Mike Johnson has had a rough time leading the House of Representatives. Under his speakership, Republicans set the record for the number of failed special rules (votes speakers use to bring bills to the floor), set the modern record for successful discharge petitions to bring bills to the floor over Johnson’s objections, and forced him to pull legislation from the floor after it became clear he lacked the votes. It’s been a tough go.
The reason for these problems is multifaceted. Republicans’ historically narrow majority received renewed attention among the press after Rep. LaMalfa’s passing. However, the numbers are just one of several problems ranging from political to structural to personal. So while the small majority may get the headlines, I’d like to break down the other, arguably more important, challenges Johnson has faced during his tenure.
Political – The Republican Conference
Without question, Speaker Johnson’s biggest challenge is the paradox of the House Republican Conference. It is simultaneously a product of intense polarization and declining partisanship. Ideologically, it remains profoundly different from Democrats. Yet, this increasing distance from their political opposition has been coupled with a decline in teamwork and internal harmony. In total, Republicans are both less likely to work with Democrats and less likely to work with themselves. The result is dysfunction and stunted House influence.
Republican fissures are not new but they are reaching a critical point. Newt Gingrich led – and eventually won – a conservative-ideological fight against his more moderate Republican colleagues in the 1980s and 1990s, and arguably, party leaders never really recovered control. Every Republican speaker of the last 15 years – except possibly Hastert – has been haunted by right-wing challenges. Conservatives, led in part by then-Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), pushed out Gingrich after just two terms. Hardline-conservatives pushed out Speaker Boehner after two-plus terms. Hardliners again threatened Speaker Ryan; and of course, we know the plight of Speaker McCarthy, followed by Speaker Johnson’s current dilemmas. The last 30 years of Republican politics has been a building crescendo of conservative hardline tactics, which have undermined House Republicans’ capacity to achieve party goals or, at times, accomplish even routine governance.
Today, these long-standing fractures have undermined the basic partisan mechanisms of the last half-century of legislative politics. In the last two Congresses, Republicans struggled to elect a speaker, which is something we have not seen in the House for well over 100 years. Their “procedural majority” – which is the partisan teamwork necessary to manage floor procedures – appears to be fraying. Failed special rule votes and discharge petitions continue to mount, demonstrating the willingness of moderates and conservatives alike to thwart Johnson and leadership. These procedural norms were the connective tissue that allowed partisan majorities to control the chamber. Yet, they increasingly look like anachronisms in the 119th Congress. Despite Johnson’s best efforts, it’s beginning to seem as though leadership has substantially lost control over the House floor.
Unfortunately, Johnson lacks help. President Trump was far more engaged earlier in the 119th Congress as House Republicans worked to usher the “One Big Beautiful Bill” through the chamber. Unsurprisingly, that corresponded with Johnson’s most successful period. Since then, however, President Trump has stepped back from legislative politics to focus on other priorities. Without the President’s engagement, Johnson has struggled to manage his coalition.
Structural – Compromised Power
Over the last 50 years, the speakership has become a formidable legislative institution. Speakers play an outsized role in committee assignments, able to affect the career trajectories of their rank and file through favorable or unfavorable assignments. They have extraordinary discretion over who speaks or makes motions on the floor, controlling the House agenda by ignoring disfavored motions or granting recognition to allies.
But arguably the core of contemporary speakers’ power lies in their close relationship with the House Rules Committee. Since 1975, Speakers were given the authority to nominate members to the Rules Committee (subject to conference ratification, which is most often a formality). Over time, the Committee grew closer to the speakership as speakers selected partisan allies for the panel, coupled with the inherent understanding that opposing the Speaker’s wishes could get members removed from the panel. Until recently, Rules was considered an arm of the leadership: the Speaker’s goals are often accomplished through the procedures and policies advanced by the Rules Committee.
However, the last two congresses have seen a historic break in practice. In exchange for their votes to elect McCarthy and Johnson, hardline Republicans demanded three seats on the panel. Three is an important number for the majority. The Rules Committee is comprised of 9 majority members and 4 minority members. If three Republicans break ranks to oppose a resolution in the Rules Committee, the House majority no longer has a committee majority.
We’ve seen a number of signs that the Committee is acting against the Speaker. There was the suspension of the rules palooza in the 118th Congress. The “suspension” process – which is essentially controlled by speakers – brings legislation to the floor without passing through the Rules Committee, allowing for a simple up or down vote and requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. Speakers McCarthy and Johnson advanced major legislation to the floor through suspension, including multiple Continuing Resolutions (CRs), a bipartisan tax bill, and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), necessitated because the Rules Committee refused to aid the Speaker. Likewise, we’ve seen several bills stall at Rules. The FY2026 NDAA was delayed until the Speaker agreed to very conservative amendments, undermining the original bill which passed almost unanimously out of the House Armed Services Committee. These delays have also affected spending bills and name, image, likeness (NIL) legislation in the committee.
While the committee still works with the Speaker, the amount of negotiating required to win passage through Rules is a significant departure from the last 30 years of lawmaking. A committee that was once the arm of the Speaker now has a mind of its own, and can’t always be trusted to cooperate with Speaker Johnson’s plans.
Personal – Republicans’ broken leadership pipeline and dicey leadership decisions
Johnson’s ascension to the leadership was unique. After three failed speaker nominees – Reps. Scalise, Emmer, and Jordan – and a month-long deliberation, strange even in increasingly embattled Speakership elections, the conference finally settled on Mike Johnson. Johnson was an unusual candidate. He did not have leadership experience at the committee or party level. Johnson became Speaker during his fourth term, fewer than nearly all his predecessors since Reconstruction.[1] His rise to the speakership was almost like the legislative equivalent of James Garfield’s unexpected nomination in 1880, minus the long, rousing speechmaking.
Johnson’s inexperience was actually an asset in his nomination for speaker. His more experienced colleagues had significant baggage after the first deposed speaker, multiple ousters, coup attempts, shutdowns, and legislative squabbles. Johnson was untainted by the strained Republican politics of the last decade, and indeed even unknown to some major legislators. But Johnson also lacked experience counting votes, scheduling bills, negotiating deals, or managing a diverse conference.
That inexperience has showed at times. Johnson’s abuse of the suspension process led to motions to vacate against him. His negotiations with President Biden strained his relationship with his right flank. And his decision to recess the House during the 2025 shutdown led to widespread condemnation, even among rank-and-file Republicans. Balancing the interests of the Republican conference is very difficult, but abusing his unilateral powers at a time when he did not enjoy widespread political support among his colleagues made a bad situation worse.
What’s ahead
Speaker Johnson has had no shortage of challenges during his tenure. It will likely get more challenging as the midterm election approaches and members’ electoral concerns become dominant. How Johnson handles it will shape not only his career as Speaker, but the House’s relevance to federal decision making.
[1] Speaker Keifer (R-OH) and Carlisle (D-KY) were the exceptions, at 4 and 6 years served before election, respectively.
