Will Republicans Oust Mike Johnson as Speaker Over Federal Shutdown Bill?

House Speaker Mike Johnson passed one of his most consequential pieces of legislation, a bill that will extend government funding beyond the looming Friday deadline and prevent a costly federal shutdown.

However, the feat is not one all Republicans will celebrate, as 93 out of 220 present GOP lawmakers voted against the bill and 209 out of 211 present Democrats voted in favor of the measure. The bill's bipartisan support and opposition from the hard right has fueled speculation in Washington over whether Johnson could soon meet the fate of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

McCarthy was ousted from the speakership last month after Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida filed a "motion to vacate," initiating a vote to remove him as speaker after McCarthy brought forth a "clean" continuing resolution (CR) that extended government funding to the current Friday deadline, averting a shutdown.

Hard-right conservatives, many of whom are members of the Freedom Caucus, oppose clean CRs, which prolong funding at current levels without offering policy changes, like the one Johnson just passed. They want any new spending legislation to cut government funding rather than extend current levels. However, despite Johnson doing what McCarthy was admonished for, conservatives say it's unlikely to cost him his job.

"I haven't heard anything legit. I've only heard you guys ask about that," Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who voted against today's CR but did not support the ousting of McCarthy, told Newsweek. "I haven't heard it from any other Republicans members."

"I think with the eight [Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy], they should have made red lines that stuck for all future Republican speakers," Greene added. "If you really want to make effective change, it has to apply for everybody."

Eight Republicans, including Gaetz, sided with every Democratic House member to vote in favor of removing McCarthy as speaker. These representatives, some of whom, like Greene, voted against Johnson's CR due to its lack of spending cuts and other conservative policy provisions, struck a different tone regarding Johnson's decision to move forward with the bipartisan CR than they had with McCarthy.

Unlike McCarthy, who spent more than a decade in Republican leadership, Johnson only ascended to a significant leadership role recently and has not broken promises like McCarthy did, according to the ex-speaker's foes.

While Johnson's decision to bring a clean CR to vote may cost him goodwill with conservatives moving forward, Republican Congressman Eli Crane of Arizona, who voted to oust McCarthy, said that conservatives understand Johnson did not lead them into the current situation of needing a CR, thus it's not his fault that one was brought forth to avoid an unpopular shutdown.

"I realize he was thrown into a difficult situation, and he's being given a little bit of grace, but I think he's aware that that time period only lasts so long," Crane said. "I don't think it's fair to judge a quarterback in the second quarter of his first game."

Crane added that Johnson is aware frustration is building but said that "at the very least [Johnson] has been honest and transparent." Johnson's words appear to mirror his understanding of this frustration and the problems backing another clean CR could create. During a Tuesday morning Fox appearance, he said, "I hate CRs. We shouldn't do this, and we're not going to do it again," but added that it was a "necessary step" to avert a shutdown.

Democrats viewed the CR's passage as a win because it will avoid a shutdown without introducing spending cuts or conservative policies, with House Democratic leadership instructing members to vote in favor of the measure. New York Congressman Ritchie Torres, who followed his party's instructions, did not rule out the possibility of conservatives ousting Johnson but sees that outcome as less likely, given that he lacks the animosity that faced McCarthy.

"One should never underestimate the dysfunction and division in House Republicans," Torres told Newsweek, "but it seems to be the only member who was so reckless and irresponsible enough to introduce a motion to vacate was Matt Gaetz, and he seems to lack the same animosity towards speaker Johnson that he had towards Speaker McCarthy."

It also helps that Johnson has been able to frame this CR as a partial victory. While most clean CRs extend Congress' 12 annual spending bills to the same deadline, Johnson insisted—to the dismay of Democrats—on his measure being structured as a so-called "laddered CR." Johnson's laddered CR extends four spending bills to January 19 and eight spending bills to February 2.

Johnson touted on Fox that "this new innovation" will prevent Congress from passing an "omnibus" bill right before the deadline. In the past, rather than vote on the 12 bills individually, Congress has lumped them all together as an omnibus that requires only a single vote, often right before the December holidays. House Republicans complain that this does not provide members enough time to review what they're voting for and have made avoiding this situation a priority.

Republicans in the upper chamber seem to largely support Johnson's effort. Kansas Senator Roger Marshall, who previously served with Johnson in the House, believes it will buy Johnson critical time to take a deeper look at spending cuts. He urges conservatives to not "all be cowboys and it's only their way or the highway" and to instead allow the speaker time to build momentum to further the Republican agenda.

"I think it gives Speaker Johnson the opportunity to truly look at these buckets of funding one at a time, and we get closer to balancing the budget with this laddered CR," Marshall told Newsweek. "Some of these cowboys need to give him a little bit of space and allow him to do his job—Don't make the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Correction 11/16/2023 at 12:40 p.m. ET: An earlier version of this article stated five spending bills extend through January 19 and seven extend through February 2. Those numbers have been corrected to four and eight.