House Divisions and Senate Pushback Signal the Erosion of Power for Mike Johnson and Donald Trump
Washington — On a day that laid bare the long-simmering fractures within the Republican Party, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson suffered another symbolic yet consequential political setback. With the party’s majority now reduced to a razor-thin margin of just one vote, Johnson’s control of the House has become increasingly fragile, as Republican lawmakers continue to break party ranks and side with Democrats on core policy issues.
On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies for an additional three years by a 230–196 vote. Notably, 17 Republicans joined every Democrat in supporting the bill, despite public opposition from Republican leadership and allies of President Donald Trump.
For Mr. Johnson — who assumed the speakership amid unprecedented dysfunction in the House — the vote served as a stark reminder of his waning authority. For millions of Americans who rely on ACA subsidies to maintain health insurance coverage, however, it represented a vital and tangible victory.
A Vote That Speaks Volumes
Extending ACA subsidies has long been a deeply divisive issue within the Republican Party. While hardline conservatives view the Affordable Care Act as a symbol of excessive federal intervention, an increasing number of Republicans from competitive districts have come to recognize the political cost of voting against health care access.
“These Republicans are acting out of political self-preservation,” one political strategist wrote on the social media platform X. “They understand that voters — not insurance lobbyists — will decide their fate in November.”
Headlines that followed the vote underscored the growing rift: “Republicans Defy Trump and Mike Johnson on Health Care.” For many voters, the message was clear. Democrats remain aligned with expanding access to health care, while Republican leadership — including Mr. Johnson and President Trump — continues to be associated with efforts to curtail or dismantle the system.
The Senate Pushes Back as Well
The House vote coincided with a significant development in the Senate, further highlighting the broader congressional pushback against the White House. Earlier that day, the Senate voted to advance a resolution under the War Powers Resolution aimed at limiting and ultimately ending U.S. military involvement in hostilities related to Venezuela. The measure passed by a 52–42 vote.
Five Republican senators — Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, and Todd Young — joined Democrats in supporting the resolution, directly challenging President Trump’s expansive view of executive authority in matters of war and national security.
Mr. Trump responded swiftly. In a series of social media posts, he publicly criticized each of the senators by name, accusing them of “undermining national security” and declaring that they “should never be elected again.” The tactic was familiar: naming dissenters, mobilizing loyal supporters, and applying direct political pressure on intraparty opponents.
Debating the War Powers Resolution
Vice President JD Vance soon entered the debate, describing the War Powers Resolution as “fake” and “unconstitutional” — remarks that prompted sharp criticism from constitutional scholars and former congressional officials.
Enacted in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution was designed to reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over the initiation and continuation of armed conflict. Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress holds the power to declare war, while the president serves as commander in chief of the armed forces.
Legal experts emphasize that the law does not strip the president of military authority. Instead, it establishes three core requirements: the president must consult with Congress, must report military actions to Congress, and must obtain congressional authorization within 60 days if hostilities are to continue.
“If anything is being infringed upon, it is Congress’s constitutional authority — not the president’s,” a former Senate legal adviser wrote in a widely circulated analysis. “Labeling the War Powers Resolution as unconstitutional fundamentally misrepresents both its text and its purpose.”
A Broader Pattern of Power Consolidation
Many analysts view the developments in both chambers as part of a larger pattern: President Trump’s increasingly explicit effort to consolidate power within the executive branch.
Over the past year, Mr. Trump has relied heavily on executive orders to impose tariffs, reshape immigration policy, and conduct military operations without clear congressional approval. At the same time, he has intensified verbal attacks on the press, universities, state officials, and other institutions capable of checking presidential authority.
For Speaker Johnson, the erosion of his leadership power reflects a harsh reality. With a majority that can be undone by a single defection, even small intraparty rebellions are capable of paralyzing the House’s legislative agenda.
A Message to American Voters
For voters, the recent series of events sends a dual message. On one hand, Congress — despite its dysfunction and polarization — still retains the ability to act as a check on presidential power. On the other, the deepening divisions within the Republican Party reveal an unresolved internal struggle between loyalty to Mr. Trump and the political realities faced by lawmakers in their home districts.
As one widely shared comment on social media put it:
“When a president calls everyone who opposes him a ‘traitor,’ perhaps the problem isn’t the Constitution — but the president himself.”