🔗 Share this article Ignorance is BS: Speaker's Go-To Response on Trump's Misdeeds is Frequently 'I Don't Know' The US House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has crafted a repeated answer when asked about disputed actions from Donald Trump or members of his team. His reply is typically some form of "I don't know about that." When challenged about the latest controversy from the Trump White House, Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, often states he is not aware—including as recently as last week regarding reports about a questionable U.S. military strike. Compared to past leaders, who managed House proceedings and sought to hold the executive branch accountable, Johnson's strategy is both extraordinary and an dereliction of that role's historic duty, according to scholars on the U.S. Congress. “It’s pretty atypical for a speaker to say he doesn't know about what the commander in chief is doing, particularly as frequently as Speaker Johnson,” said Matthew Green, a politics professor. “The president is a pretty prominent figure... and this president in particular is a master of getting attention.” While politicians often dodge answering questions, Johnson's propensity of doing so is especially striking because of the constitutionally significant place the speaker holds in the federal system. “Very few officers are specified specifically in the Constitution; the role of Speaker is one of them,” Green added. “I would say it’s absolutely the responsibility of the speaker to be aware of what the president is saying and doing.” A Tactic of Claimed Ignorance There are at least a dozen notable examples of Johnson claiming he had lacked time to review developments on a high-profile event from the Trump administration. These encompass questions about: Individuals pardoned by Trump. Actions by ICE. The president's financial dealings. The handling of the military. Notable Examples In May, after Trump hosted a exclusive event for top investors in a memecoin tied to him, raising ethical questions, a news host challenged Johnson. “I really have a hard time imagining that if this was a Democratic president... you wouldn’t be upset,” the host said. Johnson responded: “I haven't heard anything about the dinner... I’m not going to comment on something I know nothing about.” Later, in October, after Trump pardoned a crypto executive convicted of money laundering, a reporter questioned Johnson if he was concerned by the president's statement that he didn't know the individual. “I don’t know anything about that. I didn’t see the interview,” Johnson said. He also claimed he didn't “have details” about a forgiven January 6 rioter who was later arrested for making threats a congressional leader. “It is hard to believe that the speaker of the House would be ignorant of what a president is doing when it’s all over the news among reporters and on social media,” Green said. Deflection and Justification Johnson also frequently defends the president or says it’s not his job to deal with the issue. When asked about Trump reportedly accepting a multi-million dollar jet as a gift from Qatar, Johnson reportedly deployed all three tactics: claiming ignorance, defending the action, and stating it wasn't his concern. “I’m not tracking all the developments... I have definitely heard about it,” Johnson told reporters. “My impression is it’s not a personal gift... I’m going to leave it to the administration... It’s not my lane.” Green argued that, logically, “you cannot have all three.” “If you are unaware about it, then how can you defend it? And if it’s not your responsibility, then why are you commenting about it? And it absolutely is his responsibility, for the record. It’s the job of Congress to ensure that laws are obeyed,” Green stated. Resources and Strategic Ignorance Experts contend that even if Johnson is individually busy, he has a extensive staff to keep him informed. “You know perfectly well there is somebody briefing him on all this stuff,” said Larry Evans, a professor of government. “It is not that he is ignorant about it – any more, honestly, than when President Trump claims, ‘Oh, I didn’t know about that.’” Last week, when asked about a major report detailing a questionable military strike ordered by the administration, Johnson's response was typical. “I’m not going to comment on any of that. I was pretty busy yesterday. I didn’t catch a lot of the news,” he stated. Given Congress’s constitutional power to declare war, analysts argue that pleading ignorance on such a matter is an failure of responsible governing. Political Reality Analysts see the partisan reasons behind Johnson's strategy. The speaker not only leads the chamber but also a slim majority party, so he must work to hold his conference together. “I think he sees his role as leader of his party and ally to the White House as important,” said one analyst. Still, “his devotion to Trump is rather exceptional.” Furthermore, in the relentless news cycle of Trump's current administration, consistently pleading ignorance can be an useful strategy. “Just saying ‘I have no comment’ – and knowing that probably in 12 hours there will be something else that people are thinking about – it’s not a ineffective strategy,” said one observer.
The US House Speaker, Mike Johnson, has crafted a repeated answer when asked about disputed actions from Donald Trump or members of his team. His reply is typically some form of "I don't know about that." When challenged about the latest controversy from the Trump White House, Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, often states he is not aware—including as recently as last week regarding reports about a questionable U.S. military strike. Compared to past leaders, who managed House proceedings and sought to hold the executive branch accountable, Johnson's strategy is both extraordinary and an dereliction of that role's historic duty, according to scholars on the U.S. Congress. “It’s pretty atypical for a speaker to say he doesn't know about what the commander in chief is doing, particularly as frequently as Speaker Johnson,” said Matthew Green, a politics professor. “The president is a pretty prominent figure... and this president in particular is a master of getting attention.” While politicians often dodge answering questions, Johnson's propensity of doing so is especially striking because of the constitutionally significant place the speaker holds in the federal system. “Very few officers are specified specifically in the Constitution; the role of Speaker is one of them,” Green added. “I would say it’s absolutely the responsibility of the speaker to be aware of what the president is saying and doing.” A Tactic of Claimed Ignorance There are at least a dozen notable examples of Johnson claiming he had lacked time to review developments on a high-profile event from the Trump administration. These encompass questions about: Individuals pardoned by Trump. Actions by ICE. The president's financial dealings. The handling of the military. Notable Examples In May, after Trump hosted a exclusive event for top investors in a memecoin tied to him, raising ethical questions, a news host challenged Johnson. “I really have a hard time imagining that if this was a Democratic president... you wouldn’t be upset,” the host said. Johnson responded: “I haven't heard anything about the dinner... I’m not going to comment on something I know nothing about.” Later, in October, after Trump pardoned a crypto executive convicted of money laundering, a reporter questioned Johnson if he was concerned by the president's statement that he didn't know the individual. “I don’t know anything about that. I didn’t see the interview,” Johnson said. He also claimed he didn't “have details” about a forgiven January 6 rioter who was later arrested for making threats a congressional leader. “It is hard to believe that the speaker of the House would be ignorant of what a president is doing when it’s all over the news among reporters and on social media,” Green said. Deflection and Justification Johnson also frequently defends the president or says it’s not his job to deal with the issue. When asked about Trump reportedly accepting a multi-million dollar jet as a gift from Qatar, Johnson reportedly deployed all three tactics: claiming ignorance, defending the action, and stating it wasn't his concern. “I’m not tracking all the developments... I have definitely heard about it,” Johnson told reporters. “My impression is it’s not a personal gift... I’m going to leave it to the administration... It’s not my lane.” Green argued that, logically, “you cannot have all three.” “If you are unaware about it, then how can you defend it? And if it’s not your responsibility, then why are you commenting about it? And it absolutely is his responsibility, for the record. It’s the job of Congress to ensure that laws are obeyed,” Green stated. Resources and Strategic Ignorance Experts contend that even if Johnson is individually busy, he has a extensive staff to keep him informed. “You know perfectly well there is somebody briefing him on all this stuff,” said Larry Evans, a professor of government. “It is not that he is ignorant about it – any more, honestly, than when President Trump claims, ‘Oh, I didn’t know about that.’” Last week, when asked about a major report detailing a questionable military strike ordered by the administration, Johnson's response was typical. “I’m not going to comment on any of that. I was pretty busy yesterday. I didn’t catch a lot of the news,” he stated. Given Congress’s constitutional power to declare war, analysts argue that pleading ignorance on such a matter is an failure of responsible governing. Political Reality Analysts see the partisan reasons behind Johnson's strategy. The speaker not only leads the chamber but also a slim majority party, so he must work to hold his conference together. “I think he sees his role as leader of his party and ally to the White House as important,” said one analyst. Still, “his devotion to Trump is rather exceptional.” Furthermore, in the relentless news cycle of Trump's current administration, consistently pleading ignorance can be an useful strategy. “Just saying ‘I have no comment’ – and knowing that probably in 12 hours there will be something else that people are thinking about – it’s not a ineffective strategy,” said one observer.