A Ballroom Too Far: Republicans’ Procedural Blunders

David Super

     Over the past week, the Trump Administration celebrated the completion of its trifecta of retribution against dissident Republicans, defeating Rep. Tom Massey (R-Ky.) in his primary after previously doing the same to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and a group of Indiana state senators opposed to mid-decade partisan redistricting.  Yet rather than having grounds to celebrate, Republicans ended the week in disarray.  Much of this is the toll of accumulated public discontent over the economy, the war in Iran, a violent anti-immigrant campaign, and a host of other self-aggrandizing actions seeming disconnected from the nation’s genuine problems.  Congressional procedure, however, played its role.  This post explains how Republicans’ “strong” moves have landed them in such a mess.   

     The epidemic of violence by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Boarder Protection (CBP), and cooperating agencies led Democrats to demand restrictions on those agencies’ actions in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.  The White House rejected even fairly basic limits, shutting down negotiations between the two parties’ appropriators.  This led to a partial government shutdown when Democrats effectively filibustered that bill.  Democrats repeatedly offered, and forced Senate Republicans to vote down, bills appropriating funds to the rest of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), apart from ICE and CBP. 

     The One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer fully funded ICE for this fiscal year and beyond.  CBP was a bit less flush but also in no immediate distress.  Essential workers in other DHS agencies, however, were getting increasingly restless as they were not getting paid.  The Administration illegally paid those workers once, defying the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, but got cold feet about doing so again. 

     With polling showing that the electorate was modestly more inclined to blame Republicans for the shutdown, Senate Republicans tired of having to vote down funding for the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, and other popular agencies.  They agreed to the Democrats’ proposal to fund the rest of DHS without ICE and CBP.  They justified this capitulation by announcing that they would fund those two agencies through a reconciliation bill that Democrats could not filibuster.  House Democrats had no comparable means of forcing awkward votes so the House Republicans were feeling less pressure.  House immigration hawks initially condemned the Senate Republicans’ capitulation but ultimately passed the Senate’s all-but-ICE/CBP appropriations bill. 

     Because they are exempt from filibusters, reconciliation bills often become “Christmas trees”, with everyone in the majority party trying to attach their own contentious items.  This bill was no exception:  the White House apparently insisted on adding $1 billion for the President’s grand ceremonial ballroom.  The President had previously promised that no public funds would go into his ballroom – and secured large donations from companies seeking favors from the Administration – Republicans argued that these funds would go entirely for security improvements adjacent to the ballroom.  Given the ballroom’s unpopularity, this raised the political cost of the bill considerably.  And the ballroom’s inclusion turned out to be a procedural disaster. 

     Because reconciliation bills are extraordinary in that they may pass on a simple majority vote, the procedures for their consideration are more formal than usual.  Before bringing a reconciliation bill to the floor, the majority must first pass a “budget resolution” through both chambers that assigns budgetary limits to each committee intended to contribute material to the final bill.  Reconciliation procedures also allow the minority to force votes that the majority could dodge on other legislation. 

     The Republicans’ budget resolution gave budgets only to the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees, which divide jurisdiction over immigration.  They likely could have given ICE and CBP all the money they desired through the Homeland Security Committee alone.  The Judiciary Committee, however, has jurisdiction over the Secret Service, and to keep up the pretense that the ballroom funding was only for security improvements, Republicans decided to channel it through the Secret Service.  To give Judiciary Committee members political cover, Republicans had that committee create some of the ICE/CBP funds as well. 

     This all blew apart when the bill reached the floor.  First, Democrats persuaded the Parliamentarian that the White House complex well within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works or Energy and Natural Resources Committees, neither of which was given any money to spend in the budget resolution.  Senate rules attribute spending to the committee with jurisdiction even if it springs from legislation reported out by another committee.  Therefore, the ballroom funding was subject to a point of order for increasing those other committees’ contribution to the deficit without permission in the budget resolution.  If Republicans did not strip the ballroom from the bill themselves, Democrats could raise a point of order that would require sixty votes for Republicans to waive. 

     The problems did not end there.  Although the White House complex is not within the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction, the Justice Department is.  Amendments to reconciliation bills that reduce the deficit within the jurisdiction of one of the participating committees are generally in order.  Therefore, by trying to fund the ballroom, Senate Republicans likely allowed Democrats to offer an amendment to the bill that would explicitly forbid the President’s already unlawful $1.776 billion “weaponization” compensation fund.  With half of the Republican caucus reportedly up in arms over the morality and wisdom of that fund, such an amendment would easily pass. 

     To be sure, House Republicans could add back the ballroom and delete any restrictions on the “weaponization” fund.  But with Rep. Massey and all Democrats surely opposed, that could mean that every other Republican, would have to vote for this politically toxic bill – including those facing difficult re-election battles.  By tradition, Democrats can force one floor vote, on a motion to recommit the bill to committee.  Democrats would surely force Republicans to vote on removing the ballroom, barring the “weaponization fund”, or both (by reverting to the Senate version of the bill). 

     And even if the House changed the bill to the President’s liking, that would probably force the convening of a House-Senate conference committee.  At a minimum, this would entail further delay.  And the prospects on the Senate floor of a conference bill that either funded the ballroom or allowed the “weaponization fund” would be dubious at best:  in addition to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who likely opposes it on substance (and who years ago showed she could survive a primary challenge), leadership would have to worry about Sen. Susan Collins (D-Me.), who is in a difficult re-election battle, as well as Sen. Cassidy, whom the President just defeated for re-nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), whom the President is trying to defeat next week, and two senators forced into retirement with threats of primary challenges (Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky).  Overzealous efforts to enforce party discipline can quickly backfire. 

     The Senate Republicans’ impasse over the ICE/CBP reconciliation bill also imperils other parts of the President’s agenda.  Democrats are unlikely to support full funding for the war in Iran that the President launched without consulting Congress – at least not unless it imposes new limits on presidential war-making powers.  Republicans had increasingly been discussing yet another reconciliation bill to fund the war and avoid a filibuster.  These discussions have stalled as Republicans may not have fifty votes for such a bill.  But if they cannot pass the comparatively easy ICE/CBP reconciliation bill, the odds of twisting enough arms to move a much more contentious war reconciliation bill seem even more remote.  Again, the President’s choice to end the careers of four Republican senators for perceived disloyalty considerably weakens his leverage. 

     This also further undermines the President’s demands that Senate Republicans abolish the filibuster to enact the voter-suppressing “SAVE Act”.  Senate Majority Leader John Thune had reported that he lacked the votes to do so even before the latest meltdowns.  Now that the President has personally alienated more senators, and forced the Republican Senate to become accustomed to resisting his agenda, the SAVE Act’s prospects have dimmed even further. 

     House rules give the Speaker near-absolute procedural control of what comes to the floor and how.  One of the few powers the minority does have, however, is the ability to advance a resolution disapproving of a President’s military engagement.  House Democrats sought to do so this past week, with Republican leadership expecting to defeat the resolution on a party lines’ vote.  They had to adjourn hurriedly, however, when they discovered that they did not have sufficient Republican votes to prevail.  This vote now awaits them upon their return.  The President can and surely would veto any anti-war resolution that actually passes, but the prospect of House Republicans in difficult districts having to choose between the President and their anti-war constituents likely is haunting many Members’ recesses.  This could be why the President suddenly seems in a hurry to announce a deal despite the Iranians apparently having capitulated on nothing. 

     Progressives commonly demand that Democrats enforce tighter party discipline and eliminate the filibuster.  It is instructive to see how fierce party discipline and the filibuster have been pummeling Republicans this year. 

     @DavidASuper1 @DavidASuper.bsky.social