Republicans vent fury over speaker’s elevation of Scott Perry: ‘There isn't only one group that can threaten them’

Frustration is boiling over among rank-and-file House Republicans with leaders’ practice of trying to mollify critics by bestowing plum posts and other perks.

The latest example: Speaker Mike Johnson’s appointment of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to the prestigious House Intelligence Committee. Given the former Freedom Caucus chair’s tendency to cross his own party leaders — not to mention his role in a federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election — his rise to the panel infuriated colleagues who see it as a sign that the party’s incentive structure is broken.

Many Republicans, including those on the Intelligence panel, had viewed Perry as ineligible before Johnson’s announcement in light of his polarizing history. But when the speaker blindsided the panel’s chair and GOP members with the appointment, shock quickly gave way to rage.

“It upends the meritocracy that has long been the defining practice on Intel,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) said in an interview.

He followed with a warning other Republicans have echoed more privately: that rewarding behavior like Perry’s will only encourage more antics among hardliners, like tanking procedural votes, blocking bills or even future moves to oust a speaker.

Crenshaw, a member of the Intelligence panel, added: “The speaker needs to remember that there isn't only one group that can threaten them. … Just do not teach the lesson that the only way for us to be effective here is threatening, because I'll take the lesson and I'll do it.”

Johnson handed the committee spot to Perry, a retired Army National Guard brigadier general with nearly 40 years of service, after heavy lobbying from the House Freedom Caucus. Some in the conference have speculated that the GOP leader capitulated to threats from the right-leaning group that it would cause further trouble if he did not agree.

The announcement, however, was happily received by Perry and his allies, some of whom have tried for years to get Perry on the panel that often deals with highly sensitive national security-related materials.

More broadly, some argued that the Intelligence panel, which tries to rise above partisan infighting, didn’t have full representation across the GOP’s ideological spectrum. (Notably, Democrats have not named more pugnacious progressives to the panel, either.)

Perry responded in a statement: “My 40 years of experience and service to our Nation speaks for itself.”

Beyond Crenshaw, a person familiar with the sitdowns said two separate groups of Republicans met with Johnson this week to share their frustrations about Perry’s appointment. That includes members of the Intelligence Committee who plan to meet with him on Thursday.

One Republican, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said no previous committee assignment has sparked as much internal anger as Johnson’s decision about Perry.

Another GOP member added that Perry’s appointment “was the talk for a day or two” among Republicans during their recent trip to France because of how “angry” lawmakers are.

“There’s a lot of pissed people. A lot of angry people. … It’s a coveted spot, and a lot of people who have worked hard to be good team players feel like they are getting passed over,” the second GOP member said, adding that Republicans feel like Johnson is “rewarding bad behavior.”

It’s also a matter of the Republicans whom Johnson passed over along the way.

Reps. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) and Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) were both viewed as in the running for the Intelligence Committee spot — both viewed within the conference as “team players” but now leapfrogged over. Reps. Blake Moore (R-Utah) and Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), who was promoted to rank of Air Force colonel this week, were also passed over.

Republicans are further fuming over Johnson’s failure to notify Intelligence Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) as well as other GOP members about his decision to appoint Perry.

The second GOP member called the move “not acceptable.” A third GOP lawmaker, also granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that Turner privately indicated he wasn’t consulted on Perry’s appointment.

Johnson’s office has also defended Perry, arguing that he will serve the panel well.

Another senior Republican member expressed surprise about the decision to put Perry on the Intelligence Committee but added that the Pennsylvania Republican had been “pretty helpful” at navigating divisions within the GOP conference at key moments.

“Perry’s got a good background for the committee,” this member added.