Rep. Greg Steube plans a House rule amendment to block candidates tied to socialist movements who refuse the constitutional oath from being seated in Congress, arguing it protects the institution and the nation.
Rep. Greg Steube said he will file an amendment that would bar certain New York Democratic Socialists from taking their seats if they refuse to swear the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. He frames this move as a straightforward defense of the oath requirement every member must take before serving in Congress. The proposal aims to turn a legal obligation into an explicit House rule so there is no ambiguity about eligibility.
One targeted figure is Daraliza Avila Chevalier, who helped found Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a coalition of anti-Israel, antisemitic student organizations at Columbia University. CUAD’s stated goals included the ‘eradication of Western civilization’ as well as the eradication of America. That kind of rhetoric signals a fundamental rejection of the system the Constitution exists to protect.
https://x.com/RepGregSteube/status/2070118119230599574
Steube discussed his plan in an interview with Benny Johnson, laying out why he believes a rules change is necessary before hostile actors can be sworn in. His approach is procedural and pointed, designed to close a loophole he sees as dangerous. Republicans view the move as preemptive and practical, not merely partisan theater.
“If they refuse to swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, which we are required to do as members of Congress, they should not be seated,” Steube said. “So when have the elections in November, we don’t swear in until January. Every member of Congress has to swear an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. If she’s refusing to do that, then she should not be seated.”
“And if we have to pass rules, I think we should pass a rule … that if you refuse to swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States, you shall not be seated as a member of that Congress,” Steube added. “So, if you can’t do that, you shouldn’t be seated as a member of Congress and we should change the rules of the House to reflect that.”
“Every Congress, every two years, we sign a new rules package,” Steube said. “It has to be voted by the membership, it’s obviously usually partisan, so whoever has the majority files a partisan package. We should change the rules to explicitly state that if you cannot swear an oath to the Constitution that’s required by law, that you will defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which is a requirement of a member of Congress, you shall not be seated as a member of that Congress. We need to make that change before people like that get here.”
There is real reason for urgency here: if candidates publicly embrace organizations or goals that call for dismantling the foundations of the republic, they are signaling an unwillingness to defend the system they would serve. Turning the oath into a clear, enforceable House rule removes any game-playing about intent. Republicans say that kind of clarity protects voters and the functioning of government.
Opponents will call this partisan, but the core question is simple and constitutional: will someone swear to uphold the law and the republic or not? Democrats across the spectrum should be comfortable insisting that anyone seated in Congress affirm allegiance to the Constitution, because that is the basic standard for public service. If a candidate rejects that standard, they should not be allowed to begin casting votes on behalf of the American people.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have made it very clear that the destruction of America is their goal. That makes the issue more than academic: it is about preventing those committed to dismantling the nation from using its institutions to carry out that mission. House rules that require a clear oath to be taken and enforced are meant to stop that path before it starts.
Steube’s proposal also raises a practical parliamentary point: rules packages are adopted every two years, and the majority can set terms for how the chamber operates. Republicans want those terms to include an explicit bar against seating anyone who refuses the constitutional oath. Crafting a rule now is about building guardrails for the next Congress.
The controversy will play out both legally and politically. Courts could be asked to weigh in if the House attempts to exclude someone who won an election, and voters will judge candidates who support ideologies that reject American institutions. For now, Steube has put the question squarely into the House rules debate and forced a conversation about loyalty, law, and responsibility.
Whatever the next steps, the move reinforces a larger Republican message: the Constitution is the baseline, not a bargaining chip. Making that baseline unambiguous is the point of the proposed amendment, and defenders of the republic will push to see it adopted before any elected official with hostile views tries to claim a seat.
