Johnson’s natural gas-for-Ukraine gamble might not pay off

Apr 01, 2024

With assists from POLITICO’s Congress team

TESTING THE CHARGE ON THAT LNG PLAN

Speaker Mike Johnson is in search of a winning formula to muscle long-stalled foreign aid through the House — which means getting it past enough fellow Republicans who are skeptical or downright against more help for Ukraine.

And lately, he’s hit on a new ingredient: Linking any foreign aid deal to rolling back President Joe Biden’s pause on natural gas exports. If Republicans could claim they’d extracted a concession that undercuts Biden’s climate agenda, the thinking goes, it would deliver them a rare unifying message heading into the election.

Not only that, boosting U.S. natural gas exports would allow the GOP to directly argue it had achieved progress on countering Russia.

Even so, it’s already looking like Johnson won’t make much headway with the loudest corners of his right flank with the gas exports pitch. GOP sources we chatted with acknowledged that getting a win on natural gas would help sweeten the pot — after all, House Republicans passed legislation in February that would have ended Biden’s export pause. But Johnson’s hardline conservatives are likely to look for more from him to quell their anger over a possible Ukraine vote.

To be clear: No policy details are locked in yet for the House GOP’s Ukraine plan, as Johnson tries to figure out what can gel. But we’ve heard about three problems with the natural gas idea so far:

Gas exports are not a big enough prize to offset having to vote for Ukraine aid for those who are deeply opposed or view it as toxic to the base. A certain level of opposition will be baked into the chaos-driven House GOP conference, but it’s possible that any energy rollback would fail to get traction, since…
Border security remains the must-tackle issue for many on Johnson’s right, despite their distaste for the Senate’s bipartisan attempt to do just that earlier this year.
To some Republicans, choosing gas exports as a concession looks too much like a personal win for Johnson even though it’s got a direct link to combating Russia, given the boost to energy producers in his home state of Louisiana, versus a genuine win for House Republicans. (Louisiana would definitely benefit; so would other states like Texas and Georgia, among others.)

“The $1.9-trillion deficit that just passed wasn’t nearly big enough. To spend more, maybe we could secure some other borders instead of our own? Billions for Ukraine, billions for Israel, billions for Taiwan. When Congress gets back next week maybe try harder to bankrupt America faster,” Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) quipped on X Monday.

It’s not just LNG, of course: Johnson is eyeing other items to make Ukraine aid somewhat more palatable to his members — though, we reiterate, none of this is locked in. They include potentially making part of any new Ukraine aid a “loan” — details still TBD, but Republicans have discussed conditions on how additional humanitarian aid is structured, in particular.

Unfortunately, there’s already GOP pushback on that front, too. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), for one, suggested that Johnson’s discussions about restructuring Ukraine money doesn’t address the underlying reticence on his right flank.

“No matter the smoke and mirrors for Ukraine funding - it will perpetuate war with no defined mission and will abandon leverage to secure the border of the United States, unless it doesn’t,” Roy said.

Important caveat: Johnson doesn’t need unity among House Republicans to get this done, as long as he gets a healthy amount of Democratic buy-in. (More on that below.) But the volume of GOP complaints he gets on Ukraine aid could have ramifications for another fight Johnson is navigating — the threatened ouster vote that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) teed up last month.

Johnson’s allies are largely downplaying Greene, but he can’t afford to dismiss her gambit given his shrinking majority. While the two have exchanged texts over the break and are expected to speak early next week, Greene blasted Johnson’s latest Ukraine aid comments on Monday.

Speaking of those comments: Johnson flirted with the natural gas exports idea during a Fox News interview on Sunday, but he’s been light enough on the specifics of his Ukraine strategy that he may yet look at another aspect of Biden’s energy agenda. The same goes for any conditions on the Ukraine funds.

Asked for additional details on Monday, Johnson’s office pointed us back to his Fox News interview.

The details are going to matter here — for Democrats, too, since their help isn’t guaranteed. They are eager to provide more funding for Ukraine but watching closely to see the fine print of Johnson’s offer.

— Jordain Carney

GOOD EVENING! Welcome to Inside Congress, the play-by-play guide to all things Capitol Hill, on this Monday, April 1, where we would like to remind people that your April Fools jokes aren’t as funny as you think they are.

GROWING IN THE GOLDEN STATE: POLITICO California is growing, reinforcing our role as the indispensable insider source for reporting on politics, policy and power. From the corridors of power in Sacramento and Los Angeles to the players and innovation hubs in Silicon Valley, we're your go-to for navigating the political landscape across the state. Exclusive scoops, essential daily newsletters, unmatched policy reporting and insights — POLITICO California is your key to unlocking Golden State politics. LEARN MORE.

GAS GAMBLE, PT. 2: WHAT DEMS ARE THINKING

As explained earlier, Johnson’s likely going to need widespread Democratic backing to pass a foreign aid package rather than anything approaching unanimity from his own conference. Bringing in the energy provisions risks that support.

But so far, Democratic leaders aren’t killing the idea.

For those just tuning in: Only nine House Democrats supported a bill in February that would have overridden Biden and unpaused liquefied natural gas exports. Even if Johnson goes narrower on language in the foreign aid package, he’ll definitely lose climate hawks who would ordinarily be staunch supporters of Ukraine.

Think folks like Reps. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) and Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who’ve made addressing climate change a focus of their tenures in Washington. Huffman called the potential inclusion of LNG provisions “absurd” in an interview with POLITICO on Monday.

“The only thing it really shows is that Mike Johnson cares a lot more about LNG than he does Ukraine,” the California Democrat said, adding of Johnson: “He's been flailing for some time now. … It's certainly not something that takes us closer to a solution.”

That’s how Casten sees the situation as well. Though members from both parties wondered Monday if Johnson’s idea was fully baked or if he was just testing the waters.

“Why would you even put this in there? You’re not doing it to gain Democrats. Maybe you're doing it because you're afraid of Marjorie Taylor Greene and, if that's the case, get the hell out of the leadership role,” Casten said in a Monday interview.

“Is this something he's thinking about, or is this actually something he's working on text with?” Casten added. “Nobody really knows with him.”

A critical question: How many Democrats feel strongly enough about LNG to deny a possibly quicker avenue for Ukraine funding? A spokesperson for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Johnson’s general proposal.

Across the Capitol: Senate Democrats (and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell) are mostly on the same page: The Senate bill is the fastest way to get the money to Kiev, rather than more negotiations.

Sen. Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.) seemed open to negotiating with the House. When asked on Monday about the possibility of turning the aid into some sort of loan, she replied: “Whatever form it takes to get the aid to Ukraine, that's the form that we've got to go with.”

Still, she warned that trying to negotiate expanding LNG exports would only lead to “another delay” in the monthslong saga.

— Anthony Adragna and Burgess Everett

SCHUMER V. TEXAS COURT

A federal Texas court said it won’t enforce a new policy aimed at curbing a practice known as judge shopping, good news for Republicans who typically route cases concerning abortion, the border and firearms through the conservative court.

“The consensus was not to make any change to our case assignment process at this time,” wrote David Godbey, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in a letter to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has been a strong backer of the new guidance. The district judges had met March 27 to discuss the policy, which the Judicial Conference has said is not a mandate, clarifying that enforcement is up to each individual court.

The federal court in Northern Texas has become a favored place for conservatives suing to block Biden's agenda.

Schumer blasted the court’s decision Monday and vowed his chamber would “consider legislative options that put an end to this misguided practice.” He’d likely have trouble getting enough GOP senators on board to carry out that threat, however — McConnell has been one of the most outspoken opponents of the new policy, announced in mid-March.

— Anthony Adragna and Katherine Tully-McManus

YOUR GUIDE TO EMPIRE STATE POLITICS: From the newsroom that doesn’t sleep, POLITICO's New York Playbook is the ultimate guide for power players navigating the intricate landscape of Empire State politics. Stay ahead of the curve with the latest and most important stories from Albany, New York City and around the state, with in-depth, original reporting to stay ahead of policy trends and political developments. Subscribe now to keep up with the daily hustle and bustle of NY politics.

HUDDLE HOTDISH

House GOP leadership allies have gone from OK to OJ—but apparently not gotten any better at picking acronyms. (To be fair, OM doesn’t have a ring to it either.)

QUICK LINKS

Hill GOP to Trump: Tamp down the talk of grudges and Jan. 6 from POLITICO’s Burgess Everett and Olivia Beavers

Half of senior staffers in Congress are so fed up that they may quit, from Paul Kane at The Washington Post

Here are the best and worst of Capitol Hill's attempted April Fools’, from POLITICO’s Ursula Perano

TRANSITIONS

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) is the new chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus. Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), the founder and former chair, has transitioned to an advisory role as chair emeritus.

Kat Cosgrove is now deputy director for policy and advocacy at Freedom House, working on their Asia programs. She previously was legislative director for Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.).

Haris Alic is now comms director for Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.). He previously was comms director for Rep. Mike Carey (R-Ohio), and is a Washington Times and Fox News alum.

TOMORROW IN CONGRESS

The House will hold a pro forma at 9 a.m.

The Senate is out.

TUESDAY AROUND THE HILL

All quiet (we hope).

TRIVIA

FRIDAY'S ANSWER: Peter Roff correctly guessed first that Bill Bradley and Jack Kemp are the two former members of Congress who played in the NCAA Men's Final Four and the pre-Super Bowl American Football League Championship in the same year and won the same award.

TODAY’S QUESTION, from KTM: What was each senator's per diem salary between 1789 and 1815?

The first person to correctly guess gets a mention in the next edition of Inside Congress. Send your answers to insidecongress@politico.com.

GET INSIDE CONGRESS emailed to your phone each evening.