GOP Outrage After Senate Parliamentarian Blocks Bill \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advised excluding key tax and immigration elements from the GOP reconciliation bill, igniting backlash from Republicans like Tommy Tuberville and Greg Steube. Critics claim her rulings are partisan and undemocratic, though past precedents show similar bipartisan application. The parliamentarian’s influence stems from her role enforcing fiscal-only rules in reconciliation, and GOP Senators may challenge but are unlikely to overrule her guidance.
Quick Looks
- Parliamentarian blocks provisions: Elizabeth MacDonough ruled certain measures in the tax‑immigration reconciliation bill impermissible.
- Republicans push back: Figures like Sen. Tuberville demanded her firing, calling her an “unelected swamp bureaucrat.”
- Historic role under scrutiny: Though her rulings align with precedents, heightened use of reconciliation has amplified her impact and GOP ire.
Deep Look
The typically low-profile role of the Senate parliamentarian has once again become a lightning rod for controversy, as Republicans react with frustration to rulings that strike provisions from their major tax and immigration reconciliation bill. Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate’s current parliamentarian, ruled that several key measures—most notably proposals to cut Medicaid funding and alter immigration policies—could not be included in the fast-track reconciliation legislation. The decision prompted swift and vocal backlash from several GOP lawmakers, who accused her of overreach and partisan bias.
Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) called for MacDonough’s immediate dismissal, posting on social media that she should be “fired ASAP.” Representative Greg Steube (R-FL) criticized her as an “unelected swamp bureaucrat,” noting her original appointment by Democratic leader Harry Reid over a decade ago. These criticisms, while politically charged, ignore the long-standing, bipartisan nature of the parliamentarian’s responsibilities.
MacDonough’s ruling continues a trend of the parliamentarian drawing public ire from both sides of the aisle. In 2021, she frustrated Democrats by blocking the inclusion of a minimum wage hike in a COVID-19 relief package, as well as barring immigration protections from being included in a climate-focused budget bill. Her actions, though often unpopular with one party or another, are grounded in her mandate: to interpret Senate rules, particularly those tied to the reconciliation process, which requires that all bill components directly relate to spending or taxation.
Reconciliation is a powerful legislative tool because it enables lawmakers to bypass the Senate’s usual 60-vote threshold to avoid filibusters, passing legislation with a simple majority. However, it comes with strict guidelines, most notably the Byrd Rule, which restricts non-budgetary items from being included. MacDonough’s role is to determine what does and does not meet these criteria—a duty that has increasingly drawn scrutiny as lawmakers seek to push broader agendas through the limited scope of reconciliation.
Her recent ruling is a blow to Republicans hoping to use reconciliation to enact sweeping changes, including extracting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. Although theoretically possible, it is unlikely that Republicans will attempt to overrule MacDonough’s recommendations, as doing so would risk destabilizing Senate norms and traditions. GOP Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota articulated this hesitation, saying, “It’s the institutional integrity, even if I’m convinced 100% she’s wrong.”
Michael Thorning, a governance expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center, echoed that sentiment, noting that both parties have long relied on the parliamentarian as an “honest broker.” He warned that treating her guidance as optional could erode the rule-based nature of Senate procedures, inviting future chaos. “Once you start treating the parliamentarian’s advice as just something that could be easily dismissed,” Thorning said, “then the rules start to matter less.”
Historically, the Senate parliamentarian has enjoyed a reputation for impartiality and consistency. Only six people have held the position since it was created in 1935. MacDonough, the first woman in the role, has served since 2012. A former English literature major who earned her law degree from Vermont Law School, she began her Senate career in the library before moving to the parliamentarian’s office and rising through the ranks.
She has advised during historic proceedings, including President Trump’s two impeachment trials, and played a behind-the-scenes role during the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. During the chaos, she and her staff rescued the boxes of certified Electoral College votes from the Senate chamber and secured them as rioters breached the building. Her office was among those vandalized and later designated a crime scene.
While it is technically possible for the Senate to overrule or fire the parliamentarian, such actions are rare and politically risky. Past leaders have occasionally replaced parliamentarians, but most transitions have respected the institutional framework rather than appearing retaliatory. For more than 30 years, Robert Dove and Alan Frumin alternated in the position depending on the party in power, though their interpretations of Senate rules differed little.
Despite the political pressure, MacDonough continues to be viewed by many inside the chamber as a consistent interpreter of Senate procedure. Calls for her removal remain limited, signaling broader institutional respect for her role—even from those unhappy with her rulings.
Ultimately, this episode underscores the tension between legislative ambition and procedural restraint. As reconciliation becomes a go-to strategy for bypassing Senate gridlock, the parliamentarian’s gatekeeping function has grown in prominence—and controversy. Whether in Republican or Democratic hands, her office remains a check on attempts to reshape policy through procedural backdoors. And as this latest clash illustrates, the debate over her power is also a debate over the limits of legislative process in a deeply polarized Congress.
GOP Outrage After GOP Outrage After GOP Outrage After
You must Register or Login to post a comment.