Trump set to take office with razor-thin House GOP majority
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office in January with a razor-thin GOP majority in the House of Representatives that offers Republicans barely any margin of error.
Overnight Wednesday, one of two outstanding races in California tipped toward Democrats, giving Adam Gray a roughly 182-vote lead over GOP Rep. John Duarte in the inland 13th Congressional District in the San Joaquin Valley. In California’s 45th Congressional District, anchored in Orange and Los Angeles Counties, Democrat Derek Tran has a roughly 600-vote lead over Republican Rep. Michelle Steel.
In Iowa, GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks up by 800 votes in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District.
If these results hold, the House will start with a 220-215 GOP majority, even thinner than the current Congress’ margin.
Republican ranks, however, drop to 219 with former Rep. Matt Gaetz’s resignation. It could fall further to 217 depending on the timing of the resignations of Reps. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and Mike Waltz, R-Fla., who are set to join the Trump administration as U.S. ambassador to United Nations and national security adviser, respectively.
That would send the chamber to a 217-215 margin — essentially a one-seat majority in votes where Democrats stick together in opposition and a historically sliver advantage.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has pleaded with Trump to avoid taking any more House members for his administration.
“It’s a great problem to have,” Johnson said on Fox News earlier this month. “We have an embarrassment of riches in the House Republican Congress. Lots of talented people who are very attuned to the America First agenda, and they can serve the country well in other capacities.”
“But I’ve told President Trump, enough already, give me some relief. I have to maintain this majority. And he understands that, of course, we’ve been talking about it almost hourly every day,” he added.
Already, Republicans have dealt with chaos in the current Congress.
Bands of hardline members have grown just large enough to block votes on bills, moves that were once viewed as beyond the pale within the halls of Congress. And, unforgettably, Republican divisions left the House without a speaker for days, both at the beginning when Kevin McCarthy was looking to get the requisite support and again after he gave up the gavel and members were torn for days before coalescing behind Johnson.
Heading into the current Congress, Republicans have sought to grease the skids a little bit more to try to avoid such public brawls from happening in the future.
Republicans agreed to raise the number of lawmakers needed to trigger a vote to oust a speaker from one to nine. In return, lawmakers who oppose proposals to allow votes on bills will not face retaliation.
But with such a narrow margin, any one Republican could and throw the floor into chaos and block the party-line passage of key bills.
One of the largest legislative items up for business is an extension of the 2017 tax cuts that Trump pushed during his first term. They’re set to expire next year, and Republicans have hoped to extend them — but 12 House Republicans voted against the 2017 GOP tax law, which only passed thanks to a larger majority at the time.
In 2017, when Republicans passed a rewrite of the tax code during the first Trump administration, 12 House Republicans — part of a larger majority at the time — voted against the bill, but did not prevent its passage.
Republicans began the 118th Congress in 2023 with 222 seats — a 10-seat margin over 212 Democrats — a majority that spent weeks in the winter selecting a House speaker, and a chunk of the fall selecting a replacement.
A few illnesses, special election surprises, or absences could also disrupt Republicans’ careful balancing act.
In 1917, Republicans held the narrowest majority in history with a 215-213 edge over Democrats. But a group of minor party lawmakers worked with the minority to elect a speaker, delivering the chamber to Democrats, according to Pew.
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump and his allies have vowed to radically shift American policy from Day 1.
From mass deportations to eliminating the Department of Education, Trump’s policies could impact millions of people and communities across the country. However, experts say there is a big obstacle that will make it harder — if not impossible — for the incoming administration to implement these plans: States and municipalities.
Alison LaCroix, professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, told ABC News that the power to regulate and implement key laws lies strictly within the states and many local leaders have already been working to prepare for a possible future Trump administration.
“The states have a lot of levers in the constitutional system, legal system and other systems,” she said. “This usually comes as a lot of shock to people who don’t know how much power they wield but we’re going to soon find out how valuable they are.”
Other experts who have focused on some of the biggest sectors targeted by Trump, such as public health and immigration, agreed but said they are likely gearing up for a legal and policy fight that could last a long time.
Trump has said he aims to remove at least 1 million immigrants living in the country illegally from the U.S. as soon as possible.
Elora Mukherjee, the director of Columbia Law School’s immigration clinic, told ABC News that states can’t outright act as immigration enforcement for the federal government without an agreement.
“It is the principle that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to enact federal priorities,” she said.
Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois have vowed not to assist Trump with any mass deportation plan, and Mukherjee said their claims are not empty words.
She said states already showed their power during the first Trump administration by blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from entering courthouses for potential raids and denying the agency detainers that would have kept jailed immigrants in custody longer without an arraignment.
She added that any attempts by the Republican-controlled Congress to change immigration and deportation laws to take away rights from the states will take some time and likely be met with resistance even among Republican members who think it is too extreme.
“The Trump administration will issue many executive orders, but a large number that will be illegal and unconstitutional,” Mukherjee added.
At the same time, Mukherjee said that conservative states and municipalities may bolster anti-immigrant policies and make it harder for migrants and asylum seekers to gain a path to citizenship.
Sixty counties and police districts, many of them in Florida, have entered into 287(g) agreements with ICE, in which local law enforcement can conduct immigration policies on behalf of the federal government such as executing warrants and detaining undocumented immigrants, according to Mukherjee.
Florida also passed SB 1718 last year which cracks down on undocumented immigration with several provisions, including making it illegal to transport undocumented immigrants and requiring hospitals to ask patients for their immigration status.
Mukherjee stressed that states cannot try to enforce their own laws in other jurisdictions due to the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg vs. Pennsylvania. That case, which overturned the conviction of a man convicted under a state law that prevented slave-catching, held that while federal law supersedes state law, states are not required to use their resources to uphold federal laws.
“It’s extremely difficult and illegal for one state to impose their laws onto another,” Mukherjee said.
Even when it comes to executive orders, Mukherjee said the laws are mostly on the side of states and municipalities.
Trump’s “border czar” choice Tom Homan has already threatened to go after states and cities that refuse to comply with the president-elect’s deportation plans, including arresting mayors.
Mukherjee said there is no legal mechanism or modern legal precedent that allows the federal government to incarcerate local leaders for not adhering to an administration’s policy.
“Sanctuary city laws are entirely allowed within the U.S. Constitution,” she said. “The 10th Amendment is extremely clear. The powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. This is a bedrock principle of U.S. constitutional law.”
Public education State education officials are in the same boat when it comes to federal oversight, experts said.
Although Trump and other allies have made it clear that they want to eliminate or weaken the federal Department of Education, funding for schools and education programs lies mostly in the hands of state legislatures and local school boards, according to Alice O’Brien, the general counsel for the National Education Association.
“Those campaign promises in reality are much harder to achieve,” O’Brien told ABC News. “They would require federal legislation to accomplish.”
Federal oversight has little control over local school curriculum policies, she added.
O’Brien noted that much of the federal oversight on public schools lies outside of the jurisdiction of the Department of Education. For example, state school districts must adhere to laws set forth at the federal level such as non-discrimination against race and religion and disabilities.
“States and school systems can not run in any way that conflicts with the federal Constitution,” O’Brien said.
When it comes to funding, although the federal DOE does provide funding as a floor to many school districts, it is a small fraction compared to the funding that comes from city and state coffers, O’Brien explained.
Public health “It really comes down to a state-by-state basis in terms of how much dollars are allocated to the schools,” she said. “Ultimately it really comes down to how much money the state budgets have.”
Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association and former Maryland health secretary, told ABC News that state public health offices operate under the same localized jurisdiction and thus would have more autonomy on health policies.
Trump’s pick for the head of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been a staunch promoter of anti-vaccination policies and has pushed for the end of fluoride in water supplies.
Benjamin said he is worried about the effects of having someone with no professional health experience and public dismissiveness of proven health policies, however, he remarked that states and municipalities still hold immense power in implementing policies.
Georges noted that fluoride levels in the water supply are dictated at a local level, and many counties have chosen not to implement them. Federal health agencies can make recommendations but cannot block a municipality from implementing fluoridation, he said.
“There is no fiscal penalty for not following it,” Benjamin said of federal recommendations.
The same rules govern local vaccination requirements, he added.
“[The federal government does] control vaccine mandates at the federal level, with the federal workforce, but they don’t control the bulk of childhood mandates,” Benjamin said.
He noted that the country saw the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of state-run public health systems during the two years that COVID-19 hit the nation and the rollout of the vaccines. Republican and Democratic states all instituted shelter-in-place and social distancing rules during the peak of cases, Benjamin said.
“I do think we have a wait-and-see attitude,” he said.
In the meantime, several states have taken measures to bolster their state health policies, particularly when it comes to reproductive rights, through legislative action and ballot measures.
Power in state prosecutors One of the biggest ways that states will be able to “Trump-proof” their laws and policies is through state prosecutors and the courts, LaCroix said.
“We will see a lot of arguments in local government and what they can do,” she said.
Mukherjee said several state attorneys general were able to take Trump to court during his first administration and push back against immigration proposals such as his ban on residents from Muslim countries and deportation plans.
Mukherjee said despite the increase in Trump-backed judges in the federal courts, there is still the rule of law when it comes to immigration. For example, earlier this year, a federal judge struck down the provision in Florida’s SB 1718 that threatens felony charges for people who transport an undocumented immigrant.
U.S. District Judge Roy Altman, a Trump-appointed judge, issued an injunction against that provision stating that immigration-related enforcement was not in the state’s power.
“It will be harder this time around to win sweeping victories for immigrants and non-citizens … but federal judges across party lines reined in the worst abuses of the Trump administration the first time around,” she said.
LaCroix echoed that statement and said that partisanship can only go so far, especially when it comes to laws enshrined in the state and federal constitutions.
“Judges still have to give reasons for what they do and ‘because our party is in charge’ doesn’t hold weight,” she said.
(WASHINGTON) — The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s election interference case has dismissed the case, after special counsel Jack Smith asked the judge to toss the case due to a long-standing Justice Department policy that bars the prosecution of a sitting president.
Smith earlier Monday moved to dismiss Trump’s election interference case and the appeal of his classified documents case ahead of Trump’s impending inauguration, due to the DOJ’s presidential immunity policy and not because the charges lacked merit.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the charges against Trump without prejudice, leaving open the highly unlikely possibility of a future prosecution.
In a two-page opinion, Judge Chutkan wrote that dismissing the case without prejudice is “appropriate” and would not harm the “public interest,” agreeing with Smith’s argument that Trump’s immunity would not cover him when he leaves office.
“Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office,” Chutkan wrote.
However, it’s extremely unlikely that any prosecutor would attempt to bring the same charges in the future, in part because the statute of limitations for the alleged crimes will have expired by the time Trump leaves office in four years.
Trump’s lawyers did not oppose the government’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.
Smith also asked the judge in Trump’s classified documents case that his appeal against Trump’s two co-defendants in that case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Olivera, be allowed to continue.
Smith’s requests came nearly 16 months after a grand jury first indicted Trump over his alleged efforts to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election.
“That prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind,” Smith stated in his motion.
“The country have never faced the circumstance here, where a federal indictment against a private citizen has been returned by a grand jury and a criminal prosecution is already underway when the defendant is elected President,” the motion said. “After careful consideration, the Department has determined that OLC’s prior opinions concerning the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President apply to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated.”
Smith moved to dismiss his appeal of the charges against Trump in his classified documents case, in which Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House, after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case in July over her finding that Smith was improperly appointed to his role. Smith appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that legal precedent and history confirm the attorney general’s ability to appoint special counsels.
Monday’s filing asked the court to dismiss that appeal — but it sought to keep the appeal in place for Nauta and De Olivera, two Trump employees who pleaded not guilty to obstruction charges.
“The appeal concerning the other two defendants will continue because, unlike defendant Trump, no principle of temporary immunity applies to them,” the filing said.
In a statement, John Irving, a lawyer for De Oliveira, said, “The Special Counsel’s decision to proceed in this case even after dismissing it against President Trump is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that’s fine with us.”
Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung, in a statement, called Smith’s motions to dismiss a “major victory for the rule of law” and said, “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”
In the election interference case, Trump last year pleaded not guilty to federal charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election during the
Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
Smith subsequently charged Trump in a superseding indictment that was adjusted to respect the Supreme Court’s July ruling that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken as president.
Earlier this month, Judge Chutkan cancelled the remaining deadlines in the election interference case after Smith requested time to “assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy” following Trump’s election.
Judge Chutkan had been in the process of considering how the case should proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
Smith had faced filing deadlines of Dec. 2 for both the election interference case and the classified documents case, after Smith’s team requested more time to determine how to face the unprecedented situation of pending federal cases against someone who had just been elected to the presidency.
Getting Monday’s filings in a week ahead of schedule now raises the question of whether Smith will be able to beat the clock to officially close his office down and submit his final report to Attorney General Merrick Garland — as is required of him per the DOJ’s special counsel regulations — before Inauguration Day.
The final report will have to go through a classification review by the intelligence community, a process that can sometimes take weeks before it is approved for any kind of public release.
Garland has made clear in appearances before Congress and in public statements that he is committed to making public the final reports of all special counsels during his tenure, which included reports by special counsel Robert Hur following his probe of President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents before assuming the presidency, and by special counsel John Durham following his probe of the 2016 Russia investigation.
Special counsel David Weiss is still continuing his investigation of FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who pleaded not guilty to charges of lying about President Biden and his son Hunter Biden, and is set to take the case to trial in California next week. It’s unclear whether he will formally close his investigation down and submit a final report prior to Trump taking office.
US Representative (R-FL) Mike Waltz. Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump has asked Florida Republican Rep. Mike Waltz to be his national security adviser, multiple sources told ABC News.
Waltz is a China hawk and is the first Green Beret elected to Congress. He emerged as a key surrogate for Trump, criticizing the Biden-Harris foreign policy record during the presidential campaign.
Waltz, who was elected to the House in 2018, sits on the Intelligence, Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. He also serves on the House China Task Force with 13 other Republicans.
He has supported aid to Ukraine in the past, but has demanded “conditions,” including increased spending from European allies, additional oversight of funds, and pairing the aid with border security measures.
Waltz, a vocal critic of the Biden administration’s policy towards Ukraine who has visited the country, criticized the White House and allies for not providing Ukraine with more lethal aid — such as MiG fighter planes from Poland — earlier in the conflict.
Before running for elected office, Waltz served in various national security policy roles in the George W. Bush administration in the Pentagon and White House. He retired as a colonel after serving 27 years in the Army and the National Guard.
