Democrats spar over Santos strategy as GOP punts on bid to expel him

House Democrats wrangled internally on Wednesday over whether to try to stop Speaker Kevin McCarthy from punting on a bid to expel George Santos from Congress.

The tensions surfaced during a closed-door Democratic caucus meeting, hours before Republicans prevailed in a vote to quash Rep. Robert Garcia’s (D-Calif.) privileged resolution ejecting the indicted Santos from his seat. Some Democrats argued in favor of of blocking McCarthy’s push to refer the Garcia plan to the House Ethics panel — which, had it succeeded, would have forced a full House vote on booting the scandal-plagued New York Republican — according to two people familiar with the situation.

After all, those Democrats reasoned, the whole point of Garcia’s push is squeezing the House GOP to go on the record protecting Santos, their fabrication-happy first-term member who faces 13 counts of federal charges.

“I think we should find out where members stand on this indicted member of Congress,” said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), among those who pushed the caucus to pursue a full House vote to expel Santos. “I think we need to definitely make sure that our concerns are registered through a vote.”

But other House Democrats took a different view, according to both people who addressed the closed-door meeting on condition of anonymity. Some more senior Democrats, whom both people interviewed declined to name, argued that forcing an expulsion vote could set a bad precedent — echoing McCarthy’s position.

The Democratic split over how to handle the Santos vote illustrates the enduring generational divide within a caucus that’s growing younger and more progressive after decades of leadership by an octogenarian trio. Just because House Democrats have new leaders this Congress, however, doesn’t mean their senior members’ counsel doesn’t hold weight.

The caucus didn’t formally whip the vote on Garcia’s proposal.

Ultimately, House Republicans stayed unified as they voted to refer the Garcia measure to Ethics. The final tally was 220-202, with seven Democrats voting present. While five of the Democratic present votes came from members of the Ethics panel, two others joined them: swing-seat Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez (D-Wash.) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.).

Santos told reporters after the vote that he approved of the referral to the Ethics panel.

“This is the appropriate way to do this. I think that this was the right decision for all of us and I look forward to continuing to defend myself,” he said. Shortly after, he cut off his remarks when progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) started to heckle him, shouting “resign!”

The spectacle continued, with Bowman getting into an argument with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) before Ocasio-Cortez intervened and pulled Bowman away.

Republicans who serve on the ethics panel did not join their Democratic counterparts in voting present, with some arguing their vote was a referral and not a judgment.

Some of Santos’ fiercest GOP critics publicly endorsed McCarthy’s plan to move the matter to the famously slow-moving ethics committee, which is already conducting an investigation into Santos’ campaign-trail fabrications and finances.

“Moving this expulsion resolution to the ethics committee, in an expedited fashion, will get George Santos out of Congress as quickly as possible. And I think that that is necessary,” Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. “I expect that the Ethics Committee will expedite the hearing.”

First-term Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.), who has called on Santos to resign, sounded a similar note in a statement Wednesday.

To many Democrats, though, sending the matter to the Ethics panel was the effective equivalent of tabling the issue altogether. And they would only need a simple majority of the House to vote down McCarthy’s efforts to refer the bill to committee — a much more plausible ask — while ousting Santos would require a two-thirds majority.

Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) made the case to his California colleagues in a closed-door meeting Wednesday for voting against sending the measure to the ethics panel. It would be the “easy way out” for the speaker, he said in an interview after the meeting.

“He doesn’t have the votes to table,” Aguilar said of McCarthy. “And so he’s trying to send this to Ethics to give his members who have called for George Santos to resign … an opportunity to vote with the team.”

McCarthy and GOP leaders acted quickly to help dissuade their handful of anti-Santos New York Republicans from any temptation to vote for Garcia’s expulsion plan. During a private Tuesday meeting first reported by POLITICO, McCarthy laid out the process to the Empire State’s GOP delegation, arguing that the ethics panel referral makes more sense than tabling the expulsion measure or allowing it to come to the floor for a vote.

Yet, even after McCarthy defeated House Democrats’ push to expel Santos, his conference’s problematic prevaricator is poised to cause more headaches soon.

The speaker told reporters Wednesday that the ethics panel could “come back faster than a court case could” with recommended Santos sanctions.

“I would like to refer this to Ethics. I’ll have a conversation with Hakeem. I would like the ethics committee to move rapidly on this,” McCarthy said.

Sarah Ferris and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Related articles

Seeing the National Guard on our streets is bad — but we must beware Trump’s Plan B



I saw some of my former Naval War College colleagues at the recent No Kings rally in Providence. Given that National Guard troops and protestors had clashed in Los Angeles at an earlier June rally protesting ICE raids, we wondered whether we would see National Guard troops as we marched, where they would be from, and their mission? We didn’t. That doesn’t mean, however, that there is no need for concern about the future.

The National Guard is unique to the U.S. military given it is under the authority of both state governors and the federal government and has both a domestic and federal mission. Governors can call up the National Guard when states have a crisis, either a natural disaster or a human-made one. Federal authorities can call on the National Guard for overseas deployment and to enforce federal law.

President Dwight Eisenhower used both federalized National Guard units and regular U.S. Army units to enforce desegregation laws in Arkansas in 1957. But using military troops to intimidate citizens and support partisan politics, especially by bringing National Guard units from other states has never been, and should never be, part of its mission.

But that’s what is happening now.

A host of Democratic U.S. senators, led by Dick Durbin of Illinois, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called for an inquiry into the Trump administration’s recent domestic deployment of active-duty and National Guard troops to Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and Memphis, Tennessee.

In an Oct. 17 letter to the Defense Department’s Inspector General, the senators challenge the legality of the domestic troop deployment and charge that it undermines military readiness and politicizes the nation’s military.

Ostensibly, the troops have been sent to cities “overrun” with crime. Yet data shows that has not been the case. Troops have been sent to largely Democratic-run cities in Democratic-led states.

The case for political theater being the real reason behind the deployment certainly was strengthened when largely Republican Mississippi sent troops to Washington D.C., even though crime in Mississippi cities like Jackson is higher than in D.C. Additionally, there is an even more dangerous purpose to the troop presence — that of normalizing the idea of troops on the streets, a key facet of authoritarian rule.

There are fundamental differences in training and mission between military troops and civilian law enforcement, with troop presence raising the potential for escalation and excessive force, and the erosion of both civil liberties and military readiness.

Troop deployments have hit some stumbling blocks. Judges, including those appointed by President Donald Trump, have in cases like Portland impeded administration attempts to send troops. Mayors and governors, including Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, have pushed back as well.

While the Trump administration has shown its willingness to ignore the law, it has also shown a significant ability to come up with a “Plan B.” In this case, Plan B, used by many past dictators, is likely the utilization of private military companies (PMC).

Countries have used these mercenary organizations to advance strategic goals abroad in many instances. Though the Wagner Group, fully funded by the Kremlin, was disbanded after a rebellion against the regular Russian military in 2023, Vladimir Putin continues to use PMCs to advance strategic goals in Ukraine and other regions of the world wrapped in a cloak of plausible deniability. Nigeria has used them internally to fight Boko Haram. The United States used Blackwater in Afghanistan in the early days after 9/11. Overall, the use of PMCs abroad is highly controversial as it involves complex tradeoffs between flexibility, expertise and need with considerable risks to accountability, ethics and long-term stability.

Domestically, the use of PMCs offer leaders facing unrest the advantage of creating and operating in legal “gray zones.” Leaders not confident of the loyalty of a country’s armed forces have resorted to these kinds of private armies. Adolf Hitler relied on his paramilitary storm troopers, or “brown shirts” to create and use violence and intimidation against Jews and perceived political opponents. Similarly, Benito Mussolini’s “black shirts,” Serbian paramilitaries, and PMCs in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya served similar purposes.

President Donald Trump has said he is “open” to the idea of using PMCs to help deport undocumented immigrants. He has militarized Homeland Security agents to send to Portland, evidencing his willingness to circumvent legal challenges. And perhaps most glaringly, poorly qualified and trained masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are already terrorizing American cities.

At the No Kings rally in Providence my former colleagues and I did see a man in an unfamiliar uniform — with a gun and handcuffs — standing alone on the sidewalk along the march path. He wasn’t doing anything threatening, just watching. In the past, he might not have even been noticed.

But that day he was. Some people even waved to him. Protestors are not yet intimidated, but they are wary, and rightfully so.

Be aware, America. They have a Plan B.

  • Joan Johnson-Freese of Newport is professor emeritus of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College and a Senior Fellow at Women in International Security. She earned a Ph.D. in international relations and affairs from Kent State University. She is an adjunct Government Department faculty member at Harvard Extension and Summer Schools, teaching courses on women, peace & security, grand strategy & U.S. national security and leadership. Her book, “Leadership in War & Peace: Masculine & Feminine,” was released in March 2025 from Routledge. Her website is joanjohnsonfreese.com.

Black Republican Shreds Gavin Newsom Over ‘Code-Switching’ Accent: ‘White’ Liberals Are the ‘Most Racist’

Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-TX) ripped California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for "code-switching" to appear more relatable to Black men, calling it "quite disgusting"

The post Black Republican Shreds Gavin Newsom Over ‘Code-Switching’ Accent: ‘White’ Liberals Are the ‘Most Racist’ first appeared on Mediaite.

Stephen Miller – Do ICE officers have ‘federal immunity’ as White House official Stephen Miller said?

“To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”

Rep. Bill Foster says the public is on Dems side in shutdown stalemate

Rep. Bill Foster says the public is on Dems side in shutdown stalemate

lead image