House Passes It 214-211 — 2 Democrats Flip and Humiliate Hakeem Jeffries

2 Dems Rescue Republicans in Move That Leaves Jeffries Humiliated

Two moderate House Democrats broke with their party Tuesday and helped Republicans pass a narrowly divided procedural vote during Congress’ final stretch before the November midterm elections.
Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington sided with Republicans on the rule governing consideration of several measures, including a major Russia sanctions bill.
The rule passed 214-211, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez providing the only Democratic votes in favor.
Two Republicans opposed the rule, meaning the Democratic defections were decisive in allowing the package to move forward.
Procedural rule votes are typically treated as tests of party unity because the minority party generally votes against rules written by the majority.
Golden’s office said his decision was driven by his support for legislation targeting Russia over its war in Ukraine.
His spokesman said Golden did not want the sanctions bill to die on a procedural vote after it had already received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate.
Gluesenkamp Perez offered a similar explanation and pointed to the large Ukrainian community she represents in southwestern Washington.
“I’ll always stand with my community’s values,” she wrote while saying the vote moved Congress closer to enacting additional sanctions on Russia.
She said she planned to support the underlying legislation when it reached a final House vote.
The sanctions measure passed the Senate 86-11 and would expand economic pressure on Russia while also giving President Donald Trump additional tariff authority against countries purchasing Russian energy.
The legislation also targets Russian energy and defense interests, sanctions-evasion networks and Iran.
Some House Democrats support stronger sanctions on Moscow but have raised concerns about provisions granting Trump broader discretion over tariffs and waivers.
Those disagreements helped turn what might otherwise have been a broadly bipartisan foreign-policy measure into a more complicated procedural fight.
The vote also revived tensions between Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez and House Democratic leadership.
Both lawmakers broke with their caucus on another rule vote earlier this month, prompting an unusually sharp response from Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other Democratic leaders.
🚨 BREAKING: HOUSE PASSES IT BY THREE VOTES. 214-211. 🇺🇸
The gavel just slammed. The resolution is ADOPTED.
House Republicans just rammed through the rule to: 🔥 Stand up a National Fraud Enforcement Division at DOJ 🔥 Supercharge federal-state crackdowns on fraud in federal… pic.twitter.com/5piusnftrC— CONSTITUTION X 🇺🇸 (@ConstitustionX) September 15, 2026
🚨 JUST IN: The US House has just PASSED H Res 1530 which tees up legislation to solidify a National Fraud Enforcement Division at the Department of Justice
2 DEMOCRATS joined Speaker Johnson to make this pass: Golden and Gluesenkamp, and it passed BECAUSE OF THEM
HAKEEM… pic.twitter.com/CnB0miTBvJ
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 15, 2026
At the time, Democratic leaders called the move a “significant breach of trust” and said the caucus’ rules committee would review the matter.
No publicly announced punishment had followed before Tuesday’s second defection.
Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez have both cultivated reputations as members willing to separate from Democratic leadership on selected votes.
Golden is retiring from Congress at the end of his current term, reducing the political consequences he personally faces from another intraparty dispute.
Gluesenkamp Perez is seeking reelection in a Washington district that supported Trump in 2024, making her voting record a major feature of her campaign.
Tuesday’s vote does not itself enact the Russia sanctions legislation.
Instead, the rule establishes the procedures allowing the House to debate and vote on that bill and several other measures.
The sanctions legislation is expected to receive a separate final vote as lawmakers attempt to complete business before leaving Washington ahead of the midterms.
For Jeffries, the episode provided another example of two members refusing to follow Democratic leadership on a procedural vote, Fox News reported.
For Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez, the explanation was equally direct: they believed advancing the Russia sanctions bill mattered more than maintaining party unity on the rule.
Letitia 'No One's Above the Law' James Just Got Sued And You Won't Stop Clapping
Letitia ‘No One’s Above the Law’ James Just Got Sued And You Won’t Stop Clapping

New York Attorney General Letitia James loves to sermonize that “No one is above the law,” but her record shows she really means “No one named Trump is above my political agenda.” Her entire campaign was a single-issue crusade built on the promise to “Get Trump,” and she delivered by filing a bizarre, victimless “fraud” case against him that even the banks involved openly rejected. Not one financial institution claimed harm. Not one lender said they wouldn’t do business with him again.
But that didn’t stop Judge Arthur Engoron—whose bias was obvious from the bench—from imposing an eye-watering, politically convenient fine of nearly half a billion dollars. It was so grotesquely disproportionate that an appeals court finally tossed it in August, delivering a much-needed reality check to James’s lawfare spectacle.
That’s Letitia James in a nutshell—always pushing the ethical limits, always using the weight of her office to intimidate anyone she marks as a political foe. Bullying isn’t an unfortunate byproduct of her approach; it is her approach.
So it’s hardly shocking that a school board chair in New York is now suing the attorney general, accusing James of threatening to oust board members who refused to bow to the progressive orthodoxy on allowing biological men into women’s sports:
The alleged threats came in a “guidance letter” [from James] that warned of the removal of any school board member who uses the wrong pronoun for a trans person, or if they allow students to publicly speak out at school board meetings about their fears and discomfort with student trans athletes using the wrong locker room for their biological sex.
A plaintiff in the suit, Massapequa Union Free School District Board Chair Kerry Wachter, alleged she was told that James’ office instructed her to mute and dismiss any board meeting speaker that expressed views opposing trans athletes in girls’ locker rooms and sports.
Massapequa Union Free School District Board Chair Kerry Wachter, alleged she was told that James' office instructed her to mute and dismiss any board meeting speaker that expressed views opposing trans athletes in girls' locker rooms and sports.
Wachter says James’ intimidation tactics are designed to intimidate her and others into silence:
“They’re saying if we allow this discussion in our board meetings, she can come in and remove us from the board,” Wachter told Fox News Digital. “They want me to stop public comment and stop them from speaking.”
Wachter added that trans students were not being directly named in any board meetings, and conversations were only based around the feelings and concerns of female students.
James claimed that school board members can be removed when “they willfully neglect their duty or violate legal protections for students in their districts.” She went on to add that the state’s Dignity for All Students Act (DASA) bars harassment and bullying.
Nevertheless, Attorney Kim Hermann from the Southeastern Legal Foundation has a note for James – There is an important constitutional principle known as the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment here reigns true, and so whether or not you have these state laws, a state cannot come in and just erase the First Amendment out of the Constitution,” Hermann said, per Fox News. “Whether or not statements and discussions about transgender and these different policies actually violate those state laws is absolutely irrelevant for what we’re talking about in this lawsuit.
James has shown time and again that she’s not an impartial public servant but a partisan enforcer, eager to weaponize her office against anyone who lands on her enemies list. She doesn’t just stretch her authority — she twists it into a political bludgeon.
If there’s any justice left in New York, this lawsuit will stick and finally force some accountability. Frankly, it’s long past time someone pushed back.