Over the weekend, a third member of the House Republican conference announced his support for a motion to vacate Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana).
The motion, originally authored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), was not submitted through a privileged order, meaning it had to go through the same course that any other bill would have to take within the House of Representatives. However, Greene indicated when she submitted the bill that she might change her mind on its privileged status, and indicated on Saturday that it was only a matter of time before she would do so.
She encouraged Johnson to resign right away, or at least announce a date when he would do so, rather than having her force a vote to vacate his office.
“Mike Johnson’s Speakership is over. He needs to do the right thing to resign and allow us to move forward in a controlled process, and if he doesn’t do so, he will be vacated,” she said on Fox News on Sunday.
Two days before her interview on that network, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) announced he would back Greene’s motion to vacate order against Johnson, becoming the third Republican overall to back the call to oust the speaker.
In his statement, which included xenophobic rhetoric against migrants, Gosar indicated his frustration with Johnson mainly had to do with the lack of increased border security being included in a number of spending measures, including funding military support for Ukraine. As a result, Gosar said, “I have added my name in support of the motion to vacate the Speaker.”
House GOP rules allow any member of the conference to bring forward a motion to vacate order. Subsequently, the entire House takes up a vote, determining whether to remove the current speaker from their role.
In October, such a vote was used to remove former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, followed by a number of failed votes for several days afterwards in the efforts to replace him. Eventually, Republicans settled on Johnson, a relatively unknown lawmaker in terms of national politics who harbors far right Christian nationalist views, for the position.
The close divide between Republicans and Democrats in the House means that only a small number of dissatisfied GOP lawmakers is necessary to remove a sitting speaker, presuming every Democrat votes for removal as well. Since Mike Gallagher’s (R-Wisconsin) resignation from Congress this past week, Republicans now only have 217 members in the House, with Democrats having 213 members; meaning, it would only take three Republicans, voting alongside all Democrats, to remove Johnson from power.
Whether Democrats vote for removing Johnson or not, however, is unknown at this point, although some within their ranks are indicating that they won’t go along with the idea, citing Johnson’s willingness to compromise on foreign policy and government funding.
“It’s absurd that he’s getting kicked out for doing the right thing, for keeping the government open. … The idea that he would be kicked out by these jokers is absurd,” centrist Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-New York) said late last month when Greene submitted her motion to vacate order.
Even some progressive lawmakers have signaled their opposition to giving Johnson the boot.
“We came into Congress together, and he always cared about civility. He actually led the civility pledge,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) told ABC’s “This Week” program on Sunday. “And we had one issue, which was give individual votes, don’t lump things together. And I give him credit for doing this.”
“I would actually vote to table any motion to vacate him,” he added.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.