House Descends Into Chaos as Members Abuse Censure Process for Political Theater

The House of Representatives has devolved into a circus of privileged resolutions and censure threats, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle weaponizing what was once reserved for genuinely egregious conduct. The latest example? A failed attempt to censure Del. Stacey Plaskett, D-V.I., over her communications with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Let’s be clear about what happened here. Plaskett texted a man whose crimes against children are well-documented and horrific. Rep. Ralph Norman has rightfully criticized Plaskett’s defense of this conduct while Rep. James Comer has subpoenaed Epstein’s bank records and flight logs. These are serious matters that deserve serious scrutiny.

But here is where we are as a nation: The first week House lawmakers have been together in Washington since the 43-day government shutdown began on October 1 has been consumed not by legislating, but by members throwing political bombs at each other through a congressional procedure that has become the legislative equivalent of a food fight.

The mechanism in question allows any single lawmaker to introduce a censure resolution against another member. Both Republicans and Democrats have wielded this power three times this week alone through what is known as a “privileged resolution,” which forces an immediate House-wide vote. Five total threats were made in just five days.

Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., captured the absurdity perfectly: “This is ridiculous playground nonsense. Personally, I’m tired of members of Congress using the chamber as their own personal playground to get attention.”

He is absolutely correct. While some members have indeed done egregious things worthy of censure, the process has been so thoroughly abused that it has lost all meaning.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., did not mince words, calling the situation “the biggest load” of nonsense and demanding reform so that one lawmaker’s attention-seeking crusade cannot disrupt the entire House floor.

The concern goes beyond mere annoyance. One lawmaker, speaking on condition of anonymity, raised a troubling possibility: “The majority could just [censure] anybody in a tight race. And you don’t want this process to become part of election games.”

This is a legitimate concern grounded in basic political incentives. When any individual member can force a floor vote to publicly rebuke a colleague, the temptation to use this power for electoral advantage becomes overwhelming.

Some lawmakers are proposing bipartisan solutions, including raising the threshold for censure from a simple majority to 60% of the chamber. This would theoretically restore some gravity to the process by requiring broader consensus.

But will it work? Jim Curry, professor of political science at the University of Utah, expressed skepticism: “Increasing the threshold is useful, but I don’t know that it will deter its use. You still get to have this moment of ‘I have brought a censure resolution against so-and-so, and the House will vote on it because I was brave.'”

Curry identifies the core problem. The political incentive structure rewards grandstanding. Members get media attention, fundraising opportunities, and the ability to claim they “stood up” to their opponents, regardless of whether the censure actually passes.

Meanwhile, the actual work of governing grinds to a halt. The American people did not send their representatives to Washington to engage in performative politics and personal vendettas. They sent them to legislate, to address genuine problems, and to conduct legitimate oversight.

The Plaskett matter deserves investigation. Epstein’s connections to powerful people demand transparency. But when the process itself becomes a joke, when censure resolutions fly like confetti, the ability to hold anyone accountable for anything dissolves entirely.

Congress needs to reform these rules immediately, restore dignity to the censure process, and get back to work. The American people are watching, and they are not impressed.

Related: Tennessee Special Election Candidate Has History of Promoting Illegal Abortion Access