In a dramatic confrontation that has Congressional Republicans taking sides, President Trump has publicly broken with House Speaker Mike Johnson over allowing new parents to vote remotely—saying bluntly, “I don’t know why it’s controversial.”
At a Glance
- Trump supports allowing new parents in Congress to vote by phone for up to 12 weeks after childbirth
- Speaker Mike Johnson opposes the measure, citing constitutional concerns and past pandemic-era abuses
- Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who recently gave birth, is leading the bipartisan push for proxy voting
- Nine Republicans joined Democrats to reject Johnson’s attempt to block the proposal
- The disagreement has stalled House legislative business and highlighted growing tensions between Trump and Johnson
Common Sense vs. Constitutional Formalism
Once again proving he’s more interested in practical solutions than rigid traditions, former President Trump has come out swinging for a proposal that would give new parents in Congress the ability to vote remotely. The measure, championed by Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida—who recently became a mother herself—would permit lawmakers to cast votes by phone for up to 12 weeks following the birth of a child. Currently, no such accommodation exists for members of Congress, forcing new parents to choose between their constitutional duties and caring for their newborns.
Trump’s straightforward endorsement cuts through the typical Washington nonsense with his characteristic directness: “You’re having a baby, you should be able to call in and vote,” the former president stated. And he’s absolutely right. In what universe does it make sense to force elected representatives to physically show up in the Capitol while recovering from childbirth or caring for a newborn? This isn’t about constitutional principles; it’s about common sense accommodation for basic human needs in the 21st century.
Johnson’s Bizarre Opposition
Speaker Mike Johnson, apparently still struggling to establish his authority, has dug in his heels against the measure despite its overwhelming support within the House. Johnson’s stance reflects a concerning pattern of resistance to modernizing Congress and making it more accessible to a new generation of lawmakers. His primary objection centers on alleged abuses during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Democrats implemented a broader proxy voting system. “It was quickly abused. Republicans put an end to it then, and we cannot allow it again,” Johnson claimed.
“I don’t know why it’s controversial. You’re having a baby, I think you should be able to call in and vote. I’m in favor of that.” stated Donald Trump.
But this reasoning falls flat when applied to the narrowly tailored proposal at hand. We’re not talking about unlimited proxy voting for any reason—we’re talking about a limited 12-week accommodation specifically for parents of newborns. Johnson’s attempt to conflate these issues demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal or a troubling lack of compassion for the members of his own caucus who are starting families while serving their country. And let’s be honest—both possibilities are disqualifying for House leadership.
Luna Leads the Fight
Rep. Luna hasn’t backed down from the fight, even taking the extraordinary step of filing a discharge petition to force a vote on the measure, bypassing leadership’s obstruction. With 218 members already backing the proposal—including bipartisan support—Luna has the numbers on her side. Johnson’s attempt to block the measure was decisively rejected when nine Republicans joined Democrats in opposition, demonstrating that this isn’t a partisan issue but a human one.
“We discussed limiting the vote to just new moms who cannot travel because of health concerns.” said Ms. Luna.
Luna has also shown a willingness to compromise, suggesting a narrower version that would limit proxy voting to “new moms who cannot travel because of health concerns.” This reasonable approach makes Johnson’s continued opposition all the more puzzling. Are we really so wedded to outdated procedures that we’d force mothers to potentially risk their health to cast a vote in person? In what world does that reflect our values as conservatives who claim to stand for family and children?
The Real Constitutional Question
While Johnson and his allies hide behind vague “constitutional concerns,” they fail to address a more fundamental question: doesn’t the Constitution intend for elected representatives to actually represent their constituents? When a lawmaker is prevented from voting due to childbirth, their entire district loses their voice in Congress. Technology now allows us to solve this problem without compromising democratic principles. The real constitutional violation here is forcing districts to go without representation simply because their elected official gave birth.
With Trump now clearly backing this common-sense reform, Johnson finds himself increasingly isolated. This split highlights a growing divide between Trump’s pragmatic approach to governance and the rigid procedural formalism that too often characterizes establishment Republican thinking. If the GOP wants to be the party of working families, it’s time for Johnson to get with the program and support working parents in Congress.
