Two weeks after Republican Kevin McCarthy was removed as speaker of the House by a vote initiated by one of his own, representative Matt Gaetz, Congress has been mired in a search for a new Speaker. In the first round of voting, no clear consensus emerged, and the chamber faced a prolonged process before any majority could be reached.
The Republican Party entered a state of internal strife, marked by sharp divisions and public debates. Jim Jordan, a far-right congressman from Ohio known for his unwavering support of Donald Trump, emerged as a candidate late last week. He stepped forward but withdrew two days before the first candidate could secure a majority. Steve Scalise also sought the role, yet failed to unify the GOP caucus enough to overcome Democratic opposition. The tally stood at 220 votes in favor and 232 against, reflecting a coalition of 212 Democrats and 20 Republicans who did not back the chosen candidate.
The House is currently in recess, and it remains unclear when the second round of voting will occur. Without a Speaker, the chamber cannot formalize procedures in the presidential line of succession beyond the vice president, and legislative action, including confirmation of military aid to Israel, is stalled. This issue has become a priority for the Biden administration, with broad implications across party lines.
Paralysis also threatens the budget process. With the looming deadline of November 17, the government faces a funding gap unless a spending plan is approved. The legislation enacted during McCarthy’s tenure—backed by Democratic support—also includes penalties for Republicans who voted to impeach him, complicating the already tense political landscape.
Deny Biden’s victory
On Tuesday, Jordan faced a narrow Republican majority in the House and could afford to lose only a few votes, but he entered the vote with more defections than anticipated. In the end, six Republicans opposed him, and a sizable bloc of members voted against the measure, arguing that the party should not proceed with a candidate who could preside over a chaotic process. Many of the lawmakers who opposed him represented traditional districts where the party’s stance was uncertain. Biden’s victory remained the central issue, with the opposition focusing on procedural concerns rather than policy specifics.
One major reason for opposition centers on Jordan’s stance regarding the 2020 election. Across several years in Congress since 2007, he has been associated with the radical wing of the party and, in some circles, described as an aggressive organizer who pushes hard-line positions. He has emerged as a pivotal ally of Trump within the lower chamber, even chairing the Judiciary Committee, which amplifies concerns among moderates about the party’s direction.
Jordan’s public engagement with Trump from the 2020 election through the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack raised questions about his approach to certification of the election and the investigation that followed. He was subpoenaed to testify before a Democratic-led inquiry but did not appear. Those events have remained a contentious backdrop as he seeks the speakership, fueling debate about accountability and the proper guardrails for leadership in the House.
Some moderate lawmakers resisted elevating such a figure, while others ultimately endorsed him after long discussions. The negotiations highlighted a broader strategy: to pressure Republicans who still resisted, while attempting to curb extreme positions and maintain essential legislative work. The process included careful persuasion and promises—not always explicit—to curb far-right pressure, avoid government shutdowns, and maintain essential aid to allies, including Ukraine. Yet no concrete guarantee was made to every holdout, reflecting the fragility of the alliance around Jordan.
Additional factors influenced shifting positions. Lawmakers faced threats during primaries, and several claimed they were pressured by conservative media figures and pundits. Social media campaigns and public pressure from the broader right-wing ecosystem intensified the lobbying efforts. Personal calls from influential figures in conservative media did not go unheard, contributing to a dynamic environment where allegiance could change rapidly in pursuit of organizational stability.
Against the odds, Jordan persisted with a plan to keep lawmakers in frequent votes until a majority coalesced. He had initially resisted repeated ballots but eventually accepted the strategy as a way to apply pressure on reluctant Republicans. The historical parallel to McCarthy’s own struggle in January—where it took multiple rounds and significant concessions to secure the speakership—illustrates how a fractured party can push a candidate toward compromises that reshape governance and power dynamics for months to come.
Democratic options
The Democrats organized a unified stance, backing Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, and preparing to sustain their role in the chamber. They argued that elevating Jordan would signal a sharp turn toward the far-right, a position they contended would destabilize a fragile legislative balance. In a keynote by Pete Aguilar nominating Jeffries, Democrats accused Jordan of encouraging violence during the Capitol assault and labeled him an election denier who sought to override federal processes. They underscored his lengthy tenure and argued that no significant legislation had become law under his watch.
Democrats explored strategic options, acknowledging the political landscape while seeking to stabilize governance. Although their path to a House majority remains limited, they highlighted the potential for alternative leadership to foster bipartisan solutions during a period of political volatility. A proposal occasionally discussed was Patrick McHenry, who had served as interim speaker after McCarthy’s impeachment; his powers are constrained to organizing the speaker election, making him a stopgap rather than a long-term solution. Some debate persisted about whether Liz Cheney could offer a more centrist path, but she faced internal resistance within her party due to her outspoken criticism of Trump and alignment with a minority faction of Republicans.
As the saga continued, Democrats signaled readiness to block paths that could destabilize policy and governance. They stressed the importance of steady oversight, the protection of essential services, and a commitment to responsible foreign aid and national security measures. The House remained at a standstill as parties negotiated, counted votes, and faced the reality that any resolution would require cross-party willingness to compromise. The outcome would shape the political climate in Washington for weeks and likely influence public confidence in the institution.