Mike Johnson’s speaker win reveals the iron grip Trump still has on Republicans
After engineering this month’s unceremonious defenestration of the hapless Kevin McCarthy, some far-right Republicans openly dreamed of installing their hero Donald Trump to replace him as speaker of the House of Representatives.
Trump himself, meanwhile, suggested that only Jesus Christ was certain to be elected to the role – apparently overlooking practical concerns of presumed unavailability.
But in new speaker Mike Johnson, a previously little-known rightwinger from Louisiana, members of the Trump-loving Republican House Freedom Caucus have seen the speaker’s gavel go to a man who shows all the hallmarks of being their master’s voice – and reveals the iron grip Trump still has on the Republican party.
For the former US president’s part, he now has in a key congressional leadership role a figure who, if the past is any guide, willingly dances to his tune.
Time alone will tell if this continues to be the case. But having served in the House legal defence team against Trump’s first impeachment, Johnson, 51 – a vocal and extreme social conservative – then played a key role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election won by Joe Biden, his bona fides as a member of the Make America Great Movement’s seem unchallengeable.
Matt Gaetz, the hardline Florida congressman who was the vanquished McCarthy’s arch-nemesis, had little doubts, tweeting on Wednesday: “If you don’t think that moving from Kevin McCarthy to Maga Mike Johnson shows the ascendance of this movement and where the power in the Republican Party truly lies, then you’re not paying attention.”
But it is the endorsement of Trump himself that has paved the way for the previously unheralded Johnson’s ascendancy – and gives a clue to his future conduct.
Trump opened the door to a Johnson speakership on Tuesday by viciously turning against the previous hopeful, Tom Emmer, a Republican whip and Minnesota congressman, who he tarred with the Republican in name only (Rino) appellation while warning darkly that voting him would be a “tragic mistake”.
“I have many wonderful friends wanting to be Speaker of the House, and some are truly great Warriors,” he wrote on his Truth Social net
work. “RINO Tom Emmer, who I do not know well, is not one of them. He never respected the Power of a Trump Endorsement, or the breadth and scope of MAGA–MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Having seen his previous favored nominee, Jim Jordan, fail after three attempts at winning the endorsement of the house Republican conference, Trump realised that he may have finally found his man.
With the fatally smeared Emmer safely out of the running, Trump finally put his thumb on the scale.
“I am not going to make an Endorsement in this race, because I COULD NEVER GO AGAINST ANY OF THESE FINE AND VERY TALENTED MEN, all of whom have supported me, in both mind and spirit, from the very beginning of our GREAT 2016 Victory,” he posted on Wednesday.
But he added: “My strong SUGGESTION is to go with the leading candidate, Mike Johnson, & GET IT DONE, FAST!”
With the deed done, the indicted former president was in celebratory mood, telling journalists outside a New York court on Wednesday where he is on trial over alleged business fraud that Johnson would be “a fantastic speaker”, adding that he had not heard “one negative comment about him. Everybody likes him.”
Whether this applies to outside the narrow confines of modern Republican politics is another question entirely.
Johnson is already on record as staunchly opposing further aid to Ukraine, a highly divisive faultline in the Republican party and a key priority of the Biden administration.
And with Congress facing a 17 November deadline to pass funding legislation that would avoid a damaging government shutdown – all amid calls for spending cutbacks by his far-right Republican allies – the hitherto obscure congressman from Louisiana might be about to become much better known, and more disliked.
told them she’d had an attorney video visit, as Rodriguez had ordered her to say, and although the officers knew this was untrue and one of them appeared surprised, they didn’t report the incident. At a later medical appointment, she said, she requested STD and pregnancy testing, but was told she’d have to admit to engaging in “risky behavior” and face discipline.
Some guards, the women said, actively helped Rodriguez secure time with prisoners alone, intimidated victims or approached victims themselves.
Valerie said at least four officers had started harassing and propositioning her after Rodriguez started assaulting her.
Another woman who has sued Rodriguez for sexual assault said that after she had spoken to investigators, two officers who she believed were friends with Rodriguez accosted her on her way to church, ripped up her paperwork and put her in handcuffs without cause. She stopped going to church.
The prison’s leadership has also faced scrutiny for facilitating Rodriguez’s behavior. Mike Pallares, the warden at CCWF during the reported rapes, “failed to protect” women from a “serial rapist”, Robert Chalfant, an attorney for seven women, has alleged in filings. Chalfant’s lawsuits say Pallares had received complaints about Rodriguez prior to many of the 2022 assaults, but did not take action nor did he launch internal affairs investigations.
On the contrary, according to Chalfant, the warden approved Rodriguez’s overtime requests to work at BPH, where he allegedly committed the rapes.
In a December statement, after two women filed lawsuits, Pallares said Rodriguez “shamefully hid behind his badge and used it to victimize a vulnerable population”. But he did not acknowledge that he himself was twice sued by female colleagues for sexual misconduct. A CCWF administrative worker has alleged Pallares coerced her into sex in 2015, in a lawsuit that was recently dismissed. And a former female warden of the prison separately alleged that Pallares made unwanted advances against her when she was his boss in a lawsuit that is ongoing.
Tremaine Carroll, another woman who says Rodriguez abused her, has also accused Pallares of sexually assaulting her, in official complaints and a lawsuit. Carroll, who is a trans woman, has said Pallares coerced her by threatening to send her back to men’s prisons: “The threat of being sent back to men’s prisons is worse than having a gun pointed at me.”
Pallares and his attorneys did not respond to requests for comment. His lawyers argued in filings that there was no reason for him to believe the overtime was “nefarious” and that the women’s complaints have failed to prove that the warden was “on notice” that Rodriguez posed a “substantial risk of serious harm”. The state justice department, which is representing Pallares in several civil cases, declined to comment.
‘Can’t guarantee protection’
It’s unclear what exactly prompted the recent internal inquiry that ultimately resulted in Rodriguez’s prosecution, but CDCR said in a press release in December 2022 that the department and the CCWF ISU had begun investigating the guard in July 2022, “immediately” after “discovering information that suggested sexual misconduct”. The release said he “retired” in August of 2022 after he was approached by investigators.
The criminal records indicate that women increasingly spoke to investigators last fall.
For some of the women, speaking up came at a heavy cost. Latasha Brown, who says Rodriguez assaulted her in the BPH area, said that after she had spoken to a civil attorney investigating Rodriguez, a process separate from the institution’s investigation, officers placed her in segregation, a form of solitary confinement. She said they had forced her to do multiple strip searches for no discernible reason, in a manner that felt cruel and retaliatory: “I’m the alleged victim and you’re treating me like a perpetrator. I just wanted my humanity recognized.”
While in isolation, cut off from loved ones and at one point without a utensil to eat with, she struggled with suicidal thoughts: “I wanted to check out. I was freezing and eating meals with my fingers and I didn’t want to live through that.” CDCR eventually transferred her to another institution, which she believed was for her safety, but again, she was placed in solitary: “I felt victimized all over again. Being in segregation was more traumatic than what I’d been through.”
Carroll said she too had been placed in segregation after reporting abuse: “That is retaliatory, and that is why victims don’t come forward.”
Rodriguez’s lawyer, Roger Wilson, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
But he argued in a July 2023 hearing about the case that there were “no documented threats” made by Rodriguez, noting the former prison guard did not actually issue rules violations against the women. Wilson also claimed that for some women, there was “no evidence of any force [or] duress”, suggesting they were “bargaining” and “negotiating” with Rodriguez
for contraband he offered. For one woman, he claimed “there was consent”. The lawyer further argued there was no evidence beyond the woman’s claims of Rodriguez bringing in heroin.
Wilson argued for Rodriguez’s pretrial release, saying he had been living with and caring for his elderly mother and had a close relationship with his 19year-old daughter. He noted Rodriguez had no criminal record and that he was still collecting his pension. A judge declined to free him and set the case for trial, which is expected next year.
CDCR declined multiple interview requests over several weeks and a spokesperson for Governor Gavin Newsom declined to comment. Jennifer Benavidez, CDCR’s deputy director of facility operations in the division of adult institutions, said in an email that when women report abuse, they are placed in “administrative segregation” for their protection “only when no other housing alternatives are available”, and said the “victim will continue to receive all programs and privileges” while in isolation. She said an accused employee would have no contact with incarcerated people during the investigation.
While CDCR says it identified “more than 22 potential victims” of Rodriguez, the charges were filed on behalf of only 13 women. The Madera county district attorney, Sally Moreno, who is prosecuting the case, said in an interview that she had filed charges she could prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” and also noted some claims of misconduct might not have been criminal.
She acknowledged there were probably others besides Rodriguez who had abused women in the prison, but had not faced charges, because victims had never reported them or CDCR did not bring cases to her: “Anytime you’ve got women in this super-compromised position where there are these formal and informal power structures, they’re going to be taken advantage of.”
Why was Rodriguez caught? “It takes one person to speak the truth and that gives other people courage,” said Moreno, noting that when one woman reports abuse and does not face retaliation, it can snowball. Investigators also have suggested that the case is supported by video corroboration, including footage that appeared to show Rodriguez touching himself while waiting for one woman to approach, then the two of them entering a closet-size room, and another video showing him adjusting his zipper as he exited a room with a different woman.
Moreno said she hoped the case would inspire more women to come forward, but understood why survivors may still be hesitant: “There is this secrecy in our prisons. I would never tell a woman I can 100% guarantee that you’ll be protected, because we just can’t do that. So they do take risks when they report this.”
In January, a month after CDCR announced it had referred Rodriguez to prosecutors, the department reassigned Pallares to an associate warden position in a different prison; a CDCR spokesperson told the Sacramento Bee at the time: “We thank him for his time and work at the institution.”
Nancy Skinner, a state senator who called a hearing on CDCR sexual violence, said she was concerned that Pallares was transferred after being accused of sexual misconduct: “I don’t think he should have been allowed to move on. There should have been more consequences.”
have accumulated over thousands of years.”
To help remedy these critical overdrafts, in 2014 the California legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). It requires local agencies and stakeholders to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) to map out necessary measures for these basins to reach sustainable conditions by 2040. This includes determining a minimum threshold that aims to ensure the basin is replenishing itself and to prevent overdraft issues, like sinking land, saltwater intrusion and decreased water quality. For Cuyama to reach sustainable conditions, groundwater pumping might have to be reduced by as much as 50% to 67%.
The Cuyama basin groundwater sustainability agency (GSA), which is run by county officials and major landowners, including Grimmway and Bolthouse, announced its first cuts this year. The department of water resources signed off on a 5% decrease in pumping from 2021 levels, a particularly hot drought year when everyone was forced to pump about 20% more. These restrictions apply to the central part of the valley with the most extreme overdraft. This flat, prime growing acreage is also where Grimmway and Bolthouse manage more than half of the land.
Though the companies voted for the reductions in April 2021, they later filed suit, asking a judge to assign specific water rights to each of the 73 wells in the hardest-hit section of the basin as part of the adjudication.
A spokesperson from Grimmway Farms said that the company filed due to “significant opposition at the GSA board to study the interconnection of pumping areas across the basin or to consider basin-wide cutbacks across all major Cuyama valley water users”.
While the GSA can set rules, it does not have the authority to determine groundwater rights. That requires a court ruling by a judge. Figuring out the fate of every well could take years – possibly decades – to resolve. The nearby Antelope Valley groundwater basin adjudication, another California water rights case in which Grimmway and Bolthouse were both involved, lasted 15 years. “These things usually draw out for so long that all the small folks go broke trying to retain our water rights,” said Gliessman.
Before California began requiring groundwater sustainability plans, courts favored the principle of historic use, recognizing each party’s consumption over time as the basis for future water allocation. That may be what the carrot companies, which were able to pump as much water as they wanted prior to the GSA cutbacks, are hoping to get out of the suit.
“It’s an almost paradoxical situation that the people who were successful in the depletion of the basin are the ones who get the water rights moving forward,” said Casey Walsh, a sociocultural anthropologist who studies water at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “It seems a strange result of water adjudications in the past.”
This Cuyama suit is the fifth such adjudication filed in the state since the SGMA passed. And it’s probably a chance for the companies to roll back the previous plan – and win more water by extending the cutbacks to every resident and small farm in the region.
Though the GSP should be taken into consideration by the judge, this is essentially a test case to see how far or close the ruling will be to the already approved plan. “I don’t understand how the adjudication and the GSP aren’t highly connected, but somehow they’re supposed to be separate parallel paths,” said Brenton Kelly, chair of the Cuyama basin GSA stakeholder advisory committee. “The big unknown is who has authority at the end of the day.”
The suit is affecting the cashstrapped Cuyama Joint Unified school district, which recently had no emergency funds. The district, which mostly services low-income Latino families, has already spent about $6,000 on attorney fees and is preparing to spend another $15,000 to $20,000 to retain an expert to figure out its water usage. “That’s a big chunk of the reserves we are supposed to have,” said Superintendent Alfonso Gamino.
If the bills get too big or some other unexpected expenses come up, like a major roof repair, there’s a chance the school could slip back into another county-overseen fiscal solvency plan. And, if the school district were to lose rights to its water, there would be no drinking fountains, no sinks, no toilets. “You can’t have schools without water,” said Gamino.
Grimmway Farms representatives said the company is “not in favor of cutting the water rights of the Cuyama community services district, the Cuyama valley high school, or de minimisresidential water users”, referring to those who pump less than two acre-ft of water a year.
But many other residents and small farms fear that even their minimal water usage could be jeopardized if they don’t protect their interests in the adjudication process. Many have formed groups of 10 to 25 individuals to hire a lawyer and keep costs down.
Condor’s Hope Ranch’s Gliessman and his wife, Robin Jaffee, have spent $5,000 for a retainer even in a group and incur monthly expenses related to the case. They use less than one acreft a year for their home and five acres of dry-farm vineyards planted with drought-tolerant varietals purposefully picked for the hot, arid climate.
Wegis pumped far more water than Gliessman and the small users in the valley. Still, the 358.11 acre-ft he extracted from his well last year is a bit more than 1% of what the carrot producers used. He is on the other side of the boundary that is being litigated in the coming months, but he is fighting to keep his section of the basin separate from the main one used by the carrot producers. So far, it has cost him “a shit lot” of money, more than $40,000 in attorneys fees to date.
Those expenditures are adding to his financial strain and that of elderly neighbors who could lose water on homesteads their families have owned for generations.
“That upsets me most about Grimmway and Bolthouse – how unfair it is to a lot of people like that,” said Wegis. “We know who’s causing the problem, and they want to make everyone else share their pain.”
Standing alongside Albanese on Wednesday, Biden urged Congress to “pass our Aukus legislation this year”.
Albanese played down concerns about the deal, saying he regarded the US “as a very reliable partner”.
“And I regard the relationship that I have with the president as second to none of the relationships that I have around the world, or indeed domestically, for that matter,” Albanese said.
The prime minister said he was “very confident in the discussions that I’ve had with Democrats and Republicans that there is very broad support for the Aukus arrangements”.
Albanese said he looked forward to “a constructive dialogue” when he visits China next month, describing such talks as important to build understanding and reduce tensions.
Asked whether Australia could trust China, Biden said it was important to “trust but verify”.
Biden and Albanese also discussed the Israel-Hamas conflict. In their joint statement, they said Hamas attacks on Israel “can have no justification, no legitimacy, and must be universally condemned”.
While pledging to “support Israel as it defends itself and its people against such atrocities”, the two leaders also called on “all parties to act consistent with the principles of international law and to protect civilians as an utmost priority”.
“We are concerned at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and call on all actors to ensure the provision of humanitarian supplies to populations in need,” Biden and Albanese said.
“We continue to support Palestinian aspirations for a state of their own and consider a two-state solution as the best avenue towards a lasting peace.”
Albanese announced that Australia would provide an additional $15m in humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza.