House Republicans Push to Strengthen Speaker’s Position Against Removal
The proposed change would enhance the speaker’s defense against potential future efforts to unseat them.
A new set of rules intended for House operations in the 119th Congress features a significant alteration aimed at reinforcing the speaker’s stance against any forthcoming removal attempts.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) criticized this modification on social media, accusing Republican colleagues of “injecting partisan extremism” into the House regulations.
“Their suggested changes would, for the first time, shield the Speaker from accountability to the entire chamber by ensuring that only Republicans can initiate a motion to vacate the chair. This clearly demonstrates their lack of intention to seek common ground,” McGovern expressed on X.
Historically, House rules have empowered any member from either party to present a motion to vacate the chair by raising a “question of privilege,” which necessitates a vote on the issue within a span of two legislative days. In 2019, under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), this requirement was escalated, demanding a majority from either party to move forward with such a motion.
The existing rules were instituted in January 2023 following an agreement forged by former Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) with dissenting Republicans to secure the speakership. This concession contributed to his ousting nine months later, led by former Rep. Matt Gaetz, which thrust the House into several weeks of chaos ultimately resulting in the rise of the current Speaker, Mike Johnson (R-La.).
Related Stories
The proposed changes emerged after GOP negotiations held in November among members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, who initially negotiated the rule modification with McCarthy, and the more moderate Main Street Caucus.
“We’ve successfully collaborated across the conference to eliminate divisive issues and move forward collectively to advance the president’s agenda,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chairman of the Freedom Caucus, stated during a press conference on November 13.
Another significant addition in the bill mandates immediate consideration of, among other topics, legislation to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) for “any attempts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any protected individual of the United States and its allies.”
This inclusion seems to be a reaction to the international court’s issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant. Notably, both Israel and the United States are not members of the ICC, although the court holds jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.
The House voted in June to sanction the ICC concerning Netanyahu’s arrest warrant, but the legislation stalled in the Senate due to Democrat opposition. With Republicans poised to control the upper chamber, such setbacks may not recur in the future.
Not all House Republicans are in favor of addressing the ICC’s position in the rules package.
“The United States is a sovereign nation, so I don’t attribute any credibility to the International Criminal Court’s decisions. However, how did a bill to protect Netanyahu end up in the House rules package for immediate vote following the Speaker election? Where are our priorities?!” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) remarked on X.
Johnson can only afford to lose a single Republican vote if he wishes to maintain his grip on the gavel.
Once the speaker is elected, members will cast their votes on the rules package. Given the lengthiness of the prior two elections, the exact timing of this remains uncertain.
