Connect with us

Politics

How the House Slumped to Historic Lows of Productivity in 2025

Published

on

How the House Slumped to Historic Lows of Productivity in 2025

Even by the standards of an institution that has set records for dysfunction in recent years, the Republican-led Congress in 2025 hit new lows for productivity.

Plagued by a razor-thin majority, intraparty divisions and a fear of doing anything that might draw President Trump’s ire, Speaker Mike Johnson toiled to keep the House running.

Advertisement

He left the chamber out of session for a nearly eight-week period that coincided with the longest government shutdown in history. He maneuvered to avoid politically difficult votes on canceling Mr. Trump’s tariffs, releasing the Epstein files and extending health care subsidies, ultimately prompting his own rank-and-file to team with Democrats to go around him and force action. And he presided over a free-for-all of censures and reprimands on the House floor as lawmakers’ frustrations boiled over.

Fed up with the toxicity and inertia, some Republicans, including once-loyal Trump allies like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, headed for the exits, diminishing the majority’s already thin voting margin.

A look at some key metrics illustrates the cost and scale of the dysfunction.

Advertisement

The most basic: House members cast 362 votes in 2025, the second-lowest count in the last quarter century. The only other year in that time frame when the House cast fewer votes was 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States.

Advertisement

Roll call votes since 2001

Source: U.S. House of Representatives The New York Times

Advertisement

That was also the fewest votes cast in a nonelection year since 1990. Congressional leaders typically schedule less time in session in Washington during election years to allow lawmakers to return to their districts more frequently to campaign.

The record-low levels of activity in the House in 2025 contributed to the fact that very few bills were enacted into law.

Advertisement

Enacted bills passed by Congress since 2001

Advertisement

Notes: Chart shows bills that became public laws. Bills passed each January before a new session of Congress began are counted in the previous year. Bills that named government facilities, awarded congressional gold medals or appointed citizen members of the Smithsonian are excluded. Source: United States Congress The New York Times

The only other year since 2001 that Congress enacted fewer bills was 2023, a time of so much turbulence that far-right Republicans ousted their own speaker, Kevin McCarthy, for working with Democrats to pass spending legislation.

Advertisement

The lack of productivity that year could also be attributed to divided government: Republicans controlled the House, Democrats controlled the Senate and President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was running for re-election. But in 2025, Republicans had a governing trifecta in Washington, controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House.

While Congress moved uncharacteristically quickly to meet Mr. Trump’s demand that it deliver his tax cut and domestic policy law, Mr. Johnson also labored to quash measures the president opposed. He even resorted repeatedly to an arcane maneuver to ensure that the House would not be forced to vote on a measure to cancel his tariffs.

It was one example of how, under Mr. Johnson, the House marginalized itself last year, as Congress more broadly ceded its power to Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

The speaker also attempted to avoid votes on other measures the president opposed, including legislation to compel the Justice Department to disclose materials regarding Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in prison in 2019; and a bipartisan bill to extend health care subsidies that expired at the end of 2025.

That generated so much resistance in his own ranks that it fueled a record number of successful efforts to go around Mr. Johnson and force legislation to the floor. That can be done by way of what is known as a discharge petition, which circumvents the normal process for bringing up a bill, which is controlled by the speaker, if a majority of House members sign a petition demanding it.

Advertisement

Historically, members of the majority were reluctant to embarrass their party’s leaders by using a discharge petition, and lawmakers feared retaliation for publicly supporting efforts to subvert the speaker. The efforts were viewed more as public statements of discontent than viable legislative vehicles. But in 2025, several succeeded and led to concrete action.

Advertisement

Discharge petitions that received at least 218 signatures since 2001

Source: United States Congress The New York Times

Advertisement

The Epstein measure was enacted last fall, and the House this month passed a bill to restore the health subsidies, though it has an uphill road to enactment in an election year.

As it has spun its wheels on legislation, the House has increasingly been consumed by partisan measures aimed at scolding and punishing each other. Official rebukes, once exceedingly rare and mostly reserved for egregious conduct or illegal acts, have become commonplace. Six of them came to the floor in 2025 for six different members.

Advertisement

Censures, reprimands and expulsions since 2001

Advertisement

Note: Only bills that underwent a floor vote or a procedural floor vote are shown. Source: United States Congress The New York Times

That number was on par with 2023, when members targeted four lawmakers, including George Santos, whom they expelled from Congress as he faced 23 federal criminal charges and was discovered to have lied to voters about much of his biography.

Politics

Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime

Published

on

Rubio targets Nicaraguan official over alleged torture tied to ‘brutal’ Ortega regime

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Saturday that the Trump administration is sanctioning a senior Nicaraguan official over alleged human rights violations.

Rubio said the U.S. is designating Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in “gross violations of human rights” under the government of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo, marking what he said was the latest effort to hold the regime accountable.

“The Trump administration continues to hold the Murillo-Ortega dictatorship accountable for brutal human rights violations against Nicaraguans,” Rubio said in a post on X. “I’m designating Nicaraguan Vice Minister of the Interior Luis Roberto Cañas Novoa for his role in human rights violations.”

RUBIO TESTIFIES IN TRIAL OF EX-FLORIDA CONGRESSMAN ALLEGEDLY HIRED BY MADURO GOVERNMENT TO LOBBY FOR VENEZUELA

Advertisement

Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks at the State Department, April 14, 2026. The U.S. announced sanctions on a Nicaraguan official tied to alleged human rights abuses under the Ortega-Murillo government. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The designation was made under Section 7031(c), which allows the State Department to bar foreign officials and their immediate family members from entering the United States due to involvement in significant corruption or human rights abuses.

The State Department has said the Ortega-Murillo government has engaged in arbitrary arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings following mass protests that began in April 2018.

“Nearly eight years ago, the Rosario Murillo and Daniel Ortega dictatorship unleashed a brutal wave of repression against Nicaraguans who courageously stood against the regime’s increased tyranny, corruption, and abuse,” the statement reads.

The State Department said that the sanction marked the anniversary of the 2018 protests, after which more than 325 protesters were murdered in the aftermath.

Advertisement

A panel of U.N.-backed human rights experts previously accused Nicaragua’s government of systematic abuses “tantamount to crimes against humanity,” following an investigation into the country’s crackdown on political dissent, according to The Associated Press.

The experts said the repression intensified after mass protests in 2018 and has since expanded across large parts of society, targeting perceived opponents of the government.

TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF VISA RESTRICTION POLICY IN WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega delivers a speech during a ceremony to mark the 199th Independence Day anniversary, in Managua, Nicaragua Sept. 15, 2020.   (Nicaragua’s Presidency/Cesar Perez/Handout via Reuters)

Nicaragua’s government has rejected those findings.

Advertisement

The designation follows a series of recent U.S. actions targeting the Ortega-Murillo government. In February, the State Department sanctioned five senior Nicaraguan officials tied to repression, citing arbitrary detention, torture, killings and the targeting of clergy, media and civil society.

Earlier this week, the department also announced sanctions on individuals and companies linked to Nicaragua’s gold sector, including two of Ortega and Murillo’s sons, accusing the regime of using the industry to generate foreign currency, launder assets and consolidate power within the ruling family.

The State Department said the move is part of ongoing efforts to hold the Nicaraguan government accountable for its actions.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Nicaraguan government and its embassy in Washington for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

A man waves a Nicaraguan flag during a demonstration to commemorate Nicaragua’s national Day of Peace, which is celebrated in the country on April 19, and to protest against the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in San Jose, Costa Rica on April 16, 2023. (Jose Cordero/AFP)

The Trump administration has taken an increasingly aggressive posture in the Western Hemisphere in recent months, including a Jan. 3, 2026, operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

The U.S. has also carried out a series of strikes targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the region, part of a broader crackdown tied to regional security and narcotics enforcement efforts.

Continue Reading

Politics

Outlines of a deal emerge with major concessions to Iran

Published

on

Outlines of a deal emerge with major concessions to Iran

Upbeat claims from President Trump over an imminent peace deal to end the war with Iran were met with deep skepticism Friday across the Middle East, where Iranian and Israeli officials questioned the prospects for a lasting agreement that would satisfy all parties.

The outlines of an agreement began to emerge that would provide Iran with a major strategic victory — and a potential financial windfall — allowing the Islamic Republic to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz to exact significant concessions from the United States and its ally Israel as Trump presses for a swift end to the conflict.

In a series of social media posts and interviews with reporters, Trump announced that the strait was “fully open,” vowing Tehran would never again attempt to control it. But Iranian officials and state media said that conditions remained on passage through the waterway, including the imposition of tolls and coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iranian diplomats posted threats that its closure could resume at any time of their choosing, and warned that restrictions would return unless the United States agreed to lift a blockade of its ports. Trump had said Friday that the blockade would remain in place.

“The conditional and limited reopening of a portion of the Strait of Hormuz is solely an Iranian initiative, one that creates responsibility and serves to test the firm commitments of the opposing side,” said a top aide to Iran’s president, dismissing Trump’s statements on the contours of a deal as “baseless.”

Advertisement

“If they renege on their promises,” he added, “they will face dire consequences.”

In an overture to Iran, Trump said Israel would be “prohibited” from conducting additional military strikes in Lebanon, where the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to prevent Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy militia, from rearming, a potential threat to communities in the Israeli north.

But in a speech delivered in Hebrew, Netanyahu would say only that Israel had agreed to a temporary ceasefire, while members of his Cabinet warned that Israel Defense Forces operations in southern Lebanon were not yet finished. A top ally of the prime minister at a right-wing Israeli news outlet warned that Trump was “surrendering” to Iran in the talks.

It was a day of public messaging from a president eager to end a war that has proved historically unpopular with the American public, and has driven a rise in gas prices that could weigh on his party entering this year’s midterm elections.

Yet, Republican allies of the president have begun warning him that an agreement skewed heavily in Tehran’s favor could carry political costs of its own.

Advertisement

Trump was forced to deny an Axios report Friday that his negotiating team had offered to release $20 billion in frozen Iranian assets in exchange for Tehran agreeing to hand over its fissile material, buried under rubble from a U.S. bombing raid last year.

That sum would amount to more than 10 times what President Obama released to Iran under a 2015 nuclear deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, that was the subject of fierce Republican criticism in the decade since.

“I have every confidence that President Trump will not allow Iran to be enriched by tens of billions of dollars for holding the world hostage and creating mayhem in the region,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a strong supporter of the war. “No JCPOAs on President Trump’s watch.”

Still, Trump said in a round of interviews that a deal could be reached in a matter of days, ending less than two weeks of negotiations.

He claimed that Tehran had agreed to permanently end its enrichment of uranium — a development that, if true, would mark a dramatic reversal for the Islamic Republic from decades developing its nuclear program, and from just 10 days ago, when Iranian diplomats rejected a U.S. proposal of a 20-year pause on domestic enrichment in favor of a five-year moratorium.

Advertisement

He said Iran had agreed never to build nuclear weapons — a pledge Tehran has made repeatedly, including under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in a religious decree from then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and in the 2015 agreement — while continuing nuclear activities viewed by the international community as exceeding civilian needs.

And he repeatedly stated that Iran had agreed to the removal of its enriched uranium from the country, either to the United States or to a third party. Iranian state media stated Friday afternoon that a proposal to remove the country’s highly enriched uranium had been “rejected.”

Iran’s agreement to allow safe passage for commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is linked to a ceasefire in Lebanon that the Israeli Cabinet approved for only a 10-day period. Regardless of whether it holds or is extended, Israeli officials said their military would not retreat from its current positions in southern Lebanon — opening up Israeli forces to potential attack by Hezbollah militants unbound by a truce brokered by the Lebanese government.

The Lebanese people, Hezbollah officials said, have “the right to resist” Israeli occupation of their land. Whether the fighting resumes, the group added, “will be determined based on how developments unfold.”

An Iranian official threw cold water on the prospects of reaching a comprehensive peace deal in the coming days, telling Reuters that a temporary extension of the current ceasefire, set to expire Tuesday, would “create space for more talks on lifting sanctions on Iran and securing compensation for war damages.”

Advertisement

“In exchange, Iran will provide assurances to the international community about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program,” the official said, adding that “any other narrative about the ongoing talks is a misrepresentation of the situation.”

Trump told reporters Friday that the talks will continue through the weekend.

While Trump claimed there aren’t “too many significant differences” remaining, he said the United States would continue the blockade until negotiations are finalized and formalized.

“When the agreement is signed, the blockade ends,” the president told reporters in Phoenix.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers

Published

on

Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers

CHAMBERS OF

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN

Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D. C. 20343

February 7, 2016

Memorandum to the Conference

Re: 15A773 West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A776 Basin Elec. Power Cooperative, et al. v. EPA, et al. 15A787 Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, et al.
15A778 Murray Energy Corp., et al. v. EPA, et al.

-

15A793 North Dakota v. EPA, et al.

I agree with Steve that we should direct the States to seek an extension from the EPA before asking this Court to intervene. We could also include, at the end of such an order, language along the lines of the following, to encourage the D. C. Circuit to act expeditiously in its resolution of this matter: “In light of that court’s agreement to consider this case on an expedited schedule, we are confident that it will [or even: we urge it to] render a decision with appropriate dispatch.” See Doe v. Gonzales, 546 U. S. 1301, 1308 (2005) (GINSBURG, J., in chambers); Kemp v. Smith, 463 U. S. 1344, 1345 (1983) (Powell, J., in chambers); Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U. S. 1304, 1305, n. 2 (1973) (Marshall, J., in chambers).

The unique nature of the relief sought in these applications gives me real pause. The applicants ask us to enjoin a regulation pending initial review in the court of appeals. As we often say, “we are a court of review, not of first view.” See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718 n. 7 (2005); cf. Doe, 546 U. S., at 1308 (“Re- spect for the assessment of the Court of Appeals is especially warranted when that court is proceeding to adjudication on the merits with due expedition.”). As far as I can tell, it would be unprecedented for us to second-guess the D. C. Circuit’s deci sion that a stay is not warranted, without the benefit of full briefing or a prior judi- cial decision.

On the merits, this is a difficult case involving a complex statutory and regu- latory regime. Although the parties’ abbreviated discussion of the issues at stake here makes it difficult for me to determine with any confidence which side is likely to ultimately prevail, it seems to me that at this stage the government has the bet- ter of the arguments. The Chief’s memo focuses on the applicants’ argument that the “best system of emission reduction” refers “solely [to] installation of control technologies (e.g., scrubbers).” 2/5 Memo, at 2. The ordinary meaning of “system” is in fact quite broad, appearing to encompass what EPA has done here. Of course, we would want to consider this term in the larger context of the Clean Air Act’s regula-

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending