BURSTSignificant differences between Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) are leaving plans for a new House GOP probe into the Jan. 6 Capitol attack in limbo more than two months after it was announced, as the sides collide over a new select subcommittee’s scope and authority.
Loudermilk, who is supposed to chair the new panel that would be housed under the House Judiciary Committee, is asking for broad jurisdiction and autonomy to go wherever the investigation takes him.
“We're kind of in flux right now, trying to negotiate out some of the jurisdictions,” Loudermilk told me earlier this month. “I just need to continue on the way we were going before.”
Here is Loudermilk’s ask: The Georgia congressman wants to keep researching security posture and issues that Republicans have with the original Jan. 6 select committee, which House Democrats controlled from 2021 to 2022.
That would include being able to find more videos of depositions conducted by the original committee; pursuing missing documents he believes are at the Department of Homeland Security; and investigating the Metropolitan Police Department's operations.
And here is the Speaker’s counter: Plans drawn up by the Speaker’s office, I’m told, would limit Loudermilk’s jurisdiction to that of the House Judiciary Committee.
Loudermilk would still have the ability to dig into issues like the search for the suspect who planted pipe bombs, or trying to get more information from the FBI about informants in the crowd. (The Justice Department’s inspector general said there were no undercover agents at Jan. 6, but found 23 confidential human sources in connection with the rally.)
But this would close off areas of investigation into the Capitol’s security posture and the probes into the previous Democratic-run Jan. 6 panel.
Some of the delay is related to Johnson’s schedule. The Speaker has been busy trying to prevent a government shutdown and working on a framework to pass President Trump’s legislative agenda.
There is major interest in the panel from the inmate-turned-activist Jan. 6 defendants who got pardons or commutations from Trump — some of whom have already been communicating with Loudermilk’s office about information they want to share.
“I personally have spoken with [Loudermilk’s] office, and others have, and they've expressed to us that they want to have an open and honest investigation, and we want the same thing,” said Brian Mock, who was originally sentenced to 33 months in prison in connection with Jan. 6 before securing early release in January.
“We need to explore every avenue, and until we've done that through investigation, and the Jan. 6 community is satisfied that that's been done honestly and openly, we're going to keep screaming about having it done because our lives have been ruined over this.”
Mock (who I met at the Conservative Political Action Conference this year) is now chair of the civil rights division of the veteran-focused On Your Six Foundation. He’ll be among those hosting a press conference on the west side of the Capitol on Thursday afternoon about prison reform and post-pardon activism.
With President Trump still fixated on Jan. 6 and retribution — most recently signaling support for “compensation” for Jan. 6 pardonees — there are major questions about how deep any new committee would dig into the old Jan. 6 panel if given the opportunity.
Trump declared former President Biden’s last-minute pardons for its members such as former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) to be “void.” Loudermilk’s previous panel released an “interim report” in December that recommended a criminal investigation into Cheney, accusing her of witness tampering by being in touch with star hearing witness Cassidy Hutchinson.
There is some personal bad blood there, too: Loudermilk himself was subject to the investigation by the original Jan. 6 committee, which asked Loudermilk to appear voluntarily to explain a tour he gave in the Capitol complex on Jan. 5, 2021 — a request he said was meant to push a “false narrative.”
I’m Emily Brooks, House reporter at The Hill, here with a weekly look at the influences and debates on the right in Washington. Tell me what’s on your radar: ebrooks@thehill.com
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ELIMINATION LEGISLATION — Try saying that three times fast.
Trump’s plans for dismantling the Department of Education kicked off with an executive order that he signed last week, but it would take action from Congress to officially axe it.
That’s a steep task. Even before considering the high bar of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, it is far from clear it would get support in the slim House GOP majority.
Take a look at this House amendment vote from 2023, on adding a “sense of Congress” that the authority of the Department of Education should be terminated: 161 Republicans voted in favor of that amendment, and 60 opposed it.
Still, Republicans have several options to choose from if they want to pursue a vote.
- Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has introduced a one-sentence bill to eliminate the Department of Education multiple times over the past several Congresses, carrying on a tradition from former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). His son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), has introduced the one-sentence bill in the Senate.
Massie, though, predicted that GOP leaders might go with some other piece of legislation: “The bill they pick is probably not going to be my bill, just going out on a limb and guessing given my recent exchanges with Donald Trump and Mike Johnson.” (More on that rocky Massie-Trump relationship here.)
- Rep. David Rouzer (R-N.C.) has introduced the States’ Education Reclamation Act, a measure he’s previously offered in multiple Congresses. That bill would eliminate the department and reappropriate its funding proportionally back to the states for education purposes, and it would transfer some of the department’s authorities to other agencies.
- Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) introduced a more substantial piece of legislation, the Returning Education to Our States Act, to eliminate the Department of Education last year, which would redistribute a number of different programs to different departments.
- And Rep. Michael Rulli (R-Ohio) is also reportedly planning to introduce another bill to codify Trump’s plans to eliminate the Department of Education.
THREE MORE THINGS…
1. SIGNALGATE — Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy said Trump should fire national security adviser Mike Waltz over his accidentally adding The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg to the infamous Signal group chat, or maybe Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, calling the situation a “f‑‑‑ up of epic proportions.”
In a lengthy video posted on the social platform X, Portnoy said: “Trump, you may love Michael Waltz. You love Pete Hegseth. You may love these guys. Somebody has to go down.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, asked about the comment, said she had “great respect” for Portnoy but pointed to a response saying Trump has confidence in his Cabinet members.
2. SODAGATE — It sure looks like that some kind of big soda or beverage interests were possibly paying conservative influencers to make posts in opposition of a proposal to stop Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits from being used to buy soda — seemingly aimed at driving a wedge between the "Make America Healthy Again" and MAGA alliance. RealClearPolitics’s Philip Wegmann with more here… Conservative influencer Nick Sortor has the definitive thread on the scandal on X here…
3. PARENTAL PROXY VOTING DRAMA — House Republicans are battling over whether and how to squash a looming vote on allowing new parents to vote by proxy, after Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) circumvented leadership by using a rarely successful legislative tool to force action on what would be a historic rule change. A defiant Luna said: “If they want to play hardball, let’s play f‑‑‑ing hardball.” Here’s the full rundown on the dynamics, from yours truly.
Thank you for reading. Please let me know what you think: ebrooks@thehill.com.