Right‑Wing Think Tank Proposes Blocking Elected Democrats From Congress
A Center for Renewing America paper argues that certain Democratic winners could be denied their seats on constitutional grounds.
Background of the proposal
The Center for Renewing America (CRA), a right‑wing think tank founded by Russell Vought, released a post titled “Can Congress Seat a Member‑Elect Who Vows to Destroy our Constitution?” The document suggests that candidates identified with a “Red‑Green Alliance” of “neo‑Marxist progressives and anti‑Western Muslims” could be barred from taking office even after winning.
Who is targeted
According to a CRA publication by executive director Wade Miller, the alleged alliance includes the “Squad”—Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar—as well as New York mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El‑Sayed. The piece describes these politicians as promoting “ideology dedicated to destroying capitalism, Christianity, and the Western political tradition.” None of the named individuals have self‑identified as Marxists, though Ocasio‑Cortez and Mamdani are Democratic Socialists.
Legal argument presented
Benjamin Osborne, a Georgetown Law graduate serving as CRA’s legal fellow, argues that a candidate who “personally embraced the destruction of the constitutional order” cannot truthfully swear to support that order, a condition required for taking office. He contends that this belief makes the candidate ineligible, regardless of election results.
Reactions from scholars
Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University School of Law, described the effort as “another attempt to contort and twist basic norms that have never been used this way for their own partisan purposes.” Corey Brettschneider, a Brown University professor of politics and constitutional law, warned that the approach “engaged in an attack on the Constitution and then trying to use the law of that as an attack on opponents,” and said a court would likely reject it quickly.
Brettschneider added that using a Muslim politician’s religion as a disqualification basis would be even harder, noting the Constitution’s explicit prohibition on religious tests for office.
Potential political impact
Christian Grose, a political science professor at the University of Southern California, said the strategy’s viability would depend on the size of any Democratic victory. He noted that if Democrats won only a few Senate seats, Republicans might attempt to dispute results to retain control, but a larger margin would make such challenges “preposterous.” For the House, Grose referenced the 1967 refusal to seat Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., suggesting a precedent for denying a seat, though circumstances differ.
Responses from targeted campaigns
El‑Sayed’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment about awareness of the CRA paper or any defensive measures.
Context on CRA leadership
Russell Vought, founder of CRA and current director of the Office of Management and Budget, has faced criticism for past anti‑Muslim remarks describing Muslims as having a “deficient theology” and “do not know God.” Vought has described himself and CRA allies as “radical constitutionalists.” He has also been noted for actions that limit congressional spending, such as freezing $5 billion in foreign aid and later clawing back more than $800 million, actions that Maine Senator Susan Collins suggested may violate the Impoundment Control Act.
CRA declined to comment when approached for a statement.
While the legal theory outlined by the Center for Renewing America appears unlikely to succeed in court, scholars agree the proposal is being floated to see whether it can gain traction.
