah. To the probable disappointment of some set of listeners, I actually don't know the answer to the question. In the context of Taiwan, in the context of the border, though, my read is that it is as much about that. You know, obviously there are. There are genuine sort of challenges that are currently happening at the border. But that in some sense, the inclusion of additional funds for border security in this package, I read as an effort by the Biden administration to try and bring more Republicans along. And you've seen some Republicans say that's nice, but actually we need more. And that's where you get this distinction between what you've seen some Republicans refer to as quote, unquote, just money versus also we need, quote, unquote, policy changes. And so what is in the supplemental request from the Biden administration is just additional funds for existing operations. The Republicans, many of them, would like to see sort of various policy changes. And so I as well. So I see the inclusion of that as both, again, a recognition that there are challenges that need additional money to address them, but also as an attempt to try and broaden the coalition somewhat on the overall package.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Yeah, I think actually something similar is happening with the Taiwan stuff that from the administration's point of view, you have these three Democratic allies, right? Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel. They're all facing threats from, in two cases, kinetic wars. In one case, the threat of possible invasion. And by getting Taiwan involved in the discussion, the administration gets to bring in a Republican. And for many, and not just Republican, big bad, which is China. Right. And so you get. But my guess is that there's nothing going on at the border or in Taiwan that actually that requires money like this month rather than two months from now. All right, which brings us to the government shutdown question. It is November 6th, as we speak, I believe shutdown date is the 17th. Is that right?

[Molly Reynolds]

It is. And I believe that it is like as we pass from November 17th into November 18th is when we were.

[Benjamin Wittes]

The lights go off.

[Molly Reynolds]

Exactly. We're experiencing a partial government shutdown, and we've started to see sort of Mike Johnson's kind of initial approach to trying to avoid this, which is something that he is referring to as a, quote, laddered continuing resolution. I will admit up front that I don't really understand the choice of the metaphor of the latter, but the idea is that it would be a continuing resolution that has different and staggered expiration dates for the various. For various federal agencies. So you can decide whether you think this is a good faith or a bad faith argument on the part of some House Republicans. But one of the things that some House Republicans have argued is that they really don't like considering all elements of the appropriations process together, whether that's in a continuing resolution that keeps the lights on everywhere, or whether it's in an ultimate, what we call omnibus piece of legislation which takes all of the appropriations bills and puts them together. And so the logic here is that the House would sort of set a 1 expiration date for a continuing resolution that addresses, say, the Defense Department and then another different expiration date for a continuing resolution that addresses the Department of Homeland Security and so on and so forth. I have seen nothing that indicates that they are at all one, in agreement about this as a strategy, and even if they are in agreement on principle, what order they would want to stagger these in, and whether they have, you know, spoken at all to the Senate about what order the Senate, like, whether the Senate thinks this is a good idea and what order the Senate would want to do these in. So it's very unclear whether this is at all feasible. But I think the underlying takeaway is that Mike Johnson, at least as an initial matter, has indicated that he wants to do something different than what Kevin McCarthy was doing. It may well be the case that that is the principal motivation, is that he just wants to say, I am not doing what McCarthy did, which is, you know, doing an overall clean continuing resolution.

[Benjamin Wittes]

I'm.

[Molly Reynolds]

I'm doing something else. But we will, you know, certainly as this week goes on and we go into next week, start increasingly running out of time. And, you know, I'm sure I've spoken on this podcast before in various contexts about all the ways in which continuing resolutions, particularly ones adopted at the last minute, are bad. At some point in the next week, you know, federal employees around Washington will start doing work to prepare for the possibility of a shutdown. And even if we avoid a shutdown shut down, that is work. That is time spent doing that. That is not time spent doing other important things. I could go on and on, but it is just to say that that is the next big legislative challenge that I think confronts Speaker Johnson.

[Benjamin Wittes]

If we were being charitable to him, we would make the following case for the. I want to say he means staggered when he says laddered.

[Molly Reynolds]

That would probably be a better way to do it, but he, he's definitely using the word latter and I definitely don't understand it.

[Benjamin Wittes]

I'm not questioning your account of what he's saying. I'm gonna use staggered cuz it actually makes more sense and it conveys what we mean. So from a Republican point of view, there are these parts of the federal government that are embarrassing to shut down. Like, you know, parts of DoD and.

[Molly Reynolds]

The military people, military families not getting their paychecks right.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And Social Security, which involves older voters who tend to be Republicans, and parts of the intelligence community. There are things that they used to believe in the FBI that they don't really so much anymore. And then there are parts of the government that they actively like shutting down, like the Housing and Urban Development and the Education Department and you know, the Labor Department. Right. These are set of core, certain regulatory agencies. So from their point of view, if you stagger it and you say we're going to have separate continuing resolutions, we'll put it all in place for now, but we're going to end up having separate votes on HUD than we have on the Social Security Administration. From a Republican perspective, I'm not sure that's unattractive. Just from a, you know, I get to vote against HUD over and over and over again.

[Molly Reynolds]

Yeah, I don't know exact. I think as an initial matter, like the first vote would be on one piece of legislation that just has different expiration dates for the different agencies. But I take your point and it does sort of get back to this fundamental issue or sort of difference between the two parties in terms of how they view government and what they think government should be doing and what they think is important for government to be doing. And so I think to some degree that's right. But at the end of the day, and this is sort of, I think, a macro point that is worth mentioning on a Mike Johnson podcast, which is that he inherits the same fundamental macro political dynamics that did Kevin McCarthy in, which is to say a very narrow Republican majority in the House, the United States Senate, which is controlled by Democrats and a Democratic president in the White House. And maybe he has more room to maneuver because he is more trusted by the most radical elements of the conference, the House Republican Conference, I don't know. But fundamentally, he still has only a couple of votes to spare in the House. He still has to get things through the Senate where the Democrats have a majority and Joe Biden is still the president. And so at the end of the day, like he can try these different things, but he has to get all those other actors on board with whatever approach he tries.

[Benjamin Wittes]

And actually you're being generous to his situation in what you describe as a very narrow majority one might elaborate on and say that is not ideologically in the same place as itself. And by the way, many members of whom openly hate each other.

[Molly Reynolds]

Yes. And some and many and some sizable elements of which are sort of interested in explicitly interested in sowing chaos that it's that the sort of what we might call like the governance wing of the Republican conference and the something else swing, I don't know, are not in the same place on things like this very question about funding the government. All right.

[Benjamin Wittes]

So I'm not going to ask you the how does this play out question because you know, so nobody knows. But I am going to ask you a variety of questions around the how does this play out question. So first of all, you confidently and correctly predicted that there was not going to be a shutdown a month ago. Is there going to be a shutdown on November 17th?

[Molly Reynolds]

So I tend to think we're going to avoid a shutdown now, but that in doing so we will set ourselves up for a much more consequential deadline when that debt when that next deadline is is a much bigger question because one of the things that will so we talked before about the ways from the perspective of the Ukrainians using sort of using all of this time up is bad from the perspective of the appropriations process, the Senate is continuing to make progress on its individual appropriations bills in sort of multi bill packages. The House is continuing to make some progress on its bills. So I'm saying this because the further we put off a deadline on actually sort of the next deadline on funding the government, the more work will have been done to set up a possible total resolution deal. But in some ways the total resolution deal is also the hardest one to strike. And so I think so there's this big question of, you know, if we avoid a shutdown at the end of next week, which I tend to think we will, is the next deadline in December, which is historically when it's been but in the House Republican conference, this idea of, quote, getting jammed by Christmas has taken on an outsized rhetorical place in the debate and this idea that we can't be jammed by Christmas, but maybe we'll go into the middle of January and get jammed by Martin Luther King Day. So that I think that the question of when the next deadline comes is actually a bigger one for me than whether or not there's going to be a shutdown at the end of next week. Although again, I could be wrong.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right. So if I were part of the jamming caucus, which is to say the administration, Senate Democrats, House Democrats and Mitch McConnell, who all want pretty close to the same thing here.

[Molly Reynolds]

Yeah. And I think a sizable number of Senate Republicans and a fraction of House Republicans.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Right. So if the we want to jam them by Christmas caucus, what's their best tactical move? I could see a Senate bill that is essentially the administration's $106 billion. It's got everything and just dares the House not to bring it up. I could also see you want Israel separately, We'll give you Israel separately but no pay for and we're going to send it over with a Ukraine bill. Right. Like what's the strategy that the Senate and the. I assume McConnell and Schumer will be working pretty closely together. So what do you do if you're the administration and the Senate, Senate leadership to counter this chaos?

[Molly Reynolds]

It's a good question and it's hard to answer, but I suspect that the Senate will learn a lesson from what happened at the end of September when they didn't quite get jammed by the House, but they didn't not get jammed by the House either. I don't know what the half jam is. I suspect that they will try to move to the extent they can move first and send something to the House and see what the House does with it. There were somewhat unexpected internal obstacles in the Senate to trying to do that back in September, but I think they may try to do that this time. And I don't know if they'll say, okay, you get the Israel vote separate but with no offsets. It's unclear if Johnson felt like he couldn't bring an Israel bill to the floor in the House last week without offsets and get Republican votes to bring it to the floor. I don't know if he would accept that if the Senate sent it over, in which case then you might think that the Senate just tries to make the House eat the whole thing. I will just note that there is some disagreement again in the Senate Republican conference around the border piece of this, whether the border piece is sufficient. And McConnell himself has maybe signaled that that might be a place where he might try and demand more. So it's all, there's all these moving parts. You know, you put whatever seven things on the table at the start. We haven't even gotten to the least the last one of them yet. So it's all very complicated and we'll just have to see what happens.

[Benjamin Wittes]

All right, well, let's talk about the last one as it is near and dear to the hearts of Lawfare listeners. 702 reauthorization. I haven't heard a word about it in months, at least not, not from anybody other than increasingly panicky executive branch officials. Is there any sign of movement that you can detect on that subject?

[Molly Reynolds]

I will say I think that the very first time I ever appeared on the Lawfare podcast was to talk about the last 702 reauthorization.

[Benjamin Wittes]

If it happened before, it will happen again.

[Molly Reynolds]

So I don't know. And in some ways, I think if you are the increasingly panicky comments from executive branch officials notwithstanding, I think that if you're a person who cares about 702 reauthorization, it might actually be good that you haven't heard very much about it recently because, and I think I've talked about this before, the nature of a pro702 coalition in the current Congress is sort of unusual in comparison to other coalitions in the current Congress. And so I think on one level, if you want to see it reauthorized, it might actually be good that it hasn't descended into Democrats versus Republicans, because I think to get it done, I think the coalition that eventually passes it is sort of a weird cross cutting coalition. And so it may, it may well be the case that if maybe nothing is happening, which if you want to see it reauthorized, is bad, but maybe something is happening and we're just not talking about it because it requires these sort of weird political alliances or weird for the current moment, political alliances.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Yeah. And in some ways the ideal resolution, not from a democratic process standpoint, but from a getting it done standpoint, would be quiet conversations that take place up to say, December 18, and then a bill just magically appears within some other vehicle, maybe a continuing resolution or maybe something else, and just slides by over the howls of rage from Jim Jordan.

[Molly Reynolds]

Yeah. And that's sort of a high risk, high reward strategy. But I think again, given the coalition of forces that are in favor of reauthorization, the coalition of forces that are against reauthorization, that might well be your best bet.

[Benjamin Wittes]

Well, one of those coalitions is a lot louder than the other. And so I guess to say that the outcome here is a little bit overdetermined. If it were going well, it would be quiet, and if it were going badly, it would be quiet.

[Molly Reynolds]

If I have one lesson for anyone who tries to follow Congress, it's that the outcomes are often over determined.

[Benjamin Wittes]

We are going to leave it there on that over determined outcome. We've covered a lot of ground, Molly, and we will do it again soon. Thanks for joining us.

[Molly Reynolds]

Thanks for having me.

[Benjamin Wittes]

The Lawfare Podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution, and when we record with Molly Reynolds in the studio at Brookings, it is a good illustration of what that means. Our audio engineer this episode is the intrepid Noah Osband of Goat Rodeo. You, however, are the principal producer of the Lawfare Podcast. You are the people who fund it and I want you to take an active role and in in that producer role, go to lawfaremedia.org support and become a material supporter of Lawfare. The Lawfare Podcast is edited by Jen Patya Howell. Our music music is performed by Sophia Yan, who has moved from Taiwan to Istanbul. She is now living in Turkey. And as always, thanks for listening.

[Dr. Patrick McGrath]

What if I told you that right now millions of people are living with a debilitating condition that's so misunderstood, many of them don't even know that they have it? That condition is Obsessive compulsive disorder, or OCD. I'm Dr. Patrick McGrath, the chief clinical officer of NOCD, and in the 25 years I've been treating OCD, I've met so many people who are suffering from the condition in silence, unaware of just what it was. OCD can create overwhelming anxiety and fear around what you value most, make you question your identity, beliefs and morals, and drive you to perform mentally and physically draining compulsions or rituals. Over my career, I've seen just how devastating OCD can be when it's left untreated. But help is available. That's where NOCD comes in. NOCD is the world's largest virtual therapy provider for obsessive compulsive disorder. Our licensed therapists are trained in exposure and response prevention therapy, a specialized treatment proven to be incredibly effective for OCD. So visit nocd.com to schedule a free 15 minute call with our team. That's nocd.com.