House Democrats erupt into infighting over leadership power play

House Democratic leaders are trying to flex some muscle this week after two members defected on a key procedural vote. It's stoking fury among members across the political spectrum. Why it matters: The blowup offers a preview of the chaos that party leaders could face in January if they take back the House majority. Meanwhile, an effort to give House Democratic leaders more tools to keep their members in line next year is falling flat among rank-and-file members. "It'll be dead by next week," predicted one senior House Democrat, speaking to Axios on the condition of anonymity to comment candidly on the maneuver. Driving the news: Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) touched off a flurry of anger from fellow Democrats on Tuesday by helping Republicans pass a procedural measure known as a "rule." The measure allowed for House votes on a slew of measures, including a GOP resolution denouncing socialism and a bipartisan bill co-led by Golden to shield lobstermen from regulations protecting whales. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and his deputies were upset that Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez defected without a heads-up. They put out a rare joint statement accusing the two centrists of a "significant breach of trust" that "necessitates a serious response." Several proposed responses have been floated behind the scenes, lawmakers and aides told Axios. Some members have suggested kicking both members off of their committees, or at least removing Gluesenkamp Perez from the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Others have pitched a broader change to caucus rules requiring members to show up to key votes, stick with party leadership on rule votes and pay their dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Under this proposal, members who fail to adhere to those standards would not be members of the caucus in "good standing," which could in turn lead to them losing out on prime committee appointments. Yes, but: Several senior Congressional Progressive Caucus members told Axios they would strongly oppose such a rules change. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), the deputy chair of the Progressive Caucus, told Axios: "Something like that, I don't think will be ... supported." "It could be used against everyone," she said. "I think it's really important that we ... defeat it." Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the Progressive Caucus' chair emerita, told Axios the rules change is "not going to fly." Between the lines: Progressives are "furious" about the proposal, said the senior House Democrat who spoke to Axios anonymously, in part because many moderates in swing districts are exempt from paying DCCC dues. "The feeling is they hold CPC to a different standard," the senior lawmaker said. The rules change was a topic of furious conversation among CPC members on the House floor Wednesday afternoon, sources told Axios. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told Axios "it's up to the caucus ... to decide if they want to vote on a rule and what that rule looks like." "Any member of the caucus can read the rules that govern the meetings and ... offer a rule change whenever it's appropriate," he said. Aguilar declined to state a personal position on whether the rules should be changed, saying he will "share it when it's appropriate." Some centrists, meanwhile, said the idea of removing Golden or Gluesenkamp from committees would be a slap in the face to their wing of the party. They noted there have been more than a dozen instances in the past several congressional sessions in which Democrats — including progressives — broke with party leaders but faced no repercussions. "There was a time back in 2022 where a bunch of 'Squad' members voted for the rule, nothing happened to them," said a centrist House Democrat. "If they're going to apply it only to us, hell yeah that would be a big problem for everybody," battleground district Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) told Axios. He added: "They can't single us out. We have tough districts. In fact, if anybody gets a pass it should be front-liners defending seats that, if it weren't for us, the Republicans would have." Several moderates said they want assurances from leadership that, if Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez are punished, the standard will be applied equally to all members going forward. The bottom line: Many lawmakers speculated that this episode was leadership's way of trying to signal a new, more authoritative style in anticipation of taking back the House majority. The centrist House Democrat who spoke anonymously said of Jeffries: "He's just laying the groundwork."

Read it at Axios ↗

← Front page