Congress
Expect a quieter Jan. 6 this time around — as long as Republicans avert a looming speakership crisis
Donald Trump’s victory has made Jan. 6 boring again.
Four years after a mob of Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory, Republicans and Democrats seem to agree they’ll give Trump the smooth, drama-free transfer of power he denied Democrats in 2020.
That’s despite the fact that many Democrats see Trump as an insurrectionist, ineligible to hold the presidency because of his role in creating the conditions that led to the attack four years earlier. Instead, top Democrats say they have no plans to stand in the way of Trump’s victory — and they’re not even sure their rank-and-file colleagues will make the token objections they’ve lodged in years past.
They also anticipate that Vice President Kamala Harris will lead the joint session of Congress to count Trump’s presidential electors precisely the way her predecessors have, taking no active role in the proceedings and tallying the results certified by the states. The result: a quick and simple transfer of power that will culminate on Jan. 20 when Trump takes the oath of office.
“I think you’re going to have a pretty sort of normal transfer, and I think we will respect the wishes of the American people … in contrast to what happened January 6, 2021,” said Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House committee tasked with overseeing elections. “I do feel like that’s worth saying over and over again.”
There is one potential crisis, attributable to Trump’s own party and the incoming president himself. After a spending fiasco last week, conservatives have expressed doubts that Mike Johnson should still be speaker, and Trump hasn’t weighed in to defend him. That House vote is scheduled to occur on Jan. 3, and a protracted battle could delay the certification of Trump’s win. Congress can’t do anything else until it elects a speaker.
Here’s a look at how the final stages of the presidential transition will play out once the new Congress convenes next month.
Before Jan. 6
Before Congress convenes to count electoral votes there are two crucial questions lawmakers must answer. The first: Who will be speaker of the House?
When the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3, their first job is to select a speaker, who can then swear in the other members and preside over the adoption of rules to govern the chamber. Until last week, Johnson appeared to be a shoo-in to win a full term, consolidating the support of his fractious conference, winning over detractors and lining up votes for what he hopes will be his first full term. But his stewardship of spending negotiations and an initial deal with Democrats led to a conservative revolt, with several openly calling for a new speaker. Trump also openly issued veiled threats about Johnson’s future as speaker.
If Democrats, as expected, unanimously back Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) holds to his promise not to return to Congress, Johnson can only afford to have one Republican vote against him. That’s a suddenly realistic possibility — Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has already vowed to oppose him, and several more are noncommittal.
A battle for the speakership could take days, creating uncertainty about the House’s ability to count Electoral College votes. And there’s no road map for what to do if a protracted battle eclipses Jan. 6.
That leads to the second question: Could Congress change the date of the joint session? Lawmakers have the authority to pass a law changing the date from Jan. 6 — and there’s precedent for doing so in modern history. The branches could, of course, push the session back a few days to give the House breathing room to resolve a speaker fight.
Presuming the speakership is resolved, the House and Senate must agree on the procedures governing the joint session of Congress. For more than 100 years, this has been uncontroversial and Congress has approved rules governing the legislative branch, including the Electoral Count Act, a statute that has governed the joint session since 1887. Even in 2020, when Trump was contesting the results of the election, Congress adopted this resolution unanimously.
However, the fight that emerged in 2020 revealed that some Republican lawmakers do have doubts about the laws that govern the transfer of power. And Johnson himself has yet to clarify his own views on the Electoral Count Act — particularly since Biden signed significant amendments to it in 2022.
Though Republicans are unlikely to want to stoke uncertainty, given that their guy is about to take the oath of office, a fight over the Electoral Count Act could still emerge on Jan. 3.
Democratic objections
Republicans are fond of pointing out that Democrats have lodged objections to presidential electors in every race Republicans have won since 2000. However, Democrats have seen those objections as largely symbolic, without any endorsement from national leaders or party organizations.
This time, there may not even be a symbolic objection to Trump’s victory. Blue Light News spoke to the group of Democrats who challenged some of Trump’s electors in 2017, and none of them said they planned to mount a similar effort this time. They acknowledged that their 2017 votes were token statements that they did not expect to succeed, and said the events of the last four years underscored the need to show confidence in the transfer of power.
“I’m not intending to do that again, because I think that people don’t differentiate,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). She added: “I think there was a clear difference between what we did and what he does.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who also lodged an objection in 2017, said he hadn’t heard of a single Democrat who planned to object this time and predicted that Democrats would be “constitutional patriots.”
“I have not actually heard of anybody who intends to vote no,” added Morelle, “and I would certainly discourage it.”
And if Democrats did mount challenges to Trump’s electoral votes, the updated Electoral Count Act made it significantly harder to force their colleagues to consider them.
In every previous joint session, it took objections from just one House member and one senator to trigger a lengthy debate and vote. But the revised law now requires 20 percent of each chamber — 87 House members and 20 senators — to sign challenges before they trigger further proceedings. It’s hard to imagine any potential challenge coming close to that threshold in 2025.
Kamala Harris presides
Harris will be presiding over the certification of her own defeat — a moment that is simultaneously uncomfortable and an ode to the peaceful transfer of power. She’s the third losing candidate to do so in recent history.
The vice president, who serves as president of the Senate, is constitutionally required to fulfill this role, with limited exceptions. In 2000, Al Gore brushed aside Democrats’ protests to certify George W. Bush as the victor. In 2016, Biden told a handful objecting Democrats that it “is over” and ushered in the first Trump presidency. And in 2020, Mike Pence resisted a crushing pressure campaign from Trump — and a violent riot — and followed in his predecessors’ footsteps.
Trump and a group of fringe attorneys argued that Pence could buck history and take control of the joint session, deciding which electoral votes to count or postponing the session altogether to give states a chance to reverse their certified results. Pence rejected this approach as unconstitutional, contending that the vice president’s role in the joint session is meant to be largely ceremonial.
Though some Trump allies still say the vice president has this authority, no one expects Harris to remotely entertain the idea — and Democrats have roundly dismissed it as a possibility.
Harris aides have said she intends to carry out her duties as all vice presidents have before her, in part because it is right and also because it’s the law. Indeed, lawmakers seem so certain that Jan. 6, 2025 will lack intrigue that they’ve largely treated it as an afterthought. Gone are the intensive strategy sessions and convoluted legal analyses aimed at pressuring the vice president to take an active role in the proceedings in order to reverse the outcome.
Security concerns
In 2021, the expectation of challenges to the election were high while the anticipation of violence at the Capitol was low. Those dynamics are reversed this time.
Despite the lack of drama, security agencies — the Secret Service, the Capitol Police, the D.C. police and others — are treating the event on par with the security needs of the Super Bowl. Already, there are signs around the Capitol of enhanced security measures, including surveillance towers set up in the vicinity.
And while protests are possible, there’s been no call by any national leaders to converge on Washington for the joint session or to challenge the outcome. That lack of organizing energy suggests the fervor of Trump supporters in 2021 simply won’t be replicated by Trump’s detractors.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune is planning to put an updated version of a bipartisan housing affordability bill on the Senate floor for a vote this week, according to two people familiar with the bill dynamics and two Senate Democratic aides granted anonymity to discuss ongoing plans.
The version of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act that the Senate will vote on will include most of the House-passed language, including a provision restricting large institutional investors from buying single-family homes. The legislation would also add back Senate bills that were dropped from the House package that passed last month, the two people and the two aides said.
The Senate legislation comes after talks between Thune, Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The updated Senate package was also discussed with the House and the White House, the aides said.
Still, it’s unclear if House leadership and the White House have signed off on the legislation.
The Senate and House have gone back and forth for months on language for a housing affordability bill as lawmakers on both sides look for a win to tout during a midterm election season dominated by cost-of-living issues.
Both chambers overwhelmingly passed their own versions of the housing bill — the Senate 89-10 in March, and the House 396-13 in May. The White House supported the Senate-passed bill and then backed the House-passed bill after it retained most of the Senate’s language on reining in private equity and other large Wall Street investors in the housing market — a top priority for President Donald Trump.
The Senate’s updated legislation would remove two of the House’s community banking deregulation bills due to budget scoring concerns, said two of the people familiar: two bills that would modify the Federal Deposit Insurance Act around failed insured depository institutions. The Senate bill also added back a provision to authorize the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program for seven years, as opposed to a permanent reauthorization in the Senate’s March legislation.
The Senate additionally re-inserted several upper-chamber priorities, including the BUILD NOW Act, which would incentivize communities to build more housing through the Community Development Block Grant program; the Rental Assistance Demonstration bill, which would raise the cap on housing authorities to convert voucher-based assistance; the Moving to Work bill, which would aim to add a new cohort of MTW public housing agencies; and the VALID Act, which would require Federal Housing Administration mortgage disclosures to include cost comparison information for veterans.
The package retains core wins for the leaders of both the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees and their members and reflects input from all four leaders of those panels, one of the people familiar said.
The House Freedom Caucus is suddenly confronting an unsettled future after more than a decade at the center of GOP politics on Capitol Hill.
Some of its most prominent members are leaving Congress next year after seeking higher office, including former chair Rep. Andy Biggs and several media-friendly voices like Reps. Chip Roy, Byron Donalds and Ralph Norman.
Meanwhile, the group’s current chair, Rep. Andy Harris, is term-limited.
Who will step in to fill the shuffling ranks and maintain the caucus’ role as a hard-right vanguard is very much in question — especially as the group faces a potential shift to a Democratic House majority, which has historically made them less pivotal, and the looming transition to a Republican Party without a President Donald Trump.
The group — which is no stranger to reinventing itself — has a number of relatively unknown members ready to become the new faces of the hard right in the House.
— ERIC BURLISON: The second-term Missouri congressman and current HFC board member said he is considering running to be the next chair.
Last summer he was a vocal member demanding the full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files and has become a leading Republican pushing for more information on UFOs.
— ANDREW CLYDE: Another board member, Clyde has amassed significant power by Freedom Caucus standards by winning seats on the Appropriations and Budget panels.
He said in an interview he had not yet thought about running for chair but noted that “you don’t have to be the chairman to have outsized influence.”
— BRANDON GILL: This Texas freshman, the youngest sitting House Republican, is already seen as a rising star in the House GOP.
He’s made a name for himself through provocative social media posts and splashy legislative moves, such as seeking to impeach James Boasberg, the federal judge who ruled against some of Trump’s deportations last year.
Gill has said he wants to emulate Rep. Jim Jordan, the only founding member of the caucus still serving in the chamber.
— CLAY HIGGINS: Another board member and a more senior member of the group, Higgins said he has not ruled out seeking the chair post but is also “not interested in campaigning” for the job.
Higgins was the only lawmaker to oppose the release of the Epstein files. He said in an interview he’s hoping the group focuses more on policymaking in its next iteration rather than obstructing leadership prerogatives.
— ANDY OGLES: Inside the HFC, Ogles has emerged as a serious force over two terms, with his name floated for chair even before the end of his first term.
He also did not rule out running for chair or another caucus leadership position in a recent interview.
What else we’re watching:
— THUNE RACES TO BREAK SPY POWERS LOGJAM: Senate Majority Leader John Thune is racing to try to confirm the next director of national intelligence and end a stand off over extending a key surveillance power before members break for two weeks. The Senate Intelligence Committee will hold a hearing for Jay Clayton Wednesday — less than a week after the chamber formally received the nomination from the White House. Getting Clayton confirmed is a crucial step to unlocking Congress’ willingness to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
— ANTI-FRAUD OPTIONS FOR RECONCILIATION 3.0: Republican leaders say proposals to crack down on fraud in federal safety net programs could be included in another reconciliation package this year. Turns out, a menu of options is developing in plain sight: Just look at the stack of about a dozen bills the House has passed in recent weeks to prevent waste and abuse.
Jordain Carney and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.
After more than a decade at the center of GOP politics on Capitol Hill, the House Freedom Caucus is suddenly confronting an unsettled future.
Several of the hard-right bloc’s most prominent members are leaving Congress next year after seeking higher office — including a former chair, Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, and several media-friendly voices such as Reps. Chip Roy of Texas, Byron Donalds of Florida and Ralph Norman of South Carolina, among others.
“We’re losing a lot of talent — there’s no doubt about it,” Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona said. “So it’s just kind of like a next-man-up mentality.”
But which man is very much in question. The current chair, Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, is term-limited, and a new generation of combative ultraconservatives is ready to step in just as the caucus comes to terms with a potentially changing role on Capitol Hill.
The group will be facing twin challenges — a potential shift to a Democratic House majority, which has historically made the caucus less pivotal, and the looming transition to a Republican Party without a President Donald Trump, who has been an animating force for most of its members.
“Across the country, people know who the Freedom Caucus is,” said Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana. “The next couple of years is going to be important for the caucus.”
The group has reinvented itself in the past, with new leaders emerging as old members move on. Donalds recalled when former chair Mark Meadows of North Carolina departed for the White House in Trump’s first term.
“They’re like, ‘Well, what’s going to be the future of HFC?’ And in came Chip Roy, in came a Byron Donalds,” he said with a grin. “We just kind of kept it going.”
The only founding member still serving in the House is Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who could make a play for minority leader if Republicans lose the majority in November — further scrambling the caucus’ historic role as a hard-right vanguard.
Harris will remain a member, as will fellow former chair Scott Perry of Pennsylvania — if he can win what’s expected to be a competitive general-election race. Veteran members such as Reps. Michael Cloud and Keith Self of Texas will also be influential.
But a number of relatively obscure members are ready to make moves and become the new faces of the hard right in the House.
Eric Burlison
Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri is in his second term but has shown an unmistakable thirst to be at the center of the action since arriving in the House. Currently an HFC board member, Burlinson said he is considering running to be the next chair.
“You obviously have to be selected by your peers, and that would be the greatest honor,” he said in an interview. “There’s no one I respect more than the people that are members of HFC.”
He spent over a decade in the Missouri statehouse before heading to Congress, after working as a software consultant. Last summer he was a vocal member pushing for the full release of the Epstein files and has become a leading Republican pushing for more information on UFOs.
Burlison noted that a future chair will be inheriting a nationally recognized Freedom Caucus “brand” that includes a plethora of state-level and local groups that have adopted the name. He said the original HFC should look at ways to “leverage” that brand but also protect it from being adopted by groups that aren’t in line with its conservative vision.
“We have to kind of protect our image,” he said. ”So I think we need to get that figured out.”
Andrew Clyde
Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia has managed to amass significant power by Freedom Caucus standards by winning seats on the Appropriations and Budget committees, which have allowed him to push for conservative positions on those influential panels.
Clyde, another board member, said in an interview he had not yet thought about running for chair but noted that “you don’t have to be the chairman to have outsized influence.”
He added that while the group is losing some high-profile members, the president’s conservative agenda has attracted several likely incoming members to the group.
“We’re seeing some folks that have not supported the Freedom Caucus before that are coming on board to support the House Freedom Caucus,” Clyde said. “So I think you’ll see [an] even greater presence.”
Brandon Gill
Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas, a freshman and the youngest sitting House Republican, is already seen as a rising star inside the House GOP. He has said he wants to emulate Jordanand has a seat on Judiciary, the committee his governing idol chairs.
Gill has made a name for himself through provocative social media posts, regular appearances on Fox News and splashy legislative moves such as seeking to impeach James Boasberg, the federal judge who ruled against some of Trump’s deportations last year.
He does not, however, break with GOP leaders as often as some other Freedom Caucus members and could encounter internal doubts as to whether he’d be willing to play internal hardball in the same way as prior chairs.
Clay Higgins
Higgins is one of the more senior Freedom Caucus members — and one of the more controversial. The former sheriff has been a prominent proponent of conspiracy theories around the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack and he was the only lawmaker to oppose the release of the Epstein files.
Also currently a board member, he said in an interview he has not ruled out seeking the caucus chair post. But he also said he was “not interested in campaigning” for the job and would like to see a “peaceful transition.”
Higgins did boast having “a pretty solid reputation within the caucus as a thoughtful conservative” and is hoping the group focuses more on policymaking in its next iteration rather than obstructing leadership prerogatives.
“We’re either going to go deeper into being a meaningful, effective conservative faction for the entire country, or we could bounce in the other direction and be more like protesters in the parking lot,” he said.
Andy Ogles
Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee has been a controversy magnet in the wider political sphere — known for a long-running campaign finance investigation that was recently dropped by the Justice Department and a series of offensive public statements on Muslims, immigrants and other groups.
But inside the Freedom Caucus, he has emerged as a serious force over two terms, with his name floated for chair even before the end of his first term. He did not rule out running for chair or another caucus leadership position in a recent interview.
“All I care about is winning,” Ogles said, referring to the caucus agenda. “If I’m better in a second or tertiary role, that’s what I’ll do to make sure we deliver on the president’s agenda. If that means I’m the chairman, then so be it.”
Ogles said the upcoming turnover represents a good opportunity to renew and potentially rethink how the group operates: “We’re going into the presidential. Sometimes you need fresh ideas, fresh faces.”
- Senate eyes vote on updated housing affordability legislation
- Capitol Agenda: The new faces of the Freedom Caucus
- Why Trump and other G7 leaders meeting without China might be a mistake
- The Freedom Caucus is losing its stalwarts. Here’s who to watch next.
- Trump’s North Korea-Iran nuclear paradox could reveal a path to resolution
- 12 dead in Missouri plane crash, authorities say
- Graham ‘concerned’ that Iran views deal with U.S. differently than Trump administration
- Democrats hold 5-point edge over GOP ahead of midterms: Poll
- Pence cast doubt on possibility of US, Iran peace deal before Trump announcement
- U.S. and Iran say they have finally reached a deal, but details are still emerging
-
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
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words