Capitol Hill was anything but quiet this week, as both chambers of Congress found themselves embroiled in high-stakes maneuvering over power, precedent, and political payback. On September 3, 2025, House Democrats—helped by a handful of unexpected Republican allies—managed to block a Republican-led effort to censure Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey and remove her from the influential Homeland Security Committee. Just across the rotunda, Senate Republicans were plotting a dramatic rules overhaul to break through Democratic resistance to President Trump’s nominees, signaling an intensifying partisan arms race on Capitol Hill.
The battle in the House began when Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican, introduced a privileged resolution seeking to censure Rep. McIver and strip her of her committee assignment. Higgins argued it was a "significant conflict of interest" for McIver to oversee Immigration and Customs Enforcement while facing federal charges related to a May 9 altercation with immigration officers at the Delaney Hall detention facility. The charges, which McIver pleaded not guilty to in June, carry sentences of up to eight years. According to reporting by The Hill, the incident occurred during a tense visit when McIver and her colleagues clashed with federal officers as Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested for trespassing—a charge later dropped. Baraka is now suing interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, a Trump appointee later found to be serving illegally, for "malicious prosecution."
With Republicans holding only a razor-thin majority, the outcome was far from certain. Yet, in a surprise twist, the House voted 215-207 to table the resolution. Five Republicans broke ranks to side with Democrats, while two others voted "present." The measure’s defeat was a rare moment of bipartisan defiance in a chamber often bitterly divided along party lines.
McIver, for her part, was quick to frame the prosecution and censure effort as political retribution for her outspoken opposition to President Trump’s immigration policies. In a statement Tuesday night, she declared, "We were all elected to do the people’s work. I take that responsibility seriously—Clay Higgins clearly does not. Instead of making life any better for the people he represents, he’s seeking to punish me for doing what he and his caucus are too cowardly to do: conduct real oversight, stand up to this administration, and do our jobs." She didn’t mince words the following day either, telling reporters, "It’s pathetic. At the end of the day, it’s not going to stop me from doing my job. I’m going to continue to provide oversight."
Democratic allies quickly rallied to McIver’s defense. Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, introduced her own privileged resolution—this one targeting GOP Rep. Cory Mills of Florida, who faces controversy over allegedly threatening to release intimate photos of a former partner. Unlike the GOP’s bid against McIver, Clarke’s resolution stops short of seeking Mills’ removal from committee assignments. Republican leaders dismissed Clarke’s move as a stunt. "The motion against McIver is something that a lot of the members here feel passionately about," Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters, arguing that McIver’s pending trial "seems to be a bit of a conflict for her to continue to serve on that committee."
The episode is just the latest in a string of partisan clashes over censure and committee assignments. According to The Hill, the House has censured just 28 members in its entire history—yet nearly a third of those have come in the last four years, a reflection of escalating tensions and the weaponization of what was once a rarely used punishment. Stripping lawmakers of committee assignments is even newer territory, a tactic Democrats deployed in 2021 against GOP Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar for promoting violent rhetoric. Now, the GOP seems eager to return the favor.
Meanwhile, Democrats point to a broader pattern of targeting those who challenge Trump or his allies. In March, GOP Rep. Dan Newhouse successfully pushed a resolution to censure Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas for protesting during Trump’s address to Congress. The message, Democrats say, is clear: Defy Trump, and you risk becoming a political example. As if to underscore that point, federal officers have reportedly harassed lawmakers, including Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California, who was shoved out of a Homeland Security press conference on June 12.
While the House was locked in this bitter dispute, the Senate was facing its own procedural showdown. Senate Republicans, frustrated by what they describe as Democratic obstruction of Trump’s nominees, are coalescing around a plan to invoke the so-called "nuclear option"—a dramatic rules change that would allow the Senate to confirm groups of nominees in a single vote. The proposal, based on an earlier plan by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, would let lawmakers confirm up to 10 or more nominees who received bipartisan committee support with just one vote, bypassing the current, time-consuming process for each individual nominee.
Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), a member of the working group crafting the plan, told The Hill, "I think everybody’s pretty united in moving forward, and actually moving forward pretty quickly. ‘En bloc’ is definitely top of the list." The GOP is considering tweaks, such as increasing the cap beyond 10 nominees or including those from multiple committees. However, Cabinet-level and judicial nominees would be excluded from this expedited process. "We’re not talking about judges," Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) clarified. "But we are talking about the vast majority of the ambassadors, the vast majority of the sub-level Cabinet [nominations] who normally receive very few ‘no’ votes and, in fact in the past, have basically been voice votes before you leave for a recess."
Republicans hope to implement the rule change by the end of the current work period, a little more than two weeks away. The urgency is fueled by a backlog: Of the 135 civilian nominees the Senate has confirmed so far, only Secretary of State Marco Rubio was not subject to a filibuster, and 145 nominees remain pending. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and the White House had tried to strike a deal with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer before the August recess, but talks faltered. Trump blamed Schumer for "poisoning the well with unreasonable demands," while Schumer countered that Trump’s nominees "deserve an extra layer of scrutiny given his actions during the first eight months of his term."
This is not the first time the majority has sought to ease the passage of nominees. In 2019, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and GOP members cut debate time for lower-level nominees from 30 hours to two, a move that, ironically, "slowed down the process," according to Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso. Now, Republicans see the en bloc approach as a way to return to the "standard of what we used to do in the past."
Still, not all Republicans are entirely comfortable. Some worry that the change could prompt more nominees to emerge from committee with only partisan support, requiring individual consideration and potentially deepening divisions. Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) acknowledged, "We get that we’re going to be in the minority at some time, so we’re trying to come up with something that works whether you’re in the majority or the minority. The worm always turns. We think it’s a fair change because when the shoe’s on the other foot and we’re in the minority, we’re going to have to live with it—and we’re fine with that."
With both chambers locked in these procedural and political battles, it’s clear that the rules of engagement on Capitol Hill are shifting. What was once rare—censure, stripping committee assignments, and sweeping rules changes—has now become a regular feature of congressional life. The stakes, for lawmakers and the country, have never felt higher.
