Congress

How a long speaker fight could impact Trump’s ability to start his next term

Published

1 year ago

January 2, 2025

If Republicans fail to elect a speaker Friday, the ensuing chaos could impact two of the most crucial moments enshrined in the Constitution: the Jan. 6 certification of the 2024 election, and — if things really go haywire — the Jan. 20 inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.

Trump has endorsed Speaker Mike Johnson for another stint atop the House and has privately indicated that he doesn’t want Republicans delaying his priorities with a drawn-out speaker fight. But Johnson’s restive right flank is weighing opposing him anyway, and the House is essentially frozen until it elects a speaker. So if the election to lead the House is significantly delayed, it will have a cascading effect that could upend the transfer of power from Joe Biden to Trump in unpredictable ways.

“I don’t think Trump has any interest in messing with the [certification]. And so there’s going to be a lot of pressure to coordinate on someone without a protracted fight,” said Matthew Glassman, a former Hill staffer who now studies congressional procedure as a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University.

Constitutional and congressional experts have gamed out a handful of scenarios that could result, depending on how long the battle ensues. Here’s a look at some of the scenarios and details to watch should this fight enter uncharted territory:

A temporary speaker
If it becomes clear that Johnson can’t win the gavel, congressional experts say the least chaotic path for the House would be to elect a temporary or “caretaker” speaker.

“Jan. 6th serves as an obvious backstop to the speaker election. But not entirely,” Brendan Buck, a former aide to two GOP speakers, said Thursday. “They could just approve a resolution placing someone in the chair for the time-limited purpose of overseeing the joint session, and then go back to the speaker debate.”

This person would be tasked with swearing in all incoming House members, adopting procedures to govern the certification of the 2024 election and convening the House on Jan. 6 so lawmakers can meet to count the votes of the Electoral College, finalizing Trump’s victory.

After the election is certified, the caretaker speakership would end, facilitating the election of a permanent speaker. The biggest question about this path is whether Johnson himself would support it. His allies have been making the case that he must be elected speaker to ensure that Trump’s certification as president is not delayed. If he endorses a caretaker speakership, he instantly loses that leverage.

Convening the joint session
In presidential transition years, Congress uses its first day to adopt procedures to govern the Jan. 6 joint session to certify the election results. These procedures, which have traditionally been adopted by both the House and Senate, bind both chambers to the federal laws that govern the transfer of power.

A chaotic opening to the House’s 2025 session could threaten its ability to pass those procedures, creating yet another question mark around the certification of the election.

So far, leadership in both chambers have declined to comment on the status of their efforts to adopt procedures for the joint session, but if Johnson fails to corral enough votes to claim the speakership on Friday, the fate of these procedures could be the first bellwether of further procedural chaos on Jan. 6.

The wildest scenario
The most extreme, maximally chaotic outcome of this battle is a protracted speakership fight without a caretaker, one that stretches so deep into January it threatens the inauguration.

Most experts expect the House to get its act together by then, if only to avoid this precise scenario, but given the chamber’s chaos, it’s hard to count anything out.

It would be a power struggle with no precedent to guide the results. The letter of the Constitution says Biden’s term ends on Jan. 20 at noon, and if there’s no successor certified to take office, the job would fall to the first person in the presidential order of succession. Without a speaker, this would be the Senate President pro tempore, expected to be 91-year-old Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the most senior Republican member of the Senate.

It is hard to imagine congressional Republicans letting it get to this point, potentially denying Trump the triumphant return he craves and delaying — if not derailing — the start of his presidency. Much like the caretaker speakership, this could in effect be a caretaker presidency until the process facilitates Trump’s return to office.

Congress

Senate Republicans want a say on Trump’s Iran deal

Published

5 minutes ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump is touting a deal that would end the monthslong war with Iran — and potentially ease some of the political headwinds bearing down on Republicans.

GOP lawmakers still have lots of questions.

The absence of publicly released text for the “memorandum of understanding” Vice President JD Vance reportedly signed with Iranian officials Sunday left an information vacuum on Capitol Hill, where senators of both parties were left airing concerns about what the deal might entail.

Even most Republicans agreed: More information needs to come to Congress soon, and any agreement touching on the future of the Iranian nuclear program would have to eventually be subject to a congressional vote.

“If you want a deal to last, it can’t be an executive agreement,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “We’ve got to have a vote of Congress to be able to solidify [it] long term.”

The bipartisan scrutiny of the long-brewing agreement is a legacy of the last Iran nuclear deal, consummated more than a decade ago by then-President Barack Obama amid a bipartisan uproar over trading sanctions relief and cash concessions to the Iranian regime in return for curbs on its nuclear ambitions.

Trump withdrew from the deal in his first term, and now he is back with an agreement that — pending release of the text and final negotiations yet to come — could end up looking like Obama’s deal. That has raised the hackles of both defense hawks who despised the original agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and Democrats who believe Trump never should have left it in the first place.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of those defense hawks, told reporters that he was “pulling for a deal,” while also making note of serious discrepancies in the terms that have emerged thus far.

“The MOU being described by us sounds really very good; the MOU being described by Iran sounds awful,” Graham said.

“If they can enrich [uranium] anywhere at all, then it’s the same as JCPOA. If they can’t enrich, then that makes it a good deal,” he continued, adding in a separate conversation that he was “skeptical that Iran will ever go there” to cease enrichment.

The Trump administration said it expects release of the memorandum of understanding no later than Friday.

The possibility that Congress would take any kind of vote on the agreement is also a legacy of the 2015 deal. Amid bipartisan concern about the Obama administration’s pursuit of nuclear talks, the GOP-controlled House and Senate that year passed legislation allowing for congressional review of any agreement dealing with the Iranian nuclear program.

That law, however, does not require Congress to approve a deal — it rather gives it the ability to kill a deal via a disapproval resolution that could be subject to presidential veto. That means each chamber would have to effectively muster a two-thirds majority to block Trump, something it did not come close to doing in 2015.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there is “probably some expectation” that his chamber would ultimately vote on the agreement while declining to weigh in on the particulars.

“I just don’t know enough about it yet, and I don’t think even the people who follow this stuff closely up here know that much about it,” he said, adding that he expected Vance or other administration officials to brief members on the deal at some point.

The lack of specificity was par for the course on Capitol Hill Monday, with many senators expressing exasperation that text of the signed agreement has not yet been released.

“If it’s a secret deal, then how can I take it seriously?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters.

The agreement reportedly includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, but it’s not clear to what degree Iran will be required to abandon its nuclear program. Vance indicated in a series of interviews that the administration will attempt to ensure Iran does not develop or obtain a nuclear weapon but left details regarding civilian nuclear facilities and potential uranium enrichment unaddressed.

The White House circulated talking points to Hill Republicans Monday touting the deal including that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and “energy prices … are coming down,” according to a copy of the document reviewed by Blue Light News. The administration also argued in the memo that the agreement “beats” the Obama-era agreement.

In the absence of further details, senators mainly agreed that they wanted a chance to formally review and vote on the deal — even as some Republicans predicted the administration would find a way to avoid that happening.

“I don’t expect that to happen,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said about a vote. “They’ll try to write it around the treaty requirements, so I don’t expect we’ll vote on it.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the administration should send the deal to Congress “if they want it to be something other than a political agreement, like the JCPOA was.”

Most congressional Republicans have been eager for Trump to find a way out of the nearly four-month war, which has driven up energy prices ahead of the November elections. Thune predicted Monday that a deal would “have a very positive impact on the economic situation in the country and that obviously will translate into the political situation in the country.”

Some of Trump’s most vocal allies on Capitol Hill praised the agreement Monday.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said has had conversations with senior White House officials and he was “very hopeful.” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who is likely the next Senate GOP campaign chair, added on X: “President Trump deserves our trust and support as he works to bring peace to the Middle East.”

Democrats were largely keeping their powder dry Monday on how they would handle a vote on the agreement. Some could find it hard to oppose a deal that ends hostilities on negotiated terms roughly similar to what was secured under a Democratic president in 2015.

But plenty of Democrats questioned what was gained by the conflict.

“We still don’t know the details,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor. “The American people need to know exactly what’s in the deal. … We know this for certain: We are worse off than before Trump began his foolish war of choice.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Thune is ‘hopeful’ Mitch McConnell will return this week

Published

5 hours ago

June 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday he hopes his predecessor as top Republican, Mitch McConnell, returns this week from a hospitalization.

Thune said he had not yet spoken directly with the 84-year-old Kentuckian but is getting “readouts from his staff.”

Asked about McConnell’s condition or if he knew if he would be back this week, Thune told reporters, “I’m hopeful that he’ll be back this week.”

A McConnell spokesperson said Sunday that he had been admitted to the hospital but did not provide details on his condition or why he was hospitalized — a break from recent prior instances where the seven-term senator was hospitalized.

A former McConnell staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity was told the senator was doing much better Monday without any further details on what put him in the hospital.

Daniel Desrochers contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate to confirm Jay Clayton as soon as Thursday

Published

7 hours ago

June 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate could vote as soon as Thursday on Jay Clayton’s nomination to serve as director of national intelligence — a lightning speed pace that will necessitate buy-in from all 100 senators.

Confirming Clayton could help shore up enough votes from Democrats to extend a government surveillance program that expired last Friday over opposition to Trump’s pick for acting director, Bill Pulte.

“He will come out of the committee Thursday, at least hopefully, and then if we get consent, we can move,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview Monday about Clayton, who Trump only nominated for the job late last week.

Democrats “ought to be happy with Clayton,” said Thune, adding that he’s a “good” and “solid” pick.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, floated Sunday to CBS News that Clayton could be confirmed this week if every senator cooperates.

Senate Intelligence will hold a hearing Wednesday on Clayton’s nomination. If every member of the panel agrees, he could then get a committee vote Thursday. Confirming Clayton on the Senate floor hours later would require getting agreement from every senator to speed up the process. Opposition from a single member will punt Clayton’s confirmation to next week.

Confirming Clayton Thursday would, crucially, limit — and potentially circumvent — Pulte from becoming acting director of national intelligence, which Trump has slated to take place Friday, June 19.

The president’s decision to put Pulte in charge after Tulsi Gabbard’s departure at the helm of the Office of National Intelligence sparked bipartisan pushback, with Democrats saying they will withhold support for extending Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act while Pulte is in the acting role. Congress allowed the key government spy authority lapse last Friday without a deal.

Trump threw another curveball into a FISA extension over the weekend when he posted on social media that he was against reauthorizing Section 702 unless a GOP elections bill is attached. That bill, known as the SAVE America Act, does not have the votes to get through Congress.

Thune threw cold water Monday on tying the two issues together.

“Yeah, he’s, as you know, passionate about getting that done and wants to use every opportunity to take a shot at it,” Thune said of Trump and his desire to enact the elections bill.

But, Thune said, “we can’t get FISA done” if the policies are linked.