Will House Republicans Finally Move Past Pettiness and Pass Trump’s Agenda?

It doesn’t take a Democrat Congress to turn Donald Trump into a lame duck president—it just takes a Republican Congress too divided to do its job.

In less than three months in office, President Donald Trump has signed over 100 executive orders. Unfortunately, he’s only signed four Acts of Congress into law, despite Republicans holding majorities in the House and Senate for over three months.

Trump can sign all the executive orders he wants, and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can find trillions of dollars in possible spending cuts, but only Congress can rein in rogue judges and codify the mandate voters gave him—and the Republican majority in Congress.

Over 130 lawsuits aimed at blocking the mandate voters gave the president have resulted in judges ruling 3–1 against Trump, with some district judges issuing constitutionally questionable nationwide injunctions.

After bitter House infighting, key Republicans say they’ve made peace and can now move forward with Trump’s agenda. Here’s what led to a week of Republican intrapartisan gridlock.

Speaker Johnson to Congress: Just Take the Week Off

Last Tuesday, the House of Representatives was finally set to pass a package of bills moving part of Trump’s agenda forward and protecting it from judicial obstruction.

On Tuesday, however, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) sent Congress home. This further delayed votes on the Safeguard Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require people to show proof of citizenship to register to vote and the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would curb the power of district courts to provide nationwide injunctions.

Johnson falsely claimed they couldn’t "have any further action on the floor [last] week" because 9 Republicans voted with Democrats to block a rule governing debate. 

But Johnson could have reintroduced a new rule for the package of bills that could pass. Furthermore, the SAVE Act doesn’t even need a new rule since the House included it in the rules package it passed in January. 

So why would voting down a simple House rule justify Johnson giving everyone the week off?

Delaying Trump’s Agenda to Maintain Floor Veto Power

America’s Founders codified rules in the Constitution to prevent the country’s laws from swinging wildly with each election. For instance, it requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict and remove a president from office or to propose a Constitutional amendment. 

In that same spirit, Congress created rules for itself to protect the rights of the elected minority. The Senate, for instance, has the filibuster—without which former President Joe Biden would have implemented whatever he wanted when Democrats had the majority. In 1910, the House introduced the discharge petition. This allows any member to bypass committees and bring a bill to the House floor with a majority of House Members’ signatures. This ensures the House Speaker cannot ignore bills that a majority of the House supports.

Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-CO) introduced a bill in January, co-sponsored by Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), and Mike Lawler (R-NY), to allow proxy voting for expecting mothers unable to safely travel or with a serious medical condition and for parents 12 weeks after the birth of their child. 

In March, Luna, who gave birth in 2023 and experienced complications that prevented her from attending votes, submitted a discharge petition for the bill. This easily cleared the majority threshold with the help of 11 other Republicans’ signatures. According to House rules, Johnson had two legislative days to schedule her motion.

The rule Johnson referred to had a poison pill to cancel Luna’s discharge petition. 

Johnson hoped this would ostensibly force Republicans to eliminate Luna’s discharge petition out of fear of being seen as voting against Trump’s agenda. Unfortunately for Johnson, 9 Republicans didn’t consider Republican voters that ignorant. They called Johnson’s bluff and voted with Democrats to kill the rule.

Reps. Kevin Kiley (R-CA) and Nick LaLota (R-NY) didn’t sign Luna’s petition but voted against the rule.

Kiley stated, "It’s wrong to try to cancel a vote that is required by the rules of the House."

LaLota said, "We all agreed . . . if a member got 218 signatures for a discharge petition that the issue would see the light of day."

At this point, Johnson could either accept defeat and move forward with Trump’s agenda or send Congress home before the discharge petition’s two legislative days were up. He chose the latter, apparently hoping the social media mob would pressure the naughty nine to back down.

The problem with this tactic is it doesn’t guarantee the drama ends. 

Those who would promote this strategy don’t have the cards.

The rules require the APL proposal to come to the floor in two legislative days. So, all the nine who voted no today would have to do is survive two days of whipping and trolling.

I can do that standing on my head. https://t.co/Gal8720EJR

— Congressman Nick LaLota (@RepLaLota) April 1, 2025

In response to a claim that Johnson will try to turn up the pressure by tacking on the Senate-approved budget resolution to the rule, LaLota responded, "Those who would promote this strategy don’t have the cards. The rules require the APL [Anna Paulina Luna] proposal to come to the floor in two legislative days.  So, all the nine who voted no today would have to do is survive two days of whipping and trolling. I can do that standing on my head."

Will Johnson send everyone home again if he can’t muster the votes to kill Luna’s discharge petition? What about the next week or the week after that? 

Even if this tactic succeeds, the precedent it sets with Republicans violating their own rules doesn’t help them long-term. Preserving the discharge petition is vitally important, particularly if Democrats take back the House. Republicans will need that option to work with what few centrist Democrats remain if Hakeem Jeffries becomes House Speaker.

Was Delaying Parental Leave Worth Spiking Trump’s Agenda?

When asked about the proxy voting proposal, Trump said, "You’re having a baby, you should be able to call in and vote. I’m in favor of that."

The nine Republicans who voted against the rule support Trump’s agenda, but Johnson is demanding they scrap Luna’s discharge petition before being allowed to vote on it. But holding Trump’s agenda hostage to defeat proxy voting for mothers of newborns isn’t just petty—it’s bad politics.

Some Members oppose it on constitutional grounds because Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 states "a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business." 

Serving in Congress is difficult and requires great sacrifice. Proxy voting is unconstitutional, and should not be permitted.

— Bob Good (@RepBobGood) April 1, 2025

But Pettersen’s bill clearly states, "Proxies will not be counted for purposes of establishing a quorum." So, in the unlikely event 218 Members of Congress have babies at the same time, they wouldn’t be allowed to vote on anything until at least one of them showed up in person.

During the House debate, some Members feigned relatability, arguing it would privilege congressmen above their constituents—as if their constituents must all get back to work after taking a quick birthing break. 

One congressman argued that mothers of newborns shouldn’t get to vote by proxy because electricians and plumbers have to show up to work, and since he had to miss his kid’s 4-H meet, having a baby is no excuse.

Congressmen earn $174,000 per year. Any comparable private sector job would offer paid parental leave—which unlike their staffers and other federal civilian employees Congressmen do not get. 

The argument that Congresswomen who take maternity leave should remain off the job as they would in the private sector begs the question: Should their constituents lose representation while their representative gives birth and tends to a newborn?

Speaking of relatability, how many plumbers and electricians get to take off the rest of the week because they had a rough Tuesday?

Can We Get Back to Work Now?

On Sunday, Luna posted on X, "Speaker Johnson and I have reached an agreement to bring back a procedure called live/dead pairing, which dates back to the 1800s. It will be open for the entire conference to use when unable to vote (e.g., new parents, bereaved, emergencies, etc.)."

This procedure is more of a gentlemen’s agreement that if one member is out, someone on the other side of the vote will abstain. This happened when Chief Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who was opposed to Kavanaugh couldn’t make the vote, so Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), who supported Kavanaugh, abstained. Absent any novel agreed-upon enforcement, Republicans will have to take Democrats’ word that they’ll be willing to abide by it. With a slim majority and uncertainty whether they will keep the House in 2026, Republicans cannot afford to lose a vote because one of its members is giving birth or tending to a newborn. 

Many House Republicans feared following their own rules would result in the alleged horror of proxy voting for new parents and were willing to indefinitely delay Trump’s agenda to defeat it. It remains to be seen if they will agree to the deal Johnson and Luna struck. If they can’t convince a majority of their fellow Members of their viewpoint, they should take the loss and move on. Time is running out to pass the SAVE Act, rein in rogue judges, and codify the DOGE cuts. The mandate voters gave Trump is too important to let trivial in-House squabbles derail it.

(READ MORE: Trump Keeps His Promise to American Workers, Sends Back Half a Million Immigrants)