United States Representative and crypto-friendly lawmaker Patrick McHenry has been appointed as interim House Speaker after the high-profile ousting of U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
McCarthy’s ousting came after a 216–210 vote by Congress, with eight of the 216 votes coming from McCarthy’s fellow Republicans, marking the first time a House Speaker has been removed in U.S. history, according to Reuters.
The vote was prompted by a motion from one of McCarthy’s political rivals, Matt Gaetz, who called into question several contradictory promises made by McCarthy.
Though temporary, McHenry’s appointment could be seen as a small win for the digital asset sector. The Speaker sets the House’s legislative agenda, controls committee assignments, and schedules specific bills to be debated and voted upon in the chamber.
The House Speaker is considered the most influential position in the U.S. government behind the president and vice president.
McHenry also grilled SEC Chair Gary Gensler in his testimony before Congress last week, suggesting he’s attempting to “choke off the digital asset ecosystem.” McHenry also called Gensler out for refusing to be transparent with Congress about the SEC’s connections with FTX and its former CEO, Sam Bankman-Fried.
SEC Chair @GaryGensler refuses to schedule a Commission vote to provide Congress with requested documents.
Should Gensler continue to stonewall, Republicans will have no choice but to issue the first subpoena to the SEC from my Committee to compel their production. https://t.co/Aw5U0aJ0Tt
However, McHenry’s tenure as House Speaker may be short-lived, with an official vote on a new House Speaker set for Oct. 11, according to Bloomberg.
A Reuters report speculates that, along with McHenry, there is a possibility that pro-crypto Representative Tom Emmer or even Donald Trump could be a possible replacement for McCarthy, though none have publicly expressed interest in taking the position.
50-50 we get a crypto champion as Speaker now, with Whip Emmer and Speaker pro tempore McHenry in the running. Wild day.
(Speaker of the House is third in power behind President and VP for the non-US followers out there.) https://t.co/2ow5li2lnw
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.