Why House Republicans Could Face Ongoing Speaker-Ousting Issues into the Next Year
The majority of GOP lawmakers have a strong aversion to the rule that empowers a small faction within the conference to exert significant influence over the agenda. Nevertheless, conservatives are ready to advocate for it.
TroibNews 
House Republicans are preparing for a significant intra-party conflict early next year regarding the ability to remove a speaker from office. While most Republicans are opposed to this mechanism, which has led to considerable disruptions during the current Congress, a faction of conservatives is ready to defend it.
Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership allies have indicated their desire to increase the number of votes required to initiate a vote on ousting a speaker, which currently allows just a single lawmaker to call for such a referendum. This issue is closely tied to Johnson’s goals of maintaining his position, as many who wish to keep the current rule have yet to commit to supporting his leadership, creating a power dynamic.
The rationale for adjusting this rule is clear; the motion to vacate permits a small contingent of lawmakers to exert substantial influence over the legislative agenda, thus diminishing the authority of leadership. Johnson has remarked that this tool has “harmed this office and our House majority.”
At the moment, there are sufficient conservatives who oppose any rule alterations to prevent changes to the current framework. In interviews, five Republicans expressed confidence that their group is large enough to make amending the rule challenging next year, noting that at least eight members would automatically resist any changes.
House Republicans must maintain control to dictate the rules; however, if they successfully navigate governance in November, it will pave the way for a major conflict in the months to follow. The outcome of this debate will not only affect Johnson’s potential to remain speaker but also influence how leadership can shape the conference agenda against the will of often defiant hardliners. Essentially, if Johnson or other leaders cannot reconcile the demands of the right flank, they could be headed for another tumultuous Congress.
Members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, along with some hardliners not affiliated with the group, are privately discussing their desired outcomes for the next year’s rules package, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the current ouster rule.
Rep. Chip Roy commented, “I think it’s going to be very difficult to change. I think we’re just going to have to just move forward.” Another anonymous member from the Freedom Caucus warned, “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,” referring to the extensive voting process it took for former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to secure his position.
Conversely, a broader segment within the conference advocates for a reform of the rule. Many Republicans, both in leadership and elsewhere, argue for a fundamental reset of the power dynamics that have distressed their conference since January 2023, when they believe McCarthy yieldedtoo much to his right flank. Most House Republicans see a prolonged conflict over the speakership, similar to the three-week ordeal sparked by McCarthy's ousting, as a nightmare scenario.
However, the hardliners have the advantage in this situation. Johnson faces a significant challenge; he currently possesses only a three-vote margin and lacks sufficient support from his own party to elevate the ousting threshold. His best opportunity lies in significantly expanding his majority in November, a daunting task. Given that Democrats will uniformly oppose a GOP rules package in January, Johnson's reliance must solely rest on Republican votes.
“It depends on how big the majority is,” stated Rep. Morgan Griffith when discussing the leadership's odds of successfully curbing hardliner influence. He elaborated on rules and leadership struggles, saying, “If we have a majority of 15 ... there’s not going to be any successful fights.”
Conversations about rule changes extend beyond just the ouster motion. While conservatives explore ways to empower rank-and-file members further, centrists and leadership are also devising strategies aimed at mitigating potential chaos in the next Congress.
Conservatives are keen to implement limits on the types of legislation that can pass under the elevated two-thirds suspension threshold — a maneuver that GOP leadership has employed multiple times during this Congress to circumvent dissent and rely on Democratic support, particularly for spending bills.
Meanwhile, centrists are discussing their own proposals, which include creating a formal working group. This initiative aims to establish penalties for members who vote against bringing a GOP bill to the floor, a tactic conservatives have previously utilized against both McCarthy and Johnson to thwart leadership's priorities.
Separately, Republicans in leadership are considering increasing the threshold for a discharge petition, a procedural tool allowing a bill to be forced to the floor if it gains 218 signatures, regardless of leadership's stance.
The rules concerning the potential ousting of a speaker will likely dominate discussions during the GOP's upcoming rules deliberations. Most members appear firmly entrenched in their positions.
Republicans can establish a higher ouster threshold as part of their internal conference rules discussions in November, similar to how they acted following the 2022 election. However, these rules will not become official until they receive the full chamber's approval in January. During the last instance, conservatives withheld their votes for McCarthy until he made several concessions, including lowering the threshold for removing a speaker to just one member.
“I agreed with what we did in conference,” Rep. David Joyce commented. “There has to be a better standard than just having a couple of renegades joining with the other side.”
Rep. Don Bacon, a centrist, proposed that leadership consider negotiations with Democrats to raise the motion-to-vacate threshold in exchange for enhanced representation on committees. “I would make the deal and put that thing behind me,” Bacon remarked. “But I got huge pushback: ‘You can’t make a deal with Democrats.’”
Conservative Rep. Ralph Norman stated in a brief interview that he opposes raising the threshold, suggesting that “there’s a group of us,” mainly from the Freedom Caucus, already examining the ouster rule carefully. When asked if he expects the threshold to change by January, he responded, “I don’t think it will.”
The situation is further complicated for Johnson and his leadership team, as a broader coalition within the party desires modifications to the motion to vacate, though not in the sense of removing the ability of a single member to initiate a vote.
Griffith offered a potential “hybrid” model: allowing any one member to trigger an ouster vote while imposing restrictions on its frequency. He suggested that it could not be invoked against a new speaker during their initial six months in office and establishing a waiting period before it could be triggered again after a failed vote.
Some advocates for the current rule have indicated they might be amenable to considering a raise in the threshold in exchange for addressing other priorities. Rep. Matt Gaetz mentioned his willingness to discuss increasing the motion-to-vacate threshold in return for ethics and campaign finance reforms, though whether this would persuade the larger cohort of holdouts remains uncertain.
Roy remarked that while he believes “all things can be discussed,” any alterations “would have to come with something if it changes at all.” He concluded, “I think it is an uphill climb to change it.”
Thomas Evans for TROIB News
Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership allies have indicated their desire to increase the number of votes required to initiate a vote on ousting a speaker, which currently allows just a single lawmaker to call for such a referendum. This issue is closely tied to Johnson’s goals of maintaining his position, as many who wish to keep the current rule have yet to commit to supporting his leadership, creating a power dynamic.
The rationale for adjusting this rule is clear; the motion to vacate permits a small contingent of lawmakers to exert substantial influence over the legislative agenda, thus diminishing the authority of leadership. Johnson has remarked that this tool has “harmed this office and our House majority.”
At the moment, there are sufficient conservatives who oppose any rule alterations to prevent changes to the current framework. In interviews, five Republicans expressed confidence that their group is large enough to make amending the rule challenging next year, noting that at least eight members would automatically resist any changes.
House Republicans must maintain control to dictate the rules; however, if they successfully navigate governance in November, it will pave the way for a major conflict in the months to follow. The outcome of this debate will not only affect Johnson’s potential to remain speaker but also influence how leadership can shape the conference agenda against the will of often defiant hardliners. Essentially, if Johnson or other leaders cannot reconcile the demands of the right flank, they could be headed for another tumultuous Congress.
Members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, along with some hardliners not affiliated with the group, are privately discussing their desired outcomes for the next year’s rules package, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the current ouster rule.
Rep. Chip Roy commented, “I think it’s going to be very difficult to change. I think we’re just going to have to just move forward.” Another anonymous member from the Freedom Caucus warned, “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,” referring to the extensive voting process it took for former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to secure his position.
Conversely, a broader segment within the conference advocates for a reform of the rule. Many Republicans, both in leadership and elsewhere, argue for a fundamental reset of the power dynamics that have distressed their conference since January 2023, when they believe McCarthy yieldedtoo much to his right flank. Most House Republicans see a prolonged conflict over the speakership, similar to the three-week ordeal sparked by McCarthy's ousting, as a nightmare scenario.
However, the hardliners have the advantage in this situation. Johnson faces a significant challenge; he currently possesses only a three-vote margin and lacks sufficient support from his own party to elevate the ousting threshold. His best opportunity lies in significantly expanding his majority in November, a daunting task. Given that Democrats will uniformly oppose a GOP rules package in January, Johnson's reliance must solely rest on Republican votes.
“It depends on how big the majority is,” stated Rep. Morgan Griffith when discussing the leadership's odds of successfully curbing hardliner influence. He elaborated on rules and leadership struggles, saying, “If we have a majority of 15 ... there’s not going to be any successful fights.”
Conversations about rule changes extend beyond just the ouster motion. While conservatives explore ways to empower rank-and-file members further, centrists and leadership are also devising strategies aimed at mitigating potential chaos in the next Congress.
Conservatives are keen to implement limits on the types of legislation that can pass under the elevated two-thirds suspension threshold — a maneuver that GOP leadership has employed multiple times during this Congress to circumvent dissent and rely on Democratic support, particularly for spending bills.
Meanwhile, centrists are discussing their own proposals, which include creating a formal working group. This initiative aims to establish penalties for members who vote against bringing a GOP bill to the floor, a tactic conservatives have previously utilized against both McCarthy and Johnson to thwart leadership's priorities.
Separately, Republicans in leadership are considering increasing the threshold for a discharge petition, a procedural tool allowing a bill to be forced to the floor if it gains 218 signatures, regardless of leadership's stance.
The rules concerning the potential ousting of a speaker will likely dominate discussions during the GOP's upcoming rules deliberations. Most members appear firmly entrenched in their positions.
Republicans can establish a higher ouster threshold as part of their internal conference rules discussions in November, similar to how they acted following the 2022 election. However, these rules will not become official until they receive the full chamber's approval in January. During the last instance, conservatives withheld their votes for McCarthy until he made several concessions, including lowering the threshold for removing a speaker to just one member.
“I agreed with what we did in conference,” Rep. David Joyce commented. “There has to be a better standard than just having a couple of renegades joining with the other side.”
Rep. Don Bacon, a centrist, proposed that leadership consider negotiations with Democrats to raise the motion-to-vacate threshold in exchange for enhanced representation on committees. “I would make the deal and put that thing behind me,” Bacon remarked. “But I got huge pushback: ‘You can’t make a deal with Democrats.’”
Conservative Rep. Ralph Norman stated in a brief interview that he opposes raising the threshold, suggesting that “there’s a group of us,” mainly from the Freedom Caucus, already examining the ouster rule carefully. When asked if he expects the threshold to change by January, he responded, “I don’t think it will.”
The situation is further complicated for Johnson and his leadership team, as a broader coalition within the party desires modifications to the motion to vacate, though not in the sense of removing the ability of a single member to initiate a vote.
Griffith offered a potential “hybrid” model: allowing any one member to trigger an ouster vote while imposing restrictions on its frequency. He suggested that it could not be invoked against a new speaker during their initial six months in office and establishing a waiting period before it could be triggered again after a failed vote.
Some advocates for the current rule have indicated they might be amenable to considering a raise in the threshold in exchange for addressing other priorities. Rep. Matt Gaetz mentioned his willingness to discuss increasing the motion-to-vacate threshold in return for ethics and campaign finance reforms, though whether this would persuade the larger cohort of holdouts remains uncertain.
Roy remarked that while he believes “all things can be discussed,” any alterations “would have to come with something if it changes at all.” He concluded, “I think it is an uphill climb to change it.”
Thomas Evans for TROIB News
