House GOP Prepares for Intense Struggle Over Authority to Remove a Speaker
Many GOP lawmakers oppose the rule, which enables a small group within the conference to exert disproportionate control over the agenda. Nevertheless, conservatives are ready to defend it.
TroibNews 
House Republicans are preparing for a contentious intra-party battle early next year regarding the ability to remove a speaker. While many Republicans detest this mechanism, which has contributed to significant chaos in Congress, a faction of conservatives is determined to defend it.
Speaker Mike Johnson and his allies in leadership have indicated their desire to increase the number of members needed to initiate a vote to depose a speaker; at present, a single legislator can call for such a vote. However, this debate is closely linked to Johnson’s aspirations to retain the speaker role, as those favoring the current rule include members who have yet to pledge their support for his leadership.
The rationale behind the push to modify the rule is clear: the motion to vacate empowers a small group of lawmakers to have a disproportionate influence on the agenda, undermining leadership authority. Johnson has argued that this mechanism has “harmed this office and our House majority.”
Currently, there are enough conservatives to impede any changes to the existing system. In interviews with PMG, five Republicans expressed confidence that this faction is large enough to make altering the rule next year quite challenging. One GOP member noted that at least eight members would automatically resist any changes.
For House Republicans to shape their own rules, they must maintain control. If they succeed in November, it paves the way for a significant conflict in the months ahead. This debate will not only affect Johnson’s prospects for remaining speaker but also determine leadership's ability to influence the conference’s agenda amidst often defiant hardliners. Simply put, if Johnson or other leaders cannot navigate the demands of the right flank, they risk facing another tumultuous Congress.
Members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus and some external hardliners are engaged in private talks regarding their priorities for the rules package next year, including maintaining the current removal rule.
“I think it’s going to be very difficult to change,” Rep. Chip Roy remarked. Another Freedom Caucus member, speaking under anonymity, was blunter: “If they are going to go back to the way things were pre-McCarthy, then I don’t care who the speaker is, they will have that same fight.” This remark references the prolonged battle it took former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to attain the position.
Conversely, a larger number within the conference is advocating for a complete overhaul of the rule. Republicans, both within leadership and outside of it, are calling for a reset of the power dynamics that have created turmoil since January 2023; they believe McCarthy compromised too much with his right flank. The overwhelming majority of House Republicans perceive another lengthy speakership struggle, similar to the three-week saga triggered by McCarthy’s ouster, as an undesirable scenario.
Nevertheless, hardliners currently hold the upper hand. Johnson faces a numerical challenge—he has only a three-vote majority, meaning he lacks sufficient support within his own conference to raise the ouster threshold. His best opportunity lies in significantly increasing his majority in November, a formidable challenge, especially with Democrats expected to unify against any GOP rules package in January.
“It depends on how big the majority is,” Rep. Morgan Griffith noted regarding the leadership’s chances of successfully countering the hardliners. He added that in the event of a 15-vote majority, “there’s not going to be any successful fights.”
Conversations about rule adjustments extend beyond the motion to vacate. While conservatives engage in discussions on empowering rank-and-file members, centrists and leaders are strategizing ways to minimize potential chaos in the coming Congress.
Conservatives aim to impose new limitations on which bills can be passed under the higher two-thirds suspension threshold, a method that GOP leadership has utilized several times this Congress to circumvent dissenting members by seeking Democratic support, particularly for spending bills.
At the same time, a group of centrists is exploring their own proposals—including the establishment of a formal working group first reported by PMG. Their suggestions involve imposing penalties on members who oppose bringing GOP bills to the floor, a tactic conservatives have previously employed against both McCarthy and Johnson to thwart leadership priorities.
Separately, Republicans, including those in leadership, are discussing the possibility of raising the threshold for a discharge petition, a procedure that can compel floor action on a bill if it reaches 218 signatures, regardless of leadership objections.
However, the rules concerning the removal of a speaker are poised to dominate the debate in the GOP’s forthcoming rules discussions. Opinions appear to be firmly entrenched.
Republicans can establish a higher ouster threshold during their internal conference rules debate in November, similar to the process following the 2022 election. Nonetheless, such changes would only become official with a full chamber vote in January. Previously, conservatives withheld their votes for McCarthy until he addressed their demands for rules changes, which included reducing the speaker-ousting threshold to one member.
“I agreed with what we did in conference,” Rep. David Joyce acknowledged. “There has to be a better standard than just having a couple of renegades joining with the other side.”
Rep. Don Bacon, a centrist, suggested that leadership should negotiate with Democrats, proposing to increase the motion-to-vacate threshold in exchange for offering Democrats more committee seats.
“I would make the deal and put that thing behind me,” Bacon said, but noted he faced substantial pushback: “You can’t make a deal with Democrats.”
Conservative Rep. Ralph Norman expressed opposition to raising the threshold, indicating that “there’s a group of us,” primarily from the Freedom Caucus, monitoring the ouster rule and others “pretty carefully.” When asked if he believes the threshold will change come January, he responded, “I don’t think it will.”
Adding complexity for Johnson and other leaders: a broader group of Republicans supports changes to the motion to vacate, yet not to the principle allowing just one member to initiate a vote.
Griffith proposed a “hybrid” solution: maintaining the current capacity for one member to trigger an ouster vote while imposing limitations on how frequently it can be utilized. He suggested preventing its use against a new speaker for the first six months and establishing a waiting period after a failed attempt.
Some proponents of the existing rule have hinted they might consider raising the threshold in exchange for addressing other priorities. Rep. Matt Gaetz stated he would entertain raising the motion-to-vacate threshold in return for ethics and campaign finance reforms—though it remains uncertain whether this would persuade the larger group of holdouts.
Roy, while acknowledging that “all things can be discussed,” stated that any amendments “would have to come with something, if it changes at all.” He summed up the situation by saying, “I think it is an uphill climb to change it.”
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
Speaker Mike Johnson and his allies in leadership have indicated their desire to increase the number of members needed to initiate a vote to depose a speaker; at present, a single legislator can call for such a vote. However, this debate is closely linked to Johnson’s aspirations to retain the speaker role, as those favoring the current rule include members who have yet to pledge their support for his leadership.
The rationale behind the push to modify the rule is clear: the motion to vacate empowers a small group of lawmakers to have a disproportionate influence on the agenda, undermining leadership authority. Johnson has argued that this mechanism has “harmed this office and our House majority.”
Currently, there are enough conservatives to impede any changes to the existing system. In interviews with PMG, five Republicans expressed confidence that this faction is large enough to make altering the rule next year quite challenging. One GOP member noted that at least eight members would automatically resist any changes.
For House Republicans to shape their own rules, they must maintain control. If they succeed in November, it paves the way for a significant conflict in the months ahead. This debate will not only affect Johnson’s prospects for remaining speaker but also determine leadership's ability to influence the conference’s agenda amidst often defiant hardliners. Simply put, if Johnson or other leaders cannot navigate the demands of the right flank, they risk facing another tumultuous Congress.
Members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus and some external hardliners are engaged in private talks regarding their priorities for the rules package next year, including maintaining the current removal rule.
“I think it’s going to be very difficult to change,” Rep. Chip Roy remarked. Another Freedom Caucus member, speaking under anonymity, was blunter: “If they are going to go back to the way things were pre-McCarthy, then I don’t care who the speaker is, they will have that same fight.” This remark references the prolonged battle it took former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to attain the position.
Conversely, a larger number within the conference is advocating for a complete overhaul of the rule. Republicans, both within leadership and outside of it, are calling for a reset of the power dynamics that have created turmoil since January 2023; they believe McCarthy compromised too much with his right flank. The overwhelming majority of House Republicans perceive another lengthy speakership struggle, similar to the three-week saga triggered by McCarthy’s ouster, as an undesirable scenario.
Nevertheless, hardliners currently hold the upper hand. Johnson faces a numerical challenge—he has only a three-vote majority, meaning he lacks sufficient support within his own conference to raise the ouster threshold. His best opportunity lies in significantly increasing his majority in November, a formidable challenge, especially with Democrats expected to unify against any GOP rules package in January.
“It depends on how big the majority is,” Rep. Morgan Griffith noted regarding the leadership’s chances of successfully countering the hardliners. He added that in the event of a 15-vote majority, “there’s not going to be any successful fights.”
Conversations about rule adjustments extend beyond the motion to vacate. While conservatives engage in discussions on empowering rank-and-file members, centrists and leaders are strategizing ways to minimize potential chaos in the coming Congress.
Conservatives aim to impose new limitations on which bills can be passed under the higher two-thirds suspension threshold, a method that GOP leadership has utilized several times this Congress to circumvent dissenting members by seeking Democratic support, particularly for spending bills.
At the same time, a group of centrists is exploring their own proposals—including the establishment of a formal working group first reported by PMG. Their suggestions involve imposing penalties on members who oppose bringing GOP bills to the floor, a tactic conservatives have previously employed against both McCarthy and Johnson to thwart leadership priorities.
Separately, Republicans, including those in leadership, are discussing the possibility of raising the threshold for a discharge petition, a procedure that can compel floor action on a bill if it reaches 218 signatures, regardless of leadership objections.
However, the rules concerning the removal of a speaker are poised to dominate the debate in the GOP’s forthcoming rules discussions. Opinions appear to be firmly entrenched.
Republicans can establish a higher ouster threshold during their internal conference rules debate in November, similar to the process following the 2022 election. Nonetheless, such changes would only become official with a full chamber vote in January. Previously, conservatives withheld their votes for McCarthy until he addressed their demands for rules changes, which included reducing the speaker-ousting threshold to one member.
“I agreed with what we did in conference,” Rep. David Joyce acknowledged. “There has to be a better standard than just having a couple of renegades joining with the other side.”
Rep. Don Bacon, a centrist, suggested that leadership should negotiate with Democrats, proposing to increase the motion-to-vacate threshold in exchange for offering Democrats more committee seats.
“I would make the deal and put that thing behind me,” Bacon said, but noted he faced substantial pushback: “You can’t make a deal with Democrats.”
Conservative Rep. Ralph Norman expressed opposition to raising the threshold, indicating that “there’s a group of us,” primarily from the Freedom Caucus, monitoring the ouster rule and others “pretty carefully.” When asked if he believes the threshold will change come January, he responded, “I don’t think it will.”
Adding complexity for Johnson and other leaders: a broader group of Republicans supports changes to the motion to vacate, yet not to the principle allowing just one member to initiate a vote.
Griffith proposed a “hybrid” solution: maintaining the current capacity for one member to trigger an ouster vote while imposing limitations on how frequently it can be utilized. He suggested preventing its use against a new speaker for the first six months and establishing a waiting period after a failed attempt.
Some proponents of the existing rule have hinted they might consider raising the threshold in exchange for addressing other priorities. Rep. Matt Gaetz stated he would entertain raising the motion-to-vacate threshold in return for ethics and campaign finance reforms—though it remains uncertain whether this would persuade the larger group of holdouts.
Roy, while acknowledging that “all things can be discussed,” stated that any amendments “would have to come with something, if it changes at all.” He summed up the situation by saying, “I think it is an uphill climb to change it.”
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
