Donald J. Trump, Speaker of the House: An Unheralded Combination, An Unprecedented Situation

Photo via Associated Press

STEPHEN BLINDER: On Tuesday afternoon, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was removed from his leadership position after a vote that marked an inglorious first in the House of Representatives’ 234-year history. Naturally, the focus has turned squarely to his possible successors, a proposition made even more acute as the harsh reality of a House effectively in paralysis sets in until a new Speaker is elected. As of Wednesday evening, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan have already announced their candidacies for the position, with Republican Study Committee Chair Kevin Hern and potentially others to make their bids official in the coming days. But what about the elephant (not) in the room? Late Tuesday, Rep. Troy Nehls announced that he would nominate former President Donald Trump as the next Speaker, an unheralded combination in an unprecedented situation. Could it happen?

Admittedly, there is a short and a long(er) answer. In a nutshell, Trump could become the next Speaker. Perhaps that would be enough to satisfy most. However, ending this article with a simple fact would gloss over the indispensable nuance and complexities of this issue. Indeed, while the Constitution does not mandate that a Speaker be a sitting member of the House, Trump’s path to the position would not be without its fair share of obstacles, not the least because all Speakers to this point have been House members. 

 Paradoxically, the first hurdle comes from within the very party to which the members proposing his candidacy belong. According to Rule 26 of the House Republican Conference Rules for the 118th Congress, adopted in January, “[a] member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed.” Rule 2 outlines such leadership to include the Speaker. While the rules do not necessarily prevent Trump from being nominated, he would appear to be disqualified from holding the position of Speaker, given that the list of his indictments includes numerous felony charges with possible sentences of two or more years in prison. A majority of the House could vote to change these rules, but such a move mid-session would be a rarity and possibly could open the door to more infighting if members seek additional changes, given how contentious the rules package was in January. 

Of course, all of this overlooks the argument that electing a non-member Speaker would be unconstitutional in the first place, one posed already by Prof. Diana Schaub of Loyola University Maryland. In addition to Schaub’s judgment that “[t]he fact that there is no constitutional acknowledgement of an outlier Speaker is strong evidence that the Founders did not mean to countenance such a bizarre reading,” other scholars observed “that the Articles of Confederation said members of Congress shall have authority ‘to appoint one of their members to preside.’” The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, drafted by John Adams, contains a comparable provision. Would this make it to the Supreme Court? Possibly, but it is unlikely it would come to that.

The most glaring obstacle preventing Trump from becoming Speaker is mathematical. Aside from Rep. Nehls, only Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rep. Greg Steube have indicated they would vote for Trump as of Wednesday evening. Thus, reaching the 218 votes necessary to become Speaker, if every member of Congress casts a ballot, seems unrealistic at best and a pipe dream at worst. Even so, Trump has previously indicated that the speakership is “not something I want to do,” though on Wednesday, he told reporters that “[l]ot of people have been calling me about Speaker, all I can say is we’ll do whatever is best for the country and for the Republican Party.” Even if Trump has not completely ruled out becoming Speaker, the current mathematical impossibility may force his hand.

Yes, the words “Donald J. Trump, Speaker of the House” could be announced in the House Chamber next week. Is it likely? As things stand, no. Is it possible? Yes. Frankly, that is concerning enough. It would be an unheralded combination in an unprecedented situation, producing likely unimaginable consequences.

Stephen Blinder is a staff writer for On the Record. He is a junior studying government in the College of Arts & Sciences.