GOP lawmaker urges Johnson to scrutinize new socialist lawmakers’ ‘access to intelligence’
Republican Representative Nicole Malliotakis has urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to review whether two Democratic Socialists of America-backed lawmakers-elect should have access to intelligence. She says their views raise national security concerns and argues that, if Republicans control the House, they should be kept off committees dealing with sensitive information.
Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated Representative Adriano Espaillat in a primary, while Claire Valdez won an open primary for a seat held by retiring Representative Nydia Velázquez. Both have called for abolishing ICE and described Israel’s war in Gaza as genocide; their campaigns did not respond to a request for comment. The article says both are expected to win their November general elections in their deep-blue districts, and notes the DSA has advocated replacing the Constitution and abolishing prisons, the Supreme Court and police.
- Malliotakis wants Johnson to review the lawmakers-elect’s intelligence access.
- Chevalier and Valdez won Democratic primaries in New York.
- Their committee assignments could become a point of House conflict.
New here? Start with this
The House of Representatives is part of the US Congress, where lawmakers debate and pass federal laws. Its Speaker leads the chamber, while committees examine issues such as defence and intelligence and may receive sensitive government information.
Nicole Malliotakis is a Republican representative from New York, and Mike Johnson is the Republican Speaker of the House. Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez are Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates who won Democratic primaries for New York House seats; a primary selects a party’s candidate for the general election.
The Democratic Socialists of America is a political organisation whose members support democratic socialism, though candidates may have their own positions. Committee membership matters because it can give lawmakers access to classified information and a role in overseeing government agencies.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of scrutiny argue that access to classified intelligence and seats on sensitive committees carry serious responsibilities, so Congress should consider whether members’ stated positions or associations could create security risks. They may see committee assignments as a matter of institutional judgement and argue that a review would protect sensitive information while allowing the lawmakers to serve in other roles.
The case against
Opponents argue that voters choose their representatives, and that radical or controversial policy views are not, by themselves, evidence that someone cannot handle classified information. Restricting access before assessing specific conduct or risks could unfairly stigmatise these lawmakers and let the majority use security rules to punish political opponents.