This plea by Vance is misleading, bordering on outright falsehood. The SAVE Act contains several non-budgetary provisions, all which would be struck under reconciliation.

Using reconciliation to fund DHS seems like a foolproof path to overcome Democratic opposition, but it comes with political risks. Reconciliation gives Democrats two opportunities to force unlimited amendment votes. You can imagine the kinds of issues they will force Senate Republicans to vote on.

My take on why Mike Johnson's speakership is one of the most fraught in recent and not so recent memory. open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...

The NDAA carries language restricting the Hegseth's travel budget until DoD provides reports and documents on a variety of issues. As @jamiedupree.bsky.social notes, this language isn't that uncommon, particularly when committees lose patience with agencies. But it often flies under the radar.

Blocking the transmission of legislation is among the worst abuses of power by any Speaker in House history. It's become very common under Johnson.

Mike Johnson announces, as emperor, that he has no clothes. It's not often the emperor makes this confession, but it is 2025 so anything goes. www.axios.com/2025/11/21/m...

Trump never had total control. It's easy to overlook his failure on recess appointments, the Dept of "War," most budget cuts, among many, many others. When he asks, he often does not receive. What's increasingly slipped is his ability to prevent resistance to unilateral acts.

And this is exactly why members distrust Johnson. Not the first time he's withheld a bill from advancing to the Senate.

There is quite a bit of Republican pushback to Trump's attempt to gut the Department of Education, not just from moderates but from the Appropriations subcommittee chair.

How's Mike Johnson's speakership going? Well, his members don't trust he'll do his job and transmit the Epstein bill to the Senate after it passes. So there's that.

Matt makes a critical point. The pain of the shutdown was seriously ramping up while pressure on Republicans had yet to really build. They were losing in polls but not by a margin that would cause them to abandon Trump or Thune. Very skeptical Dems would have won much more by holding out longer.

Democrats over-performed during the shutdown, polled well, and won elections. However, an ACA deal, nuclear Senate, or impoundment rules were a big stretch, at best, and mostly not feasible. More shutdown and "trying harder" can't change Republican majorities. joshhuder.substack.com/p/an-entirel...

Republicans won't nuke the filibuster because they don't want to vote much (most?) of Trump's agenda. Why go on the record about unpopular policies when you can silently kill them instead?

Look, Pelosi was a great leader but that included a ruthless streak that mired numerous political careers to stay on top for over 20 years and in office for almost 40. If you want members genuinely enabling the next generation, write about Ed Perlmutter or Charlie Dent.

Senator Tuberville has made some pretty epic tactical blunders during his time in the Senate. But, he gets this one spot on: Americans do not care about Senate rules. Nuking the filibuster wouldn't create the uproar many Democrats assume. But Republicans won't do it anyway.

Who is staffing this anonymous Republican senator who claims Congress doesn't have a role in deciding what constitutes an emergency? This gets a big 'F' in my class. www.semafor.com/article/10/2...

It's sort of stunning to hear Republicans discuss repealing portions of the bill they just passed into law a week ago. www.semafor.com/article/07/1...

Also, extremely relevant.

You should absolutely read @stevevladeck.bsky.social explainer for Trump v. CASA case limiting lower court iniunctions. Here the kicker paragraph: open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

This makes four members this Congress who leaped more senior colleagues to win ranking member positions. (h/t @jamiedupree.bsky.social's Regular Order)

There's no such thing as a legal "pocket" rescission. It's an impoundment and it is illegal.

The administration is leveraging Congress's failure to pass appropriations bills to deny Democratic states infrastructure funding. The new Army Corp plan funds Republican states double that of Democratic states.

I don't want to detract from what would be a big bill if congressional Republicans can pull it off, but claiming this "one of this most difficult pieces of legislation ever" is just blindingly absurd. The programs and legislation this bill might amend or dismantle were FAR more difficult to pass.

There are a lot of good reasons to oppose a shutdown but this is the dumbest. If the government shuts down even more illegal things will happen? Keeping the government open doesn't rein in executive power or check unlawful activity. It's not constitutionally heroic.

ANY member can enforce the rules. These motions are privileged under House rules. The Speaker cannot block them. The rules are only enforced to the degree that members enforce them. Reps rely too much on leadership to perform the functions they themselves are responsible for.

This is exactly the kind of favoritism and corruption the Framers tried to guard against by giving Congress the power of the purse. If lawmakers are reliant on the president to fund their programs, it creates dependence on presidents and presidents can extort them.

President Trump and Musk nearly shutdown the government in December rather than pass an omnibus so they could put their stamp on FY25 funding. Now, the President is whipping a full year CR in the House.

And why is the national debt a problem now for the first time since the 1990s? Federal debt has been a problem for the better part of 2 decades, really since the financial crisis. Trump inherits almost the exact same debt (as a percentage of GDP) as Biden did in 2021.

No, @politico.com, the President does not get pause law to retroactively review if it "aligns with his priorities."

McCarthy smartly added Massie to Rules, knowing Massie was more of an independent conservative than an HFC member. This concession would create more of an HFC bloc on Rules, potentially creating even bigger headaches for Johnson when trying to move legislation.