Editorial | The new House rules set the tone for a dangerous Republican trifecta

Republican Mike Johnson kept his seat as Speaker of the House, and last week the House voted 215-209 to adopt a new rules package for the 119th Congress — one that very clearly intends to deliver on Trump’s campaign promises.

The new rules outline the way the House will function. Notably, they strike the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The rules now require the support of nine members, rather than one, to issue a motion to vacate the Speaker, and allow integrating AI tools to support the drafting, analysis and oversight of legislation. The package also includes a section on the consideration of 12 new bills clearly intended to push “solutions” to the issues Trump has belabored during the course of his campaign.

These solutions not only target the most endangered people in our nations while protecting the men at the very top, but they also take an uncritical approach to law and order. Rather than addressing any root issue, these new bills seek to slam down a sledgehammer of justice upon anyone who might be unfortunate enough to be caught in the strike. Simply put, these proposals are either intentionally oppressive or far too easy to misimplement.

The very first bill on the list intends to codify biological essentialism when determining Title IX compliance in athletics. Trump has moaned onstage endlessly over the past few years during his demonizing depictions of transgender athletes, and Republican members are wasting no time getting the issue to the House floor. The following five bills aim to inflict harsher punishments on illegal immigrants, classifying more crimes as deportable offenses and barring federal funding from benefiting immigrants without the proper documentation.

Taking a look at the list of proposed considerations, these bills would attack those already crushed by the boot of our nation. Transgender athletes do not dominate the playing field, nor do they have any more biological advantage than LeBron James or Michael Phelps. Transgender students already have a mountain of legislation against them, and barring another life experience from an already marginalized group is a targeted cruelty. 

Immigrants also deserve sanctuary — even those who have left their countries and reside here illegally are still human, still worthy of the most basic dignities and, most importantly, still some of the most prone to miscarriages of justice. Though punishments for violent crime seem like a reasonable consideration, without the proper protections, these bills will become an easy legal vehicle for xenophobia.

While these bills attempt to kick those at the bottom rung of society off the ladder, they also create more security for those at the very top. The remainder of the bills, among other things, will prohibit bans on fracking and protect United States allies under the investigation of the International Criminal Court — in other words, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Sanctions to protect those who have killed tens of thousands and prohibitions to protect the interests of rich fracking executives only further the divide between the powerful and the powerless. If these proposals come to pass, “justice” will narrow its scope to the marginalized, leaving the ecologically destructive capitalists and genocidal politicians just outside its view.

The Congress Republicans clearly are not letting their trifecta go to waste, setting the tone on day one that they have a project for 2025. But it is unfortunate that the people so eager to change the national zeitgeist are the ones who support bills that harm the most vulnerable.

It’s time we had a Congress that seeks to reconcile the divide between the most privileged and the most harmed, but it seems 2025 may not be that time. Red lawmakers are wasting no time putting Trump’s dreams into action — dreams that benefit men like him and hurt the ones who hardly ever had a chance of standing against him.

The Pitt News editorial is a weekly article written by the opinions editors in collaboration with all other desk editors. It reflects the collective opinion of the current Pitt News editorial staff.