They are one of the largest recipients of NIH funding. Their scientists played a substantial role in developing over half the cancer drugs approved by the FDA in the last five years. Dana Farber Cancer Institute has been making one advanced cancer discovery after another for over 75 years. To succeed against cancer, you have to be as relentless as cancer. At Dana Farber Cancer Institute, what we do here changes lives everywhere. Find out more at DanaFarber. Com. Org/everywhere.

From New York Times, I'm Michael Waboro. This is The Daily. Today, Against All and expectations, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson keeps managing to fund the government, inflame the far right of his party, and still hold on to his job. Now, as he prepares for his riskiest move to date, I speak with my colleague, Katie Edmondson, about why it may be Democrats who save his speakership. It's Wednesday, March 27.

Katie, I'd like to start with this dramatic scene that played out in the House of Representatives a few days ago. You happened to be in the room for it, so just describe it.

That's right. Well, I was sitting in the press gallery in the House chamber Friday morning, watching for a spending vote to go through. Instead, what caught my attention was Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Green, the far-right lawmaker from Georgia, striding down the center of the aisle on the house floor. She marched up to the house clerk's desk desk, and she put a piece of paper into the hopper, into the basket for legislation that sits on the house clerk's desk. It immediately set off a rumor mail about what that piece of paper potentially could be. Sure enough, minutes later, we learned that she was essentially taking the first step in the process to call a Snap vote to oust Speaker Mike Johnson. Minutes later, Congresswoman Green walks down the house steps where I and a number of other reporters were waiting.

This is a betrayal of the American people. This is a betrayal of Republican voters.

She said, What set this into motion was that Speaker Mike Johnson had just again relied on Democrats to push through a spending bill to keep the government funded.

This bill was basically a dream and a wishlist for Democrats and for the White House. It was completely led by Chuck Schumer, not our Republican speaker of the House.

That many Republicans, in fact, a majority of Republicans in the conference, opposed.

Our country is in crisis, and we need real leaders that know how to fight, that know how to walk in a room, and don't get rolled by the deep state, and don't get rolled by the Democrats, She said that Mike Johnson needed to be put on notice. I am saying the clock has started. It's time for our conference to choose a new speaker.

Do you believe that there are more Republicans to support this?

At which point, those of us watching from home are all thinking to ourselves, Here we go again. We are about to lose another House Speaker to angry far-right House Republicans, who, of course, deposed the last speaker, Kevin McCarthy, in the fall for similar ideological offenses, not being far right enough.

On first glance, it does seem like a case of deja vu, but I actually think that this instance is going to turn out to be very different than the last iteration of this we saw with Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Why would that be, Katie? Why do we think it's not going to be the deja vu that it really looks like?

Well, I think to understand the full arc or the full trajectory of his speakership, we have to rewind back to when he was initially elected speaker. If you remember when he was elected in October, this was seen as a really big victory for the far-right. As a rank-and-file member, Congress Mike Johnson was super conservative, a super evangelical Christian, anti-abortion, anti-spending. Far-right Republicans felt that they had just elected really one of their own to the speakership, someone who was going to bow to their preferences and bring them to the table in a way that they felt Speaker Kevin McCarthy never really did. We got our first test as to how Speaker Johnson was going to manage the far right flank of his conference almost immediately when he had to decide whether he was going to keep the government funded.

Right. This was exactly the same situation that Kevin McCarthy found himself in.

That's right. Look, it was not a foregone conclusion that he would follow in former Speaker Kevin McCarthy's footsteps. I had questions when he was initially elected as to whether he would let parts of the government shut down, whether he would allow a total government shutdown to show the far right that he really was one of them, to show that he was going to put up this fight. And in fact, he did the opposite over and over again over the next five months when he was faced repeatedly with these funding deadlines. Each time he made the calculation, We are not going to let the government shut down. He made the calculation that if he wanted to keep the government funded, he knew with his razor-thin majority, he was going to have to turn to Democrats for votes, and that's what he did.

What you had told us when that was happening was allowances were being made for Johnson from the far right because he was one of them. But the question was, how long could he claim to be one of the far-right when he was repeatedly, in their eyes, betraying them by working with Democrats to get spending bills passed that this far-right group of lawmakers hated?

Yeah, that's right. Congress ended up having to pass all of these short term stop gap spending bills to keep the government funded. They kept kicking the can down the road. That brings us to this vote on Friday on the latest spending bill that he had to push through. It was the final package to make sure the government is funded through this fiscal year. This package included bills to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which obviously has been a huge touch point for them in terms of their dissatisfaction with what's happening at the Southern border. This was always going to be a very politically tricky tranche of packages for negotiators to get through.

What ends up being proposed in this final spending bill to keep the government open?

Well, it ends up looking like an old-school compromise bill, and that no one is entirely happy with it, but that there are wins for both parties to take home and sell to their base. For Democrats, they got $1 billion in new spending for childcare subsidies, for low-income families, for Head Start, early education. For Conservatives, there was a lot of additional money in this bill to beef up security at the Southern border. That was more money for additional border patrol officers, more money for additional detention beds, for immigration enforcement facilities. So on paper, it seems as though this is a bill that at least moderate or more centrist Republicans will be able to get behind. But in fact, what we see on the House floor when this bill is put to a vote is that not only do the far-right Republicans in the conference oppose it, but actually a majority of Speaker Mike Johnson's conference opposes the bill.

And why was that?

Well, I think part of it is simply the top line number. $1.2 trillion was the price tag on this bill. That is just a really big number for lawmakers to wrap their heads around, particularly if you are a conservative member who has been saying for months that you want the Republican speaker to use their gavel to try to reduce federal spending. Got it. In order to pass this bill, Speaker Johnson, again, relies on almost all Democrats, really, to push this through. When the vote is done and tallied, we see that more than half of his conference has, in fact, opposed this bill. They voted it down.

Right. What you have told us in the past, Katie, is an important mathematical equation. When less than half of Republicans vote on something proposed by a Republican speaker, it is basically considered the political equivalent of a cardinal sin.

Yeah, that's right. I mean, the unofficial rule within the House Republican conference is that a Republican speaker is not even supposed to allow a vote on legislation if he knows that less than half of his conference supports it.

So that's how we get to Marjorie Taylor-Green, putting this piece of paper in the hopper, starting this process of attempting to oust Speaker Johnson.

Yeah, that's right.

So we're back to this question of why isn't this likely to be the beginning of the end for Johnson? It certainly looks like he has done the deed that would cost him his job here.

Well, One of the interesting things about this whole situation is that Congresswoman Green has intentionally structured this bill that she filed to essentially leave this threat lingering over Speaker Mike Johnson's head. This is going to be a slow boil. She's not calling for an immediate snap vote. She's going to let it linger and let him squirm a little bit. But the other thing is that it's not clear that the math is on her side. Obviously, after she did this, we immediately went and asked Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy if they were on board for a second go, essentially. A lot of them were very squamish about the idea. It's very unclear whether Marjorie Taylor-Greene even has the support within the Republican conference to oust Mike Johnson. But of course, if you remember, a huge factor in all of this is what Democrats decide to do. When it came to the ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Democrats ultimately decided, Sure, we're going to join in with this motion to oust him. It's not clear that that's the case for Mike Johnson at all. In fact, there have been conversations internally among Democrats for weeks, even before Marjorie Taylor-Greene files this resolution, talking about maybe they should try to save him if someone does try to oust him.

Why would that be? Because it's deeply unintuitive. Democrats trying to save this House speaker. They didn't do it last time. Why would they do it with Johnson?

Well, the first thing to say is that, honestly, a lot of Democrats genuinely and personally despised former Speaker Kevin McCarthy in a way that they don't with Speaker Mike Johnson. Hakeem Jeffrey, the Democratic leader, told us last month that they view Mike Johnson as more of a blank slate. But it goes beyond that. I don't think Democrats would save Mike Johnson for free, so to speak.

And what would be their price?

Well, their price would be for Speaker Mike Johnson to allow aid for Ukraine to come to a vote on the House floor. This is a huge priority for Democrats to make sure that the United States continues to help Kyiv fend off Russian aggression that they are now talking about. If Speaker Johnson were to allow that to come to a vote, if it were to pass, it might be enough for them to cross party lines and vote to save Mike Johnson if a Republican tried to oust him.

We'll be right back.

I'm Carol Rosenberg from the New York Times. Right now, I'm sitting alone in the press room at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. I've probably spent around 2,000 nights at this Navy base. I've been coming here since four months after the 9/11 attacks. I watched the first prisoners arrive in those orange jumpsuits from far away Afghanistan. Some of these prisoners, they still don't have a trial date. It's hard to get here. It's hard to get news from the prison. Often, I'm the only reporter here. If you build a military court in prison out of reach of the American people, it should not be out reach of American journalism. We have a duty to keep coming back and explain what's going on here. The New York Times takes you to difficult and controversial places. It keeps you informed about unpopular and hard to report developments, and that takes resources. You can power that journalism by subscribing to the New York Times.

Katie, you just said that Speaker Johnson might end up being saved by House Democrats because he may push through funding for Ukraine. But my Eric election is that Speaker Johnson has been hugely resistant to passing funding for Ukraine. He's avoided doing it over and over and over again. So help me understand that.

That's right. As a rank and file congressman, he repeatedly voted against sending aid to Ukraine. Within the first few months of his speakership, we saw it was an issue that he just really did not want to touch, that he did not want to bring up aid for a vote, really did not want to talk too much about his thinking on it. But over the past few weeks, we started to see some of his calculations on Ukraine start to change.

In what way?

Well, it's been interesting to watch the tight rope that he's walking here because publicly, initially, he was keeping his statements very vague. He never really wanted to address Ukraine AIDS specifically. But I started to hear in private conversations behind closed doors, he started sounding much more sympathetic to the plight of the Ukrainians, that he started telegraphing a willingness to put some type of aid package for Ukraine on the house floor. I heard from a donor, for example, who attended a fundraiser last month that the speaker attended, in which he gave what sounded like really a rousing monolog about how he is a Reagan Republican. He believes in peace through strength. He believes the United States has a role to play on the global stage when it comes to fending off authoritarians. He said, Putin is a madman and the United States has a role to play, and we're going to do our job. We start hearing that he is making similar comments to lawmakers. This all, I think, comes to a head at the end of last week. He puts out a statement saying, When lawmakers return to Washington from their Easter recess, we are going to consider aid for Ukraine.

What explains why Speaker Johnson would suddenly want to fund Ukraine and kick yet another hornet's nest in the pantheon of things that the far-right does not like?

Well, part of it is that Senate Democrats had already called Speaker Johnson's bluff on this issue. So Starting late last year, he had tried to put off a vote on Ukraine aid in the House by saying that in order to bring up the issue, Democrats first needed to agree to sweeping changes on the border, thinking probably the Democrats would never agree to it. Instead, Senate Democrats went ahead and actually negotiated a deal when Speaker Johnson rejected that package, and Senate Republicans followed his lead and voted it down. Now, when it comes to Ukraine Democrats are looking at Speaker Johnson and saying, Okay, we gave you what you wanted. What's your excuse now for not letting this aid come to a vote? But I also think one of the big things that's changed here for Mike Johnson as speaker is that he is now carrying this very heavy responsibility. He has talked to donors about how shortly after being elected speaker, how he went to the situation room and he received these briefings from the President's cabinets on the situation in Ukraine. He is now meeting with all of these leaders of NATO countries. And so part of the message that he is hearing when he's in these rooms with Biden officials, NATO allies, is do you really want to be the person who is solely responsible for blocking this aid from getting to Kyiv?

That is a really heavy message to internalize.

So What we should understand to have perhaps happened to Speaker Johnson when it comes to Ukraine is a little bit of the journey he seems to have gone on when it comes to these spending bills, which is he has come to terms with the true stakes of his job, of what it means to not just be a far-right member of the House, but the speaker of the entire institution, and as a result, is ready to or seemingly ready to make some pretty big ideological leaps.

Yeah, I think that's exactly right. Essentially, as soon as he became speaker, he was met with these high stakes occasions, the first of which making sure the government did not shut down. Now he is being forced to confront this question of whether to continue sending aid to Ukraine. His decision on that, putting some aid package to a vote, will probably be the most politically risky move he's ever made.

Why is that even riskier than the spending bills, for instance?

The issue of sending aid to Ukraine has become such a toxic issue for Republican voters. It's a deeply emotional issue, to be honest with you, in a way that spending just is not. There's some component of, I think, among Republican voters, a sense of unfairness. Why are we sending this money to another country instead of spending it on our own citizens? That really resonates for people. And Republican lawmakers certainly are acutely aware of this.

But as you've told us, Johnson has made it clear that he will take up this money for Ukraine very soon. So my question is, how does he do that in a way that could possibly get through the House without triggering a vote to oust him? Or if it does trigger a vote to oust him, which perhaps inevitably it would, how does he ensure that Democrats who want this Ukraine funding like this bill enough that they will cross party lines and save him?

Well, there's a whole menu of options being considered, and it's my understanding that the speaker himself has not really circled around any one particular option. What Democrats would love to see him do would be to just put the Senate past aid package on the floor for a vote. But at the same time, that is exactly what Republicans would hate to see him do. We're now in this realm where Speaker Johnson is searching for a path forward that is going to incite the least amount of backlash from his own conference, but also, hopefully, keep Democrats happy enough that they potentially would still vote to save him from an ouster if it came to that.

Katie, it sounds like no matter what this Ukraine funding package ultimately looks like, it's going to need a lot of Democrats Democratic House votes to pass and that these far-right Republicans like Marjorie Taylor-Greene will be furious. This could very well, I have to imagine, be the moment that a lawmaker like her says, That's it. We are done with Mike Johnson. If she succeeds in trying to do that, I know the math is wonky, but if she succeeds, I'm curious how Democrats are going to ultimately make the decision of whether to take the unprecedented step of saving a Republican House speaker.

Well, Well, that would be quite the scenario. I think what it would look like is a long series of probably quite intense discussions among the Democratic caucus where they would have to weigh, do we feel like Mike Johnson was an honest broker here? Did he deliver for Ukraine? And look, Michael, a lot of them have for weeks now, individually, been floating the idea that they would vote to save him if he did the right thing on Ukraine. I would have to think that these promises would also weigh pretty heavily over their calculations because what is the point of trying to get things done in a coalition government if you pull the rug out under the leader at the last moment.

There's a word you just use that feels very important in thinking about this moment, Katie, and it's the word coalition. We tend to think of our government, especially the House, as deeply partisan, Democrat, Republican. But time and again, over the past year, year and a half, what we're seeing, because the chamber is so closely split, is something resembling coalition government in foreign countries, where these occasional cobbled together groups that seem very unexpected get things done. If that were to happen with Ukraine, especially, it starts to feel like we have something resembling a somewhat functioning House of Representatives. Does that feel right?

Yeah, I think so. I mean, you have to remember, again, let's not give them too much credit. This is a very low bar that we're talking about here. We've been calling it a governing coalition, but it's really more of an emergency system to keep everything from going off the rails. This is making sure the government does not shut down and potentially a coalition emerging to continue sending aid to a democracy that is spending off the advances of an authoritarian. That being said, I think you are right to point out that time and time again on these important decisions, the far right has essentially boxed themselves out of discussions because it's become very clear that they will not support anything that really could become law. It is a stark departure from where they started the beginning of the year. I remember when it became very clear that House Republicans were going to have the majority, but that it was going to be a tiny majority. A lot of these Freedom Caucus members crowing about the fact that this was going to force the Republican speaker into going into coalition government with them. It would force the Republican speaker to bow to their preferences, to their whims.

Instead, what we've seen is the opposite. They have pushed the Republican speaker, whether it is Kevin McCarthy or Mike Johnson, into the arms of Democrats. In the process, rendered themselves powerless.

Right. Instead of holding their speaker hostage, instead of holding the entire House hostage and really dictating the terms of these big debates, they've become really less and less relevant.

Yeah, I think the story of this Congress is that when you have a group like the Far-Right Freedom Cau who just says no to everything all the time, then you essentially deal yourself out of the process at key moments. The end result of it has been that everyone else in Congress has decided the only way to move forward is to work around them.

Well, Katie, thank you very much.

We appreciate it.

Thanks, Michael.

We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today.

I'm worried that there is a significant mismatch in this case between the claimed injury and the remedy that's being sought.

During oral arguments on Tuesday, a majority of the Supreme Court's justices appeared to reject an effort by Conservatives to limit access to a widely used abortion pill. The case revolves around a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion doctors and groups who accused the FDA of unlawfully expanding access to mifepristone, which is used in about 60% of abortions. But both conservative and liberal justices, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, questioned whether the small group of doctors challenging the FDA had suffered the type of direct harm that would give them the legal grounds to bring the case in the first place.

They're saying, Because we object to having to be forced to participate in this procedure, we're seeking an order preventing anyone from having access to these drugs at all. I guess I'm just trying to understand how they could possibly be entitled to that, given the that they have alleged.

And authorities are blaming the collapse of a major bridge in Baltimore on a cargo ship that had lost power moments before it collided with the structure. The collapse occurred at around 1:30 AM on Tuesday and sent at least eight construction workers into the water below. Six of them are still missing. The ship's crew had issued a mayday call shortly after losing power, giving officials a chance to stop cars from crossing the bridge and likely preventing an even greater tragedy. Today's episode was produced by Olivia Nat, Ricky Nowetsky, and Jessica Chung. It was edited by MJ Davis Lynn with help from Rachel Quester. Contains original music by Dan Powell, Alicia Baetube, and Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Van Lantferke of Wunderly. That's it for the Daily. I'm Micah Baboro. See you tomorrow. See you tomorrow.

See you tomorrow.