Politics
The Speaker’s Lobby: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Electing a House Speaker
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
Video: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
new video loaded: Virginia Voters Approve New Map Favoring Democrats
By Shawn Paik
April 22, 2026
Politics
WATCH: Sen Warren unloads on Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh in explosive hearing showdown
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Sparks flew on Capitol Hill as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Federal Reserve nominee Kevin Warsh of being a potential “sock puppet” for President Donald Trump.
Warsh, tapped by Trump in January to lead the Federal Reserve, faced a two-and-a-half-hour confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.
If confirmed, he would take the helm of the world’s most powerful central bank, shaping interest rates, borrowing costs and the financial outlook for millions of American households for the next four years.
WHO IS KEVIN WARSH, TRUMP’S PICK TO SUCCEED JEROME POWELL AS FED CHAIR?
Kevin Warsh, nominee for chairman of the Federal Reserve, listens to ranking member Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., make an opening statement during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In her opening remarks, Warren sharply criticized Warsh’s record and questioned his independence, arguing he is “uniquely ill-suited for the job as Fed chair” and warning he could give Trump influence over the central bank.
She accused Warsh of enabling Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, which fell during his tenure as a Federal Reserve governor when he served from 2006 to 2011.
“In our meeting last week, we discussed the 2008 financial crash, where 8 million people lost their jobs, 10 million people lost their homes and millions more lost their life savings,” Warren said. “Giant banks, however, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts… and he said to me that he has no regrets about anything he did.”
She added that Warsh “worked tirelessly to arrange multibillion-dollar bailouts” for Wall Street CEOs, with nothing for American families.
The hearing grew more tense as Warren pivoted to ethics concerns, pressing Warsh over his undisclosed financial holdings and questioning him over links to business dealings connected to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The two spoke over each other and raised their voices in a heated exchange on Capitol Hill.
WARSH’S $226 MILLION FORTUNE UNDER SCRUTINY AS FED NOMINEE FACES SENATE CONFIRMATION
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: The Fed has been plagued by deeply disturbing ethics scandals in recent years. It’s critical that the next chair have no financial conflicts — none. You have more than $100 million in investments that you have refused to disclose. So let me ask: do the Juggernaut Fund or THSDFS LLC invest in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies tied to money laundering, Chinese-controlled firms, or financing vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein?
Kevin Warsh: Senator, I’ve worked closely with the Office of Government Ethics and agreed to divest all of my financial assets.
Warren: Could you answer my question, please? You have more than $100 million in undisclosed assets. Are any of those investments tied to the entities I just mentioned? It’s a yes-or-no question.
Warsh: I have worked tirelessly with ethics officials and agreed to sell all of my assets before taking the oath of office.
Warren: Are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in vehicles linked to Jeffrey Epstein? You just won’t say?
Warsh: What I’m telling you is those assets will be sold if I’m confirmed.
Warren: Will you disclose how you plan to divest these assets? The public might question your motives if, for example, someone who profits from predicting Fed policy cuts you a $100 million check as you take office.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren questions Kevin Warsh during his Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Warsh: I’ve reached a full agreement with the Office of Government Ethics and will divest those assets before taking the oath.
Warren: I’m asking a very straightforward question. Will you disclose how you divest those assets?
Warsh: As I’ve said, I’ve worked with ethics officials.
Warren: I’ll take that as a no.
In a separate exchange, Warren invoked Trump’s past statements about the Fed and challenged Warsh to prove his independence in real time.
She insisted that Warsh answer whether he believes Trump won the 2020 presidential election and if he would name policies of the president with which he disagrees. The hopeful future Fed chair dodged the question and said he would remain apolitical, if confirmed.
THE ONE LINE IN WARSH’S TESTIMONY SIGNALING A BREAK FROM THE FED’S STATUS QUO
Warren: Donald Trump has made clear he does not want an independent Fed. He has said, “Anybody that disagrees with me will never be Fed chairman.” He’s also said interest rates will drop “when Kevin gets in.” Let’s check out your independence and your courage. We’ll start easy. Mr. Warsh, did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
Warsh: Senator, we should keep politics out of the Federal Reserve.
Warren: I’m asking a factual question.
Warsh: This body certified the election.
Warren: That’s not what I asked. Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?
Warsh: The Fed should stay out of politics.
Warren: In our meeting, you said you’re a “tough guy” who can stand up to President Trump. So name one aspect of his economic agenda you disagree with.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kevin Warsh listens to a question during a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee confirmation hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Warsh: That’s not something I’m prepared to do. The Fed should stay in its lane.
Warren: Just one place where you disagree.
Warsh: I do have one disagreement — he said I looked like I was out of central casting. I think I’d look older and grayer.
Warren: That’s adorable. But we need a Fed chair who is independent. If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage or the independence.
Politics
Commentary: He honked to support a ‘No Kings’ rally. A cop busted him
On March 28, a sunny Saturday in southwestern Utah, Jack Hoopes and his wife, Lorna, brought their homemade signs to the local “No Kings” rally.
The couple joined a crowd of 1,500 or so marching through the main picnic area of a park in downtown St. George. Their signs — cut-out words on a black background — chided lawmakers for failing to stand up to President Trump and urged America to “make lying wrong again.”
After about an hour, the two were ready to go home. They got in their silver Volvo SUV, but before pulling away, Jack Hoopes decided to swing past the demonstration, which was still going strong. He tooted his horn, twice, in a show of solidarity.
That’s when things took a curious turn.
A police officer parked in the middle of the street warned Hoopes not to honk; at least that’s what he thinks the officer said as Hoopes drove past the chanting crowd. When he spotted two familiar faces, Hoopes hit the horn a third time — a friendly, howdy sort of honk. “It wasn’t like I was being obnoxious,” he said, “or laying on the horn.”
Hoopes turned a corner and the cop, lights flashing, pulled him over. He asked Hoopes for his license and registration. He returned a few moments later. A passing car sounded its horn. “Are you going to stop him, too?” Hoopes asked.
That did not sit well. The officer said he’d planned to let Hoopes off with a warning. Instead, he charged the 71-year-old retired potato farmer with violating Utah’s law on horns and warning devices. He issued a citation, with a fine punishable up to $50.
Hoopes — a law school graduate and prosecutor in the days before he took up potato farming — is fighting back, even though he estimates the legal skirmishing could cost him considerably more than the maximum fine. The ticket might have resulted from pique on the officer’s part. But Hoopes doesn’t think so. He sees politics at play.
“I’ve beeped my horn for [the pro-law enforcement] Back the Blue. I’ve beeped my horn for Black Lives Matter,” Hoopes said. “I’ve seen a lot of people honk for Trump and for MAGA.”
He’s also seen plenty of times when people honked their horns to celebrate high school championships and the like.
But Hoopes has never heard of anyone being pulled over, much less ticketed, for excessive or unlawful honking. “I think it’s freedom of expression,” he said.
Or should be.
Jack and Lorna Hoopes made their own protest signs to bring to the “No Kings” rally in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
St. George is a fast-growing community of about 100,000 residents set amid the jagged red-rock peaks of the Mojave Desert. It’s a jumping-off point for Zion National Park, about 40 miles east, and a mecca for golf, hiking and mountain-bike riding.
It’s also Trump Country.
Washington County, where St. George is located, gave Trump 75% of its vote in 2024, with Kamala Harris winning a scant 23%. That emphatic showing compares with Trump’s 59% performance statewide.
St. George is where Hoopes and his wife live most of the time. When summer and its 100-degree temperatures hit, they retreat to southeast Idaho. The couple get along well with their neighbors in both places, Hoopes said, even though they’re Democrats living in ruby-red country. It’s not as though they just tolerate folks, or hold their noses to get by.
“Most of my friends are conservative,” Hoopes said. “Some of the Trump people are very good people. We just have a difference of opinion where our country is going.”
He was speaking from a hotel parking lot in Arizona near Lake Havasu while embarked on an annual motorcycle ride through the Southwest: four days, a dozen riders, 1,200 miles. Most of his companions are Trump supporters, Hoopes said, and, just like back home, everyone gets on fine.
“Right?” he called out.
“No!” a voice hollered back.
Actually, Hoopes joked, his charitable road mates let him ride along because they consider him handicapped — his disability being his political ideology.
Hoopes is not exactly a hellion. In 2014, he and his wife traveled to Africa to participate in humanitarian work and promote sustainable agriculture in Kenya and Uganda. In 2020, they worked as Red Cross volunteers helping wildfire victims in Northern California.
Virtually his entire life has been spent on the right side of the law, though Hoopes allowed as how he has racked up a few speeding tickets over the years. (His career as a prosecutor lasted four years and involved three murder cases in the first 12 months before he left the legal profession behind and took up farming.)
He’s never had any problems with the police in St. George. “They seem to be decent,” Hoopes said.
A department spokesperson, Tiffany Mitchell, said illicit honking is not a widespread problem in the placid, retiree-heavy community, but there are some who have been cited for violations. She denied any political motivation in Hoopes’ case.
“He must’ve felt justified,” Mitchell said of the officer who issued the citation. “I can’t imagine that politics had anything to do with it.”
And yes, she said, honking a horn can be a political statement protected by the 1st Amendment. “But, just like anything else, it can turn criminal,” Mitchell said, and apparently that’s how the officer felt on March 28 “and that’s the direction he took it.”
The matter now rests before a judge, residing in a legal system that has lately been tested and twisted in remarkable ways.
Jack Hoopes’ case is now before a judge in St. George, Utah.
(Mikayla Whitmore / For The Times)
As he left an initial hearing earlier this month, Hoopes said his phone pinged with a fresh headline out of Washington. Trump’s Justice Department, it was reported, was asking a federal appeals court to throw out the convictions of 12 people found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
“We have a president that pardons people that broke into the Capitol and defecated” in the hallways and congressional offices, Hoopes said. “Police officers died because of it, and yet I get picked up for honking my horn?”
Hoopes’ next court appearance, a pretrial conference, is set for July 15.
-
New York45 minutes agoGunman Who Killed Baby in Brooklyn Was Targeting Her Father, Police Say
-
Detroit, MI1 hour ago
How these Detroit farmers are fighting for neighborhood food security
-
San Francisco, CA1 hour agoS.F. hospital stabbing analysis confirms Mission Local reporting on security lapses
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoIt’s a big week for restaurant openings and closings in Dallas
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoCain, Kushner launch South Florida JV with plans for Edgewater rental tower
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoMBTA Green Line trains out from Kenmore to Boston College on B branch through April 30
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoNuggets vs. Timberwolves | 3 keys to a Denver win in Game 3
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoThe Honorable Brandon Lee Gowton Picks for Seattle at #32 | Field Gulls