Stefanik accuses Johnson of 'siding with' Democrats in explosive House GOP leadership rift

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., accused House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., of siding with Democrats over Republicans in a heated public statement on Tuesday.

Stefanik, whom Johnson appointed as chairwoman of House GOP leadership earlier this year, claimed Johnson was blocking a provision in the annual defense policy bill that would allow Republicans to get revenge for being targeted in alleged instances of government weaponization.

Johnson called Stefanik's accusations "false" in comments to reporters on Tuesday morning and said he would support such a measure.

It's an explosive rift within the highest ranks of the House Republican Conference while the GOP wrestles with a razor-thin majority in the lower chamber.

MIKE JOHNSON, MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE CLASH IN HEATED PRIVATE GOP CALL OVER SHUTDOWN STRATEGY

The confrontation first began on Monday evening, when Stefanik posted on X, "Republicans have the House, Senate, and the White House, yet the deep state is alive and well with the Speaker getting rolled by House Dems attempting to block my provision to require Congressional disclosure when the FBI opens counterintelligence investigations into presidential and federal candidates seeking office."

She pointed to ex-FBI Director James Comey's 2017 testimony when Stefanik said he "admitted to not following proper notification procedures" when opening the investigation into whether the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

The legislation is all the more important now, Stefanik added, with revelations that ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith seized phone records of some Republican lawmakers without their knowledge during his own probe of President Donald Trump.

Stefanik said she would vote against the annual defense bill, called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), if the provision was not included.

The NDAA is responsible for setting national security and defense policies for the federal government every year. A concurring defense spending bill funds those policies.

Stefanik's threat is particularly notable coming from a member of the House Armed Services Committee, where the NDAA originates.

JOHNSON SAYS HE'S 'OPEN' TO CHANGING HOUSE CENSURE RULES AFTER WEEK OF POLITICAL DRAMA

She followed her post with a similar accusation on Tuesday morning, "I just walked out of a briefing on this issue this morning CONFIRMING everything I posted yesterday."

"That yes, in fact, the Speaker is blocking my provision to root out the illegal weaponization that led to Crossfire Hurricane, Arctic Frost, and more. He is siding with [Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md.] against Trump Republicans to block this provision to protect the deep state," Stefanik continued.

"This is an easy one. This bill is [dead on arrival] unless this provision gets added in as it was passed out of committee," she said.

Johnson suggested he was blindsided by the attacks when asked during his weekly press conference on Tuesday.

"Well, all of that is false. I don't exactly know why Elise won't just call me. I texted her yesterday. She's upset. One of her provisions is not being made, I think, into the NDAA. I explained to her on a text message - as soon as I heard this yesterday, I was campaigning in Tennessee - and I wrote her, and I said, what are you talking about? This hasn't even made it to my level," Johnson said.

"The way regular order works is - and I think she should know this, we'll be talking about it, I'm sure today - the way this works is that, it has to go through committees of jurisdiction if it will be attached to the NDAA. And this provision that she's working on, I think is under the jurisdiction of judiciary."

Johnson said there had to be an agreement between the top Republican and Democrat on the committees of jurisdiction in both the House and Senate for a specific provision to make it into the NDAA.

"Well, in this case - I found out last night, this wasn't even on my radar - that apparently didn't happen," he said.

"It doesn't mean it can't become law or even that that is a final decision. But I sent my friend Elise a text last night and I said, 'Can you find out what the issue was, and I'll help you resolve it?' I support her provision. I mean, I would vote for it. I think it's smart, and I'm not sure exactly why it wasn't included. So I don't know why she's frustrated with me. I literally had nothing to do with it. But I'm happy to roll up my sleeves and help her."