Following the prolonged Congressional recess, the House has witnessed a disturbing trend of frequent censure votes against members, consuming hours of legislative time. Speaker Mike Johnson initially aimed to refocus on lawmaking, but the chamber has instead been dominated by partisan attacks, with both parties reciprocating accusations. Lawmakers from all sides have engaged in this tit-for-tat behavior, with five such votes occurring during the first full week back after the shutdown. This pattern suggests growing dysfunction, as evidenced by Rep. Mark Pocan’s critique of the House’s declining standards.
Efforts to rebuke specific members like Rep. Jesus ‘Chuy’ Garcia and Rep. Stacey Plaskett have had mixed results. While an attempt to censure Garcia over his alleged plan to install his top aide as his successor succeeded, other votes, including those targeting Plaskett over her communications with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and Rep. Cory Mills over alleged ethical misdeeds, narrowly failed. These outcomes reflect the deepening political polarization and the challenges in achieving bipartisan resolutions. The failure to censure Plaskett in particular highlights the growing influence of a vocal minority of lawmakers seeking to curb the escalating cycle of personal attacks.
In an effort to address this dysfunction, Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) introduced legislation seeking to change House rules to make it harder for members to target colleagues. Their proposal would require a supermajority of 60 percent of the House to approve censure, disapprove of conduct, or remove a member from committee assignments — up from the current simple majority threshold. The lawmakers argue that the censure process is broken and that such personal attacks impede the House’s ability to focus on critical national issues.
Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged the need for rule changes, stating that such suggestions are ‘an intriguing idea’ and that he is ‘open to having that conversation.’ However, he has not made any formal commitments to reform. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also expressed openness to exploring reforms, though the political climate remains tense, with both parties engaged in reciprocal accusations. This dynamic has created a situation where the legislative body is increasingly consumed by internal disputes rather than focusing on the legislative agenda.
Amid these ongoing censures, the House is also grappling with an indictment against Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) on federal fraud charges. The situation has been complicated by the fact that she has labeled the indictment as an ‘unjust, baseless sham.’ Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), who has publicly teased the effort to sideline his indicted colleague, has indicated he will wait for the House Ethics Committee’s report before taking any action. This approach reflects a deference to established procedures, where members are typically given a chance to defend themselves in court or via an effective jury of their peers before facing public discipline.
The debate over censure reflects broader concerns about the institutional integrity of the House. While extreme cases involving allegations of criminal conduct, such as the removal of Rep. George Santos, do not represent the primary concern of Bacon and Beyer, they highlight the growing trend of censures being used as political tools. Once a rare and embarrassing rebuke, censure has become commonplace, partly due to its ability to serve as a political rallying cry and a fundraising boon for those leading these efforts. Without new protections, lawmakers fear that the censure wars will continue to escalate, eroding public trust and institutional effectiveness.