‘We Caught Them’ — Speaker Johnson Goes Public, Exposes ‘Poison Pill’ Dems Tried To Sneak In
Speaker Johnson Exposes ‘Poison Pill’ Dems Tried to Sneak Into Bill
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told Newsmax on Monday that once the government shutdown ends, House Republicans are readying ideas to tackle rising healthcare costs.
The House on Sept. 19 passed a clean continuing resolution 217-212 that would fund the federal government through Nov. 21, but the measure quickly stalled in the Senate amid a broader fight over Affordable Care Act subsidies.
The pandemic-era subsidies, which were created by Democrats, are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, the outlet reported.
During an appearance on “The Record with Greta Van Susteren,” Speaker Mike Johnson declined to specify when the House might consider a bipartisan Senate proposal to fund the federal government through January 30.
The Senate advanced the measure Sunday night by clearing a key procedural hurdle, though a final vote is still expected to take place in the coming days.
Johnson noted that House Republicans had included provisions to address rising healthcare costs in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but said Democrats ultimately removed them during negotiations
“The problem is that we are subsidizing very wealthy insurance companies,” Johnson said. “That is not helping costs go down. It’s driving premiums up even higher. So, Republicans want to fix the broken system.
“We don’t want to throw good money at a broken and failing system. And the Affordable Care Act has been that since it was signed into law, passed by the Democrats alone back in 2010,” the Louisiana Republican added.
“We’ve got to reduce the cost of healthcare and the cost of living, and Republicans are the ones that have the ideas to do that,” he said.
Johnson stated that the OBBB included a provision which, according to him, would have decreased healthcare premiums by 12.7%.
“But the Democrats fought to take it out of the bill,” he said. “So, if they cared so much about healthcare costs, they shouldn’t be fighting provisions like that.
“We’re putting together some ideas that will drive the premiums down because healthcare is too expensive in this country. It’s too expensive because the Democrats built a system that doesn’t work. So, we need to look at the root causes of the costs that have skyrocketed and address that for the people,” Johnson told Van Sustren.
“Merely subsidizing something is not the is not the answer. When the government subsidizes something, it almost always means it’s not working. And that’s the problem,” he said.
With the subsidies set to expire on Dec. 31, Johnson said, “it’s an urgent matter for us, and it has been, which is why we put it into the bill that we passed in the early summer. And the Democrats fought to take it out.”
“So, we’re reintroducing some of these ideas,” he said. “There’s a lot of ideas on how to drive the cost down, and we have November and December to work on that.
“We’re going to have to get a bipartisan consensus on some of this. And so, we’ll be presenting our ideas and putting them on the table,” he continued.
“The Democrats, this is very important to point out, they don’t have any reform ideas at all. Their argument is they want a completely unreformed continuation. They would do it permanently, most of them on government just subsidizing the insurance companies. And that is not the solution,” he said.
“We’re going to be educating the population, and along the way, as we do this, come up with reforms that will actually solve the problem and not make it worse.”
Johnson, in a separate interview with Fox News, urged GOP members of the House to return to Washington before an expected vote on a measure to reopen the government on Wednesday.
“We’re going to plan on voting, on being here, at least by Wednesday,” Johnson said. “It is possible that things could shift a little bit later in the week, but right now we think we’re on track for a vote on Wednesday. So we need you here.”
Clarence Thomas Blasts Supreme Court For Refusing Florida Case
Florida argued the two states were undermining public safety by allowing individuals without legal immigration status — and, in some cases, insufficient English-language proficiency — to obtain commercial trucking licenses despite federal standards intended to govern interstate transportation safety.
The dispute gained national attention after a deadly 2025 crash on the Florida Turnpike involving an undocumented truck driver reportedly licensed through California or Washington.
According to the lawsuit, the driver allegedly made an illegal U-turn and was unable to properly interpret roadway signage, resulting in a collision that killed three people.
Joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Thomas argued the high court had a constitutional obligation to hear the interstate dispute because Florida had no other legal forum available to challenge another state’s policies.
The court’s majority denied Florida’s request without explanation.
The case underscores the growing national clash over immigration enforcement, state licensing authority, and whether states with looser immigration policies are creating broader public safety consequences for the rest of the country.
Thomas ripped the majority for refusing to hear the lawsuit since disputes between states can only be brought before the Supreme Court.
“If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that Florida’s allegations against California and Washington raised serious public safety concerns, warning that failures to properly follow federal commercial driver licensing (CDL) laws can create dangerous conditions on American roadways.
Thomas pointed to the fatal Florida highway crash involving truck driver Harjinder Singh, who he said “could not read the road signs,” and argued Florida deserved a chance to pursue its claims.
Two blue states – California and Washington – issued Singh a CDL.
“An illegal alien who cannot read English road signs cannot drive an 80,000-pound tractor-trailer,” Thomas wrote.
“Federal law and regulations prohibit States from providing commercial driver’s licenses to applicants unless they pass a driver’s test, sufficiently understand the English language, and show appropriate immigration status,” he added.
Thomas argued that while the Supreme Court of the United States may have broad discretion when deciding whether to hear ordinary appeals, disputes between states occupy a different category because the Constitution grants the high court exclusive jurisdiction over those cases.
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given,” Thomas wrote.
He also accused the court of failing to follow the Constitution by refusing to hear disputes between states.
“This Court has adopted a discretionary approach to its exclusive original jurisdiction based on policy judgments that are in conflict with the policy choices that Congress made in the statutory text,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas argued that if Florida, California, and Washington were separate sovereign nations rather than American states, a dispute involving one government allegedly allowing unsafe drivers into another jurisdiction could trigger major diplomatic conflict.
Thomas suggested that in an international context, such disputes would likely be addressed through international courts, treaties, or direct government action.
“By entering the Union, States agree to instead have such disputes resolved by this Court,” he wrote.
The issuance of commercial driver’s licenses to non-citizens came under increased scrutiny from the Department of Transportation last summer following a series of deadly crashes involving undocumented immigrant truck drivers.
Last September, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced stricter federal requirements for non-citizens seeking commercial driver’s licenses, part of a broader push by the Trump administration to tighten transportation and immigration enforcement standards, Fox News reported.
Duffy also warned that California could risk losing federal transportation funding if the state continued allowing commercial licenses to remain active for individuals deemed ineligible under revised federal guidelines.
