Speaker Mike Johnson faced turmoil before backing a $60 billion Ukraine aid bill, fearing backlash from his party’s hard-right. Initially committed to supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, he held secret negotiations with Biden’s administration amid threats from fellow Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Despite political risks, his efforts secured the bill’s passage and he retained his position. However, less than a year later, Johnson has shifted his stance, siding with Trump’s criticisms of Ukraine, echoing claims that Kyiv hasn’t held fair elections. His reversal signifies a broader shift within the GOP towards aligning with Trump’s views on Russia and Ukraine.
The evening prior to Speaker Mike Johnson challenging the far-right faction of his party by proposing a bill for over $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, he spent an almost restless night in a luxury hotel suite with a view of the Potomac River, preparing for a potential rebellion that could jeopardize his speakership.
“He was in distress,” his wife, Kelly Johnson, reflected about that night last spring during an interview last fall. “We thought it was over for us. I was saying, ‘Well, it’s been wonderful, but short-lived.’ We figured we’d be heading home.”
Mr. Johnson devoted the night to prayer in their Pendry suite’s living room. By morning, he informed his wife of his intent to act according to his beliefs, irrespective of the political repercussions. He would proceed with legislation to sustain support for Kyiv’s battle against Russian aggression, expressing his desire to align with history’s moral arc.
Less than a year later, Mr. Johnson retains his position and has fundamentally shifted his stance on Ukraine. His change illustrates a larger Republican surrender to the president, even among some of Congress’s staunchest advocates for tough measures against Russia, as Mr. Trump aims for friendlier relations with President Vladimir V. Putin while attributing the war to Ukraine and branding its president — but not Mr. Putin — as “a dictator.”
The new order was evident during a heated Oval Office meeting on Friday where Mr. Trump chastised President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, ultimately dismissing him from the White House in a dramatic turn in relations. Mr. Johnson reacted hours later by voicing support for Mr. Trump.
“Thanks to President Trump — America’s days of being taken for granted and disrespected are DONE,” he posted on social media, adding, “What we saw today in the Oval Office was an American President prioritizing America.”
This is a remarkable shift for the speaker, who less than a year ago was so committed to supporting Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression that he was prepared to risk his position for its financial assistance—a deal the president now criticizes as detrimental to the United States.
At the time, Mr. Johnson was engaged in confidential discussions with senior Biden administration officials to find a way to preserve the aid, taking extensive measures to keep those discussions under wraps. Now, he stands with Mr. Trump, who blames those same officials for the war and the mishandling of the American response.
The Republican speaker vigorously confronted dissenters within his party last year, privately making the very arguments for Kyiv that Mr. Trump is now dismissing as he resets American policy toward Russia and Ukraine.
This narrative of those confidential discussions and internal exchanges is based on interviews conducted last fall with individuals familiar with them, many of whom recounted their experiences anonymously for an upcoming book titled “Mad House: How Donald Trump, MAGA Mean Girls, a Former Used Car Salesman, a Florida Nepo Baby, and a Man With Rats in His Walls Broke Congress.”
‘We’re Going to Start World War III.’
Mr. Johnson maintains that his position has remained unchanged since last year, asserting that he aimed to bolster Ukraine’s status so Mr. Trump could step in and broker peace. However, behind the scenes, he was advocating for robust U.S. support to counter Mr. Putin’s advances and maintain peace in Europe.
In the lead-up to last year’s vote, he engaged in tense discussions with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, who threatened to remove him if he allowed the Ukraine aid bill to be presented.
During one of those meetings, Ms. Greene cautioned Mr. Johnson that the classified intelligence he relied upon to advocate for funding was reminiscent of the information that led the U.S. to hunt for non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She urged him to be wary of the reports he was receiving from the intelligence community, asserting, “they have objectives.”
The extent of distrust tested Mr. Johnson’s composure.
“What about Trump supporters who warn that if we don’t proceed, we’ll ignite World War III?” he queried, referencing figures like John Ratcliffe, Robert O’Brien, Mike Pompeo, and Devin Nunes.
“They’re deep state too,” Ms. Greene retorted. “Once you delve into intelligence, you sacrifice your integrity.”
Didn’t she trust anyone at the Pentagon, Mr. Johnson inquired. She replied no, asserting they all deserved the “deep state” label.
Frustrated, Mr. Johnson reminded himself of the biblical principle of forgiveness, even towards one’s adversaries.
He asked Ms. Greene if she had ever served in the military or traveled to Europe. She admitted she had not. Yet, she expected him to prioritize her instincts over the intelligence evidence he was presented? Mr. Johnson found it hard to believe.
“The American public understands,” she shot back. “And you should too, if you weren’t such a coward.”
The meeting stretched for 90 minutes, a commitment Mr. Johnson felt compelled to make.
At that juncture, any singular member of the House could propose a motion to remove him, and he was acutely aware that Ms. Greene was serious about her threat. Pressure was mounting from Mr. Trump and others for her not to proceed, but she faced no political repercussions for making her move.
Thus, Mr. Johnson needed to validate Ms. Greene’s concerns. He would express to donors and peers that he split his time as speaker between leading and acting as a mental health counselor. Given his slim majority, he realized that he couldn’t afford to alienate anyone. Therefore, he dedicated significant hours to “listening sessions” with restless Republicans, encouraging them to rejoin the party.
Mr. Johnson regarded Ms. Greene as particularly sympathetic to Mr. Putin, more so than anyone he knew. He firmly believed what he was trying to achieve was right, and on some days would return home and jest with his wife: “Sure, you’re supposed to bless those who persecute you, but every minute of every day?”
Mr. Johnson was intent on convincing Ms. Greene and other hesitant Republicans that the briefings he received were truthful. Mr. Putin posed a challenge that could potentially lead him to conquer Europe post-Ukraine and threaten one of America’s NATO partners. For dissenters, he offered to present the intelligence briefings that had convinced him of the necessity for American support for Ukraine. However, no one ever attended those sessions.
Ultimately, Mr. Johnson passed the bill and managed to maintain his political standing, aided by Democrats blocking Ms. Greene’s removal attempt. He was re-elected as speaker in January, with considerable help from Mr. Trump.
Late-Night Negotiating at the Dog Park
Mr. Johnson’s current viewpoint is what many anticipated when the largely unknown Louisiana legislator was elected speaker last year.
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, then the minority leader, felt concerned when Mr. Johnson, a third-term congressman unknown to him, was selected to lead the House. Mr. McConnell was invested in backing Ukraine’s struggle against Russia and was urging the novice speaker to simply bring a bill to the floor to assess its support.
“It’s going to be a lengthy process,” Mr. Johnson told Mr. McConnell. “You’re going to need to trust me on this.”
The issue was that Mr. McConnell didn’t fully trust him. He presumed that Mr. Johnson, a lawmaker from a conservative state who had previously voted against assistance to Ukraine, would concede to the far right’s pressure.
What he was unaware of at the time was that Mr. Johnson was deeply engaged in discussions with key national security figures in the Biden administration about how to navigate support for Ukraine. He conducted clandestine conversations with Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser; Antony J. Blinken, the secretary of state; and Steve Ricchetti, President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s primary link to Capitol Hill.
Fearing that the hard right would discover their discussions and sabotage them, Mr. Johnson’s team aimed to avoid any written records and scheduled meetings outside business hours. His chief of staff, Hayden Haynes, occasionally met Shuwanza Goff, the Biden White House’s director of legislative affairs, at a local dog park after dark to exchange folders of propositions, as if they were characters in a spy drama.
It took Mr. Johnson nearly two months to reach this point, but he eventually succeeded.
Last year, Mr. Zelensky specifically praised Mr. Johnson, stating that his decision to push forward with Ukraine aid exemplified “leadership and strength of the United States.”
Rationalizing a Turnabout
Currently, Mr. Johnson has begun to reflect a Kremlin narrative adopted by Mr. Trump, expressing concerns over Mr. Zelensky not conducting an election during the ongoing war.
“We want to restore free and fair elections there,” he remarked. Mr. Putin has been exploiting the lack of elections during the crisis to undermine Mr. Zelensky’s legitimacy.
Mr. Johnson claims that he has not altered his view on Ukraine, justifying his decision to send aid to Kyiv as a strategy to position Mr. Trump for success in negotiating a peace deal to conclude the conflict.
“It placed Ukraine in a position conducive to a peace negotiation,” Mr. Johnson stated recently. “I realized when President Trump was elected, he would be the transformative figure, the one to bring both parties to the negotiating table.”
Recently, it has been Ms. Greene who has basked in the glory.
This week, she shared a New York Post front page from last year that labeled her “Moscow Marjorie,” depicting her in a fur hat adorned with a communist symbol.
“Badge of honor!” she remarked.