Representative Jim Jordan may or may not break down the last few Republican holdouts who blocked his election as House speaker yesterday. But the fact that about 90 percent of the House GOP conference voted to place him in the chambers top job marks an ominous milestone in the Republican Partys reconfiguration since Donald Trumps emergence as its central figure.
The preponderant majority of House Republicans backing Jordan is attempting to elevate someone who not only defended former President Trumps efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election but participated in them more extensively than any other member of Congress, according to the bipartisan committee that investigated the January 6 insurrection. As former Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who was the vice chair of that committee, said earlier this month: Jim Jordan knew more about what Donald Trump had planned for January 6 than any other member of the House of Representatives.
Read: Jim Jordan could have a long fight ahead
Jordans rise, like Trumps own commanding lead in the 2024 GOP presidential race, provides more evidence that for the first time since the Civil War, the dominant faction in one of Americas two major parties is no longer committed to the principles of democracy as the U.S. has known them. That means the nation now faces the possibility of sustained threats to the tradition of free and fair elections, with Trumps own antidemocratic tendencies not only tolerated but amplified by his allies across the party.
Ian Bassin, the executive director of the bipartisan group Protect Democracy, told me that the American constitutional system is not built to withstand a demagogue capturing an entire political party and installing his loyalists in key positions in the other branches of government. That dynamic, he told me, would likely mean our 247-year-old republic wont live to celebrate 250. And yet, he continued, those developments are precisely what were witnessing play out before our eyes.
Sarah Longwell, the founder of the anti-Trump Republican Accountability Project, told me that whether or not Jordan steamrolls the last holdouts, his strength in the race reflects the position inside the party of the forces allied with Trump. Even if he doesnt make it, because the majorities are so slim, you cant argue that Jim Jordan doesnt represent the median Republican today, she told me.
Longwell said House Republicans have sent an especially clear signal by predominantly rallying around Jordan, who actively enlisted in Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 election, so soon after they exiled Cheney, who denounced them and then was soundly defeated in a GOP primary last year. Nominating Jim Jordan to be speaker is not them acquiescing to antidemocratic forces; it is them fully embracing antidemocratic forces, she said. The contrast between Jim Jordan potentially ascending to speaker and Liz Cheney, who is out of the Republican Party and excommunicated, could not be a starker statement of what the party stands for.
In one sense, Jordans advance to the brink of the speakership only extends the pattern that has played out within the GOP since Trump became a national candidate in 2015. Each time the party has had an opportunity to distance itself from Trump, it has roared past the exit ramp and reaffirmed its commitment. At each moment of crisis for him, the handful of Republicans who condemned his behavior were swamped by his fervid supporters until resistance in the party crumbled.
Even against that backdrop, the breadth of Republican support for Jordan as speaker is still a striking statement. As the January 6 committees final report showed, Jordan participated in virtually every element of Trumps campaign to subvert the 2020 result. Jordan spoke at Stop the Steal rallies, spread baseless conspiracy theories through television appearances and social media, urged Trump not to concede, demanded congressional investigations into nonexistent election fraud, and participated in multiple White House strategy sessions on how to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results.
Given that record, undermining the election is too soft a language to describe Jordans activities in 2020, Jena Griswold, Colorados Democratic secretary of state, told me. He was involved in every step to try to destroy American democracy and the peaceful transfer of the presidency. If Jordan wins the position, she said, you could no longer count on the speaker of the House to defend the United States Constitution.
Jordan didnt stop his service to Trump once he left office. Since the GOP won control of the House last year, Jordan has used his role as chair of the House Judiciary Committee to launch investigations into each of the prosecutors who have indicted Trump on criminal charges (local district attorneys in Manhattan and Fulton County, Georgia, as well as federal Special Counsel Jack Smith). Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, has described Jordans demand for information as an effort to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding that is flagrantly at odds with the Constitution.
The willingness of most GOP House members to embrace Jordan as speaker, even as he offers such unconditional support to Trump, sends the same message about the partys balance of power as the former presidents own dominant position in the 2024 Republican race. Though some Republican voters clearly remain resistant to nominating Trump again, his support in national surveys usually exceeds the total vote for all of his rivals combined.
Equally telling is that rather than criticizing Trumps attempts to overturn the 2020 election, almost all of his rivals have echoed his claim that the indictments hes facing over his actions are unfair and politically motivated. In the same vein, hardly any of the Republican members resisting Jordan have even remotely suggested that his role in Trumps attempts to subvert the election is a legitimate reason to oppose him. That silence from Jordans critics speaks loudly to the reluctance in all corners of the GOP to cross Trump.
If Jordan becomes speaker, it would really mean the complete and total takeover of the party by Trump, former Republican Representative Charlie Dent, now the executive director of the Aspen Institutes congressional program, told me. Because he is the closest thing Trump has to a wingman in Congress.
All of this crystallizes the growing tendency at every level of the GOP, encompassing voters and activists as well as donors and elected officials, to normalize and whitewash Trumps effort to overturn the 2020 election. In an Economist/YouGov national poll earlier this year, fully three-fifths of Trump 2020 voters said those who stormed the Capitol on January 6 were participating in legitimate political discourse, and only about one-fifth said they were part of a violent insurrection. Only about one-fifth of Trump 2020 voters thought he bore a significant share of responsibility for the January 6 attack; more than seven in 10 thought he carried little or no responsibility.
That sentiment has solidified in the GOP partly because of a self-reinforcing cycle, Longwell believes. Because most Republican voters do not believe that Trump acted inappropriately after 2020, she said, candidates cant win a primary by denouncing him, but because so few elected officials criticize his actions, the more normal elements of the party become convinced its not an issue or its not worth objecting to.
The flip side is that for the minority of House Republicans in highly competitive districts18 in seats that voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 and another 15 or so in districts that only narrowly preferred TrumpJordan could be a heavy burden to carry as speaker. Everyone is worried about their primary opponents, but in this case ameliorating the primary pressures by endorsing Jordan could spell political death in the general election in a competitive district, Dent told me. Even so, 12 of the 18 House Republicans in districts that Biden carried voted for Jordan onhis first ballot as a measure of their reluctance to challenge the partys MAGA forces.
The instinct for self-preservation among a handful of Republican members combined with ongoing resentment at the role of the far right in ousting Kevin McCarthy might be enough to keep Jordan just below the majority he needs for election as speaker; many Republicans expect him to fail again in a second vote scheduled for this morning. Yet even if Jordan falls short, its his ascent that captures the shift in the partys balance of power toward Trumps MAGA movement.
Bassin, of Protect Democracy, points to a disturbing analogy for what is happening in the GOP as Trump surges and Jordan climbs. When you look at the historical case studies to determine which countries survive autocratic challenges and which succumb to them, Bassin told me, a key determinant is whether the countrys mainstream parties unite with their traditional opponents to block the extremists from power.
Philip Wallach: Newt Gingrichs degraded legacy
Over the years, he said, that kind of alliance has mobilized against autocratic movements in countries including the Czech Republic, France, Finland, and, most recently, Poland, where the center-right joined with its opponents on the left to topple the antidemocratic Law and Justice party. The chilling counterexample, Bassin noted, is that during the period between World War I and World War II, center-right parties in Germany and Italy chose a different course. Rather than directly opposing the emerging fascist movements in each country, they opted instead to try to ride the energy of [the] far-right extremists to power, thinking that once there, they could easily sideline [their] leaders.
That was, of course, a historic miscalculation that led to the destruction of democracy in each country. But, Bassin said, right now, terrifyingly, the American Republican Party is following the German and Italian path. The belligerent Jordan may face just enough personal and ideological opposition to stop him, but whether or not he becomes speaker, his rise captures the currents carrying the Trump-era GOP ever further from Americas democratic traditions.
In years to come, it may become known simply as Chequers ’25.
But today’s summit between Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, at the prime minister’s country retreat, has the potential to be a landmark moment in UK-US history.
There’s plenty of scope for it to go horribly wrong, of course: over Jeffrey Epstein, Sir Keir’s pledge to recognise Palestine, the president’s lukewarm support for Ukraine, the Chagos Islands sell-off, or free speech.
But on the other hand, it could be a triumph for the so-called “special relationship” – as well as relations between these two unlikely allies – with deals on trade and tariffs and an improbably blossoming bromance.
Either way, this Chequers summit – on the president’s historic second state visit to the UK – could turn out to be one of the most notable one-to-one meetings between PM and president in 20th and 21st century history.
Image: Donald Trump and Keir Starmer wave as they board Air Force One on a previous trip. Pic: AP
It was then that the PM theatrically pulled King Charles’s invitation for this week’s visit out of his inside pocket in a spectacular stunt surely masterminded by the “Prince of Darkness”, spin doctor-turned-ambassador (until last week, anyway) Peter Mandelson.
And over the years, there have been some remarkable and historic meetings and relationships, good and bad, between UK prime ministers and American presidents.
From Churchill and Roosevelt to Eden and Eisenhower, from Macmillan and JFK to Wilson and Johnson, from Thatcher and Reagan, to Blair and Bush, and from Cameron and Obama… to Starmer and Trump, perhaps?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:08
‘History’ that binds the UK and US
A brief history of relationships between PMs and presidents
Throughout UK-US history, there have been many examples of a good relationship and close bond between a Labour prime minister and a Republican president. And vice versa.
Also, it has not always been rosy between prime ministers and presidents of the two sister parties. There have been big fallings out: over Suez, Vietnam and the Caribbean island of Grenada.
Leading up to this Chequers summit, the omens have not been good.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:47
Trump meets Starmer: What can we expect?
Second, the president arrived in the UK to a barrage of criticism from London mayor Sir Sadiq Khan, who accused him of doing more than anyone else to encourage the intolerant far right across the globe.
Image: Churchill and FDR at the White House in 1941. Pic: AP
Back in the mid-20th century, the godfather of the “special relationship” was wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, though it was 1946 before he first coined the phrase in a speech in the US, in which he also spoke of the “iron curtain”.
It was in 1941 that Churchill held one of the most significant meetings with a US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, at a Washington conference to plot the defeat of Germany after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour.
Churchill arrived in Washington in December after a rough 10-day voyage on a Royal Navy battleship and stayed three weeks, spending Christmas in the White House and on Boxing Day becoming the first UK PM to address Congress.
The close bond between Churchill and Roosevelt was described as a friendship that saved the world. It was even claimed one reason the pair got on famously was that they were both renowned cigar smokers.
Churchill and Truman
Image: Churchill and Truman catch a train from Washington in 1946. Pic: AP
After the war ended, Churchill’s “special relationship” speech, describing the alliance between the UK and US, was delivered at Westminster College, in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946.
The speech was introduced by president Harry Truman, a Democrat, with whom Churchill had attended the Potsdam Conference in 1945 to negotiate the terms of ending the war.
These two were also close friends and would write handwritten letters to each other and address one another as Harry and Winston. Mr Truman was also the only US president to visit Churchill at Chartwell, his family home.
Eden and Eisenhower
Image: Eden and Eisenhower shake hands at the conclusion of their three-day conference in 1956. Pic: AP
But the transatlantic cosiness came to an abrupt end in the 1950s, when Churchill’s Conservative successor Anthony Eden fell out badly with the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower over the Suez Crisis.
Mr Eden did visit Mr Eisenhower in Washington in January 1956, and the official record of the meeting describes the discussion as focussing on “policy differences and Cold War problems”.
Macmillan and JFK
Image: Harold Macmillan and John F Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base. Pic: AP
But in the early 1960s, a Conservative prime minister and a Democrat president with seemingly nothing in common, the stuffy and diffident Harold Macmillan, and the charismatic John F Kennedy, repaired the damage.
They were credited with rescuing the special relationship after the rupture of the Suez Crisis, at a time of high tensions around the world: the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and the threat of nuclear weapons.
The two leaders exchanged handwritten notes, as well as Christmas and birthday cards. The Macmillans visited the Kennedys twice at the White House, in 1961 and 1962 – the second described in the US as a “momentous” meeting on the Cuban crisis.
The relationship was abruptly cut short in 1963 by Supermac’s demise prompted by the Profumo scandal, and JFK’s assassination in Dallas. But after her husband’s death, Jacqueline Kennedy was said to have had a father-daughter relationship with Macmillan, who was said to have been enchanted with her.
Wilson and LBJ
Image: Johnson meeting with Wilson. Pic: Glasshouse Images/Shutterstock
After JFK, the so-called special relationship cooled once again – and under a Labour prime minister and Democrat president – when Harold Wilson rejected pressure from Lyndon B Johnson to send British troops to Vietnam.
Mr Wilson became prime minister in 1964, just two months after LBJ sent US troops. His first overseas trip was to the White House, in December 1964, and the PM returned to tell his cabinet: “Lyndon Johnson is begging me even to send a bagpipe band to Vietnam.”
Thatcher and Reagan
Image: Thatcher at Reagan’s 83rd birthday celebrations. Pic: Reuters
And even though Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were ideological soulmates, Thatcher was furious when she wasn’t consulted before the Americans invaded Grenada in 1983 to topple a Marxist regime.
Even worse, according to Mrs Thatcher’s allies, a year earlier, Reagan had stayed neutral during the Falklands War. Reagan said he couldn’t understand why two US allies were arguing over “that little ice-cold bunch of land down there”.
Image: Thatcher and Reagan became firm friends. Pic: Reuters
But their relationship didn’t just survive, it flourished, including at one memorable visit to the presidential retreat at Camp David in 1984, where Reagan famously drove Mrs T around in a golf buggy.
They would also memorably dance together at White House balls.
Blair and Bush
Image: Blair hosts Bush in Durham in 2003. Pic: PA
Camp David was also where, in 2001, Republican president George W Bush and Labour’s Sir Tony Blair embarked on the defining mission of his premiership: the Iraq War. It was to prove to be an historic encounter.
The war was the turning point of Sir Tony’s decade in Number 10. He was branded a liar over claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, he was vilified by the Labour left, and it was the beginning of the end for him.
And to add to the suspicion among Sir Tony’s critics that he was Mr Bush’s poodle, in 2006 at a G8 summit in St Petersburg – that wouldn’t happen now – a rogue microphone picked up the president calling, “Yo, Blair! How are you doing?”
Cameron and Obama
Image: Cameron and Obama serve food at a barbecue in the garden of 10 Downing Street. Pic: Reuters
Some years later, the Tory prime minister sometimes called the “heir to Blair”, David Cameron, bonded over burgers with the Democrat president Barack Obama, serving a BBQ lunch to military families in the Downing Street garden. They also played golf at the exclusive Grove resort in 2016.
They seemed unlikely allies: Obama, the first African-American president, and Cameron, the 19th old Etonian prime minister. It was claimed they had a “transatlantic bromance” in office. “Yes, he sometimes calls me bro,” Lord Cameron admitted.
But not everything went well.
The Tory PM persuaded Mr Obama to help the Remain campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, when he claimed the UK would be “at the back of the queue” on trade deals with the US, if it left the EU. It backfired, of course.
Now it’s Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to tread a delicate and potentially hazardous political tightrope as he entertains the latest – and most unconventional – US president.
The greatest dangers for Sir Keir will be a news conference in the afternoon, in the gardens, if the weather permits.
Good luck, as they say, with that.
Before then, there’s the potential for what the Americans call a “pool spray”, one of those impromptu, rambling and unpredictable Q&As we’ve seen so many times in the Oval Office.
For Sir Keir, what could possibly go wrong?
Chequers ’25 could be memorable and notable, like so many previous meetings between a PM and a president. But not necessarily for the right reasons for this UK prime minister.
The pomp and circumstance. The man who some say wants to be king, meets The King.
Trump and King Charles spend the day together. We digest what’s happened, why it’s happened, and what it all means. You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.
Email us on trump100@sky.uk with your comments and questions.
The comedian told his audience “many in MAGA land are working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk”.
He added the president’s response to Mr Kirk’s death “is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend”.
Disney-owned ABC said it would be taken off-air indefinitely – and with immediate effect – after network operator Nexstar said it would stop broadcasting the programme.
Andrew Alford, president of Nexstar’s broadcasting division, said it “strongly objects” to Kimmel’s comments.
“Mr Kimmel’s comments about the death of Mr Kirk are offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse,” he said, with the show to go off-air to “let cooler heads prevail”.
Mr Trump welcomed the news on Truth Social, writing “congratulations to ABC” and “Kimmel has ZERO talent”.
But Kimmel’s suspension has triggered outrage from Democrats like California Governor Gavin Newsom, who posted on X: “The @GOP [Republican Party] does not believe in free speech. They are censoring you in real time.”
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called for people “across the political spectrum… to stop what’s happening to Jimmy Kimmel”.
What happened?
Kimmel called out what he believes is hypocrisy in how Republicans have responded to Mr Kirk’s death.
In a separate Truth Social post in the early hours of Thursday, the president – who is in the UK for his state visit – announced the anti-fascist Antifa movement would be designated as a terrorist organisation.
Mr Kirk’s suspected killer, Tyler Robinson, appeared in court for the first time on Tuesday. Prosecutors said he had shared negative views about Mr Kirk, an influential media figure in the MAGA movement.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:54
The killing of Charlie Kirk
On the Monday edition of his show, Kimmel drew attention to Capitol rioters who “wanted to hang” Mr Trump’s first term vice president, Mike Pence, for certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 election win.
“Was that the liberal left? Or the toothless army who stormed the Capitol on January 6,” said Kimmel.
His remarks saw the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Trump backer Brendan Carr, threaten to “take action” against Disney and ABC.
A representative for Kimmel did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the cancellation.
Celebrities who have guested on his show joined Democrats in speaking out. Wanda Sykes accused Mr Trump of seeking to end freedom of speech, while Ben Stiller tweeted: “This isn’t right.”
The latest season of Jimmy Kimmel Live averaged 1.57 million viewers per episode, according to media research firm Nielsen – and the show’s YouTube channel has almost 21 million subscribers.
Kimmel follows in Colbert’s footsteps
The abrupt removal of Jimmy Kimmel Live comes after fellow late night host Stephen Colbert saw his programme cancelled, which fans claimed was a result of his criticism of Mr Trump.
Mr Trump presents himself as a staunch advocate of free speech, but regularly rails against media organisations which criticise him. This week he launched a lawsuit against The New York Times.
CBS announced in July it would end The Late Show when its current series ends next May.
In a statement, the network said the move was “not related in any way to the show’s performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.”
Mr Trump praised the move, saying “his talent was even worse than his ratings”.
Colbert’s Late Show won an Emmy for outstanding talk series for the first time at the weekend.