House Dems Reject Balanced Budget Amendment Proposal
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday rejected legislation that would require the federal government to maintain a balanced budget, dealing a setback to a long-standing goal of fiscal conservatives.
Lawmakers voted 211-207 against the resolution, which would have begun the process of amending the Constitution to prohibit deficit spending.
The measure required a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress before being sent to the states for ratification.
Nearly every Democrat opposed the proposal, with only one voting in favor.
The amendment effort faced significant challenges from the start, given the high threshold required for passage.
Despite the outcome, the vote was significant for budget hawks, including the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. He said the effort reflects years of advocacy among conservatives pushing for stricter fiscal controls.
“Many of us have been agitating for years to do a balanced budget amendment, and out of the blue, they said, ‘we’re ready to do it,’” Biggs said in an interview.
“They didn’t ask me to do anything, didn’t offer anything,” he said, referring to House GOP leadership. “Just out of the blue, I got a call,” Biggs added.
Balanced budget amendments have been introduced more than 100 times since 1999, according to legislative data analyzed by the Pew Research Center.
The concept saw its peak in the 1970s and 1980s and remains one of the most frequently proposed constitutional changes.
Biggs’ proposal would have required that federal spending in a given year not exceed the average annual revenue collected over the previous three years, adjusted for inflation and population growth.
The resolution included an exception for times of declared war, allowing Congress to approve spending beyond the cap.
Modern military conflicts, including those following World War II, have typically funded themselves through deficit spending without formal declarations of war.
That reality has complicated past efforts to impose strict balanced budget requirements.
The proposal also sought to impose a two-thirds vote requirement in both the House and Senate for any new taxes or tax increases.
Current law allows tax legislation to pass with a simple majority under certain procedures, including budget reconciliation.
While the measure fell short, it underscores continued divisions in Congress over fiscal policy and the role of deficit spending in federal governance.
Supporters argue that a balanced-budget requirement would impose discipline on federal spending, while opponents warn that it could limit the government’s ability to respond to economic downturns or emergencies.
The House passed legislation Wednesday aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants accused of welfare fraud, approving the measure despite strong opposition from most Democrats.
Lawmakers voted 231-186 to pass the Deporting Fraudsters Act, with 186 Democrats voting against it. The bill was introduced by Rep. David Taylor, R-Ohio.
The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly classify fraud involving public benefits as a deportable offense.
Republicans said the measure is designed to ensure that noncitizens who defraud taxpayer-funded programs are removed from the country and barred from returning.
“If you admit to or you’re convicted of fraudulently receiving public benefits, you are out of here on the next plane and can never return,” Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said during debate on the House floor.
Democrats largely opposed the bill, arguing that existing law already allows for the deportation of noncitizens convicted of fraud. They characterized the legislation as unnecessary and duplicative.
Republicans pushed back on that claim, saying the bill does not prevent criminal prosecution before removal and maintains existing legal processes.
GOP lawmakers argued that the measure strengthens enforcement by closing perceived loopholes.
The U.S. House recently passed the Save America Act, again putting the pressire on the Senate.
White House Privately Braces for 2027
The White House is quietly preparing for a Democratic takeover of the House by hiring lawyers to fend off a wave of legal challenges that could cripple the final two years of President Donald Trump’s time in office.
The preparations illustrate how the White House is privately preparing for the possibility that Democrats will regain at least one chamber of Congress in November, even as Republicans express confidence in public, according to people close to the administration.
A Democratic House next year could be reminiscent of 2018 fights that included impeachment inquiries of the president and multiple investigations into his inner circle.
Michael Williams, who served in White House roles in President Donald Trump’s first term and was deputy general counsel for the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee, said staff is already preparing for another impeachment push even as Trump sets a broader strategy for dealing with Democrats.
“They’re ready for that eventuality,” Williams told Bloomberg Government. “I don’t think they’re ready to concede that that’s the likely outcome, but they’re certainly prepared in that event.”
Emma Doyle, former chief of staff at the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s first term who later worked in the West Wing, said the administration is already hiring experienced lawyers to help prepare officials for impeachment, as she did in the first term.
The return of advisers Jason Miller and Johnny DeStefano strengthens the White House for those fights, Doyle said, along with staff such as Mark Paoletta, the OMB general counsel who worked on impeachment defense in the first term.
Miller and DeStefano rejoined the White House last month to work on midterm strategy.
However, Democrats are facing their own problems.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) may find himself caught in the very blue wave he hopes to ride into power this November.
More and more Democratic candidates are telling Axios that they can’t promise to support his leadership.
It’s a big change from Jeffries’ once “untouchable” position in the Democratic Party just a few years ago. This could mean his path to the speakership will be harder than people thought.
Jeffries and his supporters say they aren’t worried at all about a mass defection. They point out that he hasn’t lost a Democratic vote in 20 speakers’ ballots, even though he is in the minority.
However, this group of new candidates could potentially be the first challenge to the previously unyielding support.
A group of viable candidates has made it clear that voting for Jeffries as speaker is not a given if the Democrats win the House.
Axios reported that more than 80 Democratic House candidates across the country were either not sure if they would support Jeffries’ leadership or were completely against it.
Since then, things have only gotten worse for him.
The tension was on display in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District. Democrat nominee Rebecca Bennett, who likely needs to beat Rep. Tom Kean (R-NJ) if Democrats have any shot at the majority, refused to commit to voting for Jeffries before her primary win.
Likewise, Iowa’s 1st congressional Democratic nominee Christina Bohannan is also noncommittal, merely responding “I don’t know yet. I haven’t made that decision,” when asked by Punchbowl News if she would support Jeffries.
“I want to get elected first,” she continued.
The nonpartisan Cook Political Report has classified both Bohannan and Bennett’s districts as toss-ups.
Republicans currently hold both seats.
Montana’s 1st congressional Democratic nominee Sam Forstag echoed similar sentiments as Bohannan.
Forstag sits in a seat labeled “likely Republican,” but has no incumbent running.
Mai Vang, the leading progressive primary challenger to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), previously said she would “support the person that my future colleagues elect as our leader.”
But in an unprompted statement last week, she told Axios: “The Democratic Party and its leadership—Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries—have failed to mobilize meaningful opposition to Trump’s illegal war and their silence as AIPAC and corporations flood Congressional primaries with millions of dollars is deafening.”
“I cannot support this kind of leadership,” Vang said. “If we want to defeat Trump and rebuild trust with working Americans, we need new leadership and a new direction.”
“Most Democrats agree that he’s been failing to meet the moment,” said Adam Hamawy, a candidate in New Jersey’s 12th district, saying he is “looking for someone that’s gonna stand up to the administration.”
When asked if she would support Jeffries’ leadership, Claire Valdez, a New York State Assembly member who is running to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), said in an interview with Axios that “there would need to be some conversations.”
