Chiproy Bak

trump coup mofo razor wire ~ rule of law // fascism

NO MERRI

PHOBE? SHARIA

pow sedition caucus (meadows scott perry] , fossil fuel ceos 2ndMANDY G

no merri

got lamar smith's seat

see freedom cocks

big b bill cut medicare

BAK 12 25

---

something re trump liz cheney?

---

rww

12/12/2025

Kyle Mantyla

Rep. Chip Roy says that Republicans in the House of Representatives will be holding hearings to expose how George Soros, NGOs, and the United Nations have been using the SPLC and antifa to promote "Marxists and Islamists who want to take this country over."

"Prophet" Mark Taylor fumes that "Susie Wiles and her people are the ones responsible for single handedly KILLING the America First Agenda!": "She is a demonic infiltrator in the highest order sent in to destroy the President and the America First Agenda."

InfoWars can't believe that Dalton Eatherly is being persecuted just because he is a racist who says the N-word.

Speaking of racists who say the N-word, Nick Fuentes revealed that he recently recorded an interview with Joel Webbon that will be airing soon.

Finally, Fuentes has reportedly been ordered to attend anger management and do 75 hours of community service for pepper-spraying and shoving a woman last year.

---

ref

tony perkins

Rep. Chip Roy Highlights the latest on the Defense Bill & Looks Ahead to 2025 Agenda

0:00

And here we have Texas Congressman Chip

0:02

Roy who has joined us here in the media

0:06

center at the Family Research Council.

0:09

Uh a familiar face and voice on

0:11

Washington watch. Uh Congressman, thanks

0:13

so much for running off the hill and

0:15

coming down here and joining us.

0:16

Happy to do it. Great to be here, Tony.

0:18

So we're coming up on the uh really the

0:20

end of the year. Still a lot hanging out

0:22

there for Congress to deal with. We've

0:24

been talking about the healthcare

0:26

extension. So, so what what can we

0:28

anticipate over the next uh week?

0:31

Well, we just passed the National

0:32

Defense Authorization Act this week. As

0:34

you point out, we've got these issues to

0:36

kind of close out. And, you know, look,

0:37

I'm very bullish about a lot of the

0:39

things we've been able to accomplish in

0:40

terms of the big beautiful bill, tax

0:42

policy, getting work requirements, and

0:43

Medicaid, the stuff that we did there

0:45

that I think will help position the

0:47

economy for next year, which is where we

0:48

need it to be, and be strong heading

0:50

heading into the midterms. But look, I

0:51

I'm one who believes we ought to be on

0:53

offense on healthcare. So, I'm being I'm

0:55

I'm a voice for that. And this whole

0:57

notion of getting wrapped around the

0:58

axle on subsidies is a mistake. Yeah. Uh

1:00

because that's just perpetuating the

1:01

very broken system that has given us the

1:03

inability to afford healthcare. So from

1:05

my standpoint, I'm advocating for what I

1:07

call healthcare freedom, massive

1:09

expansion of health savings accounts,

1:10

direct primary care, access to medicare,

1:13

uh health sharing ministries, all the

1:15

things that we know are actually

1:16

working. And you just got to have some

1:17

catastrophic option and then you know

1:19

free up the American people so you have

1:21

patients and doctors who are empowered

1:23

instead of insurance bureaucrats and

1:24

government bureaucrats. I think we can

1:26

do it, but it's hard to build 218 and

1:29

you know, Mike has been doing

1:30

So, who's opposed to that other than the

1:32

Democrats?

1:33

So, let me say the good news. The good

1:34

news is I've seen greater unonymity on

1:38

that concept that I just laid out than

1:40

I've really seen in years. Like,

1:42

everybody's speaking the same language

1:44

and off the same sheet of music,

1:46

however, there's a pocket of our mods

1:48

who really want something moderates on

1:51

something on the subsidies. I think

1:53

they're getting wrapped around that axle

1:54

wrongly. We're trying to kind of pull

1:56

that off. They really want to vote on

1:57

that because they believe they've got to

1:59

answer that question. I think they're

2:01

putting, you know, uh I think they're

2:02

focusing on the wrong thing, right?

2:04

We got to go focus on what's, you know,

2:05

fundamentally structurally wrong that is

2:08

actually making it totally unaffordable

2:09

for the average hardworking family who

2:11

now have $25,000 of insurance payments

2:13

to get boxed out from the doctor of

2:15

their choice.

2:16

So, are those moderates all in blue

2:17

states?

2:19

Yes, they are.

2:20

Yeah, there might be. Yes. Yes. I mean,

2:22

because the history here, we've talked

2:24

about this. I don't want to beat a dead

2:25

horse, but or a sick horse about

2:27

healthcare, but the the the reality is

2:29

no Republican has ever voted for

2:31

Obamacare nor the subsidies. Correct.

2:33

Why start now?

2:34

Well, we shouldn't and I will get I want

2:36

to give a lot of credit to Speaker

2:38

Johnson who I think has done a a very

2:41

good job navigating a tough climate. And

2:43

look, I've I've had my differences of

2:44

opinion here and there with with

2:46

everybody and we always have that. But

2:48

but uh you know, Mike navigated through

2:49

the shutdown. and he's navigating

2:50

through some of these issues to try to

2:52

focus on the right things. He rightly

2:54

agrees that going down the road of

2:56

subsidies is a mistake for Republicans.

2:58

The president agrees. The president is

3:00

look, the president has opened the door

3:02

when he goes out and says, "Why are we

3:03

subsidizing insurance companies when we

3:05

should be helping the American people?"

3:07

That is the right instinct. The

3:08

president is pointing in the right

3:10

direction. So, if congressional

3:11

Republicans will step up, the president

3:13

will get out and message it and we can

3:15

sell it. But this is what we're all

3:16

wrestling with. We're literally just on

3:18

the House floor a minute ago trying to

3:19

figure out the next steps next week and

3:21

I don't know yet what it's going to be.

3:22

Well, I I would agree with you. I think

3:24

we need to take the opportunity to fix

3:26

the system by replacing it with

3:28

something that works that is that is

3:29

free marketbased p patient focused

3:32

relationship with the doctor, not the

3:34

not the insurance company.

3:36

And by the way, 30 second aside, I I'd

3:38

like to get rid of Obamacare, but you

3:39

know what? You can leave Obamacare in

3:41

place if you provide a freedom option.

3:43

People will go there if you give them

3:45

the ability to have something they can

3:46

afford. It'll work.

3:47

Correct. It'll work. So, fine. You want

3:49

to leave this in place? Fine. But you

3:50

give me a p place to go. Give my family

3:52

a place to go. Give everybody here a

3:54

place to go.

3:54

All right. Talking about uh you you you

3:58

uh you like to be on the offense. You

3:59

like to to to move forward. You don't

4:01

want to just kind of sit. So, let's talk

4:04

about something. You are hosting or

4:06

actually you're chairing, I should say,

4:07

a subcommittee hearing next week. You

4:09

chaired the constitution committee in

4:12

the judiciary committee on the southern

4:14

poverty law center that has in fact when

4:18

you walk out the door of this room you

4:20

will see the bullet holes in the wall

4:21

that was inspired a gunman to come into

4:24

this building. Uh Congress is ready to

4:27

act on that. They're ready to move to

4:29

expose these this long-term relationship

4:32

that SPLC was had has had with

4:34

government agencies.

4:35

Well, I'm certainly ready to do that. I

4:37

think uh Congressman uh and chairman

4:39

Jordan uh rightly agreed that we should

4:42

have this hearing in the subcommittee on

4:43

the Constitution. And so we're going to

4:44

be doing this next week. Uh Tony will be

4:46

one of the witnesses. Uh uh Tyler Boyer

4:49

from TPUSA is going to be one of the

4:51

witnesses. Uh as well as an individual

4:54

who's pretty knowledgeable here in town,

4:55

a journalist named Tyler O'Neal about

4:57

all of the dot connecting of all the

4:59

money. Now, there's a lot to unpack

5:01

here, which we probably don't have

5:02

enough time to do in full, but the short

5:04

version is anybody who loves and is

5:06

familiar with with with F FRC knows what

5:09

Southern Poverty Law Center meant with

5:11

respect to the attack here over a decade

5:12

ago uh here in this building. Um, but

5:16

and now we've seen the connection to

5:18

what happened with Charlie and and the

5:20

extent to which your, you know,

5:21

crosshairs are put on you. Heck, my name

5:23

is now getting put in the crosshairs

5:25

because I'm daring to call out the

5:26

Islamification of America. So what we're

5:29

going to do in this hearing is expose

5:30

that, demonstrate what's actually

5:32

happening, but I want to take that a

5:34

step further so people understand the

5:35

vast array of networks that are funding

5:37

all of it. The Soros operation, uh,

5:40

Arabella, all of the groups and all of

5:42

the operatives that are involved, the

5:43

Islamification funding, the open borders

5:45

groups, the NOS's, the United Nations,

5:48

your taxpayer dollars, all of it coming

5:50

together in this vast network to have a

5:52

red green alliance where you've got the

5:54

Marxists and the Islamists who want to

5:56

take our country over. and it's all

5:58

related and SPLC is right at the center

6:00

of it. Antifa is at the center of it.

6:02

All of these groups need to be exposed

6:04

and we're going to be doing that next

6:05

week and we're just getting started and

6:06

I've had some great conversation with

6:08

Secretary Bessant with people in the

6:09

administration. Um I think there's a

6:11

hunger to go break this network down

6:14

because it's attacking our way of life.

6:15

Well, it's it's

6:18

finninging violence and it's and it's

6:20

it's leading to death. Yep.

6:22

And it's chilling our First Amendment

6:24

freedoms. Chip Roy, always great to see

6:26

you. Thanks so much for joining us. Look

6:27

forward to seeing you next week.

6:28

Absolutely.

---}:

mma

Laura Loomer pitches banning Muslims from running for office to members of Congress

Loomer also pressed representatives on her show about stripping Muslims of religious protections

Written by Reed McMaster

Published 11/07/25

Far-right influencer Laura Loomer has had an unusual amount of power over staffing and foreign policy decisions in the current Trump administration. Now, she is promoting anti-Muslim bills and pressuring congresspeople to strip Muslim people of their civil rights including the ability to hold office and religious protections.

Loomer has directly influenced the Trump administration's staffing and foreign policy decisions — now, she’s trying to do the same with Congress

- Loomer successfully advocated for U.S. foreign policy shifts, including the cancellation of visas for children seeking medical care. She called children from Gaza, some seeking prosthetic replacements for amputated limbs, “Islamic invaders.” Marco Rubio's State Department later announced, “All visitor visas for individuals from Gaza are being stopped while we conduct a full and thorough review of the process.” The Guardian, [8/16/25]

- :{Loomer reportedly met with President Donald Trump and pushed him to oust several national security officials.The next day, three members of the National Security Council were fired. Axios, [4/3/25]

- Sanctions were lifted on genocide-denying Bosnian politician Milorad Dodik after a push by Loomer and other conservative influencers. Loomer posted on social media, “Milorad Dodik @MiloradDodik of the Republika Srpska is enduring ruthless political attacks from a coalition of Muslims and globalists. These attacks are occurring as Dodik stands firm as a dedicated supporter of President Trump and as a defender of Western values.” New York Times, [10/29/25; Twitter/X, 10/23/25; NPR, 1/8/22]

- After interviewing Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX), Loomer noted her plans to platform representatives that “are pushing back against Sharia law” and the “Islamification of America.” Adding, “I wanna be able to support Republicans and, you know, give them an audience and help support the campaigns of representatives that are actually fighting for America first, fighting to protect our country from an Islamic takeover.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/30/25]

## Loomer has a long history of anti-Muslim bigotry

- Loomer has described herself as a “proud islamophobe” and called Muslims “savages f**king everything up for everyone.” In just one among many moments of her anti-Muslim bigotry, Loomer suggested in a lengthy Twitter tirade following a 2017 terror attack in New York City that “we should never let another Muslim into the civilized world.” Right Wing Watch, [11/1/17; The New York Times, 10/31/17; Media Matters, 8/14/24]

- On her show, Loomer advocated for removing American citizenship from all Muslims who immigrated to the United States after 2008. She claimed, “I think that they need to denaturalize all the Muslims that came into our country under Obama and since Obama.” Loomer added, “Muslims. People who come to this country to become citizens to destroy it. Exactly. That's what they do.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/28/25]

## Loomer asked multiple members of Congress if they agreed with her view that Muslims should be barred from elected office

- Loomer asked Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) if he also believed that Muslims should not be allowed to hold elected office. She asked, “The only people who have refused to take their oath of office on the Bible and the Constitution is every single Muslim who has ever served in the United States Congress. Andre Carson, Keith Ellison, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, all of them have refused to take their oath of office on the Bible and The United States Constitution. So, do you agree with me that it should be illegal for Muslims to hold political office in our country?” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/18/25]

- Fine admitted he wasn't sure how you could “ban a religion” from office but suggested instead that only “natural born” citizens should be able to hold congressional office. ”I don't know how you can ban a religion," he stated, adding, “I think the solution to a lot of this is to consider whether you should have to be a natural born citizen in order to be elected to Congress.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/18/25]

- When Loomer pushed Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) about potentially banning Muslims from elected office, she said, “That's personally what I think needs to happen.” She asked Ogles, “Why is the Republican party not doing enough to signal to these Muslims who are now, all of a sudden, running for positions all across our country?” She added, “What can be done to stop this? I mean, do we need to ban Muslims from running for office in our country? That's personally what I think needs to happen.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/28/25]

- In response, Ogles noted that Republicans would run into problems with constitutional law if they attempted to ban Muslims from elected office. He stated, “I don't know that there's anything that we could do that wouldn't fly in the, kind of the face of constitutional law.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/28/25]

- Loomer asked Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) if he supported Muslims being allowed to serve in the United States Congress, saying, “I personally don't." She questioned, “Do you think that Muslims should be allowed to serve in the United States Congress, whether that be in the House of Representatives, in the Senate? Do you think that Muslims should be allowed to hold elected office in our country? I personally don't.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/21/25]

- Tuberville stated there's no reason to ban Muslims from elected office as long as they “assimilate.” He added, “If they do that, I don't think we have any right to say no. I really don't.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/21/25]

## Loomer pushed members of Congress to remove religious protections for Muslims and stop treating Islam as a religion

- Loomer told Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) that Republicans in Congress need to recognize that Islam is “not a religion.” She claimed, “You can't coexist with Islam, and it's time for lawmakers like yourself and others to recognize the fact that Islam is not a religion, right?” Loomer continued, “We have to recognize that Islam is not practiced as a religion in the 56 Muslim countries. It is practiced as a legal code and a political system.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/23/25]

- Loomer also asked Fine, “Do you think that it's time that we strip Muslims of their so-called religious identity and religious protection here in America?” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/18/25]

- Fine suggested the “No Sharia Act,” his legislation which “prohibits the application of Sharia in the United States where it would violate constitutional rights,” would effectively strip Muslims of their religious identity. He claimed, “I think that's part of the purpose of the No Sharia Act, and that's what it does. It says the political ideology part of Islam is not coming to our country.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/18/25; Office of Rep. Randy Fine, 9/25/25]

## Loomer wanted Rep. Chip Roy's (R-TX) proposed anti-Muslim bill to create a total Muslim travel ban

- Loomer asked Roy if his “Preserving A Sharia-Free America Act,” which would ban anyone who adheres to Sharia law from entering the country, would serve as a travel ban, accusing all Muslims of being “Sharia adherent.” She said, “Since it would be the duty of every devout practicing Muslim to be Sharia adherent, doesn't that then mean that your legislation is just a full blown Muslim travel ban? Which is, in my opinion, what we really need in this country.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/23/25; Office of Rep. Chip Roy, 10/8/25]

- Roy suggested that his “Preserving A Sharia-Free America Act” could hypothetically ban all Muslims from entering the country if all Muslims are “Sharia adherent” like Loomer claims. He stated, “I don't think we should import people who subscribe to that. And so to the extent that that's true for every single person who's adhering to Islam, then so be it.” Rumble, *Loomer Unleashed*, [10/23/25]

### As the NYC mayoral election approaches, right-wing media back GOP push to denaturalize and deport Zohran Mamdani

11/03/25 3:57 PM EST

### Laura Loomer: It was a “very grave mistake” when President Bush said “Islam is a religion of peace. We are not at war with Islam.”

10/24/25 1:56 PM EDT

### Right-wing media ramp up anti-Muslim attacks on Zohran Mamdani in the final days of the NYC mayoral election

10/23/25

---

AN 10 25

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Republican then-President George W. Bush made it clear that he didn't blame Islam in general for al-Qaeda's violence. Bush described Islam as a "great religion," drawing a clear distinction between non-violent Muslims and Islamist terrorism.

But fear-mongering over Islamist "Shariah law" is common on the far right. Former Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minnesota) was obsessed with "Shariah law" during Barack Obama's presidency, and according to MSNBC's Steve Benen, this obsession persists among MAGA Republicans in 2025.

In his October 14 column, Benen explains, "Younger readers might not be aware of this, but between 2011 and 2015, the threat of 'creeping Sharia law' became quite common in far-right circles, before eventually getting picked up by some Republicans eager to score points with the most rabid elements of the GOP base. Newt Gingrich, for example, included an anti-Sharia provisions in his 2012 presidential platform."

Benen continues, "The basic idea behind this paranoid nonsense was that Americans needed to fear the demise of the separation of church and state, which would give way to the imposition of Islamic rules on the public against Americans’ will. State-sanctioned Sharia law did not and does not exist — at least not in this country — and the idea that government officials would impose Sharia on the populace was obviously silly. But at the time, too many Republicans and their allies took all of this quite seriously, as part of a bizarre campaign to scare people and turn Muslim Americans into a threat in need of government action."

The "Rachel Maddow Show" producer cites Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) as some of the MAGA Republicans who are trying to scare their voters by claiming, without evidence, that "Shariah law" is making inroads in the United States.

IFrame Content

"The fact that this anti-Sharia nonsense is apparently back suggests that the GOP's existing list of boogeymen isn't delivering the kind of results the party wants to see," Benen argues. "So at least some Republicans are turning back the clock, pointing anew to an old threat that still does not exist."

*Steve Benen's full MSNBC column is available at this link.*

---

an 8 25

On Thursday, August 21, conservative Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) made a major announcement: He is running for Texas attorney general, a position presently held by far-right Ken Paxton — who is challenging incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the state's 2026 GOP U.S. Senate primary.

Roy is a prominent player in the House Freedom Caucus and is known for being a relentless budget hawk. In an article published on August 22, The Hill's Emily Brooks stresses that Bolton's announcement is a major shakeup for the Freedom Caucus and the U.S. House of Representatives' small GOP majority.

"Several other notable Freedom Caucus members are seeking higher office, too: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Byron Donalds (Fla.), and Ralph Norman (S.C.) are running for governor; Rep. Barry Moore (Ala.) launched a Senate bid last week; and Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) is interested in being appointed to the Senate if Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) wins the governorship," Brooks explains. "Some members hope that the departures of those members who have often cause headaches will lead to greater GOP harmony and less chaos in Congress."

At times, Roy has butted heads with President Donald Trump over budgetary matters.

IFrame Content

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) told The Hill, "The outcome of Chip leaving is a more productive Congress. He's been a contrarian, and he's been an obstructionist."

But some GOP lawmakers, according to Brooks, view Roy "as an important bridge between the Freedom Caucus and the rest of the House GOP and someone who negotiates in good faith."

Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Oklahoma) told The Hill, "My hope is that we'll have members from the Freedom Caucus step up to fill that void, because there's a need for us to continue to work together."

---

The legislation does name several individual officers, including Goodman, for their valor, saying “Capitol Police Officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood, Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jeffrey Smith, and those who sustained injuries, and the courage of Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, exemplify the patriotism and the commitment of Capitol Police officers, and those of other law enforcement agencies, to risk their lives in service of our country.”

The 21 Republicans who voted against the bill are:

Lauren Boebert of Colorado
John Rose of Tennessee
Andy Harris of Maryland
Thomas Massie of Kentucky
Bob Good of Virginia
Louie Gohmert of Texas
Barry Moore of Alabama
Ralph Norman of South Carolina
Matt Rosendale of Montana
Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia
Chip Roy of Texas
Paul Gosar of Arizona
Andy Biggs of Arizona
Warren Davidson of Ohio
Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
Matt Gaetz of Florida
Greg Steube of Florida
Andrew Clyde of Georgia
Jody Hice of Georgia
Mary Miller of Illinois
Michael Cloud of Texas

---

PAXTON ASST ag, CRUZ COS

macho?

primary runoff jason isaac TPPF 2018?

---

:{:--==

---

an 8 25

Axios reports "a schism is emerging between members of Congress who want to ban their colleagues from trading stocks over how best to accomplish their shared goal."

Congressional stock trading is the topic that Congress has long stalled as representatives grow wealthy from what looks to critics like insider trading.

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) admitted in April that she purchased between $21,000 and $315,000 in stocks the day President Donald Trump sent stocks soaring by pausing his sweeping tariffs. Numbers also showed she dumped between $50,000 and $100,0000 in Treasury bills the day the bond market selloff badly rattled investors.

U.S. Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Penn.), meanwhile, sold up to $50,000 in Alibaba stock on March 4, the same day Trump doubled the tariff on Chinese imports. In fact, there are trading companies that buy and sell based upon the reliability of U.S. politicians’ market transactions.

IFrame Content

Axios reports House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have expressed support for a ban, but talk appeared to stall until Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced last month that she plans to introduce a discharge petition on a bill to ban lawmakers, spouses and dependents from trading or owning stocks.

“Luna's going to force it, and I think we need to do that, because I'm sick of messing around," Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) told Axios, adding that he was certain "some" Democrats would sign on to a discharge petition that bypasses House leadership and forces a floor vote.

Axios reports Burchett is part of a bipartisan group that includes Reps. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).

Luna tells Axios she is suspicious of the bipartisan group, however, claiming members don’t actually want to bring forward a bill because they don't "want to hurt their friends.”

A senior House Democrat told Axios the bill “is causing problems and being sorted."

Read the full Axios report at this link.

---

AN 525 COMM DR

A letter that a group of 20 far-right House Republicans released earlier this week as part of a campaign in support of slashing Medicaid appears to have been authored by the head of a research institute with ties to the Koch network.

Politicoreported Friday that "digital metadata embedded in a PDF copy" of the letter that was circulated inside the House of Representatives "lists the author as Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute."

InfluenceWatch notes that in 2021, Paragon received a nearly $2 million donation from Stand Together, "a right-libertarian funding organization that acts as the umbrella organization for the political network that is largely funded by right-leaning businessman and political donor Charles Koch."

Paragon recently urged federal policymakers to require states to conduct more frequent eligibility checks for Medicaid recipients in a purported effort to root out improper payments. Health policy advocates say such a change would make it more difficult for eligible enrollees to keep their Medicaid coverage.

The letter signed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and other House Republicans aligns with Paragon's objectives, claiming that "political abuse" of Medicaid "is helping to bankrupt the federal government" and calling for "structural Medicaid reform" in the party's forthcoming reconciliation package.

IFrame Content

Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said in a statement that "you'd be hard pressed to find a more shameless example of congressional Republicans taking their cues from special interests at the cost of the American people than Chip Roy copying and pasting a letter directly from... special interests."

"This remarkably blatant kowtowing to conservative billionaires is a sad reflection of the congressional Republicans' willingness to make devastating cuts to Americans' healthcare to pay for lower taxes for the richest," said Carrk.

The letter was released as congressional Republicans grappled internally with how and how much to cut Medicaid as they seek to offset the massive projected costs of another round of tax breaks for the rich.

Earlier this week, as Common Dreamsreported, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said he would not accept more than $500 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade. Cuts of that magnitude would still be the largest in the program's history and would strip health coverage from tens of millions of people.

ref

A letter signed by 20 hard-line House Republicans calling for deep cuts to Medicaid in the GOP’s domestic policy megabill appears to be written at least in part by a conservative think tank with ties to top Republican leaders.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas led the letter and promoted it publicly but digital metadata embedded in a PDF copy circulated inside the House and obtained by POLITICO lists the author as Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute.

Blase served on the White House National Economic Council during President Donald Trump’s first term. He and other conservative health wonks launched Paragon in 2021, and it has rapidly gained influence in GOP policy circles. Former Paragon staffers are now top health aides to Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump.

According to tax records gathered by InfluenceWatch, Paragon has received seven-figure donations from groups linked to high-profile conservative activists Charles Koch and Leonard Leo.

The push from Roy and his fellow hard-liners to enact massive “structural” reforms across Medicaid comes as centrists and even some more conservative-leaning members have raised concerns about cutting too deeply into the program. Trump is also wary of slashing the program but has signaled he supports some efforts to curb spending.

The letter urges House Republicans to pursue “meaningful” reforms to the safety-net health program: “If the House budget reconciliation package does not include structural Medicaid reform that achieves desired Republican outcomes, we will be setting up massive tax increases and benefit cuts in the future,” Roy & Co. wrote. “For once, Congress should stop procrastinating, using excuses, and finally fulfill the Republican agenda.”

Asked if Blase was in fact the document’s author, Paragon spokesperson Anthony Wojtkowiak said in a statement that the group “sent a list of Medicaid reform principles to policymakers.”

“It appears that the excellent letter by Chip Roy and colleagues incorporated some of our ideas,” Wojtkowiak said, noting the group frequently works with lawmakers on policy issues.

A Roy spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

---

AN NO LNX

'Gotta be kidding': Jim Jordan scrambles as he's confronted over Musk 'double standard'

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) listens to House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Rep. James Comer (R-KY) during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on "The Urgent Need to Address the Gun Violence Epidemic," on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 8, 2022.

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Matt Laslo and Raw Story February 18, 2025

WASHINGTON — What emails?

That’s the mood from congressional Republicans these days as allegations of private servers and accessing sensitive, private data swirl about this White House.

In 2016 alone, House Republicans issued more than 70 subpoenas or investigative inquiries into Hillary Clinton and her private server.

Many of those same Republicans are now shrugging off fears that Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency — a.k.a. DOGE — are flouting government protocols while scouring government databases in their effort to purge federal workers.

But Republicans are about to have a reckoning. Last summer the Supreme Court gave this Congress homework — work policymakers on Capitol Hill haven’t had to do in the past 40 or so years: Write precise rules and regulations instead of leaning on experts in federal agencies to flesh out the policy specifics after Congress passes a bill.

It’s unclear if the contemporary Congress is up to the serious task of policymaking, especially the 119th Congress, which is brimming with technophiles focused on clicks, viral videos and digital dunking.

In the month since Trump took his oath of office, critics say, instead of standing up for Congress and flexing the new powers the Supreme Court bestowed on the institution, congressional Republicans have all but surrendered their oversight responsibilities as they’ve ceded unprecedented power to President Donald Trump and his billionaire sidekick, Elon Musk.

All this talk of a ‘constitutional crisis’ may be a tad premature. What’s certain is America’s in the midst of a congressional crisis — one the current Congress may not be able to withstand.

In more than a dozen exclusive interviews, Republicans on Capitol Hill tell Raw Story not to rule Congress out yet, even as critics fear there’s not going to be much power left for legislators to reclaim with the GOP ceding so much legislative turf to Trump and DOGE at the start of this new administration.

“I'm delighted”

Several Republicans who spoke to Raw Story are cheering for Musk and Trump to dismantle the very federal government set up by Congress in recent years and decades.

“Do you worry that you guys are ceding a little too much power?” Raw Story asked Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) while walking through the Capitol.

“Well, I hate to say this, but the only way it's going to happen, in my opinion, is if we let them do it the way they're doing it. Otherwise, it won't get done. So I'm delighted,” Lummis — who was a member of the far-right, Constitution-wagging Freedom Caucus when she served in the House — told Raw Story. “I mean, really, really delighted with the way that Trump is allowing the DOGE people to audit.”

Team Trump is set on upending, dismantling, overhauling or outright deleting government websites, grants, programs, agencies, protocols and even federal employees themselves.

The courts are now dealing with an onslaught of legal challenges to this new MAGA administration. All those cases will take time to wind through the judiciary, but the Supreme Court’s already spoken.

Last June, the Supreme Court issued new, norm-upending marching orders to Congress when, in a 6-3 ruling, the majority of justices overturned a pivotal, if wonky, 1984 decision when the Roberts Court obliterated the so-called Chevron doctrine, which enabled experts in federal agencies to write rules and regulations never explicitly spelled out by Congress.

That means, Congress’ crutch is gone. It remains unclear if lawmakers will be able to stand on their own and master the jot and tittle of measures they send to the president’s desk.

But for now, at least, Republican majorities on Capitol Hill seem fine outsourcing the legislative branch’s powers to Trump and his White House.

“We're witnessing the collapse of a lot of constitutional boundaries”

In spite of claiming otherwise, DOGE and its unelected leader, Elon Musk, are so opaque, it’s unclear just how their tech is set up. But IT experts say they seem to be operating their own, non-governmental server.

While a case winds through federal courts, Republicans on Capitol Hill are fine with giving Musk, basically, whatever he wants.

“Like, with Musk, I was playing back the tape, you guys were really hard on Hillary for her server,” Raw Story recently pressed House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH). “Is there a double standard here?”

“No, not a double standard. I mean, Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, after the policy decisions that administration made led to — and security decisions that the administration made — led to the deaths of Americans in Benghazi, Libya,” Jordan — the second most senior Republican on the Oversight Committee — told Raw Story. “And then we find out 60,000 emails, and she destroyed, like, 30,000 of them. You gotta be kidding me.”

“So just having the server isn’t the problem?” Raw Story pressed.

“Right. Musk isn't destroying anything,” Jordan said. “He just wants to know where your money’s being spent.”

Democrats agree on one point. They say there’s literally no comparing ‘her emails’ to the work Musk’s conducting in secret.

“No, the two are not comparable, in that Elon is in a class by himself. It's not just the server, but the unfettered power that Trump’s given him,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) told Raw Story. “But I think it's important in talking about him to remember, everything he does is empowered by Trump. Good cop, bad cop.”

To congressional Republicans, Trump and Musk are both playing good cop.

“I'm amazed,” Jordan said. “The Trump administration is up to the most intense and focused start of any administration, certainly in my lifetime. I think the American people appreciate the focused, intense, on-offense type of start to this administration.”

“Are you afraid that Congress could be ceding a little bit of its authority — too much of its authority — to the White House and an unelected official?” Raw Story asked.

“No. I think you have this focused effort by DOGE to identify stupid things that the federal government’s spending money on,” Jordan said. “And I think when the American people see that, they're like, ‘Well, that's ridiculous. Of course, we need to change that.’”

Democrats aren’t surprised by much these days. Still, many are astounded watching GOP leaders on Capitol Hill outsource their legislative responsibilities to officials across the Trump administration set on canceling decade’s worth of congressional work — from bipartisan foreign aid programs to nonpartisan domestic food assistance programs.

“There's a shameful abdication of legislative power and responsibility by the GOP majority to the executive branch and the executive branch's lawless delegate,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) — a constitutional scholar by trade — told Raw Story. “We're seeing tremendous erosion of our constitutional edifice.”

Raskin finds the blurred lines between Musk’s work at DOGE and the billions of dollars in federal contracts his companies, like SpaceX, receive beyond troubling.

“We're witnessing the collapse of a lot of constitutional boundaries,” Raskin — the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee — said. “You know, we have this extraordinary convergence of governmental power with corporate power to the extent that a major federal contractor collecting billions from the taxpayers is now also a federal government employee purporting to oversee federal spending.”

Unlike Trump’s first administration, today’s Trump-centric GOP is unified at the Capitol, at least when it comes to oversight, which Raskin says isn’t taking place in spite of Republican rhetoric claiming otherwise.

“They keep talking about, you know, what a great job Elon Musk is doing on oversight when we have an Oversight Committee. The Judiciary Committee has an oversight subcommittee. All of Congress is supposed to be doing oversight as a central part of our responsibility,” Raskin said. “And so instead, they want one, you know, unvetted government contractor to be doing oversight over federal contracts. It's ridiculous.”

It’s not just the lack of oversight. Republicans on Capitol Hill are now Musk’s biggest cheerleaders.

“Everybody sorta ran on the same stuff”

Republicans refute claims they’re laying down on the job. Instead, they argue today’s GOP is in lockstep with the Trump White House.

“What do you view as your guy's role in this Congress?” Raw Story asked Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ). “Is it oversight of the executive, or is it working in tandem because you all are so aligned?”

“I don't know of anybody here who ran away from the president in their campaign. You know what I mean?” the former Freedom Caucus chair told Raw Story. “So everybody sorta ran on the same stuff that included reducing spending, continuing tax cuts, planning for security, that inflation would be dealt with by reducing spending — you know, the whole thing.”

So, instead of passing new measures to bolster the Trump administration’s prerogatives, Republicans are sitting back and enjoying the rowdy show just down Pennsylvania Avenue.

“We're going to do those mandates. We view it as a voter mandate, which gives us a mandate,” Biggs said. “So we move, we work together.”

Besides made-for-TV flurries of executive action from Trump and Musk, there’s not that much working together going on. As each day passes, the threat of a government shutdown increases ahead of the current funding deadline, March 14.

Instead of conducting formal oversight on the administration — like the GOP conducted at the end of the Obama administration and throughout the Biden administration — many Republicans now say their job is to oversee taxpayer dollars. Thus, Republicans say they’re in lockstep with Trump, Musk and DOGE.

“The oversight role still continues, though,” Biggs said. “It's not a new idea to have an independent third party, you know, looking into something like this, so our oversight is to make sure that we know where the dollars are going, just like we've been trying to do for the last — ever since I got here.”

“Now Democrats, they say you guys are just puppets for Musk and Trump,” Raw Story pressed. “You all see it differently?”

“No, that's not true,” Biggs said. “That's kind of a talking point narrative that they're trying to build on, because they don't have jack squat on policy.”

Republicans remain light on policy themselves. That’s despite the new Supreme Court mandate — when it struck down the ‘Chevron doctrine’ last summer — that Congress get serious about writing legislation instead of leaning on federal agencies to think for Congress.

Don’t tell DOGE…

The day’s quickly approaching when Trump will run out of executive orders to sign, and he’ll need Congress to send him actual bills to sign into law.

Lawmakers are braced. Their jobs — or, at the very least, those of their staff — have already gotten noticeably harder since Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s conservatives upended the precedent set in the 1984 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision.

“I haven't thought of it that way. I do think it's put an extra burden on us,” Sen. Lummis — the Wyoming Republican who used to be on the Freedom Caucus — said. “It ramps up our drafting. We're more detailed about our drafting because Chevron.”

It’s not just making drafting legislation more meticulous: it seems to be melding lawmakers from the president’s own party with the very federal agencies lawmakers are supposed to oversee.

“Just more hard work. And it is all specifically geared towards Chevron, but I can't really say that it has affected the relationship between the legislative and executive branch, yet,” Lummis said. “It might, but more the agency level than the White House level. You know, the agencies we work with.”

But soon, the agencies won’t be much assistance as this Congress will be required to stand on its own.

“The Supreme Court said, ‘Hey, you guys gotta do your job,’” Raw Story reminded Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX).

“I think we're early in trying to figure out how to mechanically put all that in place,” Roy told Raw Story at the Capitol. “Like, I think, honestly, a lot of what DOGE is doing and what Elon's doing, we've got to embrace and put in our own orbit in Congress.”

While Musk, Trump and many rank-and-file Republicans are promising some $2 trillion in federal budget cuts, Roy and a handful of other Republicans argue increased funding is needed now to save money in the long run.

Roy argues efforts to cut Congress’ own budget — legislative branch appropriations, to be precise — are misguided, because expertise is needed to upend the administrative state legislatively.

“Guys that are always wanting to slash and burn [legislative] branch approps, I’m like, ‘You got to have your own,’” Roy said. “You’ve got to understand in a post-Chevron world, we got to be able to do our jobs. We need to have, certainly, in some organized fashion — I'm not sure every office has to be beefed up — but our ability to be able to have overview and constraint.”

Roy says that’s where Republicans are rooting for Musk most.

Instead of the time it takes to investigate and then issue a formal report or to “have somebody come testify,” Roy believes the technology-driven Silicon Valley approach will leave a lasting imprint on on not just the executive branch but Congress itself.

“Look, with technology now, I mean, what Elon’s showing — whether you love him or you don’t — the ability to use algorithms and computers and AI to go pore over the government and expose all of the horse crap that we've all been seeing, that we have observed,” Roy said.

“Democrats say you guys are puppets of Musk and Trump,” Raw Story pressed. “But you guys don't see it that way?”

“No — at all, actually,” Roy said. “So far, what I've seen is the president empowering an individual to root through the crap and expose it…and I think this will now empower Congress in the future — both sides of the aisle — to be able to go forward and pore over all of this crap.”

“Because, essentially, when you do spending bills, you'll fill in some of the things that they're currently doing?” Raw Story asked.

“Correct,” Roy said. “But we're going to need to be able to use those same tools and have input and/or build out our own.”

The steady stream of complaints flowing from the left is mere white noise to congressional Republicans these days.

“I think the hyperbole coming from the Democrats is simply because they lost and all of their little pet programs that they've loved for years are going away,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) told Raw Story. “That is fear-mongering. The same fear-mongering that had them ignore the reality of the southern border, and it is why they lost, not just the Senate, That's why they lost the White House.”

Republicans may have won in November, but Democrats say they’re already squandering their newfound populist appeal at the feet of unelected billionaires, like when Musk backed a government shutdown during Congress’ last funding fight in December.

“They have a chance to succeed on, like, big issues that they ran on, but if they're gonna do this nonsense, it'll all fall down on them,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) told Raw Story earlier this winter after Democrats came to Republicans’ rescue and funded the government.

POT HED: MAGA Effect: “It's a different party, in so many ways”

The MAGA-mandate may be nebulous, but to card-carrying club members, part of their job is to dismantle American conservatism — or what became of it in recent neocon saturated decades — itself.

“Is part of the mandate also to upend the Republican Party of old?” Raw Story asked the House Judiciary chair.

“It just happens. It's a different party in so many ways,” Jordan told Raw Story. "Someone said this a few years ago, you know, 'We're no longer the wine and cheese party. We're a beer and blue jeans party.' And so we're much more, I think, a working-class, middle-class-focused party."

“I always say, we make the job too complicated. Job's pretty simple. We just tell the voters what you were gonna do when you ran for it. If you get elected, go do what you said. President Trump does that better than anyone,” Jordan said. “But when you have someone whose, like, singular purpose and focus is to identify that and say, ‘We need to stop this’ — that's a good thing.”

Democrats are still regrouping after their party’s stunning defeat in November, but they see one sliver of an opening — one many predict will only grow in the coming months — as they watch this, supposedly, populist president pal around with billionaires.

“He's good at taking care of people who can afford to join Mar-a-Lago, so that's, like, his crowd, whether it be a tax bill or whether it be for who he's bringing in the administration,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) told Raw Story. “It's just very different than what we've been used to, where you bring in experts in areas. Instead, he just brings in fellow rich people.”

===

AN 1 25

Under President Joe Biden, enrollment in Medicaid hit a record high and the uninsured rate reached a record low.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House — along with a GOP-controlled Senate and House of Representatives — is expected to change that.

Republicans in Washington say they plan to use funding cuts and regulatory changes to dramatically shrink Medicaid, the nearly $900-billion-a-year government health insurance program that, along with the related Children’s Health Insurance Program, serves about 79 million mostly low-income or disabled Americans.

The proposals include rolling back the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid, which over the last 11 years added about 20 million low-income adults to its rolls. Trump has said he wants to drastically cut government spending, which may be necessary for Republicans to extend 2017 tax cuts that expire at the end of this year.

Trump made little mention of Medicaid during the 2024 campaign. The first Trump administration approved work requirements in several states, though only Arkansas implemented theirs before a federal judge said it violated the law. The first Trump administration also sought to block grant funding to states.

House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told KFF Health News that Medicaid and other federal entitlement programs need major changes to help cut the federal debt. “Without them, we will watch this country sadly enter into fiscal collapse.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the Budget Committee, said Congress needs to explore cutting federal spending on Medicaid.

“You need wholesale reform on the health care front, which can include undoing a lot of the damage being done by the ACA and Obamacare,” Roy said. “Frankly, we could end up providing better service if we do it the right way.”

Advocates for poor people fear GOP funding cuts will leave more Americans without insurance, making it harder for them to get care.

“Medicaid is an obvious target for huge cuts,” said Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. “An existential fight about Medicaid’s future likely lies ahead.”

Medicaid, which turns 60 in July, is nearing the end of a disruptive period, after covid pandemic-era coverage protections expired in 2023 and all enrollees had to prove they still qualified. More than 25 million people lost coverage over the 18 months after the “unwinding” began, though it has not notably increased the number of people without insurance, according to the latest census data.

The unwinding’s disruptions could pale in comparison to what happens in the next four years, said Matt Salo, former executive director and founder of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “What we are going to see is an even bigger seismic shift in who Medicaid covers and how it operates,” he said.

But Salo said any efforts to shrink the program will face pushback.

“A lot of powerful entities — state governments, managed-care organizations, long-term care providers, and everyone under the sun who wants to do well by doing good — wants to see Medicaid work efficiently and be adequately funded,” he said. “And they will be highly motivated to push back on something they see as draconian cuts, because it could affect their business model.”

The GOP is looking at several tactics to reduce the size of Medicaid:

Shifting to block grants. Switching to annual block grants could lower federal funding for states to operate the program while giving states more discretion over how to spend the money. Currently, the government matches a certain percentage of state spending each year with no cap. Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have sought to block-grant Medicaid with no success. Arrington said he favors ending the open-ended federal funding to states and replacing it with a set annual amount based on how many people each state has in the program.
Cutting ACA Medicaid funding. The ACA provided financing to cover, through Medicaid, Americans with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $20,783 for an individual last year. The federal government pays 90% of the cost for adults covered through the law’s Medicaid expansion, which 40 states and Washington, D.C., have adopted. The GOP may try to lower that funding to the same match rate the feds pay states for everyone else in the program, which averages about 60%. “We should absolutely note that we are subsidizing the healthy, able-bodied Medicaid expansion population at a higher rate than we do the poorest and sickest among us, which was the original intent of the program,” Arrington said. “That’s not right.”
Lowering federal matching funds. Since Medicaid began, the federal match rate has been based on the relative wealth of a state’s population, with poorer states receiving a higher rate and no state receiving less than a 50% match. Ten states get the base rate — all but two are Democratic-run states, including New York and California. The GOP may seek to cut the base rate to 40% or less.

Adding work requirements. During the first Trump term, federal courts ruled that Medicaid law doesn’t allow coverage to be conditioned on enrollees’ working or seeking jobs. But the GOP may try again. “If we can get strict work requirements on able-bodied adults, that can be a huge cost savings by itself,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) told KFF Health News. Because most Medicaid enrollees already work, go to school, or serve as caregivers, critics say such a requirement would simply add red tape to obtaining coverage, with little impact on employment.

Placing enrollment hurdles. About 10 states offer some populations what’s called continuous eligibility, whereby people stay enrolled for years without having to renew their coverage. That policy’s been shown to prevent enrollees from falling out of the program for short periods because of hardships or paperwork problems, which can lead to surprise medical bills and debt. The Trump administration could seek to repeal waivers that allow states to grant multiyear continuous eligibility, which would require people in those states to reapply for coverage annually.

If the GOP’s plans to shrink Medicaid are realized, Democrats and health experts say, low-income people forced to buy private insurance would face challenges paying monthly premiums and the large copayments and deductibles common to commercial plans that typically don’t exist in Medicaid.

The Paragon Health Institute, a leading conservative think tank run by former Trump adviser Brian Blase, has issued reports saying the billions in extra money states took to expand Medicaid under the ACA has been a boon to private insurers that manage the program and relatively wealthier people it says shouldn’t be enrolled.

Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Cicero Institute, said he hopes the Trump administration holds states accountable for overpaying providers and enrolling people in Medicaid who are not eligible. Conservatives have cited CMS reports saying states improperly pay Medicaid providers billions of dollars a year, though the federal government notes that is mostly due to lack of documentation.

He said the GOP will look to scale back Medicaid to its “traditional” populations of children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. “We need to rebalance the program that most people think is underperforming,” he said. Most Americans, including large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats, view the program favorably, according to polls.

*KFF Health

=---

===

AN 12 24

Ever since his November 5 victory, President-elect Donald Trump has been rapidly consolidating power and cowing his opponents into submission even before he's officially sworn in on January 20. Now he's threatening to remove one House Republican for publicly going against him.

In a post to his Truth Social account on Thursday, Trump assailed Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) for refusing to go along with his call to abolish the debt ceiling. He referred to Roy as "just another ambitious guy, with no talent," and referenced former Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) who was ousted after a Trump-endorsed challenger defeated him in a hard-fought primary race.

"The very unpopular 'Congressman' from Texas, Chip Roy, is getting in the way, as usual, of having yet another Great Republican Victory - All for the sake of some cheap publicity for himself," Trump wrote. "Republican obstructionists have to be done away with... Weak and ineffective people like Chip have to be dismissed as being utterly unknowledgeable as to the ways of politics, and as to Making America Great Again."

READ MORE:['I would lead the charge': Trump says he agrees with Democrats on this major policy issue

"I hope some talented challengers are getting ready in the Great State of Texas to go after Chip in the Primary," Trump added in a subsequent post. "He won’t have a chance!"

NBC News reported that the president-elect promised to "lead the charge" to get rid of the debt ceiling altogether, which Democrats have called for in previous spending bills. The debt ceiling has been in place since 1917, and Congress has had to raise it periodically in order to be able to continue keeping the federal government current on its debt service obligations. Failing to raise it could jeopardize the global economy, as multiple governments and institutional investors park their wealth in the form of U.S. Treasury securities.

Roy's position — which he stated in a post to his X account — was that he wouldn't vote to "raise or suspend the debt ceiling (racking up more debt) without significant & real spending cuts attached to it." Roy mentioned the official handles for Trump as well as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Senate Majority Leader-elect John Thune (R-S.D.) and the far-right House Freedom Caucus, of which Roy is a member.

House Republicans have reportedly come back to the table to assemble a spending bill that would keep the government funded for several more months, and would raise the debt ceiling through 2027. Trump endorsed the package on Truth Social, though Roy has promised to oppose it.

READ MORE:['Chilling effect': ABC News employees condemn network's 'surrender' to Trump

===

rep. Chip Roy says election deniers and Project 2025 contributors helped draft SAVE Act

Civil rights groups have condemned the bill that would prohibit noncitizen voting, which is already illegal

Written by Madeline Peltz

Research contributions from Sophie Lawton

Published 09/04/24 mma

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), author of the SAVE Act — a bill that would bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections, something which is already illegal — appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room and claimed he drafted the bill in collaboration with election deniers and Project 2025 allies. The House of Representatives is reportedly considering attaching the SAVE Act to a continuing resolution to fund the government, an effort that is unlikely to succeed.

Noncitizen voting is already illegal and exceedingly rare. Civil rights groups have condemned the SAVE Act as “both unnecessary and dangerous”, saying the bill “seeks to intimidate members of immigrant communities and communities from exercising their lawful right to vote.”

“I drafted that bill in the spring alongside our good friends Stephen Miller, our good friends Hans Von Spakovsky, Cleta Mitchell, other good friends of President Trump and patriots across the country who have been fighting for election integrity for years,” he told guest host and former Trump staffer Kash Patel.

Video

CitationFrom the September 3, 2024, edition of Real America's Voice's War Room

Miller, Von Spakovsky, and Mitchell are all directly tied to Project 2025, the extreme right-wing initiative led by the Heritage Foundation that would provide policy and personnel to the next Republican administration.

Stephen Miller

Stephen Miller is one of Trump’s longest serving advisers and speechwriters. He was behind some of the administration’s most notorious policies, including the so-called Muslim ban and family separation policy. After Trump’s defeat, Miller launched America First Legal, a legal nonprofit attacking diversity, equity, and inclusion policies as part of the conservative culture wars.

Miller was directly involved in Project 2025 before recently attempting to distance himself. America First Legal was a member of the advisory board, and Miller appeared in a Project 2025 promotional video for its Presidential Administration Academy, an effort to recruit MAGA activists into government service, which was posted in September 2023.

Miller, an anti-immigrant extremist, has been a longtime proponent of the myth of noncitizen voting. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Miller pushed Trump’s fake electors scheme. In a December 2020 appearance on Fox News’ Fox & Friends, he said, “We have more than enough time to right the wrong of this fraudulent election result and certify Donald Trump as the winner of the election.”

Hans Von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 author, who The Guardian has described as having “decades-long career,” going back to the 2000 presidential contest, promoting “unfounded allegations of widespread voter fraud.” According to ProPublica, von Spakovsky “is a leading purveyor of the notion that voter fraud is rampant, claims that have been largely discredited.”

During the 2000 election, he advised a group that was advocating for purging voter rolls and honored a company “responsible for erroneously scrubbing thousands of disproportionately minority voters from Florida’s rolls.” In 2008, von Spakovsky withdrew from consideration from an appointment to the Federal Elections Commission under President George W. Bush after Democrats refused to bring up his nomination for a vote due to his controversial and politicized views on election administration. According to The Guardian, several former colleagues at the Justice Department objected to his nomination, claiming he “played a major role in the implementation of practices which injected partisan political factors into decision-making on enforcement matters and into the hiring process”.

Von Spakovsky wrote the chapter on the Federal Election Commission in the Project 2025 policy book Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and has frequently appeared in the media to promote the project. He also has promoted the SAVE Act on War Room, claiming the Democrats’ answer that non-citizens voting is already a felony is a weak position by sarcastically saying, “I guess that means all our federal prisons must be empty because fear of the law is keeping all these criminals and other people from violating the law.”

Cleta Mitchell

Cleta Mitchell is a prominent election denier and contributor to Mandate for Leadership. She was previously a lawyer for former President Donald Trump, and has been described as one of two “legal architects” of Trump’s “failed bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election.” She is also the founder of the Election Integrity Network and a senior legal fellow at Conservative Partnership Institute. The Conservative Partnership Institute is a Project 2025 partner organization, and Election Integrity Network was originally founded as a project of CPI.

According to The Intercept, Mitchell “played a central role” in Trump’s attempt to block Georgia’ certification of the 2020 presidential election.
Mitchell was reportedly responsible for recruiting discredited lawyer John Eastman to Trump’s campaign in August 2020. Eastman went on to draft the memo that created the predicate for Trump to contest the election in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2021.
She also reportedly “helped funnel money to groups working on the partisan Arizona ballot review that Trump and his allies have twisted to advance their false narrative” about voter fraud.
On a February 2024 appearance on a right-wing radio program, Mitchell said Democrats want to garner votes in the presidential election through undocumented people voting, baselessly claiming it is “one of the reasons the Biden administration is allowing all these illegals to flood the country.”

The SAVE Act passed the House in July 2024. President Joe Biden has promised to veto the bill.

===

Rep. Chip Roy says election deniers and Project 2025 contributors helped draft SAVE Act

09/04/24 mma

an 8 24

a Democrat-backed 2022 climate law is "drawing growing GOP support," causing friction among Republican lawmakers, according to a Sunday, August 25 Politico report.

While the Inflation Reduction Act "is undeniably bringing federal money, private investments and jobs into communities around the country overwhelmingly represented by Republicans," Politico notes thatno GOP lawmakers voted for the bill in 2022, "and conservatives consistently charge that its hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for electric vehicles, wind, solar and other technologies will drive up prices, distort the markets and benefit China."

Per the report, earlier this month, 18 House Republicans signed onto a letter asking Speaker Mike Johnson to spare the energy tax credits from efforts to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, with many of them seeing the incentives as both good for the planet and extremely beneficial for local economic development."

However, some far-right Republicans, like Rep. Chip Roy (TX), are calling some colleagues who signed the letter hypocritical.

Noting that the "18 Republicans voted last year to repeal the IRA climate subsidies," Roy claimed via X, "Now, [they] want to preserve so-called ‘green’ handouts to Democrats’ corporate cronies."

Politico reports that Nick Loris, vice president of public policy at the Republican-aligned firm C3 Solutions, predicts GOP members will "treat the tax credits as something of a buffet, with Republicans picking and choosing what they like and what they don’t."

He emphasized, "There’s going to be some division for sure, but it’s not going to be black and white, either."

READ MORE:[Conservative admits Trump’s policies 'would result in price spikes' for most Americans

The possible party showdown, Politico adds, is "all part of an intensifying debate within the Republican Party about how to respond to climate change, a rising priority for many young voters. And while more GOP lawmakers say they want to be active on the issue, many conservatives — including Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump — still don’t buy the reality of human-caused global warming and the impact of fossil fuels."

*Politico's full report is available here.

===

called out do nothing GOP

context, they tossed her

'Sophomoric ranting': Conservative calls out MTG’s 'preposterous' crusade against non-MAGA Republicans - Alternet.org

'Disinformation': Greene pushes pro-Putin propaganda in 'war on Christianity' rant - Alternet.org

after two top Republican House committee chairmen said Russian propaganda has made its way into Congress and “infected” some in the GOP base, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) spread demonstrably false pro-Russia talking points about a “war on Christianity” while defending and promoting President Vladimir Putin.}:

“It is absolutely true we see, directly coming from Russia, attempts to mask communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages, some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor,” House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner told CNN on Sunday, as NBC News reported. Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Michael McCaul, NBC added, “told Puck News that he thinks ‘Russian propaganda has made its way into the United States, unfortunately, and it’s infected a good chunk of my party’s base.”

On Monday, Congresswoman Greene, who strongly opposes any U.S. funds for military aid to Ukraine and has threatened to oust Mike Johnson as Speaker if he moves to assist Ukraine, once again praised Putin.

“Let’s talk about what this really is,” Greene said to far-right MAGA messenger Steve Bannon, the former Trump campaign CEO and White House advisor.

“This is a war on Christianity. The Ukrainian government is attacking Christians, the Ukrainian government is executing priests. Russia is not doing that,” Greene falsely declared.

“They’re not attacking Christianity. As a matter of fact, they seem to be protecting it. So that’s something else that’s clear and obvious to many people that are looking closely at what’s going on.”

Last month The Tablet, a nearly 200-year old UK-based Catholic weekly reported, “The International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance said that 30 Ukrainian priests had been killed by Russian forces.” It also detailed accounts of several Ukrainian priests who allegedly had been tortured, including one who allegedly was “Tortured to death by Russian soldiers.” The full statement from the IRFBA was published by the U.S. Dept. of State.

“Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is exterminating religious freedom, signaling a return by Moscow to Soviet-era levels of persecution of faiths, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has said,” Newsweek reported, also last month. “The Kyiv-based Institute for Religious Freedom (IRF) said in February 2023 that, in the first 12 months of the war, the Russian military had destroyed, damaged, or looted at least 494 religious buildings, theological institutions, and sacred sites, with the figure estimated to be higher today.”

Voice of America has also documented alleged killings of Ukrainian clergy by Russian forces.

Hours before Greene’s remarks to Bannon, U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), pointing to a Washington Post piece on the two GOP chairs warning about Republicans promoting Russia propaganda, said: “Even leading Republicans say Marjorie Taylor Greene is parroting Putin and Russia’s disinformation. She must be exposed and her irresponsible behavior must be stopped.”

He also said Monday, “we need to stop Marjorie Taylor Greene from repeating Putin and Russia’s talk[ing] points!!”

Last year Newsweek reported Greene “has become a Russian state media darling by mirroring some of the Kremlin’s views on the war in Ukraine,” and noted she “has featured prominently on Russian state TV and in state media publications for her remarks on the war and has been accused of parroting Kremlin propaganda.”

Watch Greene’s remarks below or at this link.rep ~ trump twt]

---

an 4 24

although the GOP is now often considered and referred to as the party of Donald Trump, the far-right corner of US Congress has become what Trump world officials consider a threat to a second term for the former president, according to The Daily Beast.

Many times "the first line of defense" during Trump's presidency, the House Freedom Caucus (HFC), once led by former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows — who was charged alongside Trump in the Georgia election interference case — the group is now led by a Republican congressman many MAGA insiders do not consider an ally.

US Rep. Bob Good (R-VA) originally drew Trump's ire in the early stages of 2024 election campaigning, when he backed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis for president over the MAGA hopeful.

Per the Beast, a source "close to Trump said the former president realizes Good begged him for an endorsement, 'and then turned around and endorsed DeSantis.'"

Good backed Trump immediately after DeSantis dropped out of the race, but the endorsement has yet to change the way those in Trumpworld views the Virginia lawmaker. In fact, according to the report, "the former president’s orbit was 'pissed' when the Freedom Caucus made Good its next chairman."

The Beast notes Trump senior adviser Chris LaCivita told a local Virginia news outlet recently, "Bob Good won’t be electable when we get done with him."

Aside from the caucus chair's tarnished relationship with the ex-president's camp, the report also notes "a Trumpworld source told The Daily Beast that it’s not just Good who has set off alarm bells for Trump and his allies; other figures, like Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)—another DeSantis endorser who has taken a prominent role in the Freedom Caucus—are a sign that the HFC won’t have the same relationship it once had with Trump should he win the White House."

The Beast reports, "Yes, the HFC has always had disagreements with Trump. But during his presidency, defending Trump became a primary function of the group. It’s why one of the group’s founders, Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), mutually agreed to leave the group when he decided to support Trump’s impeachment."

US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) — who was kicked out of the caucus in 2023, deemed the group under Good's direction, “one of the most dangerous things to Trump’s next administration."

Good has also faced recent criticism from other GOP House members — some of whom are actively campaigning against the caucus chair for his opponent, John McGuire. Perhaps, unfortunately for the caucus chair, McGuire is an unwavering Trump supporter.

"The HFC has an identity crisis," a Trump source emphasized to the Beast. "Some want to be Trumpy, some want to oppose the speaker, some want to make deals. There’s no identity."

*The Daily Beast's full report is available here (subscription required).

===

judd 1 31 24

Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) is publicly urging Texas to ignore the Supreme Court. In previously unreported comments, Roy explained that he feared his position would push the country into "a post-constitutional world." But, Roy said, the Supreme Court is "pushing our hand" by issuing a ruling related to the southern border that he opposes, and the Supreme Court needs to "feel the pressure."

Major law firms and numerous prominent corporations are financially backing Roy's reelection campaign, according to a Popular Information analysis of federal campaign finance filings.

Roy's ire stems from litigation initiated by Texas regarding Shelby Park, a municipal park in Eagle Pass, Texas, that abuts the Rio Grande River. Texas has seized control of the park, enclosing the entire 47 acres in razor wire and denying entry to the U.S. Border Patrol. Access to Shelby Park is important to federal authorities because it is used as a "staging area for policing and interdiction operations along the Rio Grande." According to the federal government, the razor wire puts federal personnel and migrants in danger. Texas sued to prevent the federal government from removing the wire.

Texas won a temporary injunction from the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, which prohibited the federal government from disturbing the razor wire. But on January 22, in a brief order, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government and lifted the injunction.

In response, Roy posted that the Supreme Court's decision was "unconscionable" and that Texas "should ignore it."

The next day, Roy told Fox News that Texas should "tell the court to go to hell."

On January 24, in a little-noticed interview with right-wing conspiracy theorist Charlie Kirk, Roy expanded on his thinking. Roy explained his position pushes the country to a "post-constitutional world." But Roy said he was willing to take that risk because he believed the threat of a Constitutional crisis would pressure the Supreme Court to issue more favorable rulings in the future.

I say this respectfully. I say it with the fear of what I’m saying. I do not want to live in a post-constitutional world, but this Court is pushing our hand, and the Court needs to know that… I want them to feel the pressure, because if they’re political animals, they need to know it. We were out there defending Amy Coney Barrett when her house was being protested, we said that the law should be enforced to protect her. Where is she when the people of Texas need to be protected? Totally M.I.A.

Roy also said that his "first duty" as Congressman was not to comply with the Constitution, which establishes the Supreme Court as the ultimate legal authority. Rather, Roy believes he should take whatever actions are necessary, in his own mind, to "make sure our people are protected and secure and safe."

I want to preserve and protect the Republican form of government that our country is built upon, and I want a strong America standing in front of the American flag. But my first duty as an elected official is, yes to the Constitution, but my first duty is to make sure that I’m protecting and following my job to make sure our people are protected and secure and safe. That’s what leaders of a state, of a sovereign entity, have to be concerned about, and so, that’s what we’re up against.

In other words, Roy believes his own opinion about what is required to keep people "secure and safe" trumps the Constitution. This is a radical view that would upend the nation's legal system.

:{Roy's 2024 reelection campaign is supported by two prominent law firms. Covington & Burling is an international law firm based in Washington, DC. It has more than 60 lawyers who work in its Appellate and Supreme Court group, including 18 former Supreme Court clerks. The firm says its Supreme Court practice is known for its "glowing reputation." And yet, the firm's PAC donated $5,000 on April 24, 2023, to support the reelection of Roy, who believes that Supreme Court rulings can be ignored.

Roy also received $750 on May 17, 2023, from the PAC of another prestigious DC-based law firm, Akin Gump, which maintains an appellate group that "regularly represent[s] parties and amici in the U.S. Supreme Court." Covington & Burling and Akin Gump did not respond to requests for comment.}:

Since 2023, Roy has also received financial support from the PACs of major corporations and professional organizations, including Valero Energy ($2,500), Union Pacific ($2,000), iHeartMedia ($2,000), Toyota ($1,000), Dell ($1,000), and the National Association of Realtors ($1,000). Roy's corporate donors did not respond to requests for comment.

The other Republicans thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court

Meanwhile, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (R) has suggested that states can overrule the Supreme Court if it “gets something wrong.” In a CNN appearance on January 26, the Republican Governor argued that because “the Constitution is the supreme law of the land” then “the Constitution supersedes somebody in Washington, DC telling us [what to do], you know.” In other words, states can defy the Supreme Court if they have a different interpretation of the Constitution. Stitt also insinuated that state authority can override the federal government: “The states have a right to defend themselves. The states created the federal government, the federal government did not create the states."

When asked by a NewsMax host if he thought the dispute could evolve into a “force-on-force conflict,” Stitt refused to directly answer the question. Instead, he replied that the border conflict is a “powder keg worth of tension.” The governor also claimed during the interview that if President Joe Biden were to federalize the National Guard troops, they “would be in a difficult situation to protect their homeland or follow what Biden’s saying.” In an interview with Kirk, Stitt said that such a move by the Biden administration would put National Guard members “in a tough situation trying to obey what they know is a very foolish policy.” The conflict, Stitt told Kirk, “is ready to go off.”

Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) has also made similar remarks. “[T]he feds are staging a civil war, and Texas should stand their ground,” the lawmaker said when asked for his thoughts on the Supreme Court’s ruling. According to the Texas Tribune, Higgins' post “was shared and celebrated widely in far-right online communities, including those that were integral to the planning of ‘stop the steal’ protests in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 riot.”

According to campaign finance filings, both politicians have been bankrolled by some of the most prominent companies. Since 2022, corporate donors to Stitt include Deloitte ($8,500), BNSF Railway ($7,500), AT&T ($5,000), Marathon Petroleum ($5,000), NextEra Energy ($5,000), Boeing ($5,000), Tyson Foods ($5,000), Union Pacific ($5,000), and UnitedHealth Group ($5,000).

Meanwhile, Higgins has received contributions from the following companies since 2022: Phillips 66 ($7,500), Entergy ($4,500), Chevron ($2,500), and Boeing ($1,000).

None of these companies responded to Popular Information’s requests for comment.

---

an 1 24

Republican lawmakers have recently "crossed a new threshold: by suggesting that it’s okay to disregard the Supreme Court," according to a Monday, January 29 analysis by Washington Post political reporter Aaron Blake.

"The party that once prided itself as the law-and-order side has leaped headlong into highly speculative theories about the 'weaponization' of the justice system, spurred by former president Donald Trump," Blake notes.

The political reporter points to comments from two Republican lawmakers — US Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt — over the last week, in which they encouraged states to ignore court rulings that don't align with their political agendas.

"After the Supreme Court ruled last week that federal authorities can remove razor wire that Texas put on the U.S.-Mexico border," Blake reports, Roy wrote via X/Twitter, “Texas should ignore it.” Days later, Stitt during a CNN interview said, "We all agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And if the Supreme Court gets something wrong — for example, if they tried to ban and say that we didn’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms — I think the Constitution supersedes somebody in Washington, D.C., telling us, you know."

Blake emphasizes "these kinds of comments certainly lay the rhetorical groundwork for a pretty unthinkable future clash — especially given they come from a party that has demonstrated increasingly little regard for the current application of the rule of law."

Noting that "despite the claims of some on the left, what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is doing right now doesn’t violate what the Supreme Court ruled," the Post reporter writes, "The court overturned a ruling that said the federal government couldn’t remove the razor wire, effectively allowing it to do so; Abbott has signaled he’ll continue to have the National Guard lay the wire, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has rejected the Biden administration’s request for full access to the area."

Blake adds, "Roy’s and Stitt’s comments, then, take this debate quite a bit further. In some ways, it’s a logical extension of the emerging Republican argument about state sovereignty. Anticipating a federal-vs.-state clash, Republicans have taken to arguing that Texas has the authority to defend itself from those crossing the border illegally."

Furthermore, he emphasizes "we’re getting into dicey territory here. The Supreme Court is the institution we charge with interpreting our Constitution; we now have a sitting U.S. governor and a congressman suggesting it’s okay to ignore what the court says if you have a different interpretation."

*Blake's full analysis can be read here.

---

1 24 judd ymail

*The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization… Under the Constitution, the states are granted no such powers." — Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n (1948)

For decades, the Supreme Court has been clear that the federal government, not the states, has the power to regulate immigration. Since 2021, however, Texas has been spending billions annually to impose its own vision of immigration policy — an effort known as "Operation Lone Star." Using members of the Texas National Guard and Texas Department of Public Safety, "Operation Lone Star personnel work around-the-clock to detect and repel illegal crossings." Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has pledged to "hold the line" at the southern border due to alleged inaction by the Biden administration.

Over the years, Operation Lone Star has become increasingly aggressive. In 2024, it has brought the country to the precipice of a Constitutional crisis.

:{:{The epicenter of the confrontation between Texas and the federal government is Shelby Park, a municipal park in Eagle Pass, Texas, that abuts the Rio Grande River. In this map of the area, submitted by the federal government in a legal filing, the area of the park is defined by the yellow line and the river:}:

pix]

Texas has seized control of Shelby Park, enclosing the entire 47 acres in razor wire and denying entry to the U.S. Border Patrol.

*Texas National Guard soldiers wait nearby the boat ramp where law enforcement enter the Rio Grande at Shelby Park on January 27, 2024 in Eagle Pass, Texas.

Access to Shelby Park is important to federal authorities because it is used as a "staging area for policing and interdiction operations along the Rio Grande." This includes the use of a boat ramp in the park to access the Rio Grande.

Texas' seizure of Shelby Park and refusal to allow federal officials access have created an extremely dangerous situation. On January 12, three migrants — a woman and two children — drowned in the Rio Grande near the park. When Border Patrol agents went to Shelby Park to address the situation and help other migrants in distress, guardsmen from the Texas National Guard refused to let them enter, saying "they had been ordered not to allow Border Patrol access to the park."

The legal battle between Texas and the federal government over Shelby Park began when Texas sued the federal government for cutting and removing some of the razor wire it installed along the Rio Grande. Border Patrol argued that the razor wire was putting its agents and migrants legally entitled to claim asylum at risk. Texas argued that the federal government was illegally destroying its property. The state eventually won an injunction from the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, prohibiting the federal government from disturbing Texas' razor wire. The federal government, however, appealed to the Supreme Court. On January 22, in a brief order, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government and lifted the injunction.

Texas' response to the Supreme Court order has been alarming. Abbott issued a statement stating that "[t]he federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States." Compact theory was championed by John C. Calhoun, one of the staunchest defenders of slavery. It essentially views states as "independent sovereigns" that are free to reject federal authority. It was used to justify the "nullification" of federal laws and, ultimately, secession from the union by Southern states.

As law professor Steven Vladeck notes, the specific constitutional argument Abbott is advancing makes even less sense. This is the key excerpt from Abbott's letter:

I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.

Abbott is claiming that he can simply declare an "invasion" and grant himself authority that "supersedes any federal statutes." This is legal hogwash.

Article I, § 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution declares that "no State shall, without the Consent of Congress… engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." In this case, Texas is not being invaded. Migrants, many of whom have legitimate claims of asylum, presenting themselves at the border is not an invasion. Illegal border crossings are something that occurs under every administration and does not constitute an invasion. Further, Abbott is not responding by engaging in "war." He has not invaded Mexico. He has put up some razor wire. But his actions are, according to Vladeck, "antithetical to the constitutional structure of our federal system," which establishes the supremacy of federal law.

Notably, Texas is not yet defying the Supreme Court's January 22 order. That order simply lifted the Fifth Circuit injunction preventing the federal government from removing the razor wire installed by Texas in Shelby Park. The Supreme Court hasn't yet ordered Texas to do anything.

But Texas is continuing to interfere with the federal government's access to Shelby Park, in clear violation of the Constitution and federal law. On January 23, the Department of Homeland Security wrote a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), demanding "the ability to access the border in the Shelby Park area that is currently obstructed by Texas." In a January 26 response, Paxton rejected the Department of Homeland Security's request and informed the federal government that Texas will continue "to protect its southern border against every effort by the Biden Administration to undermine the State’s constitutional right of self-defense."

The conflict that Texas is creating with the federal government will almost certainly end up back at the Supreme Court. And Texas is inviting a constitutional crisis by signaling that it is prepared to ignore the Supreme Court if it does not get its way.

The new confederacy

The radical and dangerous legal theories being advanced by Texas previously provoked a Civil War and have been broadly rejected for more than a century. So, one might expect Texas to get little support from other states. That is not the case.

On January 25, the Republican Governors Association released a letter — signed by 25 Republican governors — "supporting Texas' constitutional right to self-defense." The governors write that they "stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor, Greg Abbott, and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border." They also explicitly endorsed compact theory, which was used to justify secession. "The authors of the U.S. Constitution made clear that in times like this, states have a right of self-defense, under Article 4, Section 4 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution," the governors write. "Because the Biden Administration has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states, Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation." The letter was signed by every Republican governor except Phil Scott (R-VT).

Former President Donald Trump is also supporting Abbott. Trump called on "all willing States to deploy their guards to Texas to prevent the entry of Illegals."

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), and numerous members of Congress have also aligned themselves with Abbott. Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) said Texas should tell the Supreme Court to "go to hell." Roy was so proud of this remark, he made a special graphic for his social media accounts.

Inviting chaos

Claiming that Texas has a duty to ignore the authority of the federal government unsurprisingly attracts dangerous extremists. "A trucker convoy of 'patriots' is heading to the U.S. border with Mexico next week," Vice reports. The group, which has dubbed itself "God's Army," believes they are "on a mission to stand up against the 'globalists' who they claim are conspiring to keep U.S. borders open and destroy the country."

A fundraising effort for the group has already raised more than $113,000. "Once willing to die defending this country, now willing to die protecting my family from what this country has become," one anonymous donor wrote. The convoy is being heavily promoted by far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. “There’s a war literally happening now for America,” Jones said.

The convoy is expected to reach Eagle Pass on February 3.

---

oct 2023an

fox Business host Stuart Varney confronted Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) after the congressman suggested he would vote to shut down the federal government.

"Well, reading between the lines, it sounds like you are a holdout again, and that you are quite prepared to shut the government down," Varney told Roy during a Monday interview. "You are, aren't you? Yes, you are."

"Well, let me just say, Stuart, the question here is, do you believe that we should continue to fund a United Nations that literally just stood with Hamas?" Roy asked. "Should we continue to fund a wide open border that is endangering my constituents, where people are dying from fentanyl?"

"No, I'm not going to blindly saddle up and say, sure, let me write another blank check for all of America to wonder what their leaders in Washington are doing," he continued.

Varney pushed back.

"But I do remember, was it three, four weeks ago?" the Fox Business host said. "House Republicans rejected a deal that Speaker McCarthy had worked out because they said it wasn't good enough, and we had three weeks where we didn't have a speaker, and the Republican Party was embarrassed up and down the wazoo throughout the entire country."

"Well, remember, Stuart, that I was a part of putting forward a proposal that would have reduced spending, secured our border, and kept the government going," Roy replied.

"Yeah, and you didn't have the votes for it," Varney shot back. "So what's the point? Now we have a speaker. What is the point? If you know you don't have the votes, so you shut down the government, we're embarrassed all over again."

Roy seemed irritated by the line of questioning.

"All right, Stuart, what do you want to do?" he wondered. "Sign up for the endless spending plan for our Democratic colleagues that's destroying our country."

"If that's what you want, then just bring Democrats on your show to continue to vomit out all of the ridiculous spending programs and my Republican colleagues who absolutely refuse to do their job and do what they said they would do," he added.

Watch the video from Fox Business below or at this link.

---

2018 primary

runoff

Republican primary runoff for U.S. House Texas District 21

Chip Roy defeated Matt McCallin the Republican primary runoff for U.S. House Texas District 21 on May 22, 2018.

Candidate % Votes

Chip Roy 52.7 18,088

Matt McCall 47.3 16,243

Candidate % Votes

Chip Roy 27.1 19,428

Matt McCall 16.9 12,152

William Negley 15.5 11,163

Jason Isaac 10.0 7,208

Jenifer Sarver 5.6 4,027

Robert Stovall 4.8 3,414

omfg

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/chip-roy

2021 9 3%

double goose-eggs?!

2020 242

Phasing Out Harmful Fishing GearOceans, Wildlife

2020203Increasing Funding for Renewable Energy Research & DevelopmentClean Energy, Climate

2020182Protecting the U.S. Postal ServiceJustice and Democracy

2020166Pro-Environment Funding PackageOther, Environmental Justice, Water, Dirty Energy, Drilling, Lands/Forests

2020164Slashing EPA FundingOther, Water, Air, Environmental Justice

2020163Blocking Trump’s Inadequate Soot StandardAir, Environmental Justice

2020156Removing Confederate Statues from the U.S. CapitolOther

2020155Great American Outdoors ActLands/Forests

2020147Protecting the Grand Canyon and Colorado’s public landsPublic Lands/Forests, Dirty Energy

2020142Maintaining Suspension of Nuclear Weapons TestingDirty Energy

2020138Investing in Climate-Ambitious InfrastructureClimate Change, Clean Energy, Transportation, Water, Environmental Justice

2020136Eliminating Lead Service Lines to Protect Public HealthWater, Environmental Justice

2020135Harming Workers by Rolling Back Wage ProtectionsOther

2020122Washington D.C. StatehoodJudiciary, Justice and Democracy

2020109Heroes Act COVID-19 Relief PackageOther

202069Protecting Wilderness Across the WestLands/Forests

202054Emergency and Climate Disaster Aid for Puerto RicoClimate Change

202050Protecting the Rights of Workers to OrganizeOther

202036Great Lakes Restoration InitiativeWater

202013Protecting People from PFAS PollutionToxics/Public Right to Know; Water

202011Closing the PFAS Clean Water LoopholeToxics/Public Right to Know, Water

2019701USMCA Trade DealClimate Change, Other

2019666Attack on Marine Mammal Protections from Harmful Air Gun BlastingWildlife, Oceans, Drilling

2019654Protecting the Right to VoteOther, Justice and Democracy

2019634Shark Finning BanOceans, Wildlife

2019609Protecting Colorado's Public LandsLands/Forests

2019602Protecting the Grand Canyon from Toxic Uranium MiningDirty Energy, Lands/Forests

2019597Protecting Chaco Canyon from Oil and Gas DevelopmentDirty Energy, Drilling, Lands/Forests

2019530Restoring Protections for the Arctic RefugeDirty Energy, Lands/Forests, Drilling

2019525Banning Offshore Drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific OceansDirty Energy, Drilling, Oceans

no lnx an 8 23

twenty-two House Republicans have signed on to a motion filed in federal court requesting to be allowed to join Governor Greg Abbott in defending the Texas Republican against a federal government lawsuit alleging his 1000 feet of razor wire and floating buoys constructed of circular saw blades, designed to prevent migrants from crossing into the United States from Texas, are illegal.

They have invoked the Bible’s Book of Genesis, including Noah’s Ark, to make their case.

“In a motion filed on behalf of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, and other GOP members, lawyers for the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundationhave asked to be part of the case and targeted how a key law is interpreted in it,” the Houston Chronicle reports.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is the right-wing organization The New York Times last year profiled as “The Texas Group Waging a National Crusade Against Climate Action.”

RELATED: Supreme Court in Hand, Far Right Wing Prepares to ‘Take the Reins of Government’

The buoys, deployed on the Rio Grande river, may have led to the deaths of two migrants, possibly including a child.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas called the buoys “barbaric,” and in video showed they are constructed of circular saw blades. In that video Congressman Castro also points to Governor Abbott’s razor wire fences.

Sawyer Hackett, a senior advisor to former Obama Cabinet Secretary Julián Castro, referred to the floating fences as “razor wire death trap buoys.”

“A key point to the Arrington group’s defense is whether the 1,900-mile Rio Grande should be defined as a navigable waterway despite being used by thousands of boats every year,” The Chronicle explains. “They point to a court case from 1870 that suggested that the term navigable waterway is intended to mean moving commerce from one state to another or to a different country and not just one where any small boat occasionally uses the river.”

READ MORE: Critics Blast Top US Conservative Think Tank President for Applauding Italy’s Election of ‘Neo-Fascist’ Prime Minister

That’s where the Bible and Noah’s Ark come in.

“Indeed, if one takes the Book of Genesis literally, then the entire world was once navigable by boats large enough to carry significant amounts of livestock,” the proposed amicus brief reads. “Under the federal government’s theory, these anecdotes would render any structure built anywhere in Texas an obstruction to navigation subject to federal regulation.”

Governor Abbott has had a long partnership with theTexas Public Policy Foundation.

In 2016, as NCRM reported, Abbott while at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, unveiled a major policy plan toalter the U.S. Constitution, adding nine amendments,the result of which could have lead to same-sex marriage bans and anend of LGBTQ protections.

According to Congressman Arrington, the list of signatories to his amicus brief include: Rep. Jodey Arrington, Dr. Michael Burgess, Rep. August Pfluger, Rep. Brian Babin, Rep. Andy Biggs, Rep. Roger Williams, Rep. Lance Gooden, Rep. Beth Van Duyne, Rep. Jake Ellzey, Rep. Vern Buchanan, Rep. Chip Roy, Rep. Nathaniel Moran, Rep. David Rouzer, Rep. Pete Sessions,Rep. Ronny Jackson, Rep. Sam Graves,Rep. Clay Higgins, Rep. Michael Cloud,Rep. Keith Self, Rep. John Carter, Rep. Jeff Duncan, Rep. Kat Cammack.

Watch the video above or at this link.

'Very scary': Former RNC staffer dishes on the more terrifying members of GOP's right-wing

killed gas stove bill?!

an 6 23

no lnx

'Fiery' closed-door meeting highlights bitter infighting among House Republicans

Alex Henderson June 13, 2023

In early June, a group of 11 far-right House Republicans voiced their displeasure with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) and his recent debt ceiling agreement with President Joe Biden by blocking GOP-sponsored bills. Conservative critics of this blockade argued that the 11 Republicans were cutting their noses to spite their faces.

The following week, tensions among House Republicans were evident during a "fiery" closed-door meeting on Tuesday, June 13, according to Axios' Juliegrace Brufke.

Brufke reports, "Multiple GOP sources in the room told Axios that moderates took to the mics to slam the 11 members who froze the floor, arguing that a small group does not speak for the entirety of the conference and blasted their calls for a renegotiated speaker's agreement."

READ MORE: 'Incredible embarrassment': MAGA Republicans tank pro-gas stoves bills to punish McCarthy over debt ceiling

According to Brufke, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-New York) "slammed the blockade" during the meeting, while Rep. Matt Gaetz (D-Florida) defended it.

"Freshman Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) was 'screaming at the mics' about the floor shutdown, 'dropping multiple F bombs' and telling the room 'he's introducing bills to save lives and it's not s**t that gets on Fox News,' according to two sources in the room," Brufke reports. "Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) rebutted Van Orden's criticisms, arguing that he is 'looking to shrink government.'"

Members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus are still furious over the Biden/McCarthy debt ceiling agreement.

Republicans who joined McCarthy in voting to raise the United States' debt ceiling argued that it was necessary in order to prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its debt obligations. But Freedom Caucus members and ultra-MAGA Republicans who voted against the bill argued that the spending cuts Biden and McCarthy agreed on did not go far enough.

READ MORE: 'Not going to stand for it': Kevin McCarthy backs Trump vowing to target attorney general

Meanwhile, progressive Democrats who voted against the bill, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), believed that the cuts were extreme.

"The (House Republican) Conference still has a lot of legislation it wants to pass, ranging from spending bills to FAA reauthorization," Brufke reports. "Fractures within the Conference could make those tasks more difficult and place Speaker Kevin McCarthy's leadership position on tenuous ground."

READ MORE: How Manchin and Sinema quietly influenced debt ceiling negotiations: report

Axios' full report is available at this link.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Matt Gaetz: Kevin McCarthy working with Democrats 'a black letter violation' of 'ascent to speakership' ›

'I doubt them': GOP rep pushes back on Freedom Caucus colleague in squabble over debt ceiling rules ›

McCarthy’s slim majority is about to face its biggest test yet ›

CLIMATE CHANGE POLLS

On July 16, the Global Strategy Group released the results of its national online poll. This was not a traditional telephone or even cell phone poll. Pollsters asked: Do you support the U.S. government taking bold action to combat climate change? Seventy-one percent chose support and 19 percent chose oppose.

The online poll also asked: Who would you vote for, a Democrat supporting bold action to combat climate change or a Republican opposing bold action to combat climate change? Fifty-eight percent chose Democrat, 34 percent chose Republican.

In June, a more traditional poll conducted by the Pew Institute came to similar conclusions. It found the majority of Americans, 65 percent, felt the Federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. Seventy-nine percent felt the US should prioritize developing alternative energy sources. A surprising statistic from this Pew Institute poll was that, of Americans who identify as Republican or leaning Republican, 65 percent said the more important priority for U.S. energy supply should be developing alternative energy, versus 35 percent who chose expanding fossil fuel.

BATTLEGROUND SENATE RACES

In North Carolina, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis faces Democrat Cal Cunningham. In Arizona, Republican Sen. Martha McSally is running against Democrat Mark Kelly. In Colorado, Republican Sen. Cory Gardner faces Democrat John Hickenlooper.

In swing state North Carolina, the League of Conservation Voters gives Tillis an approval rating of 21 percent for his 2019 votes and a lifetime rating of just nine percent. The league has endorsed his opponent, Iraq War veteran and former state Sen. Cal Cunningham, as has the Sierra Club.

Senator Tillis has supported tax credits for the solar industry. Cunningham, on his campaign website, endorses a wide range of efforts to combat climate change; from supporting clean energy, like the state’s solar industry; to reducing carbon levels; and defending natural resources. In the most recent quarter, Cunningham raised more money than Tillis did, even though the Democrat is not accepting any corporate PAC money.

Arizona has been a traditional Republican stronghold. But incumbent Senator McSally already lost once to a Democrat for the state’s other U.S. Senate seat. She was appointed to her office after the death of Senator John McCain. Her opponent, Democrat Mark Kelly, was an astronaut who described seeing visible signs of climate change from outer space. He is married to Gabby Giffords, the former congresswoman who was shot in the head while at a public function.

Although McSally has shown some support for renewable energy, Kelly talks about the need to address climate change having seen a literal big picture of Earth from space.

At first glance, Colorado seems to be the exception. Incumbent Senator Cory Gardner co-introduced the Great American Outdoors Act, which the House is expected to vote on this week. It would fund desperately needed repairs of America’s national parks. The president has tweeted that he will sign the bill. This bill, though, would use royalties from oil and gas leases for funding, which means we could still have oil and gas drilling on public lands like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Chaco Canyon National Historic Park.

Gardner’s Democratic opponent is former Governor John Hickenlooper, who was once a petroleum engineer. Hickenlooper would not ban fracking or existing drilling on public land. He does support returning to the Paris Climate Accord and stronger regulations on auto emissions. The League of Conservation Voters and the political arm of the Environmental Defense Fund both criticized Gardner’s record on climate issues other than his national parks bill.

BATTLEGROUND HOUSE RACES

In Ohio, incumbent Republican Steve Chabot faces Democrat Kate Schroder. In New York‘s 24th district, incumbent Republican John Katko is up against Dana Balter. And in Texas’ District 21, incumbent Chip Roy faces Democrat Wendy Davis.

In District 1 of swing state Ohio, which includes most of Cincinnati, pro-fossil fuel and longtime incumbent Steve Chabot faces pro-renewable energy Kate Schroder. Schroder, a healthcare professional, lists fighting climate change as a priority and calls for carbon reduction and a nuanced “less dependent on fossil fuel.” Chabot calls for using all energy sources, including fossil fuels, without slowing down production with “needless regulation.”

In central New York‘s 24th district, Republican Representative John Katko again faces university professor Dana Balter in what was once a Democratic district. Katko’s website shows an oil derrick under his energy section and suggests contacting his office to learn about his position on energy. He has said in the past he supported the Keystone XL pipeline, but also would regulate greenhouse gases as long as consumers had energy choices. Katko supports Donald Trump for president. Dana Balter supports renewable energy sources, rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, and a carbon tax.

And in Texas, former oil and gas lawyer Chip Roy faces pro-sustainable energy Democrat Wendy Davis. The League of Conservation Voters gave Roy a zero percent rating for 2019 and a zero percent lifetime rating. Davis, a former state senator, backs fighting climate change; including restoring EPA protections; supporting wind, solar, and geothermal jobs; and a return to the Paris Climate Accord. She is endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and has raised more money than Roy.

ARE REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS OUT OF SYNC WITH REPUBLICAN VOTERS?

Do Republicans read the same polls the rest of us do? Polls show that most Republican voters, if not Republican office holders, have joined the rest of the country in shifting attitudes toward the environment and global warming.

So why do so many Republican senators support the fossil fuel industry? Why did 185 Republican members of the House, including all of those mentioned above, vote against the Moving Forward Act, the $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill? It is the only major green bill brought to a vote in the House in four years. The bill included $300 billion to fix crumbling roads and bridges, along with $100 billion for zero-emission buses and $29 billion for Amtrak. And why does the Republican controlled Senate refuse to even discuss the Moving Forward Act?

THE TRUMP FACTOR

The Republican Party opposed efforts to fight climate change long before Trump joined their ranks. But President Trump has made aiding and abetting big business at the expense of the environment a cornerstone of his policies. A hundred EPA regulations rescinded, oil and gas leases to fossil fuel companies on federal lands and waters. And now Trump is targeting the first and most basic law favoring mother nature: the National Environmental Policy Act, a 50-year-old law that required all federal projects be reviewed before inception for possible environmental impacts.

And President Trump’s popularity among his followers is such that a Trump endorsement gets you elected and a Trump denouncement often means your political career hits retirement.

THE MONEY TRAIL

Federal Election Commission records reveal another possible reason why so many Republican politicians support fossil fuel companies. In 2019 to March of 2020 the Republican Take Back the House PAC raised more than $50 million. One of the biggest contributors to that fund was Kelsy L. Warren of Texas, the CEO and chairman of Energy Transfer, owner of Sunoco and the stopped Dakota XL pipeline. He personally donated $500,000 to Take Back the House. That fund gave Congressman Roy $125,852.61 in 2019 and 2020. If you were Congressman Roy would you listen to the concerns of the second biggest donor to a fund that gave you $125,852.61 who is also from your home state? Roy also got $10,500 from Valero Energy, Chevron and American Airlines.

If you were Congressman Steve Chabot from Ohio and you got $137,008.37 from Take Back the House would you listen to fossil fuel concerns, knowing some of the largest individual contributors were fossil fuel magnates?

And if you were Congressman Katko from New York and you got $160,514.66 from Take Back the House, would you carefully talk about energy concerns, knowing some of the biggest single contributors to that PAC were fossil fuel CEOs? Would you ignore green polls as long as you got the money?

We asked all the politicians mentioned in this story why they took their positions, given the polls indicating most Americans want our government to tackle climate change. None responded.

TYT Investigative Reporter Ti-Hua Chang is an award-winning journalist who has worked for CBS News and other outlets. You can find him on Twitter @TiHuaChang.

precursor: ff ceo (also 2017?)

guk no lnx

Exxon sowed doubt about climate crisis, House Democrats hear in testimony

Subcommittee laid out four decades of evidence just a day after oil behemoth began a trial over misleading investors

[Exxon Mobile Fraud Case in New York

epa07941167 A group of protestors gather outside of a New York City courthouse for a rally coinciding with the start of a legal case against Exxon Mobile in New York, New York, USA, 22 October 2019. The case, which is being litigated by the New York Attorney General’s office, alleges that the company defrauded investors and shareholders, as well as the public, about the risks and potential costs of climate change.]

'So they knew': Ocasio-Cortez questions Exxon scientist on climate crisis denial – video

Emily Holden in Washington

Wed 23 Oct 2019

House Democrats on Wednesday laid out four decades of evidence that oil behemoth Exxon knew since the 1970s that the burning of fossil fuels was heating the planet and intentionally sowed doubt about the climate crisis.

The testimony came in a hearing in a House oversight subcommittee on civil rights just a day after ExxonMobil began a trial in New York City over misleading investors on the business risks from government rules meant to address the climate crisis.

Exxon’s role in hiding the mounting emergency has been widely publicized for four years, since the publication of an investigation by InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times and the Columbia Journalism School. Court proceedings and additional reporting have found more proof of Exxon’s longtime knowledge of the problem.

Exxon has misled Americans on climate change for decades. Here’s how to fight back

John Cook

Early life and education

Roy was born in Bethesda, Maryland,^[1] and raised in Lovettsville, Virginia. Growing up near the Potomac River, Roy was familiar with places linked to the early history of the United States. For one of his high school activities he reenacted John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry.^[2] His parents, Don and Rhonda Roy, were conservatives who supported Ronald Reagan and helped shape Roy's political views.^[2] In late November 1949, Roy's father contracted spinal and bulbospinalpolioduring an epidemic. This occurred soon after his father (Roy's grandfather) died of cancer on Thanksgiving weekend. Roy's father went to Lion Camp in Kerrville for therapy and was able to avoid being placed in an iron lung. He wound up with a permanent tracheostomy due to polio's effects.^[3]

Roy attended the University of Virginia, receiving a Bachelor of Science in commerce in 1994 and a Master of Science in information systems in 1995.^[2] There, he worked as a dorm resident assistant for a year, meeting future pro football players Tiki and Ronde Barber, who later attended his wedding.^[4] After graduation Roy spent three years as an investment banking analyst.^[2] Wary that his career might require him to relocate to Manhattan, Roy decided to pursue a different career.^[2] He enrolled at the University of Texas School of Law, where he met his future wife, Carrah.^[2] He graduated in 2003 with a Juris Doctor.

Early career

Cornyn staff

Though initially Roy saw politics "as an avocation, a sort of interest, but not something I would do anytime soon, if ever",^[2] his mind began to change when, while still in law school, he began working for then-Texas attorney general John Cornyn on his 2002 campaign for the United States Senate.^[4][5] After theSeptember 11 attacks, Roy reflected on his goals. "I was in law school when September 11 happened. I will always remember that moment, crystallized in my head. That had a lot to do with mycommitment to public service",he has said.^[6] When Cornyn was elected and made vice chairman of the Republican Committee and the Judiciary Committee, Roy served as his staff director and senior counsel. Roy provided counsel for Cornyn and his staff on legislative issues including nominations, intellectual property, crime, civil justice reform and advising him during the immigration reform debates under theGeorge W. Bush administration.^[7][8][9] Roy worked for Cornyn until 2009.^[5]

Roy returned to Texas as a special assistant in the office of the United States Attorney** for the Eastern District of Texas.^[10] In 2006 Roy met Ted Cruz, then Texas Solicitor General, during a strategy session discussing the case League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, a case about redistricting that Cruz argued before the Supreme Court.^[8]

Perry administration

Roy resigned from his job as a special assistant U.S. attorney after six months to be aghostwriter on then-Governor of Texas Rick Perry's 2010 book Fed Up! and work for Perry's 2012 presidential campaign.^[1][7][5] The book served as a campaign agenda for Perry's campaign, and offered a range of Perry's positions, including criticism of the Social Security system as unconstitutional (calling it "a Ponzi scheme"), changing the election of U.S. senators back to state legislatures (they were made popularly elected by the Seventeenth Amendment), ending life tenure for federal judges, and repealing the16th Amendment(which allows a federal income tax).^[7] MAYBE THAT'S WHY HE COULD INFAMOUSLY REMEMBER THE 3RD FED AGENCY HE WANTED TO ABOLISH, BEFORE TRUMP PICKED HIM TO RUN ONE]

The book also denounces as "overreach" federal efforts to regulate health care, labor conditions, energy policy, and pollution.^[7] In the book's acknowledgments section, Perry singled out Roy for "special recognition" for resigning his previous post "to devote himself full-time to the completion of the original manuscript" and his "amazing knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and other Founding documents, and a keen ability to frame federalist arguments in striking terms that make complicated law easier for non-lawyers like me to understand and discuss."^[7] In his review of the book, Gene Healy of the libertarian Cato Institute credited Roy as "the guy who did most of the heavy lifting in the book."^[7]

On April 1, 2011, Perry announced Roy as his choice for Texas's Director of State-Federal relations, an office whose duties include lobbying for federal funds for state institutions (such as grants to universities). He told reporters, "I'm enthusiastic about the opportunity. I've spent a number of years in Washington, and I got to see a lot of what works and more of what doesn't work. In this role, I think I can help serve the interests of the state of Texas and how it interacts with Washington. It's particularly exciting for me at the moment at this particular time. The influence of Washington has such a significant impact these days. I think this is a good opportunity to help Texas deal with what Washington is doing as it relates to our budget and those kinds of things."^[9][1][10]

During the confirmation hearings for his position before the Texas Senate, Roy said he would oppose an "intrusive federal government that spends our money recklessly."^[11] He promised to help Texas legislators "push back on Washington where necessary" and stand up for "liberty, state sovereignty and an end to the crippling pile of debt and regulation coming from Washington that is destroying our nation and endangering the state."^[7]

When asked about the recent Texas House vote to slash most of the office's funds, transferring them to a tuition reimbursement program for children of the military,he said it was "hardly surprising…I might have voted to cut it as well, based on what I understand of the office, but possibly without hiding behind the political gamesmanship of moving it from one account to another."^[11] He promised to consider eliminating the entire office if it didn't "stand for something."^[2] Roy's nomination was opposed by Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, who pointed out that the office's mission was "to promote communication and build relationships between the state and federal governments" and asked Roy "when you or someone else" decided to redefine its purpose.^[11] The committee approved Roy's nomination, 6-1, with the full State Senate later confirming the nomination.^[1] Roy served in the office from April to October 2011.^[12]

The week of his 39th birthday in August 2011, Roy was diagnosed withStage 3 Hodgkin lymphoma.^[2] He later said his experience battling cancer convinced him of the importance of "health-care freedom", and that examining his medical bills showed him "how truly convoluted our system is."^[2]

Cruz staff

After Cruz's election to the Senate in 2012, Roy became his chief of staff.Cruz praised his talents, calling Roy "a proud Texan and a principled movement conservativewho was an early supporter of my campaign."^[7][13]

While serving as Cruz's chief of staff, Roy gained notoriety for criticizing other Republicans who did not join Cruz in demanding Obamacare be defunded before voting to keep the government running past September 30, 2013. During the 2013 United States federal government shutdown, Roy's main tasks were behind the scenes, plotting a course through the heavy media coverage and determining tactics when Republican allies deserted the cause and the party's leadership became increasingly hostile.^[4] Roy chastised defecting Republicans, and was quoted as saying Tom Coburn was serving in a "surrender caucus" and likening Mitch McConnell to Barack Obama.^[14] Cruz said Republicans who did not join him had fallen into "a powerful, defeatist approach…they're beaten down and they're convinced that we can't give a fight, and they're terrified."^[14] Their cause was joined byMarco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mark Meadows and Mike Lee.

The media picked up on Roy taking to Twitter to jab John McCain, sarcastically calling it "shocking" that "someone talking to [Democratic Senator Chuck] Schumer 5x a day and the White House daily" didn't support the hardball approach.^[14] Coburn complained about these tactics to the Washington Examiner, saying, "The worst thing is being dishonest about what you can accomplish, ginning everybody up and then creating disappointment."^[14] Roy's response on Twitter gained media attention NOTE NONE OF THESE FLATTERING OPINIONS ARE BACKED UP:"Since when is a promise to fight disastrous policy 'dishonest?' No, the worst thing is giving up & leaving your base believing there is no need to be a Republican any longer."^[14] Coburn told a reporter that he had "no ill will" toward Roy, but "He knows I'm not part of the surrender caucus."^[14] He added that "a good portion of it [Obamacare] is mandatory spending, and the only way to get rid of mandatory spending…is 67 votes because you got to override a presidential veto"^[15] and that Cruz's and Roy's tactics would result in the Democrats taking control of the House.^[15]

Roy told a reporter that his job was to advance Cruz's priorities and he had not been told to stand down, adding, "TheWashington establishment uses every tool at its disposal to push its own narrative on the American public—and in this case, it's the narrative of 'we can't.' They plant stories, strong-arm members and try to create fake 'wins' for cover that simply do not change the status quo. It is important that we push back."^[14] In response to questions about Roy's behavior, McCain said, "He and Senator Cruz are entitled to their opinions, but I don't pay that much attention to that kind of thing because I believe my position. It wouldn't be the first person who has criticized me." Richard Burr, who supported defunding but not threatening to cause a shutdown, also was unmoved by Roy's quips: "It doesn't matter to me what he does. The only thing that's important is that I'm on Senator Cruz's bill to eliminate Obamacare."^[14]

On September 25, 2013, Cruz and Roy met with trustedstaffers and Cruz read aloud from Psalm 40 (which includes the line "troubles without number surround me") and then took to the Senate floor for a 21-hour speech against Obamacare.^[4] Despite such efforts the shutdown did not result in the desired policy change: the Republican leadership brokered a deal with the Democrats, reopened the government, and Obamacare funding was only marginally affected.^[4] Politico called Roy an "architect" of Cruz's strategy, and he later told a reporter, "Was I intimately involved with it? Yes. Unapologetically. I think it was the right strategy. And but for the same hand-wringers in the Senate that continue to give us the status quo, we might have been successful."^[4][16]

In September 2014, as Cruz contemplated a 2016 presidential campaign, Roy's duties in his office moved from chief of staff to top political strategist.^[17][18] During the exploratory phase of Cruz's campaign, Roy and Cruz got into an argument about political tactics and strategy that became heated enough to cause Roy to leave Cruz's Senate office. Despite the level of disagreement, they discussed working together in the future. Cruz later recalled, "We often agreed, but not always, and we would have vigorous debates. Chip never backs down, and we would have extended discussions about which battles should be the highest priority."^[19]

Texas assistant attorney general

In 2014, despite controversy over the Texas State Securities Board issuing a disciplinary order against him for soliciting investment clients without being registered in the state, Ken Paxton easily won election as Texas attorney general.^[20] He chose Roy as his first assistant attorney general,^[10][17] saying, "Chip is a longtime friend,and someone whose counsel I trust. …I am pleased that he will bring his strong legal mind, devotion to liberty, and servant's heart to the Office of Attorney General as first assistant."^[20] He added that Roy would be part of "a highly qualified and dedicated team that will be ready to defend Texas and ensure we are protected from an overreaching federal government."^[21] Roy's continuing battle with cancer influenced his decision to return to Texas, as he wished to be close to his family rather than commute weekly to Washington, D.C. or travel extensively on a presidential campaign.^[8] In accepting Paxton's offer, he praised Cruz, saying he "has honored his promise to Texans and 'made DC listen.' Moving on from his team is like leaving family, but you never truly leave....Now, Attorney General-elect Paxton has given me the honor of being home in Texas and helping him lead the great people of the Office of Attorney General as we defend the interests of this great state."^[20]

Stepping into his role in Texas's attorney general's office, Roy confronted over 28,000 active cases, includinghigh-profile cases on voter ID and same-sex marriage.^[2] He also participated in the 2015 lawsuit United States v. Texas against President Obama's executive action on immigration. The case challenged the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.^[8] Roy explained Texas's position to reporters, saying, "the U.S. Senate and House aren't doing their job in standing up for and defending [the powers granted only to them by the Constitution's] Article 1, I think it is critical what Texas is doing in stepping up and defending when the president himself said repeatedly he didn’t have the power to do this."^[8] When asked about further political ambitions, Roy mentioned his cancer, which had been in remission for four years: "Before Hodgkin’s lymphoma, I was headed down that path. Subsequent to having cancer, I kind of took a step back. I'll leave that in the Lord’s hands. I love public policy and trying to impact public policy."^[8]

In July 2015 a Collin County grand jury indicted Paxton on two first-degree felony counts of securities fraud and a third-degree felony for failure to register as a securities dealer.^[22] Paxton maintained his innocence, but news stories continued to focus on the charges. Due to Paxton's decision to work from his home in McKinney rather than the capital in Austin, reporters covering the office's work highlighted the rolls of his solicitor general Scott Keller, his chief of staff Bernard McNamee, and especially Roy.^[22] With Paxton avoiding all but the friendliest audiences, speculation arose that Roy was thede factoattorney general.^[22]

In September 2015, while praising Roy at the Pflugerville First Baptist Church as one of the "visionaries on this religious liberties issue", Paxton said, "I get credit, sometimes not credit, for what happens in my office."^[22] MacNamee soon resigned in frustration over Paxton's behavior. Roy inadvertently drew unwanted attention to the situation in an interview about Texas's challenge to the DAPA program. When a reporter asked him how Paxton's legal problems affected the agency, Roy's response was seen as revealing Paxton's absence from running the office. He said, "We're in constant communication with the attorney general, and we're focused on doing our job every day to defend the state of Texas. ...The first assistant attorney general, the solicitor general, our head of civil litigation, all of us are charged to manage the daily affairs of this agency, and that's what we're doing."^[22]

When Paxton's name did not appear in a New York Times piece about a suit against Texas in the Supreme Court over abortion restrictions, his communications staff complained to Keller about it. Paxton traveled to Washington to hear the oral arguments, paying for his own ticket and submitting a copy of it to the state alongside the one his office had purchased for Roy to show how much money he had saved Texas.^[22] Eight days after the Supreme Court hearing, Paxton called his communications director, Allison Castle, who could not get any news organization to agree to interview him about the case. He demanded she resign or be fired. He then did the same to Roy, who resigned. Both were placed on emergency leave, which caused further controversy.^[22][23][24]

Reporters also began to investigate whether Paxton had broken state law in the way he had hired staff: giving people the job before they filled out an application and without first advertising openings before filing them with people from outside the department.^[25] Paxton's choice to replace Roy was Jeff Mateer from First Liberty Institute, who had attracted notoriety by offering to represent, pro bono, any business that wished to sue the city of Plano over its anti-LGBT discrimination ordinance.^[22]

Cruz PAC

On March 10, 2016, the day after Paxton announced that Roy had "resigned to pursue other endeavors," he was named the executive director of the Trusted Leadership PAC, which was supporting Cruz's presidential campaign.^[10][26][27] Kellyanne Conway, president of the pro-Cruz Keep the Promise PAC, hailed his hiring, saying, "Chip brings a wealth of experience in politics and public policy, and a deep understanding of Senator Cruz's philosophy and track record and we are happy to have him on board."^[27] The PAC was formed to bring the preexisting separate Cruz-supporting PACs into a single operating structure.^[2] Taking the job, Roy praised his previous co-workers, saying, "After fifteen months of far-reaching accomplishments in defense of Texas, I leave behind an extraordinarily talented team capable of continuing the work we started together."^[27]

Controversy arose when it was discovered that Roy remained a state employee while working for the PAC. Roy responded that he had not received any pay from the PAC while he was on the state payroll, and only used his accrued vacation and compensatory time from the state after resigning to work for the PAC. This had left open the option for him to receive leave after his vacation and holiday time expired, which would have allowed him to continue receiving health benefits for his cancer treatment. After The Dallas Morning News reported on the matter,^[28] Roy fully resigned, maintaining that doing so was the result of a good report from his oncologist. SO HE TRIED TO DESTROY OBAMACARE BUT USED TEXAS STATE HEALTH INSURANCE?] He told reporters, "Had I gotten some bad news, then I would have taken a step back and then thought, 'Okay, now what?' And then, maybe I go back and have a conversation with the attorney general or anybody else in the state and find the right place, depending on what the news is."^[2]

While working for the campaign, Roy called presidential candidate Donald Trump's conservative credentials into question, at one point tweeting, "@RealDonaldTrump Supports P**lanned Parenthood, which kills babies and puts them in a freezer, government funding of healthcare and Palestine."^[16]

At the time of Roy's hiring, Conway had said, "This is a two-person race where Senator Cruz is building significant momentum and is the proven conservative, able to win the nomination and defeat Hillary Clinton,"^[27] but Cruz dropped out of the race less than two months after Roy took over the PAC.^[2] Roy later said of his questioning Trump, "I think it was reasonable for Americans to go, 'Well, wait a minute. Who are you and what are you about?' …we saw the campaign unfold and I did my job to push back and try to make sure that we got Senator Cruz elected. On May 3rd of 2016, that went a different way."^[16] Despite a scandal about the Cruz campaign's relationship with Cambridge Analytica, Roy and Trusted Leadership PAC had no interaction with the company.^[2]

Center for Tenth Amendment Action

By September 19, 2016, Roy had found employment as the Director of the Center for Tenth Amendment Action for theTexas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank. Cruz praised the move, saying, "I congratulate both him for his new role, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation for securing such an accomplished and principled individual as Chip to serve as Director of their 10th Amendment Center. As one who had the honor of helping launch that center, it is critical to have someone lead the effort who possesses both a strong knowledge of the Constitution and an acute awareness of how the federal government steps beyond its limits on a daily basis."

Roy said, "The talented team at TPPF has a proven track record of success in defending liberty and free enterprise - and I look forward to working side-by-side with them."^[29]

U.S. House of Representatives

Elections

2018

In 2018, Roy ran for the United States House of Representatives in Texas's 21st congressional district to succeed Lamar Smith, who did not run for reelection. Covering his campaign, Politico likened him to Cruz.^[16] Roy finished atop an 18-candidate field and received Smith's endorsement in a runoff on May 22 against Matt McCall.^[2] Roy noted his agreement with Smith when it came to questioning whether climate change was attributable to human activity.^[2]

When he supported Cruz in the 2016 presidential primary, Roy's criticism of Trump caused some of his friends to describe him as committed to the "Never Trump" cause.^[16] By 2018, his position had changed. Roy praised Trump's job performance as president, citing his decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accordsand his results in "regulatory relief, on tax relief, on judges, on the embassy in Jerusalem" and his attacks on "the swamp or the establishment or the status quo or whatever you want to call the inner workings of Washington, D.C."^[16][30] Roy also echoed Trump's position about a "deep state", which he defined as "entrenched bureaucrat[s] who hide something from the political decision-makers" causing "pushback from deep within the bowels of each of the agencies."^[16] He called for federal agencies "to be thinned out so that we don't have those issues."^[16]

Roy promised if elected to push back against the status quo and restrict the federal government's power, calling for Medicare to be delegated to the states, for Congress to pass a balanced budget, and for action to be taken to prevent judges from "legislating from the bench".^[2] He suggested that the House should attempt to pass no legislation the next term until it advanced a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.^[31]

He also held that there were threats from "porous borders, gangs and drug cartels" that he would address if elected.^[31] The Club for Growth supported his candidacy.^[2] The House Freedom Fund (aligned with the Freedom Caucus in the House) contributed $143,000 to Roy's campaign.^[32][2] By February, Cruz joined in campaigning for Roy, telling voters, "I know how he responds under pressure, under heat, and that he won't buckle."^[2]

Roy finished 10 percentage points ahead of McCall in the Republican primary election. He beat McCall by 5% in the "top-two" runoff.^[33] McCall credited much of Roy's victory to Cruz's endorsement and efforts, saying, "Ted carried him into office. He gave him his prestige, his name, his money, his contacts, everything he put on the line for this guy. He literally drove him around in the Ted Cruz Cruzer." McCall said that Cruz was able to convince others to endorse Roy, even Louie Gohmert, whom McCall hailed as his congressional role model.^[34] Roy defeated Democratic nominee Joseph Kopser, a businessman, aerospace engineer and veteran, in the general election,^[35] 50%–48%, a closer than expected margin.^[36]

2020

As the 2020 electoral season approached, Democrats sought to associate Roy with Cruz, whose popularity was seen as declining. Roy was unfazed by the tactic, saying, "This whole thing about trying to brand me as Ted Cruz—I’m honored. He's one of the smartest guys I've known. I think he's a great senator from Texas. I was proud to be his chief of staff. But I'm Chip Roy."^[4] As election season approached, Roy told reporters that he was unafraid of any Democratic challenger: "I think what I’m fighting for is good for all Americans regardless of what their ideology is. So if the Democrats want to mount a challenge, go ahead. Place a big pile of money in Austin and light it on fire. I'm going to win next year."^[37]

Roy was reelected, defeating Democratic nominee Wendy Davis^[38] by seven percentage points and winning eight of the district's 10 counties.^[39][40]

2022

The Wall Street Journal highlighted Roy's Republican primary race of 2022 as "a case study in whether a conservative Republican usually aligned with Mr. Trump can survive politically after angering the former president—even a modest amount."^[19] Even before a challenger arose against Roy, Trump had called for him to be defeated in the Republican primary. By June 2021, physician Robert Lowryhad filed with the Federal Election Commission to face Roy in the primary, with the possibility of more candidates entering the race by the December 13 deadline. A further complication in the race is that Texas state legislators will be redrawing congressional district boundaries because the 2020 U.S. Census mandated that the state receive two more House seats.^[19]

Tenure

Coming into office, Roy cast himself as a conservative version of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, saying, "I doubt she and I agree on many issues. But functionally, this place is broken."^[32] He was happy to be part of the Freedom Caucus, saying, "they're serving as a check against the current broken system where the power brokers make decisions at the top and just say 'Here's what we're going to do'."^[32] He added that Republican power brokers in Congress lost control of the House because "You demonstrate rote incompetence when you are leaving us with a trillion dollars in deficits this year on top of$22 trillion in debt. You said you were going to do something to secure our border, and you didn't. And you said you were going to fight for—I use the term 'health care freedom'—and you didn't. It's hard to really take that to the people and say, 'Hey, send me back'."^[32]

Roy's election was hailed by many conservatives, including Greg Mueller of the conservative-aligned public relations firm Creative Response Concepts, who said people "are very excited about him coming to Congress. …I think he's seen as the future of the party. He's very smart, politically savvy and he’s measured and articulate in how he explains conservative policy, theory and philosophy. I think he's going to chart a lot of courses for the conservative movement."^[32] Representative Jim Jordan called Roy "exactly the kind of guy" Congress needs to show what can be done if Republicans regain the House, as "He can convey our message in a compelling fashion."^[32]

Roy's first speech as a representative was on immigration and what he called "chaos and lawlessness on the southern border."^[32] He complained that "members of both sides of the aisle have buried their heads in the sand over the last several decades, talking instead of doing."^[32] Right-leaning news outlets hailed Roy's speech; ConservativeMedia.com posted it in its entirety.^[32]

Soon after taking office, Roy opposed a bill in the House that tried to prevent Trump from withdrawing from NATOwithout Congress's consent. It passed, 357 to 22.^[32] When the House voted to give back pay to the 800,000 federal workers affected by the government shutdown, Roy opposed the measure. He said, "I was voting against Congress essentially giving itself a get out of jail free card to just continue to just put shutdowns on autopilot. …I just think too many of our colleagues say, 'Hey, I just want to avoid tough votes'."^[32] Roy was one of few Republicans to vote against the measure, which passed 411 to 7. Trump signed the bill into law.^[32]

In July 2021, Roy voted against the bipartisan ALLIES Act, which would increase by 8,000 the number of special immigrant visas for Afghan allies of the U.S. military during its invasion of Afghanistan, while also reducing some application requirements that caused long application backlogs; the bill passed in the House 407–16.^[41]

In 2021, a recording of Roy surfaced in which he said he wanted "18 more months of chaos and the inability to get stuff done" during a Democratic-controlled Congress and presidency.^[42]

Relief bill opposition

On May 24, 2019, Roy singlehandedly halted a House disaster relief funding bill that gave $19 billion in relief for communities hit by disasters, including $900 million for hurricane-damaged Puerto Rico, and fast-tracked $4 billion in grants to Texans suffering due to the effects of Hurricane Harvey. The money for Texas had been approved in 2018 but held up due to working out regulations with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Office of Management and Budget. Cornyn had championed the bill and Cruz voted for it. House leaders of both parties had agreed to advance the bill under a quick procedure rule that required unanimous consent of those in the chamber. Most members of Congress had already left Washington for the Memorial Day recess. The day before, the Senate had passed the bill 85-8, and the House had passed a similar version earlier in the month 257-150. Due to Roy's objection, the unanimous consent vote was derailed.

Roy blamed Pelosi for the previous delay in Texans receiving the funds and voiced his dislike of procedure being used, saying "Today I stood to object to the unanimous consent of a $19.1 billion emergency supplemental bill that has been languishing for over eight months because Speaker Pelosi would rather play politics on impeachment than do the work of the people. I objected primarily because had I not, Congress would have passed into law a bill that spends a significant amount of taxpayer money without members of Congress even being present in our nation's capitol to vote on it."^[43] He tweeted that his actions were "to try to stop business as usual in the swamp. This is about saving the Republic for our kids. Washington is broken. We should debate, vote, & do our jobs."^[44][45] Cornyn's office had already released a statement calling on the OMB director to disburse the funds "which Texans desperately need to rebuild as soon as possible" with hurricane season a week away.^[46]

During other pro forma sessions Roy's tactic was taken over by Representatives Thomas Massie and John Rose, who returned to Washington during the recess week for two more similar unanimous consent request attempts.^[47][48][49] Ultimately Roy's action delayed the bill's passage for several days until lawmakers returned from recess. Representative Lizzie Fletcher, who had worked on the earlier House version of the bill, said, "I am disappointed that a member of the Texas delegation has further delayed desperately needed funds for communities across Texas, including my own…This delay—at the start of hurricane season, no less—is an affront."^[46] The Lone Star Project, a Democratic PAC, released a statement in response to Roy's actions that concluded, "Texans shouldn't have to suffer these tragedies and then be forced to overcome another disaster like Republican Congressman Chip Roy."^[43]

Hurricane season began on June 1 and coastal communities soon began seeing flooding amid strong storms.^[50] The bill was stalled for 11 days before passing on June 3 by a margin of 354–58, with Roy voting against it.^[51] He received bipartisan criticism for his objection to the bill. He explained his vote against the measure, saying it added to the national debt and did not include additional spending for federal operations along the U.S.–Mexico border.^[52][53] Five other Texas representatives joined Roy in opposing the bill: Lance Gooden, John Ratcliffe, Van Taylor, Ron Wright, and Michael Cloud (whose district bore the direct brunt of Hurricane Harvey).^[50] When asked about Roy's use of procedural tactics, Cornyn replied, "Look, I try not to tell the House guys how to run their shop, and they don’t tell the Senate how to run ours. I understand his point. That’s probably all I'm going to say about that."^[4]

Procedural protest, 2019

On June 12, 2019, Roy derailed the usually uneventful House procedural process for appropriation bills. During the first debate of a four-bill spending package of the upcoming 2020 fiscal year the chamber scheduled for working through amendments through most of the day, with roll call votes not expected until around 5:30 p.m., Roy rose in an effort to protest what he saw as Democratic inaction on Trump's $4.5 billion supplemental funding request for the Department of Homeland Security (to address what his administration held was urgently needed due to an increasing number of migrants at the southern border). From the floor he declared, "It is unconscionable that this body will not address it" and halted the normal process by making a motion to adjourn at 12:14 p.m.^[54] The motion was defeated 146-244. Representative Andy Biggs then made another motion to adjourn, which was defeated 140-254. Members of both parties voted against the motions and voiced complaints about the disruption. Members had been forced to leave committee hearings, markups, lunches, and other events for the unscheduled votes.

After the votes the House resumed normal business, beginning a debate on a rule governing proceedings on the fiscal package. While managing the debate on the rule for the Republican minority, Woodall yielded his time to several members of his conference. Each requested unanimous consent for immediate consideration of the border funding supplemental. The chair declined these, ruling the time may be yielded only for debate on the rule in question. When proceedings shifted to amendment debate and lawmakers proceeded to call for a voice vote on many of the amendments (most of them uncontroversial), Roy objected and asked for roll call votes on each one. This once again caused members to have to return to the chamber for an unscheduled vote, and as Roy continued to use this tactic it became clear that the previous schedule, which anticipated finishing up no later than 11 p.m., would be extended until early in the morning.^[54]

Roy continued to call for roll call votes for each of the dozens of amendments offered. This caused members of both parties to voice displeasure with him and have to cancel their evening plans.Roy himself had to cancel his plans for his 15-year wedding anniversary (his wife was in Austin, but he had taken their two children to D.C. to give her a full week of relaxation). He tweeted to her, "You know - I figured the most romantic thing I could do today is spend the day and night on the floor of the U.S. House. I'd apologize and say I love you…but you knew what you were getting into and you know that."^[55] He told reporters, "I planned on certainly talking with her and frankly, I mean, I was planning on getting off and sending her some flowers, but I just got sucked into this thing on the floor and just couldn't get away, so I'm texting her from the floor saying, 'Happy anniversary, honey!'"^[55]

Roy was unmoved by fellow members' complaints, saying, "The interesting part is listening to the complaints on the floor. I was really entertained. It's like, 'Cry me a river. Go down and walk and talk to the migrant who's being abused, look that migrant in the eye and tell me that they should care about you missing your dinner.'" The House finished at 4 a.m.^[55]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said of Roy's actions, "It's clear Congressman Roy is more concerned with partisan showboating and causing gridlock than actually doing his job."^[55] Roy explained his tactics, saying, "For me, use the tools at your disposal". He said he did not care about "old-guard types who didn't and never would love a strategy that causes [the] swamp pain. I'm not interested in playing every angle in this town for politics as much as I am trying to do my damn job.…You should know the rules and you should use them."^[56] At a news conference Roy said, "Until we have addressed the border crisis legitimately, Congress should not be conducting business as usual. Congress should not be on autopilot while the American citizens and migrants, who seek to come here, are being harmed."^[57] The Texas Tribune reported that by such tactics Roy within "a span of just three weeks…established a reputation as the leading obstructionist in the House."^[4]

Amending the ADA

On June 28, 2019, in response to the humanitarian crisis involving migrant children at the southern border, Roy proposed legislation to amend the Antideficiency Act (ADA) to allow the United States Border Patrol to accept donations from people who want to help migrant children directly. The bill was filed after Border Patrol officials turned away people attempting to donate supplies such as diapers, toys, and hygiene items, saying they could not accept donations due to the ADA, which prevents the government from accepting "any donations other than what Congress has allocated to it."^[58][Notes ^1][59][60]

Response to Trump tweet

In July 2019, Roy was one of the few Republicans to condemn then-President Trump's tweet that Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came". (Of the four, only Omar, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born outside the United States.)^[61] Trump's tweet was widely condemned as racist.^[62] Nevertheless, Roy also criticized the Squad for opposing immigration reform and said they should be voted out in November, tweeting, "POTUS was wrong to say any American citizen, whether in Congress or not, has any 'home' besides the U.S. But I just as strongly believe non-citizens who abuse our immigration laws should be sent home immediately, & Reps who refuse to defend America should be sent home 11/2020."^[63]

Roy then retweeted Trump's statement "the many terrible things they say about the United States must not be allowed to go unchallenged."^[64][4]

Response to Paxton allegations

On October 5, 2020, while campaigning for reelection, Roy called for Paxton's resignation after seven senior leaders within his office (including Roy's replacement, Jeff Mateer) accused him of bribery, abuse of office, and other charges. Roy noted that rather than address the charges and demonstrate their falsity, Paxton had attacked the staffers' character. Roy released a statement that concluded, "The Attorney General deserves his days in court, but the people of Texas deserve a fully functioning AG's office."^[65] He took particular issue with Paxton's choice "to attack the very people entrusted, by him, to lead the office—some of whom I know well and whose character are beyond reproach."^{[65][66][67][68}]

Hours after Roy's call for him to step down, Paxton released a statement saying, "Despite the effort by rogue employees and their false allegations I will continue to seek justice in Texas and will not be resigning." The charges arose from Paxton's relationship with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate developer who donated $25,000 to Paxton's 2018 campaign. Paxton claimed that his office had been referred a case investigating an FBI raid on August 2019 of Paul's offices and home which had "allegations of crimes relating to the FBI, other government agencies and individuals". He charged his accusers of wrongdoing: "Because employees from my office impeded the investigation, and because I knew Nate Paul, I ultimately decided to hire an outside independent prosecutor to make his own independent determination." He said the complaint against him "was done to impede an ongoing investigation into criminal wrongdoing by public officials including employees of this office. Making false claims is a very serious matter and we plan to investigate this to the fullest extent of the law."^[69][68] When it was brought to Roy's attention that Paul had donated $2,700 to him the same 2018 electoral cycle, Roy said he did "not recall meeting Mr. Paul and it shows as an online contribution."^[70]

Response to 2020 presidential election

On December 10, 2020, Roy wrote in opposition to Paxton's lawsuit Texas v. Pennsylvania, demanding four other states' election results be overturned as part of Trump's false claims that Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election was the result of widespread voter fraud. Despite 106 of his fellow House Republicans filing an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit, Roy wrote, "I will not join because I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation of federalism & sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states. ...I cannot support an effort that will almost certainly fail on grounds of standing and is inconsistent with my beliefs about protecting Texas sovereignty from the meddling of other states. Our remedy must be, from this day forward, to decline to allow the usurpation of our authority as people—through our states—to govern ourselves in all respects."^[71][72] Cornyn also questioned Paxton's lawsuit, telling reporters "I, frankly, struggle to understand the legal theory of it."^[73] After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Roy told a reporter, "It was clearly evident and obvious that it would have zero chance of success for anybody who understands the law and understands the Supreme Court and understands how these cases are going to go."^[34]

Roy joined fellow Republican Legislators Thomas Massie, Kelly Armstrong, Ken Buck, Mike Gallagher, Nancy Mace, and Tom McClintock in issuing a statement on January 3, 2021, against their colleagues' efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.^[74] They signed a letter that, while giving credence to the idea that "significant abuses in our election system resulting from the reckless adoption of mail-in ballots and the lack of safeguards maintained to guarantee that only legitimate votes are cast and counted," held that "only the states have authority to appoint electors, in accordance with state law. Congress has only a narrow role in the presidential election process. Its job is to count the electors submitted by the states, not to determine which electors the states should have sent."^[74][75] They pointed to the Twelfth Amendment in support of their position, and wrote, "As of this moment, not a single state has submitted multiple conflicting slates of electoral votes. …Unless that happens between now and January 6, 2021, Congress will have no authority to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election."^[74] Congressional action despite this "would amount to stealing power from the people and the states. It would, in effect, replace the electoral college with Congress, and in so doing strengthen the efforts of those on the left who are determined to eliminate it or render it irrelevant."^[74] The letter called on Republican legislators to remember their oath: "We must respect the states' authority here. Though doing so may frustrate our immediate political objectives, we have sworn an oath to promote the Constitution above our policy goals. We must count the electoral votes submitted by the states."^[74]

On the same day as the joint statement, Roy objected to the seating of 67 incoming representatives from states that Trump claimed rigged their elections against him: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Roy held that if his Republican colleagues (including Gohmert and Cruz) were going to hold that ballots should be questioned about the presidential race (calling for an emergency 10-day audit), then no certainty could be granted for any race. He said "a number of my colleagues...have publicly stated that they plan to object to the acceptance of electors from those particular six states due to their deeply held belief that those states conducted elections plagued by statewide, systemic fraud and abuse that leaves them absolutely no way for this chamber or our constituents to trust the validity of their elections. ...Such allegations, if true, raise significant doubts about the elections of at least some of the members of the United States House of Representatives that, if not formally addressed, could cast a dark cloud of suspicion over the validity of this body for the duration of the 117th Congress."^[76][77] He added, "It would confound basic human reason if the presidential results were to face objection while the congressional results of the same process escaped without public scrutiny."^[78][79] Roy apologized to those who had come to the swearing-in ceremony and said that if a colleague objected to his own seating in response he would welcome a vote.^[78]

Due to Roy's actions, the House held a vote on the matter and the result was 371 to 2 in favor of moving ahead with the swearing in of all members.^[80] The Dallas Morning News wrote that Roy's actions were "a dramatic escalation in the GOP feud" over the counting of electoral votes, noting Roy was in the minority of his party but "a conservative firebrand...[who] has developed a reputation for a damn-the-consequences approach to doing what he thinks is right, even if it means irking his fellow Republicans."^[80]

Roy spent most of January 5, 2021, working on the remarks he planned on giving on the House floor the next day. He called constitutional scholars as well as other members to sharpen his writing. At the end of the day, when returning to his Virginia apartment, he stopped at a sports bar and was troubled by what he saw: "The place was filled with MAGA Trump supporters. Absolutely filled. ...I kept hearing people say, 'Liberals are going to be upset tomorrow when the vice president stops this steal and gives this election back to the president.'^[34] I heard that repeatedly from people in that bar. I had called the Sheriff of Hays County earlier that day to tell him to look after Carrah and the kids and I told friends here in town to look after Carrah and the kids because I could tell things were getting a little amped up. And that night I re-texted the sheriff and said 'Please be keeping an eye out for Carrah and the kids' because the temperature was so high."^[81]

The next day, when there was an objection to counting Arizona's electoral votes, Roy went with the other members of the House to debate their acceptance. He began seeing notifications on social media of an angry mob outside the Capitol and began texting his staff to try to ensure their safety in the Longworth office building. Legislators paused the debate when the Capitol police announced a breach in the building, but thinking it isolated, resumed debate. Roy was in the well of the lectern about fourth in line to the microphone, where he planned to object to those objecting to the electoral votes. After Capitol police instructed members to hunker in place and make use of their emergency gas masks, Roy tweeted, "To those storming the Capitol - I am on the House floor and I will not be deterred from upholding my oath, under God, to the Constitution by mob demand."^[82] Roy felt to stay in the chamber would be like a "sitting duck" and was able to get Capitol police to direct representatives to a secure exit. Upon receiving their instructions, Roy went to the indicated door and called for his fellow members to exit through it while he held it open.

During the mayhem of the insurrection, Roy was in the House chamber. He tweeted to Trump, "Mr. President - get to a microphone immediately and establish calm and order. Now. And work with Capitol Police to secure the Capitol. It's the last thing you'll do that matters as President."^[83] He later told a reporter, "We must enforce the law. People have breached the Capitol, they need to go to jail. It's dangerous. A lot of people there with a lot of emotions running high. Look, I wish the president had spun people to—as I said, on the floor of the House of Representatives [Wednesday] night—to believe things that were not going to happen, and that was unfortunate."^[84] As Congress prepared to return to the chambers, Roy tweeted, "We will reconvene. We will vote to accept the electors from the states, as instructed by the Constitution. That is our job."^[82]

Returning to the chamber once safety was restored, Roy addressed the House, "Many of my colleagues were poised this afternoon to vote to insert Congress into the constitutionally prescribed decision-making of the states by rejecting the sole official electors sent to us by each of the states of the union. I hope they will reconsider. I can tell you that I was not going to, and I will not be voting to reject the electors. And that vote may well sign my political death warrant. But so be it. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States—and I will not bend its words into contortions for political expediency and then claim I am honoring that oath."^[85] In the two House votes that challenged the electors of Arizona and Pennsylvania, Roy voted to certify the electors appointed by those states.^[85]

Even as Roy's favorability dropped significantly in his district, he said he had no regrets: "I did not take an oath to the political expediency of either Donald Trump or any other member of a political party. I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States. My view is immovable in that regard. And for those raising questions about it, I want to know where they were—precisely where they were—when a Capitol Hill police officer was getting his head bashed in by a fire extinguisher by an angry mob spun up in no small part by the president's irresponsible actions."^[34] Roy told a reporter that Republicans were "being fed misinformation" and that one of his responsibilities was to counsel voters on just how they were misled.^[34]

Metal detector refusal

In February 2021, a month after the Capitol riots, Roy told reporters he was considering bringing a lawsuit over a new rule putting metal detectors in the House and Senate buildings, saying, "It's an outrage. I believe it deprives us of our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves. On January 6, I was sitting on the floor of the House of Representatives. The only thing between me and an angry mob was a handful of Capitol Hill police officers who had their hands full."^[86] He said of the policy, "This isn't making us safer. This is a political show."^[86] He added, "This is an unconstitutional deprivation of my right to defend myself. Period. Full stop.I do not care what Speaker Pelosi says about it. I do not care what anybody says about it. That is what the Second Amendment means. That is why it is there."^[86]

He said that under the U.S. Constitution (Article one, Section Six) members of Congress cannot be arrested on their way to or from voting except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace and that it was an open legal question whether they could be fined. He also said that as the fines ($5,000 for the first offense, $10,000 for the second) are deducted from members' pay, the policy could be a violation of the 27th Amendment, which requires that changes to members' pay only go into effect as of the next Congress.^[86]

Second impeachment of Donald Trump

During the second impeachment of Donald Trump, Roy held that Trump's behavior "was clearly, in my opinion, impeachable conduct, pressuring the vice president to violate his oath to the Constitution."^[87] Still, Roy opposed impeachment. He held that the Democratic leadership in the House"drafted articles that I believe are flawed… focusing on the legally specific terms of incitement and insurrection. Even noting impeachment does not require meeting a certain legal standard – the danger for open speech & debate in this body and for the Republic generally is high – if the House approves the articles as written." If accepted, he said, "The language of this impeachment will be used to target members of this body under section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It will be used to suggest that any statements we make are subject to review by our colleagues and send us down the perilous path of the cleansing political speech in the public square."^[87][88]

Roy joined all of Texas's House Republicans in voting against impeachment.^[89] When asked whether he or any of his fellow Republicans had been threatened with violence if they voted to impeach, Roy said, "I'm not aware of any specific threats against me or anybody else. Honestly, if somebody would have threatened me, I probably would have said FU and voted to impeach. I just don’t react well to that sort of thing."^[34]

Defense of Ted Cruz

In events leading up to the insurrection at the Capitol, reporters noted an ideological split between Roy and Cruz. On January 5, Roy forced members of the House to go on record in a voice vote concerning the seating of 67 representatives-elect from the six states that Trump asserted had invalid elections, a move the Washington Post called a "gutsy step" that was "putting a spotlight on the hypocrisy of his fellow Republicans" for contesting the presidential results in those states but not the results for other races in those states, though the same methods were used to tabulate votes.^[90]

That same day the media learned that Cruz would join Representatives Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar in objecting to the certification of Arizona's electoral votes, despite Attorney General William Barr's declaration that there was no evidence of fraud and despite every lawsuit put forward to challenge the outcome in Arizona having been dismissed or dropped by Trump's legal team. Cruz led a coalition of 11 Republican senators demanding an audit. Cruz's objections to Arizona were joined by Senator Josh Hawley challenging Pennsylvania's electoral votes and Senator Kelly Loeffler those of Georgia.^[91] In contrast, Roy called on his fellow legislators to recall that "we have sworn an oath to promote the Constitution above our policy goals" and that they had a duty to follow its text.^[91]

The Post contrasted Roy with Cruz, who it said "is stoking his 2024 presidential hopes by helping to lead a dishonest drive to question the electoral college results."^[91] James Tilove of Texas Monthly wrote of Cruz and Roy, "Their paths on January 6 could not have been more divergent, with Roy denouncing the president and the elector challenges, and Cruz continuing that night to press his objection to certifying the Biden electors from Arizona—the first of two states voted on—even after witnessing the terrible passions the doomed maneuver had stirred."^[34] Roy acknowledged that he and Cruz disagreed on how to honor their oaths to the Constitution, but said, "My friendship with Senator Ted Cruz is immovable. I think everybody needs to dial it down on both kinds of extremes. Those attacking [Cruz and some others] and calling them seditionists, it's absolutely absurd. We can agree to disagree on these things and we need to. I'll have more to say on that later but my friendship with Senator Ted Cruz is not up for negotiation."^[34]

On January 28, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted out her desire to "know more" about thestock trading app Robinhood, which had blocked some retail investors' trading while hedge funds faced no such constraint**s. When Cruz tweeted his agreement, Ocasio-Cortez rebuffed him, holding that his calling the Electoral College votes into question had helped incite the January 6 insurrectionists, some of whom called for violence against her. She tweeted, "I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there's common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out. Happy to work w/ almost any other GOP that aren't trying to get me killed. In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign."

Roy blasted Ocasio-Cortez in a letter to Pelosi demanding that she be forced to apologize or face sanctions, saying "she accused Senator Ted Cruz, in essence, of attempted murder. it is completely unacceptable behavior for a Member of Congress to make this kind of scurrilous charge against another member in the House or Senate for simply engaging in speech and debate regarding electors as they interpreted the Constitution. …It is my sincere hope that we all stop this heightened rhetoric and move forward to actually do the work the American people sent us here to do."^[92][93]

On February 1, Ocasio-Cortez detailed her experience on January 6, which was compounded by the trauma of being a sexual assault survivor, saying, "Ted Cruz and Representatives Chip Roy, and, oh, by the way, some of the other representatives who actually encouraged people to threaten members of Congress, or tweeted out the location of the Speaker, are now telling me to apologize for saying and speak truth to what happened. These are the tactics that abusers use. The folks who are saying, 'We should move on,' 'We shouldn't have accountability,' etc., are saying, 'Can you just forget about this so we can do it again?'"^[94] Roy replied that he was saddened to learn she had been a victim of sexual assault, but "I will not be swayed from my beliefs about right and wrong—regarding this or anything else." He took issue with being accused of using abuser tactics, saying, "Her comparison of my defense of colleagues to her circumstances were again inappropriate…It does not change the fact that her allegation against Sen. Cruz was completely unacceptable for a Member of Congress to make against another member for engaging in free speech and debate about what our Constitution says about electors. Nor does it change my position that she should apologize for and retract those remarks."^[95]

Procedural protest, 2021

On March 8, 2021, 13 suspension bills—bills brought up under suspension of House rules—were scheduled to be put forward on the House floor, including a measure with overwhelming Republican support to present the U.S. Capitol Police with a congressional gold medal.These plans were scrapped because Roy and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene expressed their intent to demand recorded roll call votes for each bill.As this parliamentary maneuver would have forced voting to go into the early morning, the leadership rescheduled the voting.^[96]

Of the delay, Roy said, "We need to continue to have conversations about every bill that’s moving through the floor." He held that instead of the suspension calendar being "done right", the Democratic leadership was "jamming through 10 Democrat bills [and] three Republican bills on a Monday we fly back, while we're jamming through a $2 trillion bill which we have no say in, while we’ve got fences around the Capitol, we've metal detectors, etc. …We need to have a conversation in this town about how to make the House work again. That's what we're doing."^[97] He said his motivation was to force conversations over how to make Congress "work better" as "This place is completely dysfunctional."^[96]

Roy also criticized the Democratic leadership for doing away with the "motion to recommit", which Republicans in the previous Congress had used to force last-minute changes to legislation on the House floor.^[98] House Minority Whip Steve Scalise made clear the House Republican leadership had not planned or approved Roy's remarks, but also said he too wanted "to see an open process."^[98]

Not all of the GOP Leadership opposed Roy; Conference Chair Liz Cheney said, "This process is not going to be able to continue smoothly as long as the Democrats continue to try to ram pieces of legislation through without adequate hearings, without adequate debate and discussion, without adequate ability to offer amendments, without a motion to recommit. …The majority needs to understand we are not interested in a situation where they have taken away so many rights of the minority and they expect things are going to operate smoothly. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that this is going on."^[98] Democrats characterized the moves as producing nothing but pointless delay and agitation.^[98] They singled out Greene as merely attention-seeking due to having been stripped of her committee assignments in February, and her repeated disruptions of the legislative process (such as discussion of the Equality Act) by use of "motions to adjourn debate", forcing members to hurry to the House floor to vote to remain in session.^[99][100]

The Republican caucus, increasingly annoyed by Greene's tactics, were more supportive of Roy's, as the timing allowed both the protest to gain attention, along with a rescheduling that prevented mass disruption.^[100] Hoyer and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy held talks on how to address Roy's and Greene's maneuvers.^[98][101] In its coverage of the episode,Politico called Roy "a master of procedural delays on the floor."^[98] Due to changes in the rules on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, each roll-call vote took at least an additional 45 minutes longer than under normal circumstances, and a growing number of Republicans joined with Democrats in complaining about the delays.

Bills honoring Capitol Police

Among the bills that were rescheduled due to Roy's procedural protest was one giving Congressional Gold Medals to the Capitol Police and the assisting police forces who withstood the January 6 attack on the Capitol. When the measure received a roll call vote on March 17, it did not pass with unanimous support. Twelve Republicans voted against it, objecting to the use of the word "insurrectionists".^{[102][103][104]} Roy, who had earlier said, "These words all matter, right? …I have to study the language fully", supported the measure.^[105] The final vote tally was 413-12.^[104][106]

The bill moved to the Senate, which had passed its own version. A new bill was created to resolve the differences between the two versions. The largest change was the addition of having a medal displayed inside the Capitol itself, and lines that added those Capitol Police officers who suffered under the car ramming attack on a Senate security barricade on April 2, 2021. The revised bill returned to the House and was put up for a vote on June 15. Despite his vote in March, Roy joined 20 other Republicans in voting against this version, which passed 406-21.^[107][108] Roy released a statement saying the original "legislation has since been amended to include events that have absolutely nothing to do with January 6th. Instead of honoring our men and women of law enforcement, Democrats are playing political games with the tragedy of April 2, 2021."^[109]

Leadership bid

Roy defended Representative Liz Cheney when the House voted to strip her of her position as chair of the House Republican Conference over her criticism of Trump. On January 13, 2021, he said, "It has come to my attention that a number of my colleagues are circulating calls for Liz Cheney to step down from, or to be removed as, chair of the Republican Conference for her position in support of impeachment of the president. I reject this call, and offer my support. …there can be little debate that, among other things, the president’s pressure exerted on Vice President Pence to violate his oath, and the false hope it sent to emotionally charged supporters, was wrong, troubling, and impeachable. Liz should be commended, not condemned, for standing up in defense of the Constitution and standing true to her beliefs."^[110]

On May 11, Roy released a memo calling the conference to be clear that the controversy over Cheney was not about her position that the election "was not stolen", but rather that she had "forfeited her ability to be our spokesperson by pulling us into distraction. …looking backwards while repeatedly and unhelpfully engaging in personal attacks and finger-wagging towards President Trump rather than leading the conference forward with a unifying message." He said the conference should be "fighting to stop the radical Democrat agenda" rather than "falling prey to the high drama of swamp politics."^[111] Roy and other conservative Republicans had discussed concerns over Stefanik's comparably moderate voting record, with Roy taking the lead in this group.^[112] His May 11 memo accused Stefanik of campaigning as a Republican but supporting the Democrats' agenda once sworn in. He added, "let us contemplate the message Republican leadership is about to send by rushing to coronate a spokesperson whose voting record embodies much of what led to the 2018 ass-kicking we received by Democrats."^[113]

Representative Lance Gooden told a reporter that with the amount of support Stefanik had gathered, her victory seemed virtually assured, so "One of the problems of those who had issues with Elise were that no one had really stepped forward to run against her, they were being critical, but no one really seemed to have the nerve to put their name down. So it seems as if Chip Roy is that candidate."^[113] Roy's fundraising campaign sent out donation requests saying that "he was the FIRST to call Cheney out on her anti-Trump and self-serving hysterics" and that "his bold leadership will hopefully lead to a big change."^[113]

Cheney was ultimately ousted from her position as chair by unrecorded voice vote with no one, not even Cheney, objecting.^[114]

By May 13, shortly before a scheduled candidate forum, Roy officially announced his candidacy for the position. He cited what he saw as Stefanik's lack of conservative qualifications and the rapid pace of the process as his reasons for running.^[115] (After Cheney was ousted that Wednesday, McCarthy had scheduled the forum for Thursday evening, and the vote for Friday morning.)^[116]

Previously, Trump released a statement in opposition to Roy, saying "Can't imagine Republican House Members would go with Chip Roy—he has not done a great job, and will probably be successfully primaried in his own district. I support Elise, by far, over Chip!"^[117] Minutes after Trump's release, the conservative group FreedomWorks came out in support of Roy, saying they were pleased to hear of his nomination, and that "Rep. Roy has a lifetime 100% voting record on our scorecard. He has demonstrated that Republicans can legislate based on conservative principles and also get elected in competitive districts."^[117]

Around 60 House Republicans gathered for the candidate forum to hear pitches between Roy and Stefanik to take over the position. The forum was described as a friendly and formal back-and-forth, with Roy contending that he was the more conservative choice, and Stefanik emphasizing her work to elect GOP women along with her ability to fundraise. Both promised to set aside their personal views to better deliver party messaging.^[116] Some attendees told reporters that they felt many in the audience had previously decided who they would support before the forum was even held. Roy did not respond to any questions after the forum, only saying, "We are going to have a vote tomorrow in the Republican conference."^[116] When asked whether Trump's endorsement of Stefanik and bashing of him concerned him, Roy likened the reporters to "vultures" and said "This is all D.C. swamp business."^[116]

In contrast, Stefanik called the forum a "great discussion", said she had cross-conference support and "we are in a strong position." On May 14, the day of the election, Representative Ken Buck of theFreedom Caucus formally nominated Roy, and his nomination was seconded by Boebert.^[118] Roy lost the election to Stefanik in a secret ballot, 134-46.^[118] Afterward he released a statement congratulating Stefanik, but taking pride in being able to "provide an alternative with a proven record of standing up not for politicians—but for freedom, the Constitution, and the conservative principles Americans hold dear."^[118]

Legal concerns around January 6 insurrectionists

Roy did not support the House measure to create a bipartisan commission to investigate the causes of and governmental response to the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. He held that forming a commission was not "a responsible and proper way" to investigate the issue, and that "The proposed commission does not have powers that existing law enforcement and existing congressional committees don't already have; however, it does have an unlimited budget and a vague mandate."^[119] The bill passed the House on May 19, 2021, by a vote of 252 to 175.^[119]

On May 13, Roy and Representative Thomas Massie sent Attorney General Merrick Garland a letter expressing concern that those facing federal charges for participation in the January 6 insurrection would be subject to "overly aggressive tactics, overcharge, and abuse of power of the federal government in order to satisfy favored political groups."^[120] They claimed that they had heard reports that Assistant U.S. Attorneys were not allowed discretion to "enter into plea deals without permission from political appointees" at the Department of Justice.^[120] They also wrote, "there are disturbing reports of heavily armed teams of federal agents bursting into family homes to arrest individuals with no history or likelihood of violence", and demanded congressional oversight of the prosecutions.^[120] When Massie's office was asked their sources for the reports, they responded, "Mr. Roy's office has spoken with attorneys handling these cases and we can't comment any further than that."^[120]

Committee assignments

Caucus memberships

Freedom Caucus^[121]
Republican Study Committee^[122]

Political positions

COVID-19 pandemic

On March 13, 2020, Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, allowing access to billions in aid. The same day, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Speaker Nancy Pelosi concluded negotiations for a COVID-19 relief bill. The $2.2 billion measure included funding for free testing for the uninsured, paid sick leave, $1 billion for food aid, and extended unemployment along with other measures to address Americans affected by the pandemic. The next morning, Roy was among the Republican representatives who voted against the bill, calling it "welfare".^[123] He mocked the measure on social media, tweeting, "The only thing missing from the #PelosiDeal is free toilet paper for all" (he later deleted the tweet).^[124] He expanded on his opposition, tweeting, "I voted no because this bill will cause more harm for more Americans than the good it purports to offer. …we were given a take-it-or-leave it bill with zero chance to amend it or debate it. …Despite it being well-intentioned, it puts onerous burdens and mandates on main street employers, while picking winners and losers by carving out big business!"^[123][125] The bill passed 363-40.^[123]

As the pandemic began to spread, Maine Governor Janet Mills released an executive order on April 3 calling on out-of-state visitors to self-quarantine for 14 days after entering Maine, "To slow the spread of this deadly virus and prevent our health care system from being overwhelmed."^[126] This was seen as a response to Mainers, especially in coastal communities, who were complaining that non-residents were trying to escape more crowded urban areas and endangering the community. Mills made a point not to authorize investigating people solely due to out-of-state license plates, so that military or health care workers who had come to the state would not feel harassed.^[126] Maine's law enforcement held that the order would be difficult to enforce due to limited staffing and that it was mainly an effort to have neighbors encourage each other to comply with the rules. Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce told reporters, "If we receive a complaint we will send a deputy to educate the person about the quarantine but trying to build a case or enforce the order is unrealistic."^[127]

On April 6, Roy appeared as a guest on The Mark Levin Show and criticized governors like Mills who had responded forcefully to the pandemic, saying that they were following projections about infections that were mere guesses "not even [based on statistical] models, they are fingers in the air. And they are throwing them out there and they are causing the American people to freak out and panic instead of going through this logically."^[128] Roy agreed with Mark Levin that governors in "states who barely have this virus" who were issuing stay-at-home orders were overreacting, saying, "Well, I am glad that there's a number of governors who haven't. …And there was a Maine sheriff today who basically told the Maine governor to pound sand. He is not going to go around and check people when they are driving around the state of Maine. And we need more of that. We need more rational human beings who are going to step back and say 'No, this isn't a police state. This isn't Nazi Germany. This isn't Russia. We are not going to do that. What were going to do is have common sense discussions on what we can do to make things better.'"^[128]

Roy also said that state authorities defining which businesses were essential was a form of tyranny: "I always get entertained or really frankly ticked off at these local county judges and mayors and these little tinpot dictators that are making decisions about peoples’ lives when they declare what is and is not an essential business. ..You know what? Any business is essential to its owner and the people who work there. Every single one of them… and all the central planners effectively are deciding how we live our lives."^[128][129]

In May 2020, Roy said, "We need immune systems that are strong. We need immunity systems that can fight this... We need herd immunity." Asked whether acquiring such immunity would entail unnecessary deaths, Roy said that the countrywide stay-at-home orders and attendant delays in accessing cancer screenings or entering into addiction treatment, as well as mental health problems precipitated by unemployment, had increased indirect deaths and suffering.^[129]

In July 2020, Roy blamed surging coronavirus cases in Southern Texas on "people coming across our border" from Mexico. At the time, the border with Mexico had been closed for all nonessential activity since March.^[130]

In a July 28 appearance with talk show host Steve Deace, Roy suggested that the stay-at-home orders imposed in response to the pandemic were a part of "a fraud being perpetrated on the American people of fear. We are literally, purposely allowing the government...we are purposely causing fear among the American people by virtue of the actions or inactions of our government leaders and then allowing the media to spin up that fear. That is unfortunate and it is costing lives and it's costing economic activity, it's costing jobs and it's costing mental health, and it's frankly undermining our national security and the health of our nation, and frankly I don't think that's accidental. I think that is all about design and all about reclaiming power in November and I think on November fourth there'll be a magic awakening of how we can suddenly beat the virus. …[We need to] start raising a fuss, say 'this is my country. I want my country back, and I want to live healthily and I don't want a bureaucrat government or insurance or otherwise standing between me and my doctor; me and my ability to stay healthy; me and my ability to live free.' And that's what's happening and we need to stop it."^[131][132]

Roy said that Texas was holding COVID-19 cases down; in fact, cases were surging in Texas at the time.^[130] Later that month, after Representative Louie Gohmerttested positive for COVID-19, Roy said he did not plan to isolate himself even though he had had a recent maskless interaction with Gohmert on the House floor.^[133]

Roy retweeted a comment by Deace on November 13 that said, "We are not going to honor any of these CDC Thanksgiving guidelines, and instead will intentionally violate them all. But thanks." Roy's tweet added, "I will do whatever I want to do on Thanksgiving. Period. #StandUpForAmerica".^[134] Two days later, Roy retweeted his earlier tweet and added, "I apologize to the folks who have raised concerns that I said 'I will do whatever I want to do on Thanksgiving. Period.' I should have been more clear, so here it goes: 'I will do whatever I want to do on Thanksgiving … or any other day … Period.'"^[135]

On December 23, 2020, Roy joined Trump's opposition to a recently passed $900 billion COVID-19 relief package, saying, "This bill is an irresponsible swamp bill. It is the merger of an omnibus bill that is bloated with typical wasteful spending, on top of a relief bill that has a whole lot of things in it that frankly aren't all that focused on relief. The president's right to call B.S. on this ridiculous bill. Both parties are at fault. …The American people don't just want another check, they want us to do our job like they have to do when they sit around their kitchen table and small businesses have to do when they are trying to make ends meet and America's leadership in Washington refuses to do what they have to do."^[136] After Republican leadership pushed back on Trump's claim that the bipartisan legislation was a "disgrace", Trump signed the bill, which was attached to a $1.4 trillion spending measure to keep the government running through September 2021.^[137]

On January 12, 2021, the House implemented a rule about wearing masks on the floor, with violators to receive a warning and then fines that would be deducted from their salary and could not be paid out of campaign funds or expense accounts. Roy joined about a dozen Republican House members, led by Marjorie Taylor Greene and including Thomas Massie, Lauren Boebert, Ralph Norman, Beth Van Duyne, Louis Gohmert, and Mary Miller, in a protest against mask wearing in the chamber on May 18, 2021. They positioned themselves in front of C-SPAN cameras, grouping together to take selfies and posting them on Twitter. Despite House Republicans' formal effort to set the rule aside on May 19, 2021, it was kept in place, with the Capitol physician reiterating, "Extra precautions are necessary given the substantial number of partially vaccinated, unvaccinated, and vaccine-indeterminate individuals."^[138]

Roy was among the Republican House members reprimanded for not wearing a mask on the House floor. He was warned that additional instances would result in $500 fine (with fines going up to $2,500 thereafter).^[139] He did not respond to reporters asking whether he had been vaccinated.^[140][138]

Foreign relations

In March 2021, Roy was one of 14 House Republicans to vote against a measure condemning the Myanmar coup d'état (Paul Gosar voted "present").^[141] After the vote, The Washington Post noted a pattern of a small group of House Republicans, including Roy, who on several occasions "objected to what would seem to most observers as an unobjectionable proposal."^[142] It described them as an "emerging far-right 'no' caucus…a consistent cohort of House Republicans who are uniting to constitute much of the minority on measures that otherwise pass overwhelmingly. …[united by] staunchly right-wing politics and, in many cases, a penchant for media attention."^[142]

In June 2021, Roy was one of 49 House Republicans to vote to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.^[143]

In September 2021, Roy was among 75 House Republicans to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act of 2022, which contains a provision that would require women to be drafted.^[144][145]

Roy was among 19 House Republicans to vote against the final passage of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act.^[146]

Hate crimes against Asian-Americans

During a congressional hearing held in the wake of a mass shooting in Atlanta that killed eight people, including six Asian American women, Roy questioned whether the committee's attempts to prevent hate crimes and hate incidents against Asian Americans would hamper free speech. His opening statement also included a remark that appeared to advocate lynching: "There are old sayings in Texas about find all the rope in Texas and get a tall oak tree. We take justice very seriously. And we ought to do that. Round up the bad guys." His statements prompted criticism from Democrats, including Representative Grace Meng, who said, "This hearing was to address the hurt and pain of our community, to find solutions. And we will not let you take our voice from us."^{[147][148][149}]

After the hearing, Roy declined to apologize for his words and complained about "Chinese Communists who seek to destroy us" while clarifying that he meant the discussion should focus on "taking out bad guys" instead of also addressing issues like hate speech.^{[147][148][149]} Texas GOP chair and former Florida congressman Allen West wrote that Roy's remarks "were inappropriate and unfortunate ... While his comments about hanging were dumb, they're not grounds for resignation ... My recommendation to Congressman Chip Roy would be to engage the brain before firing the mouth ... It would avoid embarrassing situations such as this."^[150]

On May 18, 2021, Roy was one of 62 Republicans to vote against a bill that ordered the Department of Justice to expedite the review of COVID-19-related hate crimes reported to law enforcement and help establish ways to report indictments online. The bill also directed the Department of Justice to perform public outreach on the issue, and instructed the Attorney General and the Department of Health and Human Services to issue best-practice guidance on how to mitigate racially discriminatory language for describing the pandemic.^[151]

Roy explained his opposition before the vote, saying, "We can't legislate away hate. The perspective of many of us is that we don't need new laws, we don't need more committees, and we don't need more bureaucracy. We need to give our police the resources they need to do their job. We need to make sure that we are rooting out crime wherever it may exist between whatever communities it may exist. We need more emphasis on family, more emphasis on community, more emphasis on the Lord Almighty, and less reliance on the federal government to make our communities better. …The concern of many on my side of the aisle is in this continued sordid business of divvying us up on race and focusing on race. We have spent the better part of the last year rightfully concerned, focused, and outraged on what we saw with respect to Mr. Floyd. But we have had a continued focus on race over the last year, and I think one can look at the impact on communities and the impact on Black communities throughout the United States' cities, businesses that have been closed down, and crime sprees that have occurred and wonder what this continued focus on race is doing to better our great nation."^[151][152]

Juneteenth

Roy was one of 14 Republicans to vote against the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, which passed 415-14. The bill recognized as a public holiday a commemoration of June 19, 1865, the day slaves in Galveston, Texas, learned that two and a half years earlier President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing any slave held in rebel states. Roy took issue with the bill's name, saying, "Juneteenth should be commemorated …[but] the holiday should not be called 'Juneteenth National Independence Day' but rather 'Juneteenth National Emancipation (or Freedom or otherwise) Day.' This name needlessly divides our nation on a matter that should instead bring us together by creating a separate Independence Day based on the color of one’s skin."^[153][154]

Immigration

On June 28, 2019, Roy responded to stories of people being turned away after attempting to donate goods (such as diapers, soaps, sanitary wipes, and toys) to migrant children and families being held by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The rejection was due to the Antideficiency Act, which mandates that government agencies cannot accept donations or spend any money other than that allocated by Congress. Roy put forward a bill called the Charitable Donations Freedom Act, which would amend the mandate to allow donations of goods. In response to worries that the wording may be too broad and limit Congressional oversight, Roy said he was willing to "work to make sure it's not either too narrow or too broad."^[155] On June 28, 2019, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.^[156]

In a July 2019 hearing on border detention conditions, in order to emphasize that she was telling the truth, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked to be sworn in, taking the role of a witness at a House panel before relating a story about a migrant woman who said she had to drink water from a toilet because her sink broke. In response, Roy accused her of political theatrics and playing to her Twitter followers.^[157]

On February 10, 2021, Roy coauthored a letter with 50 other members of Congress criticizing President Joe Biden for refocusing treatment of immigrants under Title 42 health regulations, rather than Title 8, which deals with asylum claims, primarily Homeland Security and Executive Office for Immigration Review matters.^[158]

Roy voted against the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019 which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes.^[159]

Roy voted against the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 which authorizes DHS to nearly double the available H-2B visas for the remainder of FY 2020.^[160][161]

Roy voted against Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 1158) which effectively prohibits ICE from cooperating with Health and Human Services to detain or remove illegal alien sponsors of unaccompanied alien children (UACs).^[162]

Earmarks

Roy voiced strong opposition to a March 2021 House Republican secret ballot of 102-84 to return earmarks to internal rules, saying, "It is the currency of corruption in Washington. We shouldn’t do it. The Republican party should be ashamed of themselves. …I think we've got $30 trillion in debt and people are tired of the swamp and the GOP should be ashamed of itself, if it jumps headfirst right back into the swamp."^[163][164] He signed and circulated a letter along with 17 other members of his conference promising never to request earmarks for their districts.^[163]

Electoral history

no twt pix dress all blk looks like skater chick

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)is leading the charge among House Republicans to refuse to follow Speaker Nancy Pelosi's rule continuing the mask mandate, with at least a dozen far right lawmakers flouting their obligation.

"Masks are oppressive and nothing but a political tool. End the oppression!" Greene tweeted Tuesday.

As with many issues from the far right House members, they are literally the cause of their own issues. The House mask mandate has remained in place because, according to CNN, less than half of the House members say they are vaccinated. One hundred percent of House Democrats are, the unvaccinated are all Republicans.

Forbes' Andrew Solender reports among those refusing to wear masks on the House floor are "some of the House's most vocal right-wingers: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Laure Boebert (R-Colo.), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Chip Roy (R-Texas), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas)."

The hypocrisy isn't limited to refusing to be vaccinated.

Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, according to Solender, "says he 'got into it' with the GOP lawmakers and joked that they are pro-choice when they told him the mandate is a 'violation of their right to decide for themselves.'"

They replied 'absolutely not, it's a totally different thing,' he says."

The U.S. is approaching 34 million cases of COVID-19, and just passed 600,000 coronavirus deaths.

an 121

A small group of far right GOP members of Congress were getting some initial praise after announcing they would not be joining Republicans contesting the presidential election – until they released a statement explaining why.

Essentially, the seven lawmakers are explicitly warning their Republican colleagues to not challenge or disrupt the Electoral College, because that is likely the only way America will see another Republican president.

"Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years," they freely admit. "They have therefore depended on the electoral college for nearly all presidential victories in the last generation."

"If we perpetuate the notion that Congress may disregard certified electoral votes—based solely on its own assessment that one or more states mishandled the presidential election—we will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024."

In other words, they expect Republicans will continue to lose the national popular vote in presidential elections, and future GOP candidates will have to game the Electoral College to win the White House.

Rutgers Law law professor David Noll called it an "incredible statement."

The seven lawmakers are Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), Ken Buck (R-CO), Mike Gallagher (R-WI) Nancy Mace (R-SC), Tom McClintock (R-CA), and Chip Roy (R-TX).

Congressman Roy (photo) may be best known as being the Congressman who in 2019 blocked a 5-month overdue disaster aid relief bill, saying it was "fine" that migrant children were dying at the border. That same year he also broke down, appeared to cry, and yelled during a House hearing, during which he supported the exorbitant and growing prices pharmaceutical companies are charging Americans.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES