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.
The Dictatorship
Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm


-
New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’
10:42
-
‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister
08:37
-
Now Playing
-
UP NEXT
‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears
05:47
-
The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’
04:59
-
Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war
03:53
-
Ukraine didn’t agree to ceasefire, they bent the knee to extortion, says House member
07:26
-
Dumbest war the U.S. has ever fought: House member slams Trump’s tariffs
03:09
-
‘Mock him’: Why Democrats are failing when it comes to protesting Trump
09:39
-
Musk calls Sen. Mark Kelly a ‘traitor’ over his social media posts in support of Ukraine
04:00
-
Richard Engel: Today, Ukrainians ‘quite satisfied’ with temporary ceasefire
04:16
-
‘Serious and dangerous’ for the economy: Trump’s messaging scares some of his own advisers
08:57
-
Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports take effect, Europe retaliates
09:11
-
Joe Scarborough’s powerful 9/11 tribute song ‘Reason to Believe’ (2011)
03:45
-
Joe’s decade-long warnings on EU immigration and the rise of Europe’s far-right
03:28
-
What really happens before Morning Joe goes live? ‘Blue Dawn’ tells all (2019 Promo)
04:15
-
The Morning Joe crew gets moving to ‘Dance to the Music’ (2015 Promo)
03:00
-
We have underestimated Putin as an ideological leader: Amb. McFaul
08:58
-
Molly Jong-Fast: Trump’s empty promises are catching up to him
03:09
-
Joe: Elon Musk said we have to eliminate Social Security and Medicare
10:56
-
New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’
10:42
-
‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister
08:37
-
Now Playing
Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm
03:49
-
UP NEXT
‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears
05:47
-
The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’
04:59
-
Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war
03:53
The Dictatorship
Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly said of President Donald Trump“What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”
Trudeau’s accusation was extraordinary and unprecedented. Here was the leader of Canada, one of America’s closest and longest-standing allies, accusing the U.S. president of engaging in economic warfare. More and more, however, it seems Trudeau wasn’t making this argument up. The evidence is piling up that Trump has declared economic war on Canada for the express purpose of making our Northern neighbor the 51st state.
Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.
Trump first referred to Canada as the 51st state in a December 2024 meeting with Trudeau. At the time, the Canadian Prime Minister assumed Trump was joking. But then, in January, he said it again publicly, this time threatening the use of “economic force” to pursue annexation. In addition, he began referring to Trudeau as “Governor” rather than “Prime Minister.”
By this point, one could easily chalk this up to Trumpian bluster. He couldn’t possibly be serious about annexing Canada? Could he?
But, two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, a private call between him and Trudeau, which was supposed to be about tariffs, took an odd turn. According to The New York Times, Trump told “Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary.” He also mentioned revisiting long-standing treaties between the U.S. and Canada regarding the sharing of lakes and rivers.
Even the Canadians were taken aback by Trump’s statement — and it slowly began to dawn on them that perhaps the president was serious (or as serious as one can be about an insane notion like the U.S. annexing Canada).
Publicly, Trump wouldn’t let the matter die. In an interview broadcast before the Super Bowlon February 9, Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier his plans to annex Canada were a “real thing.” And to magnify Canada’s economic vulnerability, Trump told reporters that Canada was “not viable as a country” without U.S. trade.
The problem for Canada is that Trump isn’t wrong on this front. Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.
In the current context of the emerging trade war between the U.S. and Canada, it seems more than reasonable to believe that this is precisely Trump’s intention.
Consider for a moment how this trade war has unfolded. When Trump first declared his intention to slap tariffs on Canada, he used the smuggling of fentanyl across the Canadian border as a justification (never mind that 19 kilograms of fentanyl came across the Canadian border last year, compared to 9,600 kilograms that crossed the U.S.-Mexico border). After Trudeau reminded Trump of Canada’s plan for slowing the smuggling of fentanyl, which was introduced late last year, he backed down.
But then last week, Trump returned to the trade spat with Canada, but this time blamed Canada because of its protectionist trade policies on dairy, lumber and banking. After Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, announced a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, Minnesota and New York, in response, Trump upped the ante announcing a new 25% tariff on Canada’s exports of steel and aluminum (which is in addition to already planned tariffs on steel and aluminum).
How can Canadians end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?
In announcing the new tariffs, Trump didn’t mention fentanyl as a justification, but instead wrote on TruthSocial that “the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” In a follow-up post, he wondered why the U.S. “allow(s) another Country to supply us with electricity, even for a small area?”
Trump’s zigzagging has left markets and the business community flummoxed. For Canadians, the confusion is even worse. How can they end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?
But perhaps the obvious answer is staring us in the face, and we’re all too dumbfounded to acknowledge it. Trump has been remarkably consistent in stating that Canada should become America’s 51st state — he has said this repeatedly for months now. Moreover, he has openly espoused using U.S. economic power to achieve that goal — and is doing precisely that.
Just so we’re clear, this is not a Trump-only phenomenon. Yesterday, when asked if the U.S. still considers Canada a “close ally,” White House press secretary Katherine Leavitt said that Canada would “benefit greatly” from joining the United States and pointed to its high cost of living as a reason for surrendering sovereignty.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick sounded a similar theme, noting that “Canada is gonna have to work with us to really integrate their economy, and as the president said, they should consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state.”
In recent days, the Trump administration has further imposed its will on Canada by requiring Canadians who visit the country for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government.
The first 51 days of Trump’s presidency have been, for lack of a better word, an odyssey. Crazy has been dropped on top of more crazy. But in the year 2025, an American president, with no pushback from his Cabinet or Congress, has declared economic war on our closest neighbor to annex its land (which is larger than America’s) and wants to make its 40 million citizens part of the United States. This is the craziest notion of all.
Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”
The Dictatorship
The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

On Tuesday, House Republicans voted to hand a blank check over to a White House that is already stealing from our families and communities to fund the largest possible tax cut for billionaires and the biggest corporations.
The continuing resolution passed by the House gives Elon Musk and President Donald Trump even more flexibility to steal from the middle class, from seniors, from veterans, from working people, from small businesses and from farmers, all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
The administration’s slash-and-burn approach has already left a trail of destruction in our communities. From our national parks to Social Security officesVA medical centers to food banks, Americans are seeing the direct results of the administration’s illegitimate, ill-informed and illegal campaign to tear apart our institutions.
This CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government.
Article I of the Constitution clearly spells out Congress’s authority to determine spending. It reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” To carry out this authority, the House and Senate Appropriations committees engage in tough negotiations that result in bipartisan legislation to fund the government and all of the agencies, programs and services that are provided to the American people.
As recently as early March, we were on the cusp of such an agreement. The “four corners” of the Appropriations committees — Tom Cole and me in the House and Susan Collins and Patty Murray in the Senate — were inches away from securing a deal on the funding topline, which would have allowed us to begin the roughly monthlong process of writing full-year bills.
This process is critically important: It ensures that final funding bills are the results of broad compromise among the people’s elected representatives. Nobody ever gets everything they want, but instead, the interests of Americans from coast to coast are considered and accounted for.
But House Speaker Mike Johnson, at the behest of Musk and President Trump, pulled the rug out from under us and set the House on a track to hand Congress’ authorities over government funding to Musk and Trump. Several of my House colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who by their own admission never vote in favor of government funding bills, enthusiastically voted for this CR, completely ending the appropriations process.
As Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districts, the American people are wise to their abandonment of duty.
Why? Because this CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government and destroy the services that help Americans get by, and because they believe the president will continue to unilaterally freeze and deny funding for programs and services that do not serve his interests.
House Republicans would rather let an unchecked billionaire and President Trump seize taxpayer funds intended for families and businesses.
But as Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districtsthe American people are wise to their abandonment of duty and of responsibility. Their constituents are so furious that the party’s political consultants are telling lawmakers to stop holding town halls altogether and just hide.
President Trump was elected because the American people wanted help with the cost of living. But the cost of living is nowhere to be found among the president’s concerns since he took office. Rather, he has set off on an agenda of vengeance and destruction, threatening the stability of our economy and the legitimacy of our government. He declared a trade war on our neighbors and closest alliesraising costs on American households, businesses and farmers and weakening our international relationships.
And the Trump administration continues to steal from the American people to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Elon Musk, an unelected, unaccountable billionaire with immense conflicts of interest, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency have been allowed to illegally freeze payments, tear down our institutions, fire career civil servants who are loyal to the Constitution rather than to President Trump and rip apart hard-fought labor agreements that protect working-class Americans. They even have Social Security in their sights.
My phone has been ringing off the hook with constituents telling me how Musk’s and President Trump’s cuts have affected them, and I know the same is happening in my Republican colleagues’ offices.
Kris, a student at Common Ground High School in my district and an intern at Haven’s Harvest, a volunteer organization that reduces food waste, contacted me after 71 student workers across New Haven were laid off because of the funding freeze. Kris’ internship was part of the Green Jobs Corps, funded by a grant since canceled by the Environmental Protection Agency.
I’ve also heard from CitySeed, which connects dozens of farmers across Connecticut with residents who need access to fresh, local food, through farmers markets, culinary programs and entrepreneurship opportunities. The organization has had funding that helps cover its administrative costs frozen, as well.
And Monica, a senior citizen in my district with a low income who relies on Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP benefits, told me she is not just worried about paying her bills or filling the freezer — she is worried that she will not be able to survive if the Trump administration’s cuts go through.
Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder.
I was at Bradley Airport in Connecticut this week when two Transportation Security Administration officers found out they had been let go. One of them told me they began working for the TSA immediately after its creation in the wake of Sept. 11. I must have missed when the American people asked for fewer TSA agents and longer wait times at checkpoints.
This is wrong, cruel and completely unnecessary. The funding freeze must end, and these draconian cuts must be stopped. But instead of standing up for their constituents and for Congress’s constitutional powers, the CR that passed the House lets Musk and President Trump freeze, cancel and repurpose taxpayer dollars as they see fit.
If this CR becomes law, Musk and President Trump will be able to fire thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration. That will result in office closures, longer wait times and unacceptable backlogs for Americans who are trying to access their earned benefits.
Under this bill, Army Corps of Engineers construction projects to manage our waterways and mitigate flood risks will be cut by $1.4 billion, or 44%. And President Trump, not Congress, would determine all project funding levels and who gets the funding.
Instead of helping our communities address sky-high housing costs, the CR cuts rent subsidies by more than $700 million, leaving landlords to foot the bill or evict more than 32,000 households. And there is not enough funding for disaster relief, abandoning American families who have had their lives turned upside down by extreme weather.
I voted against this CR, and several of my Republican colleagues voted in favor of a CR for the first time, for the same reason: We do not expect the president to actually follow the law.
Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder. This Congress must decide: Do we have the authority to control spending, as is laid out in Article I of the Constitution?
So long as House Republicans are unwilling to defend the powers of the offices they were elected to hold, all of our constituents will continue to pay the price.
Regrettably, the House has already offered to forfeit its authority to the White House. I implore our colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the American people and our Constitution, reject this CR and put a freeze on this blank check.
Rep. Rose
Rep. Rosa DeLauro serves as ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. She represents Connecticut’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
-
The Josh Fourrier Show4 months ago
DOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Uncategorized4 months ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Economy4 months ago
Fed moves to protect weakening job market with bold rate cut
-
Uncategorized4 months ago
Johnson plans to bring House GOP short-term spending measure to House floor Wednesday
-
Economy4 months ago
It’s still the economy: What TV ads tell us about each campaign’s closing message
-
Politics4 months ago
RFK Jr.’s bid to take himself off swing state ballots may scramble mail-in voting
-
Politics4 months ago
How Republicans could foil Harris’ Supreme Court plans if she’s elected
-
Politics4 months ago
What 7 political experts will be watching at Tuesday’s debate