Warring GOP factions threaten to tank Johnson’s spy powers bill

Speaker Mike Johnson is experiencing some deja vu as he tries to revive a controversial spy fight — and the second attempt is running into the same buzzsaw as the first.

Two opposing factions of the House GOP are both threatening to tank the reauthorization of a critical intelligence surveillance tool as Republicans remain locked in a long-running standoff. One side of the debate views sweeping changes as vital to Americans’ privacy rights and the other warns new limits would critically undermine national security by effectively neutering the program.

The House clash — between Republican security hawks on the Intelligence Committee and GOP privacy advocates on the Judiciary Committee — is a particularly sore point for Johnson’s leadership. He’s facing criticism from every corner about how he’s handled the spy powers fight, with members predicting the bill would be blocked if Johnson tries to bring it up for a quick vote Thursday.

“There’s provisions in there that are just problematic. It hasn’t gone through regular order. It’s a whole mess,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a member of the Intelligence Committee. “That’s why we’ll probably just vote against the rule and take it down.”

The House Rules Committee plans to meet on Wednesday to tee up the bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Both sides of the debate want votes on significant changes if it goes to the floor on Thursday.

Section 702 revolves around an authority that is intended to target foreigners abroad but has become controversial because of its ability to sweep up Americans’ information. The legislation set for consideration includes narrower changes than those preferred by the Judiciary Committee, notably forgoing strict warrant requirements related to American communications.

Privacy hawks are trying to amend the bill on the floor and add language to address two issues: Requiring a warrant before searching for Americans’ information and placing limits on the ability for data brokers to sell consumer information to law enforcement. A provision related to the latter was already tucked into the bill that leadership rolled out on Monday — which in turn has rankled the security advocates on the Intelligence Committee.

Those members argue that change is unrelated to the surveillance authority up for renewal, and opens the door for privacy hawks to offer more sweeping changes this week.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), a close ally of House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), indicated he was aware of the counter threat to knock down the bill, but they would still push amendment votes.

“They are like: ‘We don’t really want to vote on these things,’” Davidson said about his Intelligence Committee colleagues. “I’m not asking for a guaranteed outcome on whether something is going to pass … but I am asking for a vote.”

Davidson is part of a coalition that spans Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus and their respective allies, who view getting votes on a warrant requirement and the data broker language as essential. Otherwise, they warn they would prevent the bill from even being brought up.

That could easily happen in the Rules Committee, if conservative Reps. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) vote against bringing the bill to the floor in the panel’s Wednesday meeting. Even if it gets approved there, at full attendance it only takes four Republicans joining with Democrats to block the bill from coming up for debate on the floor.

Jordan, when asked by POLITICO if he’d support the underlying bill if the warrant amendment fails, replied: “The warrant needs to be in there. Definitely needs to be in there.”

“We have to have these amendments. Like, there’s no way we’re not going to have them,” he said, noting that he told Johnson that the Judiciary Committee should have their privacy-minded bill on the floor and then there could be an amendment vote to strike the warrant language in their legislation.

But “the speaker does what he wants,” Jordan added.

Rather, House Intelligence Committee members believe that, behind closed doors, Johnson has indicated he’d support their security-favored efforts. But he has apparently not advertised that position to the conference broadly, prompting further frustration as members view him as indecisive on the issue.

Some Republicans have also complained that they went through a working group process at the behest of leadership, only for Johnson to reopen negotiations on things that were rejected by the group.

Johnson on Tuesday defended the process and noted that Republicans will get the chance to change the bill.

“We have a great base text that’s been filed,” Johnson told reporters during a press conference. “And there’s an amendment process that’s being worked through.”