Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
US House Speaker Mike Johnson speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, U.S., in February 2025.
Republicans bid to avoid government shutdown
With a government shutdown deadline looming on Friday, US House Speaker Mike Johnson on Saturday introduced a continuing resolution that, if passed, would effectively fund the government through September. US President Donald Trump has backed the bill. The budget battle comes as fears rise over the impact of Trump's tariff policies, and the flip-flopping nature of their implementation. On Sunday, Trump refused to rule out that his aggressive economic policies could cause a recession.
Wins and losses: In passing a continuing resolution rather than a new budget, Republicans are trying to keep government spending around the levels set by former US President Joe Biden last year. The bill contains additional funding for immigration enforcement and reduces nondefense spending by $13 billion, but it doesn’t touch two significant components of the US welfare state: Social Security and Medicaid. It is vague about its spending lines, potentially handing some leeway to White House adviser Elon Musk to continue cutting the size of government. Democrats are crying foul.
Blame game: It’s a tale almost as old as Congress that the two principal parties in the United States try to blame one another for shutting down the government whenever a contentious budget deadline comes around. Yet, the listless House Democrats — whose power has been so blunted — don’t even seem to be bothering with this game, openly suggesting that they’d be willing to block the resolution and shut down the government if they have the votes. How the tables have turned.
Analysis: Johnson aims to avoid that and plans to hold the vote on the continuing resolution by Tuesday, but it is not a done deal. Even if House Republicans maintain their united front and pass the bill, it will need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to get to the president’s desk. This means Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has some leverage. We will be watching to see whether he uses it or undercuts his Democratic allies in the lower chamber, as he did in 2019 when he accepted the Senate Republicans’ border bill despite then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s objections.Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) speaks to media during the weekly House Republican Leadership press conference, at the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, February 25, 2025.
House narrowly passes GOP budget resolution
US House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson pushed ahead witha budget vote Tuesday evening that extends US President Donald Trump’s 2017 $4.5 trillion tax cut, while trimming $2 trillion in mandatory spending. The House of Representatives narrowly approved a Republican-led budget resolution on Tuesday with a 217-215 vote, mostly along party lines.
The vote followed a chaotic hour during which Republican leadership initially canceled the budget vote after failing to quell a rebellion among conservatives demanding deeper spending cuts, only to reverse course minutes later and proceed with the roll call.
This close vote signals the beginning of a contentious debate within the GOP regarding which federal programs to shrink or shirk in order to fund a substantial tax cut package. The tumultuous proceedings highlight the challenging path House Republicans face as they attempt to advance President Trump's domestic policy priorities through Congress despite Democratic opposition.
What’s in the budget? The resolution calls for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in spending reductions over a decade, potentially targeting Medicaid and food aid programs while increasing border and defense funding by $300 billion and raising the debt limit by $4 trillion.
Extending the 2017 tax law will cost about $4 trillion over ten years, with additional business tax breaks requiring hundreds of billions more, leaving minimal budget room for Republicans' other desired tax cuts, including tip exemptions and removing the $10,000 state and local tax deduction cap. Critically, the plan ties tax cuts directly to spending reductions, meaning Republicans must achieve their targeted spending cuts or the allowable tax cut package will shrink accordingly.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) reacts following the passage of spending legislation to avert a government shutdown, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, on Dec. 20, 2024.
Speaker showdown could delay election certification and more
Donald Trump is backing Johnson, whose path to the gavel is narrow. The would-be returning speaker needs the support of all Republicans but one to win, assuming Democrats unite to back Hakeem Jeffries. Trump’s backing of Johnson should help him, but it may not be sufficient. At least one Republican congressman, Chip Roy, of Texas, says Johnson lacks the votes as GOP members are divided; some back Johnson, but others were frustrated over his handling of the recent funding bill battle and are uncertain he’s the man for the job moving forward.
Should Johnson be unable to secure a win, there are Republican contenders waiting in the wings. Some Republicans, including Rand Paul, are consideringElon Musk – the speaker doesn’t have to come from the sitting Congress – while others back Vivek Ramaswamy. More likely candidates, currently serving in the House, include Jim Jordan and Tom Emmer, the majority whip. While other names might be getting more fanfare, Emmer seems to be the most likely second choice.
The looming showdown could drag on and make for Congressional chaos. The House can’t do anything until it elects a speaker – including certifying the election, which is scheduled for Jan. 6. In 2023, it took Kevin McCarthy15 ballots to win the speakership, and he was out less than a year later. A divided Republican side and a close seat count in the House could again make for a rough start to the new Congress and a portent of future impasses.Trump likely can’t steal the election, but he can make it dangerous
Donald Trump’s big Madison Square Garden rally on Sunday made news because of the racist wisecracks of an opening act, but jumpy Democrats seized on an off-the-cuff remark.
“I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well with the House,” Trump said, gesturing to House Speaker Mike Johnson. “Our little secret is having a big impact. He and I have a little secret. We will tell you what it is when the race is over.”
Democrats are so rattled by the prospect of Republicans trying to game the system on Election Night that they decided Trump was hinting at a secret plan to overturn the election.
On CNN, Democratic Congressman Dan Goldmanwarned of a plot to decide the election results in a House vote.
“I suspect … Donald Trump’s little secret plan with Mike Johnson is a backup plan for when he loses and he tries to go to the House of Representatives to throw out the Electoral College … and try to overturn this election.”
By hook or by crook
Johnson said later that Trump was talking about their get-out-the-vote plans, which makes sense in the context. But Democrats are concerned that Trump and his allies have a secret plan to try to take power, perhaps by forcing a vote in the House.
But it does not look easy. The contingent election is designed for situations where nobody wins a majority of Electoral College votes. The last time that happened was in 1824, when there were four presidential candidates. That should not happen next week, since no other candidates are on the ballot, but Trump is expected to try to get Republican legislatures to send alternative slates of electors in states he loses, setting up a situation where Congress could choose which electors to pick. Theoretically, Johnson could hold a special vote in the House of Representatives and make Trump president.
Trump likely does want to do that, says Richard Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law School.
“I imagine he will be trying to find ways to get to a contingent election in the House — maybe that’s the little secret — but with our existing rules, that would be very hard to do as it would require finding a way to assure that Harris would not have a majority in each house,” he said.
Nervous about the Supreme Court
It looks highly unlikely, in part because it would require the cooperation of many Republicans who would be reluctant to overturn clear results from voters. And the Electoral Count Reform Act, which was passed with bipartisan support, tightened the rules around certification. Trump is more likely to try to flip a close state in the courts by challenging some contested ballots, as happened in 2000, when George W. Bush prevailed over Al Gore after the Supreme Court ruled that Bush had won Florida’s Electoral College votes.
“If the race is as tight as it was in 2000, like Bush v. Gore tight, then there will likely be a recount in a state that matters, and issues may get litigated all the way to the Supreme Court,” says Hasen.
“The 2020 election was not close like 2000. It was over 10,000 ballots difference, and multiple states mattered. If that’s what we see, and Trump loses, then I expect Trump will try litigation and political strategies to try to change the results to his favor.”
There are 115 voting lawsuits open at various courts. If the Republicans can find a cause to get to the Supreme Court, they might hope that the 6-3 Republican majority of justices will rule in their favor. The court surprised observers by ruling in Trump’s favor in the presidential immunity case, and on Wednesday, the court approved a controversial Republican purge of voters, so Democrats are nervous about what might happen if Trump manages to get a case to the court.
Drop boxes firebombed
The polls could not be closer, and both sides will have armies of lawyers standing by on election night to try to seek advantage.
“Although recounts very rarely change the election outcome, and the courts have consistently rebuffed such shenanigans from the Trump team in the past, these lawsuits will be headline-grabbing events and will perpetuate uncertainty,” says Natasha Gaither, a researcher at Eurasia Group.
Even if Trump’s lawyers do not prevail, that uncertainty could lead to violence.
“We are likely to witness sporadic clashes between law enforcement and extremist partisans on either side of the aisle as long as certification of the results is deferred by legal fights,” says Gaither.
Election night will be tense, with angry partisans gathering outside counting places as mail-in and absentee ballots are tabulated.
Trump keeps telling his supporters — without evidence — that the election could be stolen by cheating Democrats, and they believe him. Ballot drop boxes were firebombed on Monday, for example. More than 7 in 10 Americans are worried about election-related violence.
It would be nice to tell them they needn’t worry, but they are right to do so.
House Speaker Mike Johnson
Johnson avoids government shutdown, sidesteps Trump’s demands
But Donald Trump is unlikely to thank him, as the deal came at the cost of Republicans dropping the SAVE Act, an immigration proposal that included new proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration. Trump has told Congress not to pass a spending plan without “every ounce” of the proposal and has yet to comment since it was dropped.
Beyond the presidential election, Johnson was also likely motivated to protect Republicans in down-ballot races in November.
The agreed-upon plan includes “only the extensions that are absolutely necessary” besides an additional $231 million to boost Secret Service protections for the candidates during the upcoming presidential election and into next year.
The deal extends government funding through Dec. 20, all but ensuring that the lame-duck period between the election and the inauguration of a new Congress is engulfed in spending disputes. Just in time for the holidays!
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks during Day 2 of the Republican National Convention (RNC), at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S., July 16, 2024.
US House speaker pulls bill that would avoid a government shutdown
Too clever by half, Mike. With a US government shutdown looming on Oct. 1, and the election to follow in November, US House Speaker Mike Johnson had a plan.
He proposed that a fresh six-month government funding bill be tied to a new election security measure that would require people to provide proof of citizenship in order to vote. That bill grew out of longstanding but unsubstantiated Republican concerns about non-citizens voting in sizable numbers.
Donald Trump, who’s built much of his campaign on grievances about illegal immigration, has called for a shutdown if Congress won’t pass the election security measure.
But that seems to have backfired. Democrats want Johnson to instead work on a bipartisan standalone government funding measure. A handful of GOP lawmakers are also opposed – some because the spending bill doesn’t address their deficit concerns, others because it would freeze Pentagon budgets at current levels, handcuffing defense planners.
Lacking the votes, Johnson pulled the bill ahead of a scheduled vote on Wednesday.
He plans to work on the defectors this weekend and may still go ahead with a vote next week. But with a razor-thin GOP majority, it’s a gamble, which means both parties are engaged in a game of chicken to avoid a deeply unpopular government shutdown just weeks before the election.
U.S. Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), the latest House Republican nominee for House Speaker, reacts to former Speaker nominee and current House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) voting for Johnson during another round of voting to pick a new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., October 25, 2023.
Republicans set sights on divorce laws
A growing cadre of GOP social conservatives as senior as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senator JD Vancesay no-fault divorce has undermined family stability, and they attribute a litany of social ills to it. Vance told high schoolers in California in 2022 that “even violent” marriages should continue in some cases. Johnson and his spouse, meanwhile, are in a covenant marriage, a rare legal institution available in only three states that essentially waives no-fault divorce rights preemptively.
Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault divorce law in the US as California’s governor in 1969, allowing one spouse to end a marriage unilaterally. Before then, anyone who wished to end a marriage needed to prove their partner had committed an offense like adultery, abandonment, or abuse. The criteria could be tough to meet — in some places, a woman could prove she had been beaten by her husband, for example, but be forced to stay married if the jury did not find he acted with “cruelty.”
The stats speak for themselves when it comes to women’s safety: Between 1976 and 1985, as no-fault divorce laws proliferated, domestic violence against both men and women fell 30%, while the number of women murdered by partners fell 10%. Research suggests that over an even longer term, suicide rates for women declined between 8 and 16%.
A whopping 81% of Americans say divorce is “morally acceptable,” according to Gallup, but they actually aren’t getting divorced that often: Divorce rates are near 40-year lows. Still, you know, maybe talk to a lawyer if you’re unhappily married before it’s too late.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) talks to reporters after surviving a vote to remove him from the Speaker’s position, Washington, DC, May 8, 2024. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) introduced a motion to vacate the Speaker’s office, which was defeated by a motion to table the issue immediately afterward.
OPINION: Vibes-based lawmaking isn’t helping us, Speaker Johnson.
With so many problems in the world right now, it seems odd to spend time trying to solve ones that don’t exist.
But that’s exactly what happened this week when House Speaker Mike Johnson proposed a new law to crack down on non-citizens voting in US federal elections.
The legislation, known as the SAVE Act, would outlaw non-citizen voting – which is already illegal – and require proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
Now, some people, mostly Republicans, say it’s not unreasonable to expect adults to produce ID before making a decision about who should lead the “free world.” Others, mostly Democrats, point to evidence that voter ID requirements – particularly for passports or birth certificates – tend to suppress eligible voter turnout, particularly for minority voters. There are fair arguments on both sides.
The Supreme Court, for its part, has struck down a state-led requirement for citizenship documents, and a North Carolina court is weighing the issue of voter ID more broadly as we speak.
But leave all that aside for a moment. There’s a more fundamental problem with Johnson’s bill. It’s aimed at ghosts.
Asked about the scale of the problem of non-citizen voting, Johnson said:
“The answer is that it’s unanswerable.”
“We all know intuitively,” he explained, “that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections.”
This vibes-based intuition parrots a longstanding talking point of GOP boss Donald Trump, who has complained – falsely – that voter fraud cost him the popular vote in 2016 and the election itself in 2020. With just six months until his rematch with Joe Biden, Trump and his allies are keen to seed the idea that voter fraud – particularly among the rapidly rising undocumented migrant population – will decide the outcome. With 60% of Republicans worried about the credibility of the electoral system, Trump knows his audience.
But the question for Johnson is not unanswerable. The answer is that there is, in fact, no evidence for these claims.
In 2017, for example, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU looked closely at the 2016 election, a contest in which Donald Trump claimed he had lost the popular vote because 3-5 million illegal immigrants had voted for Hillary Clinton.
After reviewing 23 million voter names, in 42 precincts, in 12 states, how many instances of non-citizen voting did the Brennan study find?
Thirty. That’s 0.0001% of the votes.
It turns out non-citizens, in perpetual danger of deportation, aren’t eager to write their names down on a voting register, leaving indelible evidence of a federal crime.
This tracks with other studies of voter fraud, nearly all of which show that it’s exceedingly rare. The state of Georgia, for example, conducted a review of its voter rolls in 2022 and found that of the four million votes cast by Georgians in the midterms of that year, there were 17 instances of voter fraud.
That’s not to say there aren’t real concerns about the election. How might AI distort voter perceptions of the candidates? Will foreign powers try to sway voters’ choices? Will election workers be safe? Nearly 40% of them say they have experienced threats, violence, or harassment, in part by people riled up with false narratives about fraud.
But instead of addressing those serious worries, the Speaker of the House is proposing to Make Illegal Things Illegal Again™, based on information he does not have, about a phenomenon that doesn’t exist.
This kind of vibes-based lawmaking isn’t going to SAVE us from anything.