House GOP negotiators have not initially defunded Special Counsel Jack Smith in the upcoming Justice Department spending bill, despite plans from several Republican representatives to introduce such amendments.
Fox News reported that the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, which was released on Tuesday, did not include measures to reduce funding for Special Counsel Jack Smith. However, a wave of Republican representatives has expressed their intent to challenge this status quo.
Rep. Andrew Clyde is leading the charge with plans to propose an amendment to block any taxpayer dollars from being used to prosecute a presidential candidate before the 2024 election.
He said he would file this amendment during the full House Appropriations Committee markup for CJS next month. “This measure would impact Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg, and Jack Smith, as they all receive federal funds,” Clyde explained.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is echoing similar sentiments. According to a source close to her, Greene categorized the House GOP's failure to defund Smith in the bill’s base text as a "failure."
She plans to introduce an amendment targeting special counsel funding, in line with the amendment Clyde intends to propose.
Rep. Andy Ogles announced his plans to introduce an amendment aimed at stripping Smith's funding.
These concerted efforts indicate a significant push within the GOP to redirect Justice Department funding.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has thrown his support behind these measures, suggesting it is essential to include language that would eliminate federal funding for state prosecutors or attorneys general involved in certain prosecutions. Additionally, Jordan advocates for zeroing out federal funding for federal prosecutors allegedly engaged in abuses.
There are broader financial reductions at play as well. The current CJS appropriations bill cuts nearly $1 billion from the Justice Department's budget.
A more notable cut affects the FBI, which is seeing an approximate 3.5% reduction in its budget. The bill also halts the financial allocation for constructing a new FBI headquarters in Maryland.
House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized the necessity of a permanent solution for accountability. Johnson noted that oversight and the power of the purse are crucial tools Congress can leverage. He maintained that Congress is responsible for bringing accountability, as stipulated by the Constitution.
“We've got to bring accountability because that's the role of Congress under the Constitution. The question is, what's the best and most effective way to do that? So there's a lot of thoughtful discussion and debate,” Johnson said.
Johnson mentioned that the focus should be on exercising lawmaking authority effectively rather than on messaging. He articulated the complexities of funding issues related to the Department of Justice investigating the president or the president’s family.
“There is a necessity for a function like that because sometimes the Department of Justice — which is an executive branch agency — can’t necessarily, without a conflict of interest, investigate or prosecute the president who’s their boss, or the president’s family,” Johnson noted.
The CJS appropriations bill is currently under review by the House Appropriations Committee. The expectation is that the House will vote on it next month, setting the stage for critical decisions regarding these proposed amendments.
The success of these amendments remains uncertain, particularly as the Democrat-controlled Senate is simultaneously drafting its version of the fiscal year 2025 appropriations bills. This difference in control creates an additional layer of complexity for Republicans pushing for these financial cuts.
As Republican representatives like Clyde, Greene, and Ogles prepare their amendments, the stage is set for a legislative clash over the use of taxpayer dollars in prosecuting presidential candidates.
This effort aligns with broader GOP objectives to cut federal funding for various prosecutorial activities they claim are biased or abusive.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments to defund Special Counsel Jack Smith are part of a larger narrative of budgetary cuts and accountability sought by the GOP.
While these initiatives may face substantial challenges in the legislative process and from a Democrat-controlled Senate, they reflect the ongoing debate on the oversight and financial governance within the Justice Department.
