logo
House GOP leadership discussing new ways to limit classified information on Capitol Hill

House GOP leadership discussing new ways to limit classified information on Capitol Hill

Yahoo29-06-2025
House Republican leadership is actively discussing new ways to restrict the classified information that all lawmakers can receive, after the White House indicated it will limit intelligence sharing with Congress going forward.
Democrats are warning that would threaten their ability to do their jobs, and some Republicans also say they would be against further restrictions.
The conversations happening at the House leadership level have so far revolved around who should be allowed to access the most sensitive information, lawmakers involved in the discussions told CNN.
The Trump administration is planning to limit what it shares with Congress, a senior White House official told CNN on Wednesday. That comes after CNN reported that, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it, the US military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months.
'We're looking into that,' House Speaker Mike Johnson told CNN, when asked what ways he is looking to limit classified information coming to Congress in the future. 'It's a real problem.'
Johnson did not rule out eliminating classified briefings for the entire House, which House and Senate lawmakers received last week on Iran, as a potential option.
'It probably affects what we are able to be told because there are real risks to that. So, it's unfortunate. It effects how the institution works, and that's a problem so we got to address it,' Johnson said.
House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green confirmed to CNN that 'there's a debate' among House GOP leadership over how to institute new restrictions.
Green said some of the ideas include restricting classified information to just key committee chairman and the 'Gang of Eight,' which is made up of the congressional leaders from each party and the top Republican and Democrat on the House and Senate intelligence committees.
House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford told CNN on Thursday he is already taking 'proactive steps' to manage classified information on Capitol Hill, without divulging specifics.
In response to restrictions under consideration, one Republican lawmaker who does not serve on the Intelligence Committee and whom CNN granted anonymity to speak freely said, 'I would personally resist loudly if my access was limited.'
There are limits to what Republicans can do to implement new stipulations on classified information sharing. US law requires the intelligence community 'keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.'
The potential to limit the sharing of classified information will most likely impact rank-and-file lawmakers who don't sit on relevant committees of jurisdiction, setting up a situation where the majority of Congress would potentially be left in the dark on key matters of national security unless they were explicitly told.
The White House on Thursday declined to say how it would be limiting the classified information it shares with Congress or how it would respond to lawmakers who maintain their oversight duties necessitate access to the information.
'This administration wants to ensure that classified intelligence is not ending up in irresponsible hands, and that people who have the privilege of viewing this top-secret classified information are being responsible with it,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at a briefing.
'And unfortunately, clearly, someone who had their hands on this — and it was a very few people, very few number of people in our government who saw this report … that person was irresponsible with it,' Leavitt added, referring to the early Defense Intelligence Agency assessment.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe has said that 'a body of credible intelligence' indicated Iran's nuclear program was 'severely damaged' by the US strikes and that 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.'
While it was not clear whether Ratcliffe was offering an official agency assessment or his view of the intelligence, it's not unusual for intelligence agencies to disagree when making a judgment call about how to interpret raw reporting.
The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran's nuclear ambitions is also ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available.
While Democrats have condemned the leak, they have warned Republicans against taking any steps to restrict classified information.
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes, said in a statement to CNN that it is 'unacceptable for the administration to use unsubstantiated speculation about the source of a leak to justify cutting off Congress from classified intelligence reporting, particularly when over a million people within the Executive Branch have clearance to access classified top-secret reporting.'
Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said intelligence is already limited on Capitol Hill and restricting it further could inhibit lawmakers from being able to do their jobs.
'If you don't have information then you are moving against a democratic process and you're constraining government. Government is not operable if you don't have the information you need to vote,' she told CNN.
The active discussion has forced Republican lawmakers to confront the precedent they want to set going forward and how comfortable they are with the possibility of taking themselves out of the information sharing equation under a Democratic presidency in the future.
GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN 'of course' he is worried about the precedent being set if classified information is further restricted to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but added, 'I worry about leaks too.'
For members who don't sit on the key intelligence committees, like GOP Rep. David Valadao, there is a concern over what it would mean to be in the dark.
'The thing that we deal with in Congress is we never know what we don't know,' Valadao told CNN.
GOP Rep. French Hill, another House Intelligence Committee member, told CNN he would prefer that Johnson and his team focus on enforcing the current restrictions around intelligence sharing, rather than creating new ones.
'We have significant rules now,' Hill said.
The discussion over restricting access to information sharing has also created opportunities for Democrats to argue that the details the Trump administration has shared about the US strikes on Iran are being politicized and cannot necessarily be trusted.
That dynamic was on full display on Thursday when Senate Republicans and Democrats emerged from an hourlong administration briefing on the US strikes with conflicting accounts of what the briefers said.
A significant number of Republicans, however, say restricting the access lawmakers have to classified information is a good thing because they argue many cannot be trusted.
House Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest, who supports limiting classified information to just key party leadership and intelligence committee leaders, said, 'I believe there's a lot of the information, as far as rank-and-file members, that when we receive it, it very quickly finds a way to leak its way out into the public.'
'I wouldn't tell any member of Congress anything classified if you didn't want people to know,' GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales, who spent 20 years serving in the military, told CNN. 'The really sensitive stuff, there's no need to know. All of the other details, it comes out so fast.'
Fitzpatrick shared that briefers have come before the House Intelligence Committee and shared they are afraid to be fully honest because they don't trust Congress' ability to protect classified information.
'That's a problem,' Fitzpatrick added.
Rather than cutting all members off from classified information, GOP Rep. Austin Scott, another member of the House Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers should go through a background check to understand the gravity of the material they would be seeing.
'The fact that by virtue of being elected to Congress you get to see classified and hear classified information, I think those days have long passed,' Scott told CNN.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Howard Lutnick Steps in After Trump Appears Clueless on Latest Tariff Drama
Howard Lutnick Steps in After Trump Appears Clueless on Latest Tariff Drama

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Howard Lutnick Steps in After Trump Appears Clueless on Latest Tariff Drama

President Donald Trump's commerce secretary had to step in after he appeared lost on the latest development in his sprawling trade war. Speaking to reporters in New Jersey on Sunday, Trump announced that the administration would be sending out about a dozen letters throughout the week warning other countries that tariffs will be reinstated if they don't close a trade deal soon. Treasury Scott Bessent said earlier in the day that the tariffs would come back into effect on Aug. 1, effectively extending the original July 9 deadline. When a reporter asked Trump when the tariff rates would change—if at all—the president didn't seem to have a clue. 'What are you talking about?' he said, prompting the reporter to repeat herself. 'They're going to be tariffs. The tariffs are going to be the tariffs. I think we'll have most countries done by July 9, either a letter or a deal.' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick then swooped in to clarify: 'Tariffs go into effect Aug. 1, but the president is setting the rates and the deals right now.' The administration's 90-day pause on its tariff rollout is set to expire on Wednesday, meaning that countries may soon face levies of 10 to 70 percent, as announced in April. Bessent told CNN's State of the Union, however, that it remains to be seen what happens next. 'President Trump is going to be sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on Aug. 1st, you will be boomerang back to your April 2nd tariff level,' he said. 'I think we're gonna see a lot of deals very quickly.' The announcement postpones the original July 9 deadline, but Bessent refused to call it an extension. 'It's not a new deadline,' he argued. 'We are saying this is when it's happening. If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to go back to the old rate, that's your choice.' Asked whether the administration was expecting to sign any deals this week, Lutnick played it vague. 'Well, the president is right in the midst of discussing all sorts of deals with all sorts of countries,' he said. 'And I'm going to be with him when he makes that decision.' The first batch of letters is set to go out at noon Eastern Time on Monday, Trump said in a Truth Social post. The president also issued a veiled threat against any country that cozies up to BRICS, a group of countries composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. 'Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy,' Trump wrote, without offering any further details. The on-again, off-again tariff rollout has earned the president a moniker among Wall Street brokers: TACO, which stands for Trump Always Chickens Out. The nickname angered Trump, who countered that 'it's called negotiation.' But an unnamed White House insider told Politico that the tariff chaos is all just part of a show. 'Trump knows the most interesting part of his presidency is the tariff conversation,' the insider said. 'It's all fake. There's no deadline. It's a self-imposed landmark in this theatrical show, and that's where we are.'

To new and struggling teachers: Don't give up. America's kids need you.
To new and struggling teachers: Don't give up. America's kids need you.

USA Today

time34 minutes ago

  • USA Today

To new and struggling teachers: Don't give up. America's kids need you.

If I could talk to my younger self, I'd tell him about the thousands of students who were going to need him by the time they reached high school ‒ and why I'm glad I stayed. I began teaching in the midst of crisis ‒ a crack epidemic, gang violence, racial strife and police conduct that led to civil unrest. Now, at the close of my 34th year in the classroom, I find that my students, my colleagues and me in crisis again ‒ kids and their families in fear for their freedom as a president, unrestrained by Congress or the Supreme Court, wages war on immigration, much of it on the streets of our Los Angeles, against the Latino community. Those who don't get abducted on the streets by masked immigration agents still face an uncertain future with the recent Supreme Court decision not to reject President Donald Trump's executive order revoking automatic birthright citizenship for all. Trump's order is not retroactive ‒ not for now ‒ but the cruelties we have seen on our streets make it difficult to believe that anything is off the table. I keep asking myself ‒ as do so many educators and other Americans ‒ how things got to this point? A dysfunctional nation, a dysfunctional education system It is a complicated question with complicated answers, but for much of my teaching career, I have worried about the way our schools treat kids: Demanding compliance over excellence. I am afraid that we have raised too many Americans willing to vote for and bend to authoritarian-leaning leaders. And now here we are, with a president virulently expanding his power, coercing and silencing opposition, and militarizing the streets of our city. Much other dysfunction also persists in our education system, and it hurts our kids as much as ever. Politics, profiteering, narrow mindedness and laziness are a big part of the collective incompetence that many of us struggle against every day in classrooms across this country. We ought to keep demanding ‒ or pleading for ‒ systemic change and a greater investment of money and imagination in our schools, even at a time when the federal government seems intent on dismantling public education. For years now, I have been critiquing and complaining, here at USA TODAY and elsewhere, about the systemic rot in our public schools. Whatever the small impact of my words, I know that I've accomplished far more through the work of teaching and through the help I've been able to give new and struggling teachers. Opinion: LA isn't burning. ICE has terrorized many into an ominous silence. For the sake of the next generation of kids, we cannot wait for systemic change. For the sake of those kids, we have to find ways to be the effective and inspiring teachers our kids need and deserve. We have to keep pushing for change in the governance and priorities of our schools; change in the way that teachers are prepared, supported and compensated; and, in the meantime, rise as much as possible above everything that undermines us, that makes our job sometimes seem impossible, and that discourages so many young, idealistic, passionate educators. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. To frustrated new teachers, I was once like you Many new teachers don't last five years, and in many places it is not uncommon for demoralized new teachers to quit midsemester or even midday. I don't blame those frustrated young educators. I almost didn't make it past my first semester, and now I try to encourage as many struggling teachers as I can to believe in their students and themselves. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Because when you see countless students grow up and some overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. When you hear their words of appreciation for your part in it. When you find yourself teaching multiple branches and generations of once distressed and now flourishing families. When you see students transform from selfishness or misery or self-destructiveness to become productive adults doing their small part to improve their community and the world and help others do the same ‒ then you know it was worth it. The problem is that too many educators are defeated before they can even imagine such successes, and we don't do enough to affirm the small successes that they themselves might not even recognize. If some tech innovator could create a time machine so I could go talk to my younger self as a discouraged new teacher, I would tell that frazzled young educator about the thousands of children who were going to need him by the time they reached high school ‒ and how glad I've been to be there for them, how sad that it won't last forever, and how much I hope to pass on what the students have taught me over the years. An army of dedicated, patient and talented educators may be the only hope for this new generation. In that regard, there is no greater gift to the world than making the sacrifices, braving the indignities, and enduring the uncertainties and failures to become a really good teacher. Which is why I've written "A Lasting Impact in the Classroom and Beyond: Wisdom and Advice for Brave Teachers." I did so on behalf of our kids, now and in the future, and for those courageous souls who want to help them all to find their brilliance, their voices, their idealism and their place in this crazy world. Perhaps they can help to steer us away from the dystopian nightmare we seem to be careening toward. Larry Strauss, a high school English teacher in South Los Angeles since 1992, is also the author of 'Students First and Other Lies: Straight Talk From a Veteran Teacher.' You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

America's historic preservation funding takes a major hit under Trump
America's historic preservation funding takes a major hit under Trump

Fast Company

time38 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

America's historic preservation funding takes a major hit under Trump

President Donald Trump 's proposed fiscal year 2026 discretionary budget is called a 'skinny budget' because it's short on line-by-line details. But historic preservation efforts in the U.S. did get a mention—and they might as well be skinned to the bone. Trump has proposed to slash funding for the federal Historic Preservation Fund to only $11 million, which is $158 million less than the fund's previous reauthorization in 2024. The presidential discretionary budget, however, always heads to Congress for appropriation. And Congress always makes changes. That said, the Trump administration hasn't even released the $188 million that Congress appropriated for the fund for the 2025 fiscal year, essentially impounding the funding stream that Congress created in 1976 for historic preservation activities across the nation. I'm a scholar of historic preservation who's worked to secure historic designations for buildings and entire neighborhoods. I've worked on projects that range from making distressed neighborhoods in St. Louis eligible for historic tax credits to surveying Cold War-era hangars and buildings on seven U.S. Air Force bases. I've seen the ways in which the Historic Preservation Fund helps local communities maintain and rehabilitate their rich architectural history, sparing it from deterioration, the wrecking ball, or the pressures of the private market. A rare, deficit-neutral funding model Most Americans probably don't realize that the task of historic preservation largely falls to individual states and Native American tribes. The National Historic Preservation Act that President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law in 1966 requires states and tribes to handle everything from identifying potential historic sites to reviewing the impact of interstate highway projects on archaeological sites and historic buildings. States and tribes are also responsible for reviewing nominations of sites in the National Register of Historic Places, the nation's official list of properties deemed worthy of preservation. However, many states and tribes didn't have the capacity to adequately tackle the mandates of the 1966 act. So the Historic Preservation Fund was formed a decade later to alleviate these costs by funneling federal resources into these efforts. The fund is actually the product of a conservative, limited-government approach. Created during Gerald Ford's administration, it has a revenue-neutral model, meaning that no tax dollars pay for the program. Instead, it's funded by private lease royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas reserves. Most of these reserves are located in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. Private companies that receive a permit to extract from them must agree to a lease with the federal government. Royalties from their oil and gas sales accrue in federally controlled accounts under the terms of these leases. The Office of Natural Resources Revenue then directs 1.5% of the total royalties to the Historic Preservation Fund. Congress must continually reauthorize the amount of funding reserved for the Historic Preservation Fund, or it goes unfunded. Despite bipartisan support, the fund has been threatened in the past. President Ronald Reagan attempted to do exactly what Trump is doing now by making no request for funding at all in his 1983 budget. Yet the fund has nonetheless been reauthorized six times since its inception, with terms ranging from five to 10 years. The program is a crucial source of funding, particularly in small towns and rural America, where privately raised cultural heritage funds are harder to come by. It provides grants for the preservation of buildings and geographical areas that hold historical, cultural, or spiritual significance in underrepresented communities. And it's even involved in projects tied to the nation's 250th birthday in 2026, such as the rehabilitation of the home in New Jersey where George Washington was stationed during the winter of 1778–79 and the restoration of Rhode Island's Old State House. Filling financial gaps I've witnessed the fund's impact firsthand in small communities across the nation. Edwardsville, Illinois, a suburb of St. Louis, is home to the Leclaire Historic District. In the 1970s, it was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The national designation recognized the historic significance of the district, protecting it against any adverse impacts from federal infrastructure funding. It also made tax credits available to the town. Edwardsville then designated Leclaire a local historic district so that it could legally protect the indelible architectural features of its homes, from original decorative details to the layouts of front porches. Despite the designation, however, there was no clear inventory of the hundreds of houses in the district. A few paid staffers and a volunteer citizen commission not only had to review proposed renovations and demolitions, but they also had to figure out which buildings even contributed to Leclaire's significance and which ones did not—and thus did not need to be tied up in red tape. Edwardsville was able to secure a grant through the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office thanks to a funding match enabled by money disbursed to Illinois via the Historic Preservation Fund. In 2013, my team created an updated inventory of the historic district, making it easier for the local commission to determine which houses should be reviewed carefully and which ones don't need to be reviewed at all. Oil money better than no money The historic preservation field, not surprisingly, has come out strongly against Trump's proposal to defund the Historic Preservation Fund. Nonetheless, there have been debates within the field over the fund's dependence on the fossil fuel industry, which was the trade-off that preservationists made decades ago when they crafted the funding model. In the 1970s, amid the national energy crisis, conservation of existing buildings was seen as a worthy ecological goal, since demolition and new construction required fossil fuels. To preservationists, diverting federal carbon royalties seemed like a power play. But with the effects of climate change becoming impossible to ignore, some preservationists are starting to more openly critique both the ethics and the wisdom of tapping into a pool of money created through the profits of the oil and gas industry. I've recently wondered myself if continued depletion of fossil fuels means that preservationists won't be able to count on the Historic Preservation Fund as a long-term source of funding. That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find a preservationist who thinks that destroying the Historic Preservation Fund would be a good first step in shaping a more visionary policy. For now, Trump's administration has only sown chaos in the field of historic preservation. Already, Ohio has laid off one-third of the staffers in its State Historic Preservation Office due to the impoundment of federal funds. More state preservation offices may follow suit. The National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers predicts that states soon could be unable to perform their federally mandated duties. learning the hard way just what the Historic Preservation Fund does.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store