Speaker Mike Johnson’s initial strategy to prevent a government shutdown is facing significant hurdles as widespread Republican opposition threatens its passage. Johnson's plan, which combines a six-month continuing resolution (CR) with a Trump-backed bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote, appears increasingly unlikely to succeed in the House this week.
At least six GOP members have declared their intention to vote against the proposed plan, a number sufficient to derail the effort. With all Democrats expected to oppose the measure, Republicans can only afford to lose four members for the plan to advance, assuming full attendance.
The opposition is largely driven by a mix of GOP factions: the hard-right, which supports the CR and Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, moderates wary of the political fallout from a shutdown close to an election, and defense hawks concerned about the impact of a six-month stopgap on Pentagon funding.
 |
| GOP opposition grows against Speaker Mike Johnson’s plan to prevent a government shutdown, putting its success in jeopardy |
Despite this, Johnson remains resolute, insisting that the CR-plus-SAVE Act is essential. He dismissed the idea of a fallback plan, asserting, “There is no fallback position. This is a righteous fight. This is what the American people demand and deserve.”
The opposition includes prominent figures such as Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), who criticized the proposed CR for its detrimental effects on defense funding. Rogers, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed his concerns about the potential impact on the Department of Defense and suggested that other committee members might join him in opposing the plan.
Several other Republicans, including Reps. Matt Rosendale (Mont.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Cory Mills (Fla.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.), and Jim Banks (Ind.), have also voiced their objections, citing reasons ranging from fiscal concerns to opposition to extending government spending. Banks, who is running for Senate, criticized the proposal as an extension of “bloated spending.”
Moderate Republicans have also expressed skepticism, with some indicating they may withhold their votes until they understand Johnson’s alternative strategies. Concerns about the lack of a clear backup plan and potential shutdown scenarios have further complicated the situation.
Fiscal conservatives are also hesitant, with some members of the House Freedom Caucus conflicted about the CR. While the caucus had initially supported a long-term stopgap with the SAVE Act, members like Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) are undecided due to the uncertainty around the total cost of the stopgap.
Despite efforts to leverage the SAVE Act to attack Democrats on voter eligibility issues, the plan faces an uphill battle. Democrats argue that noncitizen voting is already prohibited and that the proposed requirements could unduly burden eligible voters.
Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), a former chair of the House Freedom Caucus, supports the plan in hopes of avoiding a more unfavorable omnibus spending bill later in the year. He believes the current strategy is preferable to a potential end-of-year bill that could favor Democratic priorities.
Some members, like Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), have not disclosed their positions, while others like Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) remain uncertain, citing the need for clarity on next steps and Johnson’s commitment to the plan.
As the debate continues, the outcome of Johnson’s proposal remains uncertain, with the potential for significant implications for government funding and the broader legislative agenda.
Mike Lillis and Aris Folley contributed.
0 Comments