Push to Vacate Johnson Losing Momentum Among Republicans

The push to boot House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) out of the speaker’s chair seems to be losing momentum among Republicans in the House.

Following Mr. Johnson’s move in March to pass $1.2 trillion of government funding with broad Democrat support, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) introduced a motion to vacate against Mr. Johnson, which she described as “a warning” or “a pink slip.”

Over a month since that motion was introduced, it seems to be losing momentum among Republicans.

In the weeks that followed, two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)—announced their support for the motion.

When pressed on the motion to vacate issue by reporters on April 29, Mr. Massie said “nothing’s changed” in his calls for Mr. Johnson to resign, but declined to discuss the matter further.

Ms. Greene’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

Related Stories

Many other Republicans—including several members who voted to oust former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)—say they don’t support removing Mr. Johnson under the same process.

Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) said that the motion to vacate is “being exercised improperly.”

He told The Epoch Times it should be “as serious as impeachment,” and should only be used as a penalty for serious moral or criminal violations by the speaker.

“There should be at least some standards, moral standards, such as if someone were to engage in an unethical action, or crime, deceit,” Mr. Meuser said.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), a vociferous critic of the current motion to vacate rules, told reporters “I don’t think there’s the support within the conference to remove the speaker” when asked whether the motion to vacate was “dead.”

Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.) agreed, telling The Epoch Times that targeting the Republican speaker “takes the focus off of just how bad President Biden is, how bad House Democrats are.”

Conservatives Not Anxious to Vacate

The sentiment was shared even among many members of the House Freedom Caucus.

“I’m not itching to do anything like this,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who’s been a vocal critic of Mr. Johnson, told The Epoch Times. “What I think we need to do is just get back in the saddle and focus on doing our job.”

Mr. Roy emphasized the proximity of the 2024 election, saying that Republicans should focus their efforts on keeping control of the House next Congress.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who veers toward the right-flank of her conference, said she was an “emphatic no” on using a motion to vacate against Mr. Johnson “as of right now.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who led the effort to remove Mr. McCarthy, reiterated the sentiment, telling reporters “I oppose a motion to vacate at the current time.”

Asked why he opposed the motion after supporting a similar motion against Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, he told The Epoch Times, “I have at least three members of my caucus that might be susceptible to bribes.”

In the past, Mr. Gaetz has indicated that he didn’t want to pursue a motion to vacate against Mr. Johnson due to fears that it could end in House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) being installed as the speaker.

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), who was also involved in the push to boot Mr. McCarthy, agreed.

“It’s very different than a year ago,” he told The Epoch Times.

“Some of it’s simple math,” Mr. Good explained, noting that Republicans now control six fewer seats than the 222 they had coming into the 118th Congress.

He also cited the proximity of the 2024 election, and the willingness of many moderates in the conference to work with Democrats to form what he described as “a coalition government.”

Former President Donald Trump has indicated on multiple occasions that he backs the speaker, though he’s declined to comment directly on Ms. Greene’s motion to vacate.

It’s a tacit endorsement that likely goes a long way in the very pro-Trump House Republican conference.

Mr. Johnson also seems likely to be able to win some Democrat support to keep the gavel, which could ensure that any effort to remove him fails.

Mr. Jeffries has refrained from committing to saving Mr. Johnson in the past, but said during a press conference earlier this month, “I believe a reasonable number of Democrats would not want to see the speaker fall for doing the right thing.”

That sentiment was echoed by Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.J.).

“I will say that I’m the first to give Speaker Johnson a lot of credit for finally putting the foreign aid bill on the floor. We certainly knew that was a risky move within his within his party. Sadly, it shouldn’t be but it was.

“I think there will be Democrats who would rather reward a speaker for doing the right thing than reward Marjorie Taylor Greene, and her effort to overtake the House,” Mr. Goldman said.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the former House majority whip, has also said he would vote to save Mr. Johnson if instructed to do so by Mr. Jeffries.

Other Democrats were less enthusiastic about the idea of bailing Mr. Johnson out.

“If you’re asking me, ‘Do I believe Democrats should help Mike Johnson?’ I do not,” Rep. Gerry Connelly (D-Va.) told The Epoch Times. “Nothing personal. But he’s not my candidate. He is very right wing. I don’t know why I’d support that.

“And frankly, if he stays in office, at the sufferance of Democrats, he’s a marked man in his own party.”

Mr. Johnson’s office did not return a request for comment.