How Kevin McCarthy Became the First Speaker Ousted from the Chair
In an unprecedented move on October 3rd, 2023, Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California’s 20th District, was ousted from his role as Speaker of the House of Representatives. This process is extremely rare; a motion to vacate the chair has only been seriously considered once before — in 2015, to oust then-Speaker of the House John Boehner. This motion was proposed by members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative Republicans; however, Speaker Boehner eventually resigned before the motion could be formally considered, rendering it moot. Now, eight years later, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida's 1st District, led a successful campaign against former Speaker McCarthy. At present, the fractured Republican caucus is frantically racing to find common ground and choose a new speaker, a matter made more urgent as domestic and international politics continue, even as all legislative proceedings have ground to a halt.
McCarthy has dealt with a difficult Republican caucus before he even became speaker of the House. He had to endure 15 rounds of voting just to secure his election nine months ago at the outset of the 118th Congress. During the course of these 15 rounds of votes, McCarthy fought and struggled to win over the support of 14 far-right wing Republican seats. To secure some of their votes, he made substantial concessions, both personally and in terms of the party's platform. He promised to limit government spending, open up the appropriations process in the House, use the debt ceiling as leverage, to hold votes on issues deemed priorities to the far-right. Some of these issues include limiting the W.O.K.E. movement, balancing the budget, and implementing congressional term limits and a border security plan. All of the compromises McCarthy made to be elected speaker only set the stage for a tenure as speaker known for political inconsistency and a lack of strong leadership.
McCarthy’s prolonged struggle for the gavel foreshadowed the challenges he would face in governing alongside an unruly far-right faction determined to cut expenditures and disrupt Washington’s already slow operations. Given the House’s slim Republican majority, a small number of upset Republicans were able to stall votes throughout McCarthy’s short time in office. McCarthy failed to corral his caucus to pass the rules three times. Previously, the house had only failed to pass a rules vote eight times. Rule failures are uncommon because the vote primarily serves to initiate debates on the subsequent House bills, and voting against a rules bill is essentially voting against the majority party leadership.
Furthermore, the far-right caucus blocked a number of large bipartisan spending bills from being passed in an attempt to achieve their goal of cutting government spending, through a variety of tactics. In the case of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Republicans during committee included a number of “poison pills,” or controversial social policy amendments regarding abortion access, medical care for transgender troops, military diversity initiatives, and the Pentagon's right to implement climate change initiatives. Since the majority party controls leadership in every committee in the house, they are able to include and consider whichever amendments align with the party’s values and agenda. The far-right Republican faction’s inclusion of amendments regarding social policy in a bill regarding the allocation of money for the military ensured that almost no Democrat would vote for the otherwise typically bipartisan bill. One of the four Democrats who voted yes for this bill, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA-3), said in a statement: "It is extremely disappointing that the historically bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act has been hijacked by extreme MAGA Republicans." These “extreme MAGA Republicans” consistently placed McCarthy in a challenging position, compelling him to align with an increasingly radical party agenda and hindering prospects for bipartisan cooperation — an expectation typically associated with the leader of not only the majority party but the entire House of Representatives.
What ultimately led to the removal of the California Republican nine months later was his commitment to holdout Republicans, promising the restoration of a long-standing rule concerning the process for removing a sitting speaker, which would allow any member to trigger a recall vote at any point. McCarthy’s critics argued that this concession was necessary to guarantee accountability, given their lack of inherent trust in his ability to implement the changes he promised. Despite their passion for removing McCarthy, the eight hardliner Republicans didn’t seem to plan much past ousting him. North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry was named "speaker pro tempore," the interim speaker, but the House remains in uncharted territory, with nobody jumping at the opportunity to lead it. Twenty two days after former Speaker McCarthy was voted out — after 14 candidates ran for speaker, four were voted as nominees, and three floor votes were held — Mike Johnson [R-LA-4] was unanimously elected as the 56th speaker of the House.
The Freedom Caucus coalition can be compared to the conservative coalition that formed during the late 1930’s during the emergence of the new Republican Party and the reinvention of new conservative ideals. This conservative coalition was formed by Southern Democrats and pro-business Republicans to block further New Deal programs in Congress, due to new fundamental conservative ideals forming within the Republican party. Today, the Freedom Caucus works to block a number of transformative and important spending bills in Congress. We must wonder, is the party once again at a crossroads, as it was during the era of the conservative coalition in the 1930s, poised to reshape its identity and redefine its role in American politics? What will this new identity be? The Freedom Caucus’s recent actions suggest it will focus on transforming the social landscape and determination to cut government spending and major oversight.
Jacqueline Metzler is a sophomore at Brown University. She is a staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at jacqueline_metzler@brown.edu.
Veronica Dickstein is a sophomore at Brown University studying International & Public Affairs. She is a staff editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at veronica_dickstein@brown.edu.