‘We Just Finally Saw the Dam Break’: How House Republicans Embraced the Chaos

Speaker Mike Johnson is on the verge of his biggest legislative victory yet — and it might mean his undoing.

Johnson’s decision to maneuver a long-stalled, sprawling foreign aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan through the House amid stiff resistance from many conservative Republicans has once again raised the threat of a coup through the motion to vacate. How that drama ends is still unclear.

But in the meantime, the move has fueled an extraordinary experiment in bipartisan governing of the House, as Democrats stepped in to save the aid — supporting the rule governing the legislation in the Rules Committee and then on the floor.

I caught up with Rep. Tom Cole, a veteran Republican from Oklahoma, to get his insights into the internal dynamics at play here. Cole knows what he’s talking about, having chaired the Appropriations Committee and the Rules Committee — both in the past month.

In press shorthand, Cole is usually described as an institutionalist, and since the tea party era, he’s also been known for butting heads with his more rambunctious, often newer colleagues on the far right.

Today’s antagonism toward House leadership stems from “a lack of respect for the institution and the wisdom of the institution,” he said. Speaking of the bomb-throwers, he added, “You know, you’ve got to grow up.”

Cole is also a member of the Chickasaw Nation, a trained historian and as a cigar aficionado, literally a devotee of Washington’s smoke-filled back rooms.

On this week’s episode of Playbook Deep Dive, we got deep into the weeds of why the Rules Committee has been such a trouble spot for recent GOP speakers and whether Cole thinks Johnson can hang on as members threaten to oust him. I also had Cole answer some prying questions from some of his favorite historians on the subject of Donald Trump.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity with help from Deep Dive producer Kara Tabor and senior producer Alex Keeney.

Let me ask you a key “process” question. On the motion to vacate, which Kevin McCarthy reduced to one member: Do you think that that should be raised? 

I do.

Should leadership be considering that right now?

You'd have to ask them that.

You talk to them pretty frequently.

Well, it's being widely discussed. I think a lot of members are frustrated with this. And frankly, I think it's on both sides of the aisle. They see the turmoil. I think Democrats kind of enjoyed it in McCarthy's case because they weren't particularly fond of him. He was our most effective political player, largest fundraiser, best candidate recruiter, best strategist. So I get why they wanted to take our Tom Brady off the field.

But now they've seen, “Geez, this is getting out of hand.” You know, McCarthy got taken out for taking something Democrats wanted to take to the floor. He kept the government open on a Saturday, and he was fired on Tuesday.

Presumably Republicans wanted to keep the government open too. 

Well, obviously most of us did, but it wasn't all of us. It was 125 or 130 — pretty much a substantial majority — but not everybody. The Democrats knew that McCarthy was running a political risk when he did that. Certainly I had a number of “Oh, don't worry, Tom, if he does it, we've got your back.” Well, you know, we saw how reliable that was.

What do you think the right number is for the motion to vacate? 

You know, I haven't gotten down to everything but — substantial.

Double digits?

Yes. Frankly, I think you should have a majority of your own caucus that wants to do this. We had eight people that put ourselves at the mercy of the Democratic minority leader — and there wasn't any mercy in that case. And quite frankly, they had no alternative candidate. They had no exit strategy. It was just, “I'm mad and I have the ability to do it.”

Every caucus can have a few of those members. You should never be in such a weak position structurally, process-wise, rules-wise, that a group that small can do something as significant as bringing down a speaker.

One of the consequences of that process-wise, rules-wise, was that the Rules Committee, which you chaired until very recently, was stacked with some of the more “exotic” members who don't always do the will of leadership. It used to be known as “the Speaker’s Committee” and that hasn’t always been the case in this Congress.

No, I think this is very different. Frankly, none of those members were involved in any effort to overturn the speaker.

Right. But they were sort of a few clicks to the left of that. 

The reality is, this was McCarthy's idea. It is, “If I'm going to have a problem, I want to see it in the Rules committee, not on the floor.”

And we've never had a problem in passing a rule. We never lost in committee.

But you lost—

On the floor.

Six rules since June—

Seven from January of last year.

That's a conference problem, not a Rules Committee problem. Because we didn't lose them. We're not responsible once it goes out the door. Our deal is to produce the rule that our leadership asked us to.

Sure but that doesn't include all the rules that you didn't even put forward in the committee presumably because you didn’t think they’d pass. 

That's not true. There's no rule that we ever seriously considered that we couldn't get out of committee.

Is there a moment when the tradition of members of the majority not voting against a rule, when the dam broke and you saw that this is going to be a thing going forward? 

First time it happened. You know, the rule is a tool for the majority, any majority, either side to shape the legislation in a way that it thinks maximizes its chance to pass. That's what the rule is for. What happened here is people decided they would start using it as a weapon against others, and they thought they could be the only ones. Well, the minute somebody starts to do it, other people think — “Oh, okay, you get to do it. I get to do it.”

What enforced this previously that doesn't work anymore? 

I think people aren't willing to play for the norms. Go back to the very beginning. Why would 21 people think that they should decide that 86 percent of their conference [doesn’t get to choose McCarthy for speaker]? So this is not something that starts in Rules or whatever. This is something that's been with us for a while.

Is it generational? Is it ideological? 

I go back to Boehner. People used this as a weapon against Boehner. They used it as a weapon against Ryan or the threat of it. We just finally saw the dam break. And part of this is, I think, these are comparatively newer members in many cases, not always, that use it. And I would argue it's a lack of respect for the institution and the wisdom of the institution. These things have evolved over not decades, but centuries. This is a 234-year-old institution. Nobody lost a rule in 20 years. And does anybody think the people that have used it are people that, frankly, are going to likely ever be elected leadership. So it's, you know, you’ve got to grow up.

I want to challenge that a little bit because you endorsed Jim Jordan for speaker. And Jordan, like a lot of members when they first came in, was on the wing of the party that was willing to violate some of these norms. And by last year, he’d become a card-carrying member of the establishment being endorsed by Tom Cole. 

Well, I'm happy to endorse Jim.

So could you see the Marjorie Taylor Greenes and Matt Gaetzes of the world taking that path? 

Look, John Boehner and I didn’t agree. Do you think I voted for John Boehner the first time that he was running for speaker in conference when he had basically made my life miserable at the NRCC and had endorsed Pete Sessions against me? No. But I would have never dreamed of going to the floor and voting against it once the conference had made its decision. And that's just the way the game is played.

You gave a nominating speech for Jim Jordan though. 

Yeah, I'm chair of the Rules Committee. He was our nominee. He was our candidate for speaker.

I'm only bringing it up to show that some of the most out there, far-right guys move into the establishment over time. 

Again, I think Jim Jordan has been a very effective chair of Judiciary. If you don't think he has some bipartisan skills, he's up there with Nadler arguing for their version of FISA. When he's been given responsible positions first on Oversight and Judiciary, I would argue he's occupied them responsibly and he's played within the rules.

And he was the nominee of my party. He won the vote. So why would I not support the nominee in my party, particularly if you're on the Rules committee? For God's sake. That's why I support, obviously, what we're doing on this foreign policy thing. Somebody asked me, “Would you sign a discharge petition?” Never. It's not what anybody on Rules, let alone a Rules chair should do. I wouldn't do it now. I'm not in the business of taking away authority from the majority that I'm part of and handing it over to the minority for any reason, at any time. You're not supposed to do that.

During the speaker’s battle from last year, your name was floated quite a bit when they were trying to pick a successor.

It shows you how desperate the situation was. Never going to happen.

You never considered it?

Nope.

There were no House of Cards moments where you thought, “You know what? I could be running this place.”

Well, anybody that wanted to be running this place should probably have had a psychiatric examination at the moment. But no, I mean, I know where I want to go, and I know what I want to do. And speaker is not it.

That's a good segue way to talk about being chair of the Appropriations Committee, which I think is where you wanted to be. Right? 

Absolutely. 

Let's talk about some of the issues that you're going to have to grapple with on this committee. First, let's talk about earmarks. There's two sides of this debate historically. One is that earmarks are sort of the lubricant that helps legislation get through Congress in a positive way — they allow a little bit of horse trading. The flip side is it's gotten out of hand at certain points and it's led to corruption. 

People have gone to jail. I think that's a pretty good indication that there needed to be some guardrails put on.

So what's your view on earmarks? 

First of all, I look at them less as something to get legislation passed and more as something where members can tangibly do something they think is important in their district. And I think they're an appropriate tool. There's a lot of misunderstanding about them. They don't add to the deficit because we set the topline before; we know what we're spending up to. Now, I'm not a big fan of using them as either carrots or sticks. Nobody should vote yes on a bill they would otherwise oppose because they got a bridge.

But as a student of history, don't you think earmarks have sort of helped unlock some significant legislation in history?

If you can solve a problem for a member and it's legitimate? Sure. You can save billions by spending millions sometimes. People actually vote to cut spending to get an earmark sometimes, because that particular problem is more important to them.

So it's how you use the tool. I think we've set up some really good guidelines, Democrats and Republicans alike. I think because we went a decade without them, people are being very careful about minding their Ps & Qs, and we've put more transparency on it.

I want to talk about one of the unique aspects of your website, which is that you're always posting what you're reading. And I want to talk about some of your recent books. I think the most recent one on there is Garrett Graff's book UFO. 

And so, I was talking to Garrett today and asked him, you know, what's a good question for Cole, who's a historian, a student of history. 

One of Garrett's clear arguments in that book is that the government is definitely covering up what it knows, but he assumes probably what it knows isn't that interesting. But, why do you think the government covers up what it knows about UFOs? 

Because I think in this case, we don't know very much and we don't want people to realize we know that little. We can't tell people that we can explain every kind of aerial phenomenon that they see.

But I thought the book showed both the benefits and limitations of what government can do in answering a very challenging question.

It also shows me how suspicious people are. They always think the government knows something that it probably doesn't know and might not even be capable of knowing. But everybody wants to think there's always some big secret. There's always some vast conspiracy. And I can tell you as an old, old historian, coincidence is a lot more common in history than conspiracy.

The other book you recommended recently is Jeffrey Frank’s The Trials of Harry Truman, which I think you called the single best account of the Truman presidency. 

In my view. And that includes even the McCullough biography. I thought it was a great book and so wonderfully researched.

His question is about the limits and restraints on presidential power. He brought up the example of when Truman tried to seize the steel mills and the Supreme Court came back and said, “No, you can't do that,” and wrote that the purpose of the Constitution was not only to grant power, but to keep it from getting out of hand. You know that history. 

And Jeff wondered, how do you react to Trump's threat to assume dictatorial powers, even for a day, if he gets elected?

I think that's hyperbole. First of all, you have to look at the way Trump speaks, and I don't see anything he said in that case, as much different than what Joe Biden did on his first day.

You know, [Biden] decided we're going to stop the Keystone pipeline. He had the ability to do it because it crosses an international border. He wouldn't have been able to do something if he was running from Cushing to Houston inside the United States. But he had that power. You know, he reversed a lot of powers by executive order that Trump had assumed. He didn’t come talk to Congress about it. I mean, clearly, his campaign or transition had developed some sort of list, “these are the things we're going to do.”

I think that's all Trump's talking about. I don't see this as dictatorial power on day one. I see it as an aggressive use of what's already been established, as executive authority, which as a member of Congress, I don't like a lot of times.

This is a similar question from Michael Beschloss, who wrote Presidents of War. He talks about how the message of that book is that the Constitution gives any president potentially enormous unchecked power. This is his question: “As a lover of democracy, who knows history, do you feel any trepidation about putting this enormous power in the hands of Donald Trump?”

No more than I would any other individual. Remember the scene in the Lincoln movie that's based on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, where he rises up and he wants something done? The 13th Amendment’s something I think we all agree with. And he’s talking to a group of lobbyists and advisers and he goes, “I'm the president of the United States, cloaked in enormous power. This will get done.” So there is enormous power there.

But there are also really strong checks and balances. And there's also a very strong tradition in American history of federalism. Again, I am not as worried as his political opponents are. Now, I think what people do worry about with Trump is, I will tell you this, having dealt with him over a term, not directly. I'm not one of these guys that gets on the phone every day to try to call the president to tell him what to do. One of my rules in politics is never give unsolicited advice. It never turns out well. So I don't call presidents telling them things. But I've seen this from close enough up that if he tells you he's going to try and do something, he's going to try and do it. He will push to the limits of his authority.

Now he's transactional and he's practical, and he knows there are limits to his authority. So no, don't put me in that group to say that I think democracy's at risk. If the guy is president for four years, the judgments may be right or wrong and that's fair game. But I think the constitutional order in the country is very, very strong.

You also had Tim Snyder's On Tyranny on your list. That book has become almost a Bible to people on the left who are deeply concerned about Trump. Is there anything —

Well, people were deeply concerned about FDR and a lot of people argue —

No, that's fair. That's why I'm asking you, because you study this stuff and you study some of the same works. And some of these same writers take very different lessons from this history than you do —

No and that’s fair.

That's why I'm asking you. Is there anything from that book or this general kind of collection?

Let's just talk about who’s abused power in American history. Look, I'm Chickasaw Indian. My great-great-grandfather got moved 800 miles by a Democratic president named Andrew Jackson, and so did thousands of my people.

And Trump put his portrait in the Oval Office.

I know and I was not happy about it and let him know.

How did he react?

I think somebody just told him he was an anti-establishment president. By the way, Democrats had Jackson… What was it?

Jefferson-Jackson dinners.

Yeah, Jefferson-Jackson. So two slave owners and an anti-Indian president. Two anti-Indian presidents, to be fair. But so that's an enormous abuse of power. FDR interning 120,000 Japanese Americans — it was something certainly George W. Bush never thought about doing with Muslims or something [after 9/11]. Quite the opposite. He was going to a mosque and said “We need to not overreact.”

Although I’ve got to point out that Trump tried to institute a Muslim ban.

Look at what he did, what he said and which countries, and it's much different than described. So, again, I don't want to get in here defending or whatever. But all I'm saying is, this idea that somehow this has not happened in American history before, that we have not had far worse abuses — I mean, Indian removal is a far worse abuse than anything Donald Trump ever did or contemplated doing, in my view.

I think all these historians would agree with you there.

120,000 American citizens for the most part, put in not concentration camps, but turned forcibly out of their home, losing their property. Those are people, in both cases, that Democrats historically have really celebrated. They think these are really wonderful people.

Power abuse isn't the province of any one party. Right now it's used as a weapon politically and that's unfortunate. We want to talk about lessons of history, that's fine. But again, I view this as serious. It's worth talking about. But do I think the constitutional order is in that kind of danger? No, I don't. I worry right now more about the polarization inside the country than I do about the abuses of any particular politician.

We have a tradition on this show where the last question I ask is actually something proposed by our previous guest. This question comes from Michael Cohen.

Ah!

Yes. That Michael Cohen. And then once you answer this, you can come up with a question for our next guest, and you don't know who it's going to be.

Here's Michael Cohen's question: “Why do you think that Merrick Garland failed to move the January 6th case more expeditiously, so as to ensure that the case would not interfere with the unwritten rule of the DOJ not having anything active 90 days before an election?”

I wouldn't suggest a conspiracy, I don't know. I actually never dealt with him directly, but I was pretty heavily involved in the Oklahoma City bombing [recovery]. He did the prosecution.

Oh, so you know him from that?

I wouldn't say I know him, but obviously I was following it pretty closely. I was literally the guy appointed by Frank Keating to be the liaison with the federal government. I wasn't dealing with justice matters. We were dealing with reconstruction. Obviously, we interacted with the FBI a lot as they were looking early on. We knew who it was pretty quickly. They did a good job.

But I would say this: I think one of the reasons why I think the second impeachment was inappropriate is we're impeaching a guy when he was already out of office, and already removed. He couldn't possibly do the trial. And by the way, we stripped all the normal protections that any president in any impeachment would get so they could rush fast through it, because they'd already made up their mind about what the appropriate outcome was.

I thought at the time that if he committed a crime, the appropriate thing was to charge him with a crime and proceed that way in the courts. That wasn't done for a long time. And so, again, without casting aspersions on anybody, there's enough out there to ask, “Why did you wait so long? Was it because you thought he was politically dead in that time frame? But now you see, he's not and so we're going to use the Justice Department. And why is Trump charged on a documents case while Biden is not?” It looks like you have a double standard at the Justice Department. And if you don't think millions of people believe that, then you're not paying much attention. I have questions about some of these things that I would have never dreamed I would have had ten years ago, five years ago. But I do now.

All right, final thing. Give us a question for next week’s quest.

You know, the most interesting question to me that I ask almost every politician is, “What got you in the business?”

I didn't start my life wanting to be a politician. I'm always fascinated by the ones who do. But most of them didn’t. Most of them stumbled into this in other ways. So, what crossroads did you reach that you decided political life, whether it's elected or staff or whatever it was the way you were going to go when there are so many other attractive alternatives. And then what kept you doing it?

I like that. That's a good one. I thought you were going to ask what their favorite cigar is, but that might not apply to as many…

I know.

What do you smoke these days?

My favorite cigar’s always free. But after that, my go to is an Ashton or Montecristo Number Two. I love both those cigars.

Is that what that is? [Points to a chest on the table]

Yeah. There's actually always a mixture. I'm a big believer in open humidors and open bars because they bring people together. I used to tell this to Boehner. I said, “Quit the cigarette stuff. That's an addiction.” I mean, you're sitting *makes sucking noises* for three minutes or something.

With a cigar, you're going to sit down for 30 to 45 minutes, and if you're doing it with somebody, you're going to talk, you're going to have a relationship. You're going to find something in common with one another. It's a lovely way to build a relationship and to socialize with people in a way that the cigarette generally isn't. You never see a 15-year-old kid standing outside a building with a $20 premium cigar, sucking it up. They don't do that. This is an adult product that leads to adult conversations and can quite often lead to some really interesting relationships and, frankly, good relationships between people that don't often get along.

One of the worst things Pelosi ever did, and I know she did it for health reasons… You guys won’t like this, but…

I know where this is going. 

… When you quit smoking in the Speaker's Lobby and when you let in the press, you just destroy one of the places where bipartisan relationships are built. That's how I got to know Barney Frank. That's how I got to know Jesse Jackson Jr. when he was up here. Sit down, have a cigar, build a relationship. They were smoking cigarettes and in Frank's case I don't think he was ever a big cigar guy, but Jesse was.

There's got to be some spaces where people can get together. We used to do this in the Rules office — one of the best smoking venues in the Capitol. But you'd get members from different generations there. I mean, Hal Rogers is there all the way to freshmen. There are different committees and most people live their life within their committee. I don't know what the hell's going on over in Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce until they produce a product and head it toward the floor. But it's really interesting when you sit down and hear, “This is what we're doing in Science, and this is what we're doing in Ag. This is why we have ag crop insurance or whatever.”

If you're not in those committees, you don't know. Over a cigar people talk about their work. Even their questions are interesting. Their observations are interesting. It's an enjoyable thing, but it's also a great way to learn information, build relationships and frankly in some ways, educate people because most people learn politics by listening to stories. They're not reading political science books for God's sake. They talk to real politicians and they hear real stories and that’s interesting.

“Bring back cigar diplomacy.” That’s the headline here.

I’ll tell you what, the world was a better place, I’m sure.

Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.