What the Democrats’ congressional leadership fights are about

Last week, I noted that I would be very surprised if two New Yorkers — Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries — did not end up leading the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, once the new Democratic majorities take over early next year. I remain pretty sure of the latter, despite what has been a pitched campaign among progressive commentators to toss Jeffries aside. Schumer, I’m not so sure about anymore.

At this point, Jeffries seems to have locked up the support necessary to become the next speaker, not least because — as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gently explained to her Instagram followers — he has no challengers, either declared or expected, meaning he would win by default. So why is Jeffries the only choice when congressional offices are reportedly being deluged with calls not to make him speaker?

The truism du jour throughout this burgeoning fight has been that what legislators are looking for in a legislative leader and what voters would be looking for in, say, an executive leader are not the same thing. That much is certainly true. Most executive leaders, from presidents to governors to mayors, have to work with legislatures and deal with unions and interest groups and so on, but at the end of the day their job is to run the government, and they are generally the only person in charge and responsible for doing that. A legislative leader’s responsibilities, and therefore their powers, are very different. A speaker or majority leader has some specific powers, including making committee appointments and controlling the legislative calendar, but fundamentally they are just one of a large body of lawmakers who are all elected the same way and who all get one vote on legislation (other than territorial representatives, like the delegate from the District of Columbia). Presidents issue executive orders; legislative leaders exercise their power through a whole lot of behind-the-scenes wrangling, such as finessing the egos of other elected representatives who could derail your agenda, plus worrying about the electoral prospects of representatives from every state in a country with widely disparate politics and priorities.

While Congress does have functions, like constituent services and investigations, that have some overlap with what the executive branch does, its big job is writing legislation – producing bills that are often complex, have to fit into the existing statutory scheme and attract enough votes to pass. Legislative leaders can’t really have the “just do things” approach that can work well (or poorly) for executive leaders. The Jeffries argument at its core is not that he is a bruiser or a visionary; it is that he is not. He is, his supporters insist, someone who can get Democrats on the same page about priorities, keep a cool head, resist falling for political fads or caving to special interest pressures, and who will make the tough calls when needed, even knowing that this will disappoint some portion of his caucus.

The case for a ‘wartime’ leader

Setting aside the question of whether Jeffries even possesses these qualities — and it probably didn’t help his case that this week Democrats embarrassingly failed to all show up to help advance GOP Rep. Thomas Massie’s attempted impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — a big part of the argument against him is that such qualities might be fine in “normal” times, but that we are not in normal times. Voters have just handed Democrats a sizable majority, including seats in what were considered fundamentally red states, with the expectation that they will stanch the bleeding of our constitutional order, not just legislate normally. The administration has already usurped a number of Congress’ powers, from tariff authority to the power to declare war; it has weaponized the executive branch against lawmakers themselves, including extreme efforts to pursue Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and paint the former Somali refugee as having committed immigration fraud as well as several other investigations and attempted prosecutions of legislators. Beyond that, there’s the way President Donald Trump has sought to trample on the constitutional rights of seemingly everyone else in the country.

Perhaps what is needed is a “wartime” legislative leader who is far less cautious, does not have any interest in engaging with the other side (at least the MAGA wing at the forefront of Trump’s efforts). Someone who is willing to put orderly legislative process aside in favor of worthwhile fights like, say, prompting a government shutdown rather than acquiescing to more funding for ICE. Can Jeffries do this? It hasn’t exactly been his brand. Then again, who now in the House could?

One consequence of the sizable majority won last week by the Democrats is that their caucus will include legislators all over the map ideologically. That and the size of the majority will prevent any given lawmaker or small group from credibly threatening to toss a wrench into everything if they don’t get their way, as Trump-allied ultraconservative members did with a series of speakers ending with Mike Johnson. But that diversity also means no faction is going to be satisfied sitting on the sidelines. Which current representative can please both the party’s centrists and progressives? There surely must be at least one in what will be a caucus with nearly 260 members, but none that I think will defy Jeffries, who is likely to win anyway and then hold a grudge. And if there’s no challenger, Jeffries wins by default, as it’s a vote for a candidate rather than just an up-and-down vote. And the 56-year-old Jeffries, unlike the 75-year-old Schumer, likely has years or decades left in the chamber to act on such grudges.

Schumer’s clock is ticking

That also helps explain Schumer’s relative weakness in the fight to become the Senate majority leader. It’s not exactly a secret that there are conversations about an AOC primary challenge to Schumer in 2028, and, frankly, I think that if that happens she wins. Nobody wants to anoint a majority leader who will be gone in two years during one of the most pivotal times in U.S. history. Even beyond that possibility, there seem to be additional concerns about Schumer’s ability to meet the moment. Progressive standard-bearer Bernie Sanders has been the strongest voice challenging Schumer’s ascension, but even he’s been joined by some centrist colleagues like Mark Warner and Raphael Warnock, who haven’t foreclosed the possibility of voting for Schumer but have not committed to doing so.

Schumer has been trying to head off that possibility by telling colleagues that he has already spent months working on the Democrats’ agenda with Jeffries, which will include what he calls “vision bills” to advance priorities like the restoration of Affordable Care Act subsidies. Yet many progressives think this is too small-ball and are irate at Schumer for past actions like prematurely caving on Democrats’ forcing of a shutdown to preserve those subsidies last year. Plus, with the filibuster looking to remain in the Senate, even the Democrats’ significant majority will be insufficient to act on most legislation outright, making the idea of compromise even less attractive to members that want to see a fight.

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who seems like the potential challenger with the most momentum, is no spring chicken at 67, but he did upend Trump’s persecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a constituent, by traveling to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador at a time when no one had seen the Maryland dad alive since his arrest. The images from that trip stick with people. Sanders has thrown his support behind Van Hollen, though other senators have yet to formally join in.

Van Hollen has also been at the forefront of pushes to reassert congressional power, including to strip funding for the Iran war. He’s an institutionalist with over two decades of experience in Congress, who was a onetime Nancy Pelosi protégé but is also picking up substantial progressive support. With a caucus that has 200 fewer people than the Democratic caucus in the House, it’s much easier for someone like Van Hollen to campaign directly with the legislators who would be voting for him in the month left until the leadership vote happens.

A lot can certainly change in that month, but it seems clear that the legislative fights in Congress will be as much about what the purpose of this Congress and its popular mandate are in this moment as just about the figures that are involved.