Connect with us

Politics

The Speaker’s Lobby: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Electing a House Speaker

Published

on

The Speaker’s Lobby: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Electing a House Speaker

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

The Constitution dictates that the 119th Congress begins at noon et on Friday. 

And the first order of business in the House is to elect the Constitutional officer for the legislative branch of government: Speaker of the House.

Advertisement

Only the House votes for Speaker. And the House can’t do anything – I’ll repeat that, anything – until it chooses a Speaker. 

It can’t swear-in Members until the House taps a Speaker and he or she is sworn-in. The Speaker then swears-in the rest of the body, en masse. Then the House must adopt a rules package to govern daily operations. Only then can the House go about debating bills, voting and constructing committees for hearings. 

HEALTHY LIVING, PARTY UNITY, ‘SMELLING THE ROSES’: CAPITOL HILL’S NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS

If the House fails to elect a Speaker on the first ballot, it must proceed to a second ballot. 

And on and on.  

Advertisement

Consider for a moment that the House had never even taken a second vote for Speaker in a century before the donnybrook two years ago. It took four ballots to re-elect late House Speaker Frederick Gillett, R-Mass., in 1923. 

What is past is prologue for the House. Consider how the House consumed 15 rounds spread out over five days before electing former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., in January, 2023. The Speakership remained vacant – and thus, the House frozen – for 22 days after Republicans dumped McCarthy nine months later. House Republicans then tapped House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., for Speaker. Scalise withdrew his name before there was even a floor vote. House GOPers then tapped Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to become Speaker. But Jordan lost three consecutive votes for Speaker on the House floor, bleeding support on each ballot. House Republicans then anointed House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., for Speaker. Emmer withdrew hours later. 

Fox News Digital briefly spoke with ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy during a rare appearance on Capitol Hill

House Republicans finally nominated House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., for the job. The Louisiana Republican won on the floor. But some conservatives have been disappointed in Johnson ever since. They’ve flagged how he handled multiple, interim spending bills from last November on. They didn’t like that he allowed a bill on the floor to aid Ukraine. They opposed him doing yet another interim spending bill in September. They really didn’t like how he worked with Democrats on major, must-do pieces of legislation. And then there was the misstep of the staggering, 1,500-page interim spending package which Mr. Trump and Elon Musk pulverized from afar in December. Johnson then did President-elect Trump’s bidding with another spending package – which included a debt ceiling increase. But 38 House Republicans bolted on that bill. 

So Johnson’s tenure has been bumpy. And that’s why he’s on the hook come Friday afternoon during the vote for Speaker. Everyone on Capitol Hill is on tenterhooks when it comes to wrapping this up expeditiously. 

Advertisement

Here’s what will happen Friday at noon: 

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN CALLS ON INCOMING ADMINISTRATION TO TARGET ‘THE AXIS OF AGGRESSORS’

Acting House Clerk Kevin McCumber will preside until the House elects a Speaker. The first order of business is a “call of the House.” That’s where the House establishes how many of its Members-elect are there, simply voting “present.” The House should clock in at 434 members: 219 Republicans and 215 Democrats. There should be one vacancy. Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., resigned in the fall – and said he did not “intend” to serve in the new Congress, despite having won reelection. 

Watch to see if there are absences in that call of the House. Fox is told that Democrats who have struggled with health issues of late – including Reps. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., Dwight Evans, D-Penn., and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will likely be there. But the Speaker’s election is about the math. How many lawmakers report to the House chamber will dictate margins in the Speaker’s vote.

Then it’s on to nominating speeches. Incoming House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain, R-Mich., will nominate Johnson for Speaker. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., will nominate House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. Anyone else can then place someone’s name in nomination.

Advertisement

Then, the House calls the roll of Members-elect alphabetically. Each Member rises and verbally responds, calling out their choice by name. Reps. Alma Adams, D-N.C., Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., and the aforementioned Aguilar are the first names out of the block.

(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

But lawmakers can vote for anyone they want. That includes persons who aren’t House Members. That’s why there have been votes cast over the years for the late Gen. Colin Powell, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., former Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. 

This is what Johnson – or anyone else must do – to win the Speakership:

The winning candidate must secure an outright majority of all Members voting for a candidate by name. 

Advertisement

So let’s say there are 434 members and all vote for someone by name. The magic number is 218. If Johnson gets the votes of all 219 Republicans, he wins. If Johnson gets 218 votes, he also wins. But 217? No dice. Under those circumstances Johnson would have prospectively outpolled Jeffries, 217-215 – with two votes going to other candidates. But the “most votes” doesn’t win. 217 is not an outright majority of House Members voting for someone by name. The House must take ANOTHER ballot to elect a Speaker. 

Fox is told there are anywhere from 12 to 17 Republicans who could vote for someone besides Johnson. And some Republicans are being cagey about their votes. 

BERNIE SANDERS PLANS TO SPEARHEAD LEGISLATION ON KEY TRUMP PROPOSAL

Here’s something to watch: Members who vote “present.”

Rather than voting for someone besides Johnson, some Republicans may protest by simply voting “present.” A “present” vote does not count against Johnson. 

Advertisement

So let’s do some hypothetical math here:

Let’s say 434 Members cast ballots. Jeffries secures support from all 215 Democrats. Three Republicans vote “present.” In other words, not voting for any candidate by name. Johnson scores 216 votes. He has the most votes. But more importantly, only 431 Members voted for someone by name. 216 is an outright majority of 431. 434 doesn’t matter under these circumstances. So Johnson becomes Speaker. 

But there is serious danger in too many Republicans voting “present.” 

Consider this scenario: 

All 215 Democrats vote for Jeffries. But five Republicans vote “present.” Johnson records 214 votes. 429 Members cast ballots for someone by name. The magic number here is 215. Guess who’s Speaker? Jeffries. He marshalled an outright majority of all Members voting for a candidate by name.

Advertisement

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

As they say in the movies, “You play a very dangerous game, Mr. Bond.”

With such a thin margin in the House, Republicans are absolutely tinkering with fire if they get too cute by half. Yes. Some conservatives might not want to re-elect Johnson as Speaker. But they certainly don’t want Jeffries. 

So it’s hard to say what happens on Friday afternoon. If the House dithers too long, this could delay the certification of the Electoral College vote on Monday. The House and Senate must meet in a Joint Session of Congress on January 6 to certify the election results. No House Speaker? No Joint Session. 

But something else will likely unfold if this drags on. Johnson loyalists and mainstream Republicans have had it with right-wing ideologues, the Freedom Caucus and other freelancers. Expect a full-on brawl between those two factions if Republicans struggle to elect a Speaker.

Advertisement

And as we wrote earlier, what is past is prologue. 

A protracted battle over the Speakership serves as prologue to the looming, internecine fights among Republicans when it comes to governing. That’s to say nothing of implementing a solitary plank of President-elect Trump’s agenda.

Politics

Democrats demand Kristi Noem be fired or warn impeachment will follow

Published

on

Democrats demand Kristi Noem be fired or warn impeachment will follow

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

House Democrats ramped up pressure on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday, calling for her firing and warning that impeachment proceedings would follow if she remains in office, citing deadly actions by federal agents in Minnesota.

The calls came from both House Democratic leadership and Judiciary Committee Democrats, marking a coordinated escalation from public condemnation to formal impeachment threats.

In a joint statement, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to carry out deadly violence.

“Taxpayer dollars are being weaponized by the Trump administration to kill American citizens, brutalize communities and violently target law-abiding immigrant families,” the leaders said. “The country is disgusted by what the Department of Homeland Security has done.”

Advertisement

NOEM SAYS SHE GRIEVES FOR FAMILY AFTER CBP-RELATED SHOOTING IN MINNEAPOLIS, VOWS THOROUGH INVESTIGATION

House Democrats ramped up pressure on DHS Secretary Kristi Noem on Tuesday. ( Al Drago/Getty Images)

The leaders warned that unless Noem is removed, impeachment proceedings would follow.

“Kristi Noem should be fired immediately, or we will commence impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives,” the statement said.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

Advertisement

The demands come as Noem faces widespread criticism after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota this month.

Separately, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, called on Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to immediately begin impeachment proceedings if Noem is not fired or forced to resign.

“Unless Secretary Noem resigns or is fired, the Judiciary Committee’s Chairman, Jim Jordan, should immediately commence House Judiciary Committee impeachment proceedings to remove her from office,” Raskin said.

BORDER PATROL COMMANDER GREGORY BOVINO TO LEAVE MINNESOTA, AS TOM HOMAN TAKES OVER

Federal agents try to clear demonstrators near a hotel, using tear gas during a noise demonstration protest in response to federal immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis. (Adam Gray/AP Photo)

Advertisement

Raskin accused Noem of overseeing what he described as unlawful killings and a subsequent cover-up.

“Far from condemning these unlawful and savage killings in cold blood, Secretary Noem immediately labeled Renée Good and Alex Pretti ‘domestic terrorists,’ blatantly lied about the circumstances of the shootings that took their lives, and attempted to cover up and blockade any legitimate investigation into their deaths,” he said.

Separately, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., called on Trump to fire Noem directly on Tuesday.

In a post on X, the senator accused Noem of “betraying” the department’s central mission.

In a joint statement with other Democratic leaders, Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to carry out deadly violence. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Advertisement

However, President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that he has no plans to ask Noem to step down from her role.

Trump was asked about Noem’s status during a gaggle with reporters outside the White House. He told the press that he still thinks Noem is doing a “great job.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Is Kristi Noem going to step down?” a reporter asked.

“No,” Trump responded bluntly.

Advertisement

He later said he believes she is doing a “very good job,” citing her role in closing down the border.

Fox News’ Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump signs executive order to ‘preempt’ permitting process for fire-destroyed homes in L.A.

Published

on

Trump signs executive order to ‘preempt’ permitting process for fire-destroyed homes in L.A.

President Trump has announced an executive order to allow victims of the Los Angeles wildfires to rebuild without dealing with “unnecessary, dupicative, or obstructive” permitting requirements.

The order, which is likely to be challenged by the city and state, claimed that local governments have failed to adequately process permits and were slowing down residents who are desperate to rebuild in the Palisades and Altadena.

“American families and small businesses affected by the wildfires have been forced to continue living in a nightmare of delay, uncertainty, and bureaucratic malaise as they remain displaced from their homes, often without a source of income, while state and local governments delay or prevent reconstruction by approving only a fraction of the permits needed to rebuild,” Trump wrote in the executive order, which he signed Friday.

The order called on the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to “preempt” state and local permitting authorities.

Advertisement

Instead of going through the usual approval process, residents using federal emergency funds to rebuild would need to self-certify to federal authorities that they have complied with local health and safety standards.

The order comes as the city and county approach 3,000 permits issued for rebuilding. A December review by The Times found that the permitting process in Altadena and Pacific Palisades was moving at a moderate rate compared to other major fires in California. As of Dec. 14, the county had issued rebuilding permits for about 16% of the homes destroyed in the Eaton fire and the city had issued just under 14% for those destroyed in the Palisades fire.

While Mayor Karen Bass did not immediately provide comment, the executive order drew intense pushback from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A spokesperson for Newsom, Tara Gallegos, called Trump a “clueless idiot” for believing the federal government could issue local rebuilding permits.

“With 1625+ home permits issued, hundreds of homes under construction, and permitting timelines at least 2x faster than before the fires, an executive order to rebuild Mars would do just as useful,” Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote in a post on X, citing the number of permits issued solely by the city of Los Angeles.

Advertisement

Newsom said that the federal government needed to release funding, not take over control of the permitting process. The governor said that what communities really lack is money, not permits.

“Please actually help us. We are begging you,” Newsom wrote.

Instead of descending into the permitting process, Newsom called on the president to send a recovery package to congress to help families rebuild, citing a letter from a bipartisan delegation of California legislators that called for federal funding.

“As the recovery process continues, additional federal support is needed, and our entire delegation looks forward to working cooperatively with your administration to ensure the communities of Southern California receive their fair share of federal disaster assistance,” wrote the California legislators on Jan 7.

Los Angeles City Councilwoman Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, responded in a statement that read: “If the federal government is interested in expediting recovery from the most expensive disaster in this country’s history, they can start by committing to real financial support — to close insurance gaps, to repair critical infrastructure damaged in both the fire and the debris removal process, to help this region rebuild two entire communities from the ground up.”

Advertisement

Park also said that “dangling SBA loans and hazard mitigation funding in front of victims while summarily denying FEMA claim and other support to municipalities behind the scenes is subterfuge, not support. The City can only approve permits that have been submitted and the reality is that many disaster victims are still not ready to move forward with their rebuilds. This federal government can fix that by allowing desperately needed financial assistance to flow down to the Los Angeles region and let us get to work.”

Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said she would “welcome any effort to responsibly accelerate rebuilding.”

Barger said permits take 30 days to move through the county’s plan check, but often encounter delays due to “complex multi-party work of architects, engineers, and builders.”

She also called for more federal funding and long-term disaster aid.

“The most urgent need in the Altadena region is financially driven,” she said in a statement to The Times.

Advertisement

Some in the Palisades agreed that money was a bigger issue than permitting.

“When I talk to people it seems to have more to do with their insurance payout or whether they have enough money to complete construction,” said Maryam Zar, a Palisades resident who runs the Palisades Recovery Coalition.

Zar called the executive order “interesting” and said that it was fair of the president to call the recovery pace slow and unacceptable.

Jonathan Zasloff, a UCLA Law professor who focuses on land use, called the executive order “childish and irresponsible policy.”

Zasloff, who lost his Palisades home in the fire, said that the president does not have the authority to get rid of state and local law just because he doesn’t like them. Instead, Zasloff said, the president should focus on fully funding disaster recovery so that the city and county can have adequate staff to process permit applications.

Advertisement

“My house burned down in the Palisades. Getting rid of the building codes would make it easier to rebuild something, but it could also make things a lot more dangerous,” he said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Mamdani’s early moves as mayor clash with affordability pledge: ‘Ripple effects are significant’

Published

on

Mamdani’s early moves as mayor clash with affordability pledge: ‘Ripple effects are significant’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani ran on a message of making the Big Apple more affordable for everyday Americans, but some of his actions in the first few weeks of his tenure have served to undercut that reality.

In the early days of his time as mayor, Mamdani has already shown a penchant for vehemently defending low-wage, unskilled delivery-app workers in a manner that industry executives and business experts think will hit consumers’ pocketbooks. He sued a delivery app startup earlier this month for allegedly violating the city’s worker-rights laws, and warned the broader range of delivery app companies operating in the city to abide by ramped up worker rights being imposed at the end of the month, or else.

At a press conference announcing the lawsuit and accompanying demand letters issued to delivery app companies warning them to follow the updated worker protections, Mamdani also accused the delivery-app startup, MotoClick, of stealing workers’ tips. Among the reforms Mamdani has signaled he plans to vigorously enforce is a mandated tipping framework that estimates show could push more than half-a-billion in additional costs on consumers annually. 

The updated protections will also add more delivery-app companies, such as those that deliver groceries, to the list that must follow the delivery-app worker rights laws, including a mandated minimum wage higher than what some emergency medical services (EMS) personnel in the city make.

Advertisement

‘ZOHRANOMICS’: NYC MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI’S SOCIALIST MATH DOESN’T ADD UP 

Zesty is now in beta in San Francisco and New York as DoorDash tests and refines its personalized matching experience. (iStock)

“We know affordability is not just about the cost of goods — it’s about the dignity of work,” Mamdani’s Commissioner of the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) Sam Levine told companies including DoorDash, GrubHub and Uber. “Today’s lawsuit against Motoclick is not just an action against one company, it’s a warning to every app-based company from this Administration. You cannot treat workers like they are expendable and get away with it. We will seek full back pay and damages. We will seek full accountability.”

Mamdani pointed to a recent report put out by Levine, which showed disobeying city mandates going into effect later this month, requiring apps to give the opportunity for customers to tip before or at the same time that an order has been placed, significantly impacts the amount of incoming tip revenue. Levine’s report that Mamdani touted estimates alternative tipping frameworks, such as only allowing tips upon completion of a delivery, have altered tipping revenue by an estimated $550 million per year.

Mamdani also stood by in tacit agreement during the press conference as delivery-app worker advocates called for an increase to their already mandated minimum wage they have that is approximately $4.50 higher for delivery-app drivers than the city’s base minimum wage of $17 per hour. The workers said they wanted a mandate that they get paid $35 per hour, to which Mamdani replied: “closed mouths don’t get fed.”

Advertisement

Mamdani campaigned on raising the base minimum wage to $30 per hour for all New Yorkers by 2030.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani at a press conference defending worker rights for delivery-app drivers on Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026. (Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, his eager enforcement to protect delivery-app drivers will include making sure a wider breadth of delivery-app companies, such as those who deliver groceries like InstaCart and Shipt, abide by New York City’s extended minimum wage laws for their workers – plus the other mandates related to the tipping structure and more.

DCWP has indicated plans to set a minimum pay rate for all delivery apps by early 2027.

HOURS AFTER TAKING OFFICE, NYC MAYOR MAMDANI TARGETS LANDLORDS, MOVES TO INTERVENE IN PRIVATE BANKRUPTCY CASE    

Advertisement

“The challenges facing delivery workers, small businesses, and consumers are real, and deeply interconnected. That’s why this issue cannot be reduced to a single policy lever or viewed in isolation,” a spokesperson for the Bronx Chamber of Commerce told Fox News Digital. “Small businesses across the Bronx and throughout New York City are already under extraordinary pressure. When additional costs are layered on without a full economic analysis, those costs are predictably passed down to consumers or absorbed through reduced hours, reduced staffing, or closures. When businesses close, communities lose jobs, services, and economic anchors, and the ripple effects are significant.”

The Chamber of Commerce spokesperson added that Mamdani has an opportunity “to lead by tackling affordability in a holistic way,” which they said would require “comprehensive cost analysis and coordinated solutions that support workers while ensuring the small business ecosystem and consumer affordability are not unintentionally harmed.”

Signage reading ‘Days of a New Era’ is juxtaposed behind New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during a press conference he attended about reining in ‘junk fees.’ (Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

When reached for comment about the discrepancy between Mamdani’s message of making New York City more affordable for everyone, versus his push to protect delivery-app worker rights that could impact consumer pricing, a New York City Hall spokesperson argued that “the insinuation that putting more money in the pockets of delivery workers undercuts affordability is absurd.”

“Delivery Workers are important members of our city’s economy, and deserve to be paid fairly – anything less is unacceptable,” the spokesperson added. “As Mayor Mamdani continues to stand up for everyday New Yorkers and actualize his ambitious agenda to make New York City truly livable for families. Affordability has been, and will continue to be, a guiding light.”

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But DoorDash’s head of public policy for North America, John Horton, said that ensuring delivery-app workers “earn double what many first responders in the city make” is not a policy solution they believe will make New York City more affordable. Currently, a local fire technician and emergency medical services union in the city is in the midst of a public awareness campaign to raise their wages because they make less than delivery-app drivers at $18.94 per hour.

Delivery-app workers in New York City must be paid $21.44 per hour according to local worker protection mandates.  (iStock)

“A thriving New York will take a partnership between elected officials, the business community and workers to ensure we are all working in the best interests of New Yorkers in the midst of the city’s affordability crisis,” Horton added. 

Fox News Digital followed up with Mamdani’s campaign to inquire about the complaint that EMS and some firemen in the city are making less than delivery-app workers, but did not receive a response in time for publication.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending