National

More than half of House Democrats sided with Republicans on Thursday in voting for a GOP resolution denouncing socialism.

Why it matters: It’s an early example of Republicans using their majority to force Democrats to choose between putting up a united front against bills they say are distractions and avoiding creating fodder for 2024 attack ads. 

The resolution denounces “socialism in all its forms” and opposes “the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America.”

A total of 106 Democrats voted for the resolution, while 86 voted against it and another 14 voted "present. "

What they're saying: “This [was] very much about politics and political messaging, and you saw that with some of the people voting present,” said Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.), the chair of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, which supported the resolution.

Kuster said leadership was attentive to swing-district members' needs: "It was very much open-door conversations this week ... just conversations about where our members were coming from and how they felt about this. They had strong feelings about this."

What we're hearing: House Republican campaign operatives are already sharpening their knives against Democrats who voted against the resolution.

"It’s certainly a potent hit we’re excited about," Jack Pandol, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, told Axios. "If you can’t vote to denounce the horrors of socialism, yes, we will be letting your constituents know about it."

The NRCC sent out a press release after the vote with the subject line “Dems ❤️ socialism." Another takes aim at freshman Rep. Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) for voting against the resolution.

The other side: Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Progressive Caucus, told Axios that her faction recommended its members vote against the resolution and she advised colleagues “however you vote on this bill, they’re going to use it against you, so it doesn’t really matter.”

Jayapal also argued the bill's sweeping rebuke of socialism conflates historical despots with modern entitlement programs and Nordic social democracies: "They're trying to tie those successful [welfare] programs ... to [former ruler of Cambodia] Pol Pot."

Rep. Theresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.), one of the "present" votes, told Axios, "This resolution does nothing to address the problems. ... It feels like political theater. Think about it, we've spent three days on this. Three days on a nonbinding resolution."

Some Democrats also tried to mitigate the political fallout of voting against a resolution kicking Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) off the Foreign Affairs Committee over allegedly antisemitic statements.

Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) sent House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) a letter just after the vote asking him to form a select committee on combatting antisemitism.

Gottheimer also introduced a resolution with 30 Democratic co-sponsors, including Omar, “recognizing Israel as America’s legitimate and democratic ally and condemning antisemitism.”

House Democrats call GOP’s bluff on socialism vote

"It’s certainly a potent hit we’re excited about," said an NRCC spokesperson.

House Democrats

More than half of House Democrats sided with Republicans on Thursday in voting for a GOP resolution denouncing socialism.Why it matters: It’s an early example of Republicans using their majority to force Democrats to choose between putting up a united front against bills they say are distractions and avoiding creating fodder for 2024 attack ads.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

House Republicans are indicating plans to investigate the Biden administration's response to a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that was shot down off the coast of South Carolina on Saturday.

Why it matters: It fits into a broader array of planned probes by the new GOP House majority into the Biden administration's military and foreign policy, including the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2021.

Driving the news: “I will be demanding answers and will hold the admin accountable for this embarrassing display of weakness," Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said Saturday.

A committee spokesperson told Axios: "[I] think we're first looking for an in-depth briefing, additional steps have yet to be determined."

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), a freshman member of the panel, said in a statement that Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin "must cooperate with Congress and provide immediate answers."

Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said in a statement slamming the administration's response to the balloon that his panel "will continue demanding both action and answers from this administration."

The context: The Pentagon first announced the balloon's existence to the American public on Thursday, alleging it was being used to collect information on sensitive military sites. Chinese officials claim it was a civilian weather balloon.

U.S. officials were aware of the balloon when it entered American airspace on Jan. 28, according to Bloomberg. 

Biden told reporters he ordered the Pentagon on Wednesday to shoot down the balloon "as soon as possible ... without doing damage to anybody on the ground. The best time to do that was when it got over water."

The other side: Top Democrats praised the administration's handling of the balloon.

"I commend President Biden’s leadership in taking down the Chinese balloon over water to ensure safety for all Americans," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a statement.

Others mocked GOP rhetoric about the balloon as overwrought. "Great news for my Republican colleagues, they can stop panicking about a balloon now," Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) tweeted of the balloon being shot down.

What's next: The Biden administration will brief the Gang of Eight – the four party leaders in Congress, along with the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees – next week, according to a Schumer spokesperson.

House GOP eyes China spy balloon investigations

"I will be demanding answers," said Rep. Michael McCaul.

Rep. Michael McCaul, wearing a blue pinstripe suit, white shirt and blue tie, stands in front of the Capitol.

Rep. Michael McCaul. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.

House Republicans

Rep. Victoria Spartz says she isn't running for any office in 2024

The two-term member made waves by voting present for speaker.

Rep. Victoria Spartz, wearing a blue dress and holding a styrofoam cup, speaks to reporters in front of a statue at the Capitol.

Rep. Victoria Spartz. Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg News via Getty Images.

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) on Friday announced she plans to retire from Congress and won’t run for any other office in 2024.Why it matters: It’s a rare move for a two-term member — especially one as high-profile as Spartz, who made waves this year by <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="voting present" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2023/01/04/house-speaker-vote-kevin-mccarthy" data-vars-content-id="75182551-30e4-442e-a2c8-e918c790775f" data-vars-headline="Rep. Victoria Spartz says she isn&#x27;t running for any office in 2024" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2023/01/04/house-speaker-vote-kevin-mccarthy" target="_self">voting present</a> in last month’s historic House speaker election and <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="temporarily resisting efforts" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2023/01/24/gop-mccarthy-omar-schiff-swalwell-committees" data-vars-content-id="75182551-30e4-442e-a2c8-e918c790775f" data-vars-headline="Rep. Victoria Spartz says she isn&#x27;t running for any office in 2024" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2023/01/24/gop-mccarthy-omar-schiff-swalwell-committees" target="_self">temporarily resisting efforts</a> to kick Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) off the Foreign Affairs Committee.

House Republicans and Democrats will negotiate how to make it more difficult for the majority party to hold votes on removing the other party's members from committees.

Why it matters: The changes could defuse an ongoing spat over committee assignments that lawmakers in both parties say is fueling already-boiling tensions in the House.

Driving the news: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced bipartisan talks to change the process for removing members from panels after Thursday's vote to kick Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) off the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

She was ousted over comments about Israel that Republicans cast as antisemitic.

What they’re saying: Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who had been a key holdout on Thursday’s vote, told reporters that McCarthy agreed to move toward changing House rules in exchange for her vote to remove Omar.

“We shook hands, we looked mano a mano into the eye, and I got this commitment from him,” Mace said, adding that the talks will last 30 days and include lawmakers from both parties.

McCarthy told reporters he asked Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to select Democrats to deal with McCarthy's negotiators, who include Mace and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), another holdout swayed by McCarthy's vow to change the process.

"We'll work to … clarify the rules and pass something for not only this Congress but future congresses as well," McCarthy said.

The details: The rules change is expected to require the House majority to get approval from the Ethics Committee before holding a vote on removing a member of the minority party from committees.

The ethics panel is split evenly between the two parties and requires a majority vote to conduct business, meaning any removal effort would need bipartisan support to reach the House floor.

The panel would have to conduct an investigation and hold a hearing before voting on any removal.

The big picture: Lawmakers in both parties have grown increasingly frustrated with the partisan warfare over committee assignments.

The fight kicked off in 2021, when Democrats and a few Republicans voted to remove Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) from their committees, prompting McCarthy to vow retribution.

Last month, McCarthy removed Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) from the House Intelligence Committee.

Some House Republicans told Axios they hoped their vote to remove Omar would be the last such vote they, or their colleagues across the aisle, ever had to take.

What's next: After the bipartisan group hashes out the language of the rules change, the House will vote on it. 

Mace's office said that vote is expected within a month.

House eyes making committee removals tougher

Changes could defuse a spat fueling tensions in the House.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy speaks to reporters in statuary hall.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Photo: Aaron Schwartz/Xinhua via Getty Images.

House of Representatives

House Republicans and Democrats will negotiate how to make it more difficult for the majority party to hold votes on removing the other party&#x27;s members from committees.Why it matters: The changes could defuse an ongoing spat over committee assignments that lawmakers in both parties say is fueling already-boiling tensions in the House.Driving the news: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced bipartisan talks to change the process for removing members from panels after Thursday&#x27;s <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="vote to kick Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2023/02/02/house-votes-remove-ilhan-omar-foreign-affairs-committee" data-vars-content-id="e934a70c-445a-44be-9c48-655197545e35" data-vars-headline="House eyes making committee removals tougher" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2023/02/02/house-votes-remove-ilhan-omar-foreign-affairs-committee" target="_self">vote to kick Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)</a> off the Foreign Affairs Committee. <ul><li>She was ousted over comments about Israel that Republicans cast as antisemitic.</li></ul>What they’re saying: Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who had been a <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="key holdout" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2023/02/01/nancy-mace-mccarthy-principals-office" data-vars-content-id="e934a70c-445a-44be-9c48-655197545e35" data-vars-headline="House eyes making committee removals tougher" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2023/02/01/nancy-mace-mccarthy-principals-office" target="_self">key holdout</a> on Thursday’s vote, told reporters that McCarthy agreed to move toward changing House rules in exchange for her vote to remove Omar.<ul><li>“We shook hands, we looked mano a mano into the eye, and I got this commitment from him,” Mace said, adding that the talks will last 30 days and include lawmakers from both parties.</li><li>McCarthy <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="told reporters" data-vars-click-url="https://www.c-span.org/video/?525777-1/speaker-mccarthy-house-not-pass-clean-debt-limit-spending-reform" data-vars-content-id="e934a70c-445a-44be-9c48-655197545e35" data-vars-headline="House eyes making committee removals tougher" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?525777-1/speaker-mccarthy-house-not-pass-clean-debt-limit-spending-reform" target="_blank">told reporters</a> he asked Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to select Democrats to deal with McCarthy&#x27;s negotiators, who include Mace and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), another holdout <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="swayed by McCarthy&#x27;s vow to change the process" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2023/02/01/mccarthy-whips-votes-omar-house-vote" data-vars-content-id="e934a70c-445a-44be-9c48-655197545e35" data-vars-headline="House eyes making committee removals tougher" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2023/02/01/mccarthy-whips-votes-omar-house-vote" target="_self">swayed by McCarthy&#x27;s vow to change the process</a>.</li><li>&quot;We&#x27;ll work to … clarify the rules and pass something for not only this Congress but future congresses as well,&quot; McCarthy said.</li></ul>The details: The rules change is expected to require the House majority to get approval from the Ethics Committee before holding a vote on removing a member of the minority party from committees.<ul><li>The ethics panel is split evenly between the two parties and requires a majority vote to conduct business, meaning any removal effort would need bipartisan support to reach the House floor.</li><li>The panel would have to conduct an investigation and hold a hearing before voting on any removal.</li></ul>The big picture: Lawmakers in both parties have grown increasingly frustrated with the partisan warfare over committee assignments.<ul><li>The fight kicked off in 2021, when Democrats and a few Republicans voted to remove Reps. <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="Marjorie Taylor Greene" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-greene-taylor-removed-house-committees" data-vars-content-id="e934a70c-445a-44be-9c48-655197545e35" data-vars-headline="House eyes making committee removals tougher" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2021/02/04/marjorie-greene-taylor-removed-house-committees" target="_self">Marjorie Taylor Greene</a> (R-Ga.) and <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="Paul Gosar" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2021/11/17/paul-gosar-censured-house-violent-video" data-vars-content-id="e934a70c-445a-44be-9c48-655197545e35" data-vars-headline="House eyes making committee removals tougher" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2021/11/17/paul-gosar-censured-house-violent-video" target="_self">Paul Gosar</a> (R-Ariz.) from their committees, prompting McCarthy to vow retribution.</li><li>Last month, McCarthy <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="removed Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/2023/01/25/mccarthy-removes-schiff-swalwell-intelligence-committee" data-vars-content-id="e934a70c-445a-44be-9c48-655197545e35" data-vars-headline="House eyes making committee removals tougher" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/2023/01/25/mccarthy-removes-schiff-swalwell-intelligence-committee" target="_self">removed Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)</a> from the House Intelligence Committee.</li><li>Some House Republicans told Axios they hoped their vote to remove Omar would be the last such vote they, or their colleagues across the aisle, ever had to take.</li></ul>What&#x27;s next: After the bipartisan group hashes out the language of the rules change, the House will vote on it. <ul><li>Mace&#x27;s office said that vote is expected within a month.</li></ul>

Democrats on Saturday approved a revised schedule for presidential primaries in 2024, a plan that elevates South Carolina as the nation's first primary and removes Iowa from the list of early contests.

Why it matters: If the states follow through on the plan adopted in Philadelphia by the Democratic National Committee, they would upend a half-century-old schedule that has had New Hampshire's primary and Iowa's caucuses as the first presidential nominating contests.

President Biden proposed the new calendar in December, saying the order of Democratic primaries should be adjusted to allow states with racially diverse populations to have more of a say in early presidential contests, which can set the tone for the rest of a campaign.

In 2020, voters in Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary were more than 90% white. Iowa's chaotic 2020 caucus was another factor in the change.

"Our early states must reflect the overall diversity of our party and our nation — economically, geographically, demographically," wrote Biden, whose 2020 campaign was flagging until a victory in South Carolina propelled him to the Democratic nomination and eventually the presidency.

Yes, but: The plan has gotten pushback — particularly in New Hampshire, where state law dictates that the state hold the nation's first presidential primary every four years.

Some critics have cast the plan as an effort by Biden to tilt the primary process in his favor by having states likely to be favorable to him hold early primaries. 

Another problem: The Democrats' new schedule differs from Republicans' primary calendar, placing some states in a difficult position.

The details: Under the new calendar for 2024, South Carolina Democrats will vote on Feb. 3, followed by New Hampshire and Nevada on Feb. 6, Georgia on Feb. 13 and Michigan on Feb. 27. 

Iowa wouldn't be able to hold its caucus before March. It went first in 2020, followed by New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

What's next: New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) has said, "Our primary will still be first and the nation will not be held to a substandard process dictated by Joe Biden and the Democrat Party." 

That may lead to a game of chicken with the DNC, which could sanction any state that refuses to acquiesce to its rules. That could include devaluing the state's delegates.

Democratic Sens. Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, whose presidential primary will move up under the new schedule, called on the DNC to "lay out a clear plan to protect this new calendar and ensure robust enforcement mechanisms are in place."

"After so much work has been done to improve and diversify the early window, these rules and penalties must be strong enough to stop rogue states that refuse to comply with the new calendar from jumping ahead of Nevada," they said in a statement.

The other side: The Republican National Committee already has set an early primary calendar that preserves the old order, meaning some states either would have to hold their primaries on separate dates or risk sanctions from one party or the other.

Michigan, where Democrats lead both chambers of the legislature and hold the governor's office, has moved up its primary to Feb. 27 to match the DNC's new schedule.

Other states are in more complicated situations: Georgia election officials, led by Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have told Axios their primaries must be held on the same day, and that the state is unlikely to move up its primary to a date before March 2024.

"The DNC has decided to break a half-century precedent and cause chaos by altering their primary process, and ultimately abandoning millions of Americans in Iowa and New Hampshire," RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel said in a statement.

Democrats set South Carolina as first primary in '24

Nevada and New Hampshire would go next under the new schedule.

COLUJoe Biden, with Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), speaks in Columbia, S.C. after declaring victory in the state's Democratic primary on Feb. 29, 2020.

Joe Biden, with Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), speaks in Columbia, S.C. after winning the state's Democratic primary in 2020. 

Democratic National Committee (DNC)

Joe Biden

Democrats on Saturday approved a revised schedule for presidential primaries in 2024, a plan that elevates South Carolina as the nation&#x27;s first primary and removes Iowa from the list of early contests.Why it matters: If the states follow through on the plan adopted in Philadelphia by the Democratic National Committee, they would upend a half-century-old schedule that has had New Hampshire&#x27;s primary and Iowa&#x27;s caucuses as the first presidential nominating contests.

Andrew Solender

Stories

House GOP eyes China spy balloon investigations

Democrats set South Carolina as first primary in '24

House eyes making committee removals tougher

Rep. Victoria Spartz says she isn't running for any office in 2024

House Democrats call GOP’s bluff on socialism vote