Republicans in the US House of Representatives are divided over the party’s future leadership following its heavy losses in the midterm elections, with some lawmakers demanding a complete leadership overhaul while others blame President Donald Trump for the disappointing outcome.
The disagreement has created uncertainty over who will lead the party as it prepares to move into the minority, with lawmakers debating whether the existing leadership should remain or make way for new faces.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) reportedly informed staff during a conference call on Wednesday that he would not seek the position of minority leader, opening the door for a possible contest between House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).
Meanwhile, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) are seeking to retain their respective positions as the party reorganises.
However, their ambitions face opposition from Republican Study Committee Chairman August Pfluger (R-Texas), who is challenging Emmer, while Representatives Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.) are contesting McClain’s position.
The leadership struggle comes as Republicans consider how to improve their communication strategy, challenge the Democrats’ agenda and rebuild their political strength ahead of the 2028 elections.
Some conservative lawmakers believe the party needs a fresh leadership team, arguing that those currently in charge failed to deliver the expected results during the midterm campaign.
One Republican lawmaker, who spoke anonymously to The Hill, warned against retaining the entire leadership structure.
“I think if we send up the same leadership team that led us to the slaughter, we will look like clowns,” the lawmaker said.
“You know, I mean, so you have to make change. Does that mean they all have to change? I’m not saying that. But you can’t have the same team.”
The lawmaker accused Republican leaders of failing to communicate the party’s achievements effectively while giving supporters unrealistic expectations about their chances in the midterm elections.
The member also argued that voters had become frustrated because Congress focused on issues that did not directly improve their living conditions.
“I think voters are upset. They expected us to go and fight for them, and then they saw us work on things like name, image, and likeness, or you know, or cryptocurrency reform, or whatever stuff that had nothing to do with making their lives better, and voters concluded we just didn’t care about them,” the lawmaker added.
Another Republican member expressed similar concerns, accusing the current leadership of neglecting important legislative priorities and compromising conservative principles to accommodate different factions within the party.
“We need all new leadership, top to bottom,” the lawmaker said.
“And I’ve talked to several members that have said they will not vote for anybody else, anybody currently in leadership.”
Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) also criticised the party’s leadership in a post on X, accusing its members of obstructing her attempts to advance legislation banning stock trading, permanently preventing the establishment of a central bank digital currency and reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
“Let the reckoning begin,” Luna wrote.
Among those being considered for the top leadership position is Jordan, a co-founder of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, who has reportedly attracted support from lawmakers seeking a more confrontational approach to the Democrats.
“I think we’re going into a wartime situation where we are going to be the rebel alliance, and we’re going to need someone who knows how to fight, and Jim Jordan knows how to do that,” the first Republican lawmaker said.
However, some members believe Scalise is better suited to take over because of his experience in the party’s existing leadership structure.
Scalise previously defeated Jordan in a secret ballot during the 2023 contest for the Republican nomination for Speaker of the House. He later withdrew after failing to secure enough support to win the position on the House floor.
Jordan subsequently emerged as the party’s nominee but also failed several times to obtain the votes required to become Speaker.
A third Republican lawmaker expressed support for Scalise, describing him as an experienced politician capable of guiding the party through its transition and preparing it for the 2028 elections.
“Steve is the right guy for the job. Plain and simple. He’s a tried and tested leader, who has the experience to lead House Republicans for the next two years, and the chops to reclaim the majority in 2028,” the lawmaker told The Hill.
A Republican staff member also suggested that Scalise would have a smoother transition into the position because of his current role, although Jordan was equally regarded as an effective political organiser.
“I think for Scalise … it’d be an easy transition for him to step into that. But for Jordan, he’s really — how do I phrase this? He’s been a loyal soldier. He’s rallied people well, and he’s an effective politician. So I think both would do well in the role, but I think Scalise would have an easier transition just out of pure — his House leadership currently,” the staffer said last month.
Disagreements have also emerged over the positions of minority whip and Republican conference chair, with members divided between supporting the current officeholders and backing their challengers.
The first Republican lawmaker acknowledged Pfluger’s performance as chairman of the Republican Study Committee but described Emmer as someone capable of leading the party through a difficult period.
“I think Pfluger has done an excellent job as RSC chair, but to his credit, Emmer at least is a warrior. He’s a fighter. He’s a battler, and that’s what we’re going to need. So you know that’s a tough call,” the lawmaker said.
Meanwhile, another Republican member argued that Trump, rather than the House leadership, should take responsibility for the party’s poor electoral performance.
The lawmaker blamed the president’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files controversy and the decision to go to war with Iran for contributing to the Republicans’ losses.
“I mean, this is all on the president, and this war, and so the reason this, I mean, this blue tsunami happened and wiped out the Republican Party is because Trump wanted to protect his child rapist friends in the Epstein files, and then started a war with Iran, and that is why we’re in this situation. So I blame the man at the top. I don’t blame leadership,” the lawmaker said.
The member also defended Johnson, Scalise and Emmer, arguing that they had been forced to operate under difficult circumstances.
“I don’t think Mike Johnson actually deserves a lot of criticism, and then you know you’ve got Scalise and Emmer running, as what I’ve been told. I mean, they were the same guys that had been there. I don’t have a problem with that. … I don’t blame them at all. They were dealt a really s—ty hand,” the lawmaker added.
Representative Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a moderate Republican who is retiring at the end of his current term, also described the 2026 midterm elections as a “referendum on President Trump.”
Bacon suggested that whoever emerges as the party’s next leader would likely maintain a similar level of loyalty to Trump as Johnson, regardless of the leadership changes.
Speaking on Tuesday, he criticised Republican lawmakers for failing to challenge some of the president’s controversial decisions, particularly those involving economic policies and relations with traditional US allies.
“If you show me somebody that would push back a little bit and say, ‘Hey, Republicans have always been the party of free markets and free trade. Why are we going back on that? Why are we treating our allies bad?’ But all we saw was people accommodating the president’s worst instincts,” Bacon said.
He further questioned what a new leadership team would do differently, arguing that many voters expected Congress to provide checks and balances against presidential decisions.
“And so somebody who says that … we should have a new leader. OK, what would you have done differently over the last two years, and push back on some of this stuff? I hear from a lot of swing voters that they wanted Congress to be a check and balance to the worst, you know, egregious things that Trump does, but they didn’t see it,” he added.
