10 years later, the House Freedom Caucus is (mostly) a failure

It was 10 years ago this month that the House Freedom Caucus was born. Stemming from frustration with government spending and with Republican leadership, this group of far-right conservatives has had two overarching goals over the past decade.

First, they have sought to decrease government spending and to balance the federal budget through spending cuts. Second, they have sought to democratize the House of Representatives by redistributing power from leadership and putting it back in the hands of the members themselves.

Given these priorities, how successful have they been?

With respect to spending, the members of the Freedom Caucus won’t be unfurling the “Mission Accomplished” banner. In January 2015, the national debt stood near $23 trillion. It has since increased to over $36 trillion, with much of that coming with a fellow Republican, Donald Trump, in the White House. Members may try to point to some legislative victories, such as border control spending under the first Trump administration, but the fiscal goals that guided the group’s formation have not come to fruition.

The Freedom Caucus is often responsible for actually making laws less conservative. Members want legislation that is more conservative than the rest of the Republican caucus can support. When the caucus refuses to compromise with their fellow party members, Republican leadership then turns to Democrats for support. To earn the votes of these more liberal members, however, the legislation needs to shift to the left. The bill that passes the House is thus more moderate than the original piece of legislation. This has played out over and over again during the past decade, ranging from funding the Department of Homeland Security in 2015 to navigating the debt ceiling last session.

What about House procedure? Here, the Freedom Caucus has also been unsuccessful. For example, the group has fought for a return to “regular order,” which for them includes allowing individual members of the House to offer amendments to legislation on the floor. This finally happened during the previous session of Congress, but it remains the exception to the rule. Often, legislation cannot be amended at all, or amendments need to be pre-approved. In other words, the process concerns raised by the Freedom Caucus have gone largely unheeded.

Where the Freedom Caucus may have had its most demonstrable effect is on congressional leadership, particularly the position of Speaker of the House. Many conservatives who voted against John Boehner’s speakership in 2015 went on to form the Freedom Caucus. It was Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) who introduced the motion to vacate that year, which presaged Boehner’s resignation.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was next in line for the position, only to be vetoed by the Freedom Caucus before they acquiesced to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). In 2023, the Freedom Caucus was able to extract numerous concessions from McCarthy before he was elevated to the speakership. Many Freedom Caucus members also supported the motion to vacate that removed McCarthy just months later. However, they have not been able to elevate one of their own to the position, as Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) failed repeatedly to replace McCarthy.

So how should the House Freedom Caucus be evaluated? On its own terms, the group has come up short. Whether the issue is spending or congressional procedure, it has not achieved its founding goals.

That is not to say that the Freedom Caucus has not had an impact. Its members have been far more successful at stopping things from happening than getting what they want. They have also shaped the leadership of the House for years and have nudged legislation in a more moderate direction. In a time of intense polarization, coupled with narrow margins in the House, they have proven to be very important players. As long as these conditions hold, look for them to continue to be a powerful force in Congress — even if they don’t accomplish what they set out to.

Michael E. Bednarczuk, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Political Science at Austin Peay State University. He studies political behavior and public service.