Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) expressed doubts about Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) ability to retain the gavel, stating that he remains undecided on whether he can support Johnson in the upcoming Friday floor vote, despite the endorsement from President-elect Trump.

“I remain undecided, as do a number of my colleagues, because we saw so many of the failures last year that we are concerned about that might limit or inhibit our ability to advance the president’s agenda,” Roy said during an appearance on “Varney & Co.” on Fox Business.

Roy went on to clarify that Johnson does not currently have enough support to secure the position of Speaker.

“Right now, I don’t believe he has the votes on Friday,” Roy said.

Several Republicans, including Reps. Andy Harris (Md.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.), are withholding their support for Johnson, despite Trump’s endorsement. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has signaled he will vote for someone other than Johnson, indicated that Trump’s backing hasn’t changed his stance.

With only one Republican defection allowed in the January 3 Speaker election, assuming all members are present and voting, Johnson’s chances of retaining the gavel are precarious. The House’s incoming 215 Democrats are all expected to vote for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and Republicans are anticipated to have 219 members in attendance that day.

Roy mentioned alternatives to Johnson, including Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

“People say, well, Chip, who would you choose otherwise? Mike’s a friend and maybe he can answer the call and deliver an agenda and a plan. Byron Donalds is a good man and a good friend. I nominated him two years ago. Jim Jordan’s a good man and a good friend. There are other members of leadership in the conference who could do the job,” Roy said.

While Jordan has shown support for Johnson following Trump’s endorsement, and Donalds expressed his support for Johnson in December, Roy remains firm in his concerns about Johnson’s leadership.

Despite respecting Trump’s endorsement of Johnson and considering him a friend, Roy highlighted several actions by Johnson over the past year that have raised alarm, particularly the short-term spending deal that went through multiple iterations before being passed just before Christmas.

“We violated the 72-hour rule twice, which means we didn’t have time to read a bill. We had to have Elon [Musk] and Vivek [Ramaswamy] and the president and JD [Vance] come in to kill a 1,500-page monstrosity, cut it down to 100 pages. It still spent $110 billion unpaid for,” Roy said.

He added that the spending deal before Christmas is indicative of the challenges that lie ahead, emphasizing the need for a change in how the conference organizes to effectively deliver for the American people.

“The failure before Christmas, I cannot overstate, it’s a glimpse to come if we don’t organize the conference to be able to deliver for the American people. We are not going to be able to bend on the things that matter. We must cut spending if you want inflation to go down and for people to afford to live in this country.”

SOURCE: THE HILL

A military appeals court has denied Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s request to overturn plea deals for three 9/11 terrorists, effectively sparing them from the death penalty. The decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal proceedings surrounding one of the most infamous terrorist attacks in U.S. history.

On Monday, a Pentagon appeals court ruled that Defense Secretary Austin overstepped his authority when he revoked a plea deal negotiated by prosecutors with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. According to the New York Times, the ruling sets the stage for a potential guilty plea hearing next week after months of legal wrangling over the plea agreements.

In late July, Mohammed and two other accused 9/11 conspirators reached plea agreements with the Pentagon. Under the terms of the deals, the three men admitted guilt to war crimes in exchange for avoiding the death penalty and receiving life sentences instead. The agreements were met with mixed reactions, including outrage from some families of the victims and Republican lawmakers.

In early August, Secretary Austin intervened, revoking the agreements and prompting a fresh wave of litigation. His decision was seen by some as a response to the backlash, but it also delayed the legal proceedings, further complicating an already prolonged process. By November, a military judge had ruled that the plea agreements remained valid, despite Austin’s actions.

The U.S. Court of Military Commission Review delivered its decision on Tuesday, affirming the validity of the plea agreements. The court stated that Austin lacked the authority to revoke the deals since the defendants had already begun fulfilling their obligations under the agreements. This reasoning, as reported by the New York Times, underscores the procedural limits of the Secretary of Defense’s influence over pretrial agreements.

The ruling effectively restores the plea deals, allowing the proceedings to continue and moving the cases closer to resolution after more than two decades of delays.

The Pentagon now faces critical decisions about how to proceed. Prosecutors could opt to appeal the decision to a higher court, which could prolong the process further. Alternatively, they may move forward with the plea-taking proceedings scheduled for next month.

The Pentagon has yet to issue an official comment on the ruling. Meanwhile, families of the 9/11 victims and legal experts are watching closely to see how the government navigates the next phase of these high-profile cases.

The decision highlights the complexities of seeking justice in one of the most significant terrorist cases in modern history and raises questions about the balance between public sentiment, procedural integrity, and the pursuit of closure for the victims’ families.

SOURCE: NY TIMES

NBC News has reported that President Joe Biden’s public declarations about not pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, may have been part of a deliberate strategy to navigate the political and personal fallout of the situation. According to sources close to the matter, the president had been considering a pardon for Hunter as early as June, despite repeatedly and emphatically denying it.

Following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges in June, President Biden faced mounting questions about whether he would use his presidential pardon powers to shield his son from legal consequences. At the time, Biden’s response was clear and direct: “I will not pardon him.”

This stance was reiterated by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who told reporters as recently as last month that the president’s position had not wavered. “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is ‘no,’” she stated.

However, NBC News now reports that Biden privately discussed the possibility of a pardon with senior aides shortly after Hunter’s conviction. Two sources familiar with the internal conversations revealed that while the president maintained a public stance of non-intervention, the idea of a pardon “remained on the table.”

The report suggests that the public denials were not merely a refusal to answer the question but rather a calculated move. The president and his advisors reportedly decided that maintaining a hardline stance against a pardon was politically advantageous—even if it didn’t reflect the reality of their ongoing deliberations.

For Biden, the decision to publicly reject the idea of a pardon likely served dual purposes. First, it allowed him to distance himself from accusations of favoritism or nepotism at a time when Republicans were increasing scrutiny of his administration’s alleged “two-tier justice system.” Second, it bought time for his team to assess the fallout of such a decision, all while deflecting immediate criticism.

Now, with his term winding down and no re-election campaign to face, Biden has moved forward with the pardon—a choice some critics view as the culmination of a plan to shield his son while minimizing political costs.

The revelation that Biden’s public statements about the pardon were at odds with his private considerations has sparked fresh criticism. Opponents argue that the president’s actions erode public trust, painting him as willing to mislead the American people for personal gain.

“This is a betrayal of the public’s trust,” said one Republican lawmaker. “The president’s words were clear—until they weren’t. This raises questions about what else he may be misleading the country about.”

Supporters, however, argue that Biden’s decision reflects a father’s love and loyalty, underscoring the deeply personal nature of the issue. “This is a man standing by his son during a difficult time,” said one Democratic strategist. “People may not like it, but it’s human.”

With Hunter Biden now pardoned, the president faces the challenge of addressing the broader implications of his decision. For critics, this marks another chapter in what they see as a pattern of political favoritism. For allies, it’s a reminder of the personal challenges leaders face in balancing public duty and family loyalty.

Either way, the revelation that Biden’s public denials were part of a calculated plan is certain to fuel debates about transparency, accountability, and the limits of presidential power in the months to come.

SOURCE: NBC NEWS