The Dictatorship
The House GOP’s biggest hurdle next year may be the House GOP
When President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office again on Jan. 20, it will complete a Republican takeover of Washington. The House and the Senate will have been sworn in two weeks earlier, offering the party a do-over for the trifecta it held in 2017 at the beginning of Trump’s first term. But while back then it was typically the White House acting as the biggest stumbling block to the Republican agenda, it seems likely that baton has been handed off to the incoming 119th Congress.
It’s easy to feel a sense of growing dread at what it means to have Republicans in full control again. I was filled with a similar sense ahead of the 2022 midterms — but one should never underestimate Republicans’ willingness to punch one another in the face out of spite. In many ways, a large number of the policies laid out in Project 2025 may not even need an organized resistance: At least in Congress, all Democrats need to do to notch a win is sit back and let the GOP tear itself apart, especially on the looming fight over taxes.
At least in Congress, all Democrats need to do to notch a win is sit back and let the GOP tear itself apart
You see, there’s a beautiful irony at work when it comes to the House Republican caucus. The last two election cycles have seen them capture, then retain, a majority of seats and the speaker’s gavel. When the last Congress was gaveled in, Republicans held 222 seats to the 213 that Democrats had won. The GOP then needed 13 rounds of voting to elect a speaker, only to narrowly avoid defaulting on America’s credit, before dumping said speaker nine months later. Add multiple occasions when a federal shutdown was averted thanks only to Democrats’ swooping in to save the GOP from itself, and it makes for a historically shoddy track record.
Most of that infighting centered on far-right members of the Freedom Caucus who pushed dead-end legislation to slash spending on the social safety net or otherwise to own the libs, be it by attacking transgender health care or yelling about gas stoves. With President Joe Biden in the White House and with Democrats running the Senate, it was an impractical strategy that undercut any leverage Republicans might have used to extract smaller concessions in the face of Democrats’ united opposition. The far right lashed out in anger at any yielding to political reality, even stymieing Republican messaging bills from reaching the House floor in protest as Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., attempted to keep the train on the rails.
This time around, Republicans are on track to hold as few as 220 seatsthe smallest starting majority in more than a century. If all members are present on both sides of the aisle (and assuming the Democrats can maintain party discipline), the GOP can afford to lose only three votes on any given bill before it fails. That margin could shrink even further in the weeks to come as the seats several of Trump’s Cabinet picks will vacate remain pending special elections. Even if the far right is completely placated in every bill Johnson puts forward, swing-seat Republicans still exist. Many of those front-line members barely staved off their opponents in the last election. Two years of backing Trump’s most divisive policies might be too much for their constituents to bear.
For a sense of how much this micro-majority might struggleremember that the only major legislation to emerge from Trump’s first term was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Most of the tax cuts and other major provisions in that law expire after 2025, making their potential reauthorization one of the biggest fights ahead in this incoming session. When the bill first passed through Congress, it did so with 12 GOP defections in the House. That’s four times as many votes as the GOP can lose before a bill is tanked — with Democrats perfectly happy to let taxes on the middle class spike on Trump’s watch.
Democrats will be well within their rights to point out that the people holding the matches are also the ones stepping on the firehose.
Most of those GOP “no” votes in 2017 came from Republicans from more populous states, like New York and California, who were upset that the legislation capped the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction people could claim on their taxes. Trump has suggested he would lift that cap this time around, but without even bigger cuts to spending, doing so would blow an equally big hole in the deficit. While it seems likely the White House could unilaterally attempt to eliminate that spendingthe amount of borrowing required may be enough for the GOP’s remaining fiscal hawks to pause before promising their votes.
Fiscal hawks, SALT advocates, the Freedom Caucus — already that’s multiple competing factions, each attempting to get its way, that need to be appeased to get all the Republicans on the same page. Satisfying all of them may prove impossible when you consider that the Senate also must get on board with Republican senators having their own set of priorities. The lack of leverage that House leadership will have to force loyalty will only be compounded if it leaves in place the rule that allows a single member to call a vote on whether to topple the speaker, as we saw in 2023.
And that’s not considering the other basic housekeeping hurdles lined up down the track. The annual spending bills for the current fiscal year still need to be passed, and the debt ceiling will be un-paused in January, setting the stage for a potential crisis later in the year.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board correctly clocked that Republicans have roughly a year to get anything done legislatively before fretting about the midterm elections takes over. “Perhaps Donald Trump can keep them in line behind Speaker Mike Johnson,” their essay warned, while “factionalism will mean the end of a functioning majority and guaranteed defeat in 2026.” And with the whole of Washington in Republican hands, Democrats will be well within their rights to point out that the people holding the matches are also the ones stepping on the firehose.
Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for BLN Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.
In March 2025, 10 Senate Democrats voted to advance a government funding bill and avoid a government shutdown. Responding to furious Democratic voters who felt betrayed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said“a shutdown would be 10 or 20 times worse.” Six months later, seven Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King voted to end a 40-day stalemate. Had the shutdown continued, Sen. Tim Kaine, one of those seven, argued“I do not believe Republicans would have conceded on health care.”
What a difference a few months make.
The House of Representatives suddenly passed a bill to reopen the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday, ending a 76-day funding standoff. The legislation funds all of DHS with two exceptions: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. Instead, Republicans will fund ICE and CBP separately through the budget reconciliation process, without the cover of Democratic votes.
The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon.
After federal immigration agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis this year, Democrats refused to fund ICE without reforms, and they demanded the agency’s funding be dealt with separately from the rest of DHS. In late March, Senate Republicans gave up on waiting for a handful of Democrats to end the filibuster, and they passed by unanimous consent a partial funding bill splitting off ICE, as Democrats demanded. The House dragged its feet for almost a month after that, but gave in Thursday and meekly passed the bill in a voice vote. “Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Schumer crowed.
For the first time, the side precipitating a government shutdown neither had to cave in the end nor suffer a backlash for holding out. It seems that, at least for now, the politics of shutdowns have fundamentally changed.
It should be acknowledged at this point that unlike last year’s shutdown showdowns, this one was over one department and not the whole government. But though the shutdown was more limited, its effects were still visible to voters: Lapses in TSA funding led to long lines at the airport, for instance. And the debate concerned immigration and border security, issues on which Republicans typically poll well. Many of the dynamics at play in this debate, then, should carry over to future government funding fights.
The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon. It certainly helps Democrats that congressional Republicans can barely keep their ship afloat. The relationship between Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune is frosty at bestand while Republicans’ narrow House majority would challenge any speaker, Johnson’s tenure has consisted largely of disorganization punctuated by last-minute scrambles to push through must-pass bills. “It’s just been a mess,” one House Republican told MS NOW’s Mychael Schnell. “We haven’t really had any guidance or direction. We’re moving from one fire drill to the next every single week, and then half the time it feels like, why are we even here?”
It also helps that President Donald Trump at this point in his term is less popular than any recent president. A president doesn’t even need high approval ratings to “win” a shutdown: When House Speaker Newt Gingrich led Republicans in shutting down the government in late 1995 when Bill Clinton was president, Clinton’s approval was around 50%. When Sen. Ted Cruz and a handful of other GOP senators encouraged the House to shut down the government in 2013, President Barack Obama’s approval was in the low to mid-40s. But in both cases, the party out of the White House ended up caving.
Trump, however, is below 40% in multiple polling averages. His war with Iran and the related spike in gas prices are just the latest errors perpetuating the slow but steady downward march of his numbers. What works in this political environment may not work in opposition to even a president of average popularity. But Trump has work to do before even getting back to average popularity.
The DHS funding bill, like the other appropriations bills earlier this year, runs through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. If Republicans pass their reconciliation bill, ICE and CBP won’t be on the table then; the GOP plans to fund the agencies for three years. And with midterms looming, Congress could punt the next round of funding bills until after votes are cast, as it did in 2024. But with even some Republicans expecting Democrats to flip the House and perhaps the Senate, a postponement could hurt the GOP’s leverage. Regardless of the date for the next funding fight, though, Democrats should reprise and even deepen the resolve they showed in this one.
James Downie is an opinion editor for MS NOW Daily.
Though President Donald Trump has not carried out his threat to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, his administration has systematically weakened it during his second term. He has hollowed out its workforce, pushed out experienced staff in favor of political lackeys, dismantled preparedness programs and undermined the agency’s ability to respond when Americans need it most. Last spring, the administration announced that it had canceled billions of dollars worth of key mitigation programs that helped communities become more resilient to the effects of floods, hurricanes and other disasters.
More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration.
The elimination of those mitigation projects shifted risk onto states and local governments that lack the resources to pay for them themselves. More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration, worsening an already severe staffing shortage. Now reports suggest the Trump administration is considering even deeper workforce cuts — a highly dangerous proposal with the start of hurricane season less than a month away.
But just as worrisome as qualified people being pushed out of FEMA is unqualified people being brought in. Gregg Phillips, whom Trump appointed associate administrator of the Office of Response and Recovery in December, holds one of the most powerful positions at FEMA. It’s his job to lead the federal government’s frontline response to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires and other disasters. Because lives are on the line during such emergencies, the role ought to be filled by someone with relevant experience who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, as well as has sound judgment and a steady hand. Unfortunately, it was clear before Phillips took his position that he lacks all those qualifications.
Phillips has no background in emergency management. He built his career as a political operativerising through Republican politics in Mississippi and Texas, where his time in state government was marked by controversy and ethics concerns. He later gained national prominence by promoting conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
Not only has he demonstrated a lack of commitment to public safety, he has encouraged heinous political violence. He has said former President Joe Biden “deserves to die,” and he has urged Americans to “learn to shoot” migrants who are “coming here to kill you.”
And then there’s the truly bizarre. Phillips has said he’s experienced teleportation on multiple occasions and that he was once teleported 50 miles away to a Waffle House in Georgia. Reportedly, Phillips has quarreled with Trump’s social media platform, which he has accused of suppressing posts about his teleportation claims.
With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed.
With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed. However, Phillips is not the root of the problem at FEMA; he is just a recent example of it.
Nearly half the agency’s top positions remain vacantand Trump has not nominated a permanent, Senate-confirmed FEMA administrator since he was inaugurated. Reports indicate he may nominate Cameron Hamilton, who ran FEMA in early 2025 until he was fired by Kristi Noem. But Hamilton does not have the necessary qualifications or experience to lead the agency.
Neither does Karen Evans, FEMA’s third acting administrator in a year who currently serves in two senior roles — administrator and chief of staff. Saddling an unqualified person with two important positions at the agency is more evidence of how Trump has deprioritized FEMA and its leadership. FEMA also does not have leadership in its southern regional officeswhich assist the states that traditionally see the most destruction from hurricanes.
In addition to all the above, there are growing concerns that disaster response is being politicized. The rate at which Trump has approved major disaster declarations has varied sharply by statewith Republican-led states receiving much more FEMA assistance than those led by Democrats. In some cases, Trump has denied aid to Democratic-led states even after federal assessments showed communities qualified for help.
Taken together, the Trump administration’s actions have left FEMA and communities less prepared than they have been in a generation. In any other administration, FEMA would by now have a permanent administrator, its leadership ranks filled and a reserve workforce under contract and ready to deploy. As hurricane season approaches, the stakes could not be higher.
If FEMA is to be functional and ready for disasters in the coming months, the Trump administration must course correct and stop playing around with the nation’s lead disaster response agency. To put it back on course, the administration must rebuild FEMA’s workforce, fill vacancies with experienced leaders, restore preparedness programs and ensure that disaster assistance is delivered based on need — not politics. When disaster strikes, Americans should not pay the price for an administration that refuses to take its responsibilities seriously.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat representing Mississippi’s 2nd congressional district is the ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
ByJeff McCausland
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s testimony to the House and Senate Armed Services committees this week was his first appearance before Congress since U.S. military action began against Iran.
So far, this conflict has resulted in the deaths of 14 American service members, including one whose death was not combat-related, and a reported cost of over $25 billion. These hearings were originally scheduled as a routine review of the administration’s proposed $1.45 trillion Pentagon budget for fiscal 2027 but ended up being the first opportunity lawmakers had to question Hegseth about the war.
The testimony was disturbing from the onset for his combative and argumentative style, as he immediately lashed out at lawmakers from both parties.
But this was not “routine” and was a critical moment for the nation’s security. The American people are threatened by an ongoing conflict that could easily escalate and is already having a dramatic effect on the global economy. The nation is potentially facing its greatest energy crisis in history, and Hegseth’s testimony cast doubt on his fitness for the position of secretary of defense.
The testimony was disturbing from the onset for his combative and argumentative style, as he immediately lashed out at lawmakers from both parties. Hegseth began the hearing with a formal statement that argued “the biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans.”
This was hardly a serious effort to demonstrate his understanding of defense economics or elicit support from members of Congress concerned that the proposed massive Pentagon budget — a 45% increase over 2026 — would have serious implications for the nation’s debt, which already exceeds $39 trillion. If enacted, this budget would expand the force by 44,000 troops, provide significant pay raises and boost procurement of new ships, aircraft, and weapons by 76%. Hegseth further deferred nearly every question about individual program costs.
He maintained this aggressive fashion throughout the five-hour House hearing, a stark contrast to the calm, professional responses by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine. At one point the House Armed Services Committee chairman halted the proceedings and urged Hegseth to show more respect to committee members. (Party shouldn’t matter here, but the chairman is a Republican.)
Meanwhile, Hegseth’s strategic analysis of the Iran war was questionable at best. Last June he said that strikes against Iran, conducted in conjunction with Israel (Operation Midnight Hammer) had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilitiesdespite media reports suggesting evidence to the contrary. Questioned about this obvious inconsistency during the hearing, the secretary stated that the facilities had been destroyed but that Iran still had “nuclear ambitions.”
This statement clearly undercuts President Donald Trump’s assertion that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States that allowed him, as commander-in-chief, to order an attack without congressional authorization. Oddly, both Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well as Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also have said since the war began that Iran was not enriching uranium when U.S. forces attacked in February. If that is the case, Iran did not pose an imminent threat and this conflict is a war of choice and not a war of necessity.
The Trump administration has also argued that one of the primary goals of this conflict is to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. It is difficult to believe that a country’s nuclear ambitions could be permanently eliminated by military force alone. Such a change in a nation’s defense policy would require regime change.
During his testimony, Hegseth also said the United States is “winning” this war, apparently failing to understand that a successful strategy is more than a target list.
During his testimony, Hegseth also said the United States is “winning” this war, apparently failing to understand that a successful strategy is more than a target list. On April 8 he stated that “Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory” that by any measure had “decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come.”
Unfortunately, many reports suggest Iran maintains significant military capabilities, possibly as much as 60% of its missile launchers and a substantial drone arsenal. Since the U.S. attack, Tehran has also seized control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s supreme leader recently declared Tehran’s intent to retain control over shipping passing through the strait as well as maintaining its nuclear program.
Pete Hegseth is the 29th man to hold the position of secretary of defense. Three previous secretaries were retired senior military officers. This included Gen. George Marshall, who played a significant role in America’s victory in World War II and was the author of the “Marshall Plan” for European recovery. Others had been leaders of major corporations, members of Congress or CIA director. Some, like William Perry or James Schlesinger, had significant scientific backgrounds in nuclear matters.
Many secretaries were successful in this role. Others, such as Robert McNamara, were not. But all were highly qualified for what may be the most difficult job on the planet next to being president of the United States. Based on their background and experience, they were prepared to tell truth to power and provide presidents with frank counsel even when that was difficult.
Sadly, Hegseth has once again proven that he is totally unprepared and ill-suited for the role of secretary of defense. He demonstrated this during the “Signalgate” scandal when his use of unclassified communications risked placing American military personnel in harm’s way. Other examples of his poor judgment and problematic tenure include his firing of more than two dozen senior officers without reason, and these actions have been questioned by both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Many were female or minorities, and it is widely believed that was why they were forced into early retirement. He also delivered an embarrassing speech to several hundred general officers hastily summoned to Quantico; and portrayed U.S. action against Iran in religious terms, even describing it as an “American crusade.”
Even the most loyal supporter of President Donald Trump must look at Hegseth’s record and agree that he is in over his head. He was selected for this critical post not for his expertise but, rather, for his fealty to Trump. But our nation is at a dangerous moment in its history. Amid a war with Iran, ongoing war in Ukraine and the rising threat of China, we can ill-afford incompetence in the Pentagon leadership.
But that is what we have because, at a time of war, Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s testimony was not intended for Congress — or even the American people. It was intended for an audience of one.
Jeff McCausland
Jeff McCausland, a retired Army colonel, is a visiting professor at Dickinson College. A former dean of the U.S. Army War College, he commanded a battalion in combat and was later a member of the National Security Council. He is the author of”Battle Tested! Gettysburg Leadership Lessons.”
- A note to our readers
- A top GOP super PAC warns ‘the Republican Senate majority is at risk’
- Capitol agenda: Johnson notches wins, but chaos looms
- Thom Tillis doubles down on his latest Trump personnel ultimatum
- The Congressional Progressive Caucus has a plan for high prices
- Republicans see high-risk plans as the future of health insurance
- Czech Republic president on Trump’s anger with Europe over Iran war response: ‘We are not part of it’
- House Republicans caved — and changed the politics of government shutdowns
- FEMA and the American people deserve better than Trump’s political lackeys
- What Hegseth’s defensive testimony revealed about his unsuitability for his role
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship8 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?