In a stunning act of betrayal that should alarm every conservative, four Republican representatives joined all 214 House Democrats on Wednesday to trigger a discharge petition forcing a vote on extending Obamacare subsidies—delivering House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries a major procedural victory over Speaker Mike Johnson and conservative principles.
Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania), Mike Lawler (New York), Rob Bresnahan (Pennsylvania), and Ryan Mackenzie (Pennsylvania) provided the four signatures Democrats needed to reach the 218-member threshold required to bypass Republican leadership and force consideration of legislation extending enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits for three years without any meaningful reforms.
This represents the second time in recent weeks that a handful of moderate Republicans have used the discharge petition—traditionally a tool of the minority party—to undermine their own leadership and deliver victories to Democrats. Last month, similar GOP rebels teamed with Democrats to force release of Jeffrey Epstein files. Now they're expanding a failed government healthcare program that was supposed to be temporary.
The Obamacare Subsidies: A COVID-Era Mistake Made Permanent
The enhanced premium tax credits at issue were enacted during the Biden administration as supposedly temporary COVID-era relief. No Republicans voted for them. They were designed to expire, yet Democrats and some Republicans now want to extend them for three more years—making "temporary" relief effectively permanent.
Without these subsidies, insurance premiums would increase for approximately 22 million Americans who purchase coverage through Affordable Care Act exchanges. Democrats and moderate Republicans portray this as a crisis requiring immediate action. But this fundamentally misunderstands both the constitutional role of Congress and the economic realities of government intervention in healthcare markets.
The enhanced subsidies allow individuals earning up to $500,000 annually to receive taxpayer-funded healthcare assistance. This isn't helping the poor—it's middle-class and upper-middle-class welfare. A Government Accountability Office report from December revealed that individuals with false identities, invalid Social Security numbers, and even deceased persons routinely receive these taxpayer-funded subsidies. The program is riddled with fraud, yet moderate Republicans want to extend it without meaningful reforms.
Republican leadership proposed alternative legislation addressing healthcare costs for all Americans—not just the 7% enrolled in Obamacare exchanges—through pharmacy benefit manager reforms, cost-sharing reduction funding, and expansion of association health plans. This approach would lower premiums broadly without extending a fraud-plagued subsidy program.
The moderates rejected this conservative solution and instead signed Jeffries' petition demanding a "clean" three-year extension with zero reforms.
Constitutional Principles Abandoned
The Obamacare fight exposes fundamental disagreements about constitutional governance and the proper role of federal government. The Constitution grants Congress no authority to operate a national healthcare system, subsidize insurance purchases, or dictate the terms of private insurance contracts.
The Tenth Amendment reserves to states and the people all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government. Healthcare is not among Congress's enumerated powers. The individual mandate—Obamacare's original enforcement mechanism—was only upheld by the Supreme Court through Chief Justice John Roberts' tortured reasoning that recharacterized the penalty as a tax. Even Roberts acknowledged the constitutional problems inherent in federal healthcare mandates.
Conservative Republicans understand these constitutional limits and oppose expanding federal control over healthcare on both practical and philosophical grounds. Moderate Republicans like Fitzpatrick, Lawler, Bresnahan, and Mackenzie apparently don't share these concerns—or don't care enough about constitutional principles to stand firm against Democratic pressure.
The Political Calculation: Profiles in Cowardice
The four Republicans who signed Jeffries' petition represent swing districts that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. They face competitive reelection fights in 2026 and worry that allowing subsidies to expire will hurt them politically.
This is the oldest political calculation: prioritize short-term electoral survival over constitutional principles and sound policy. Rather than educating constituents about why extending fraud-plagued subsidies without reforms is bad policy, these representatives chose the path of least resistance—giving Democrats exactly what they wanted.
Representative Mike Lawler delivered a profanity-laced tirade against Republican leadership after a closed-door meeting, telling reporters he was "pissed" and calling leadership's refusal to hold a vote on the subsidies "absolute bullshit" and "political malpractice."
This outburst reveals the mindset: political survival trumps everything else. Lawler and his colleagues aren't standing on principle—they're panicking about their reelection prospects and blaming leadership for not providing them political cover.
The Myth of "Bipartisan Compromise"
Fitzpatrick defended his betrayal by claiming he sought "compromise" and only signed the Democratic petition after Republican leadership refused to allow a vote on his alternative proposal—a two-year extension with some reforms attached.
This argument is disingenuous. Fitzpatrick's proposal would still expand a constitutionally questionable federal healthcare program, still funnel billions in taxpayer dollars to subsidize insurance for people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars, and still fail to address the fundamental problems with government intervention in healthcare markets.
The fact that Fitzpatrick's bad idea included slightly more reforms than the Democrats' terrible idea doesn't make it good policy. It's the classic Washington game: position yourself as the "reasonable moderate" by splitting the difference between constitutional conservatism and progressive statism, then claim anyone who refuses to compromise with the left is an extremist.
Real compromise would involve Democrats accepting that temporary COVID relief should expire as intended, then working with Republicans on market-based healthcare reforms that don't expand federal power or increase the deficit. Instead, Fitzpatrick and his allies accepted the Democratic framing that extending subsidies is necessary and inevitable—the debate was only about how long to extend them.
Speaker Johnson's Impossible Position
Speaker Mike Johnson faces an extraordinarily difficult situation. He presides over the smallest House majority in modern American history—220 Republicans to 213 Democrats. This razor-thin margin means just a handful of defectors can deliver victories to Democrats.
Johnson defended his leadership after the discharge petition succeeded, telling reporters: "I have not lost control of the House. We have the smallest majority in U.S. history. These are not normal times. There are processes and procedures in the House that are less frequently used when there are larger majorities. But when you have a razor-thin margin, as we do, then all the procedures in the book people think are on the table."
This is accurate but insufficient. Yes, the thin margin creates challenges. But Johnson and Republican leadership must do a better job of enforcing party discipline and making clear that Republicans who repeatedly side with Democrats will face consequences.
In past eras, party leadership controlled committee assignments, campaign funding, and other levers that could punish disloyalty. Modern campaign finance laws and the rise of social media have weakened these tools, but they still exist. Republicans who join Democrats on discharge petitions should face removal from desirable committee assignments, loss of leadership support in primaries, and other consequences that make betrayal costly.
The Broader War on Conservative Principles
The Obamacare discharge petition represents just one battle in a larger war over the Republican Party's identity and direction. Are Republicans the party of constitutional limited government, free markets, and individual liberty? Or are they "Democrats lite"—accepting the basic premises of progressive governance while quibbling over implementation details?
Moderate Republicans like Fitzpatrick argue they're being pragmatic and realistic, responding to constituent concerns and electoral pressures. But this pragmatism inevitably leads toward bigger government, higher spending, and erosion of constitutional limits.
Consider the trajectory: Democrats create temporary COVID relief programs. The programs become politically popular with certain constituencies. Moderate Republicans panic about letting them expire. Democrats demand extension without reforms. Moderate Republicans agree, maybe extracting minor concessions. The "temporary" programs become permanent. Spending increases, government power expands, and the cycle repeats.
This is how we arrived at $36 trillion in federal debt, a federal government consuming over 20% of GDP, and Americans increasingly dependent on government programs for healthcare, retirement, education, and more. Every compromise, every pragmatic acceptance of progressive premises, moves the country further from constitutional principles toward European-style social democracy.
What Should Happen Next
The discharge petition requires seven legislative days to lapse before forcing a vote. The House adjourns for the holidays Friday, returning January 6. This means the vote on extending Obamacare subsidies will likely occur in the second week of January—unless Johnson expedites it.
Conservative Republicans should use this time to:
Educate constituents: Explain why extending fraud-plagued subsidies without reforms is bad policy that expands government, increases spending, and fails to address underlying healthcare cost problems.
Rally the base: Make clear that the four Republicans who signed the Democratic petition betrayed conservative principles and deserve primary challenges from committed constitutional conservatives.
Develop alternative solutions: Present market-based healthcare reforms that lower costs through competition and choice rather than government subsidies and mandates.
Enforce consequences: Remove the four defectors from desirable committee assignments and make clear that future betrayals will result in complete loss of leadership support.
Even if the House passes the three-year extension, it faces uncertain prospects in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has criticized the COVID-era subsidies and expressed preference for comprehensive healthcare reform rather than simple extension. Several Senate Republicans voted against a similar measure last week.
President Trump could also veto the legislation if it reaches his desk, though his position remains unclear. Trump has expressed general opposition to Obamacare but might face pressure from moderate Republicans in swing districts to sign a subsidy extension.
The Constitutional Remedy: Let It Expire
The constitutionally and economically correct approach is simple: allow the enhanced subsidies to expire as intended. These were temporary COVID relief measures, not permanent entitlements. Letting them sunset doesn't eliminate the Affordable Care Act—it simply removes enhanced subsidies that Congress never intended to be permanent.
Would some Americans face higher insurance premiums? Yes. But those premium increases reflect the actual cost of insurance without taxpayer subsidies—prices that signal real economic information and incentivize more efficient healthcare consumption.
Government subsidies distort markets by hiding true costs from consumers. When someone else pays most of the bill, consumers have little incentive to shop for value or limit unnecessary care. This drives up overall healthcare spending while creating constituencies dependent on continued subsidies.
Conservatives should embrace price transparency and market discipline rather than perpetuating the fiction that government can make healthcare "affordable" through subsidies that simply shift costs to taxpayers while increasing total spending.
The Stakes for 2026
The four Republicans who betrayed conservative principles face difficult primaries in 2026. Conservative activists should recruit strong primary challengers who will commit to constitutional principles over political expediency.
Fitzpatrick, Lawler, Bresnahan, and Mackenzie will argue they protected constituents from premium increases. Primary challengers should explain that real protection comes from market-based reforms that lower underlying costs—not government subsidies that hide costs while increasing overall spending.
The 2026 primaries will test whether Republican voters reward or punish collaboration with Democrats on expanding government programs. The answer will determine whether the Republican Party remains committed to constitutional limited government or becomes merely the slower-moving version of progressive statism.
American voters deserve a real choice: genuine constitutional conservatism versus progressive big government. When moderate Republicans eliminate that choice by giving Democrats what they want, they betray not just their party but the constitutional principles that made American prosperity possible.
Four Republicans handed Hakeem Jeffries a victory on Wednesday. Conservative voters should return the favor by handing those four Republicans primary defeats in 2026.
