WASHINGTON — It was hours into a marathon House Judiciary meeting last week when Rep. Eric Swalwell began to test the bounds of the cold shoulder treatment Republicans were giving Democrats.

“If you want to be silent, I’m going to take your silence as you agreeing with me,” the California Democrat said, trying to goad Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J. The room laughed.

Van Drew, amused and looking at him from across the room with a smile, didn’t take the bait. He didn’t start debating, but instead shouted: “I’ll get you at the next meeting.”

Across several House committee meetings last week, Republicans appeared to take the path of least resistance in the face of Democratic opposition as the panels considered their portion of the GOP’s budget reconciliation package.

Rank-and-file Republicans largely chose to not engage at those meetings, passing up opportunities to fight Democratic criticisms.

That left the other side with plenty of time to deliver speeches castigating the Republican proposal, which is on its way to becoming the most consequential measure in Congress this year.

At a markup of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Republican members gave opening statements praising the text. But aside from procedural comments, they remained quiet amid Democratic criticism as they voted down amendments proposed by the other side.

A similar dynamic played out at the House Homeland Security Committee, where committee members were largely silent and avoided debate with Democrats.

And after a markup of the House Armed Services Committee, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, said his side offered several amendments that would give Republicans an opportunity to exercise oversight over embattled Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“Not only did they defeat those amendments, they didn’t even bother to argue against them,” Smith said in a video. “Watch that hearing and you will notice one key thing: Not a single Republican made any effort to defend Pete Hegseth, despite the constant criticism that we Democrats offered.”

Among the markups last week, some of the amendments seemed aimed at provoking a Republican response.

One in the House Judiciary Committee would have prohibited funding outlined in the text from being used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport a U.S. citizen.

At the Armed Services panel, another amendment stipulated that funding in the measure could not go toward constructing or maintaining a dedicated makeup studio for the defense secretary within the Pentagon, among other buildings.

House Judiciary

The cold shoulder approach was perhaps the starkest in the House Judiciary Committee.

The panel is home to bare-knuckle debaters on both sides of the aisle, lawmakers ready to brawl over divisive issues and seemingly benign measures alike. In one example more than two years ago, lawmakers on the panel engaged in a heated and prolonged debate after a rules amendment was proposed regarding the Pledge of Allegiance.

But on Wednesday, Republicans on the panel mostly fell silent, besides procedural comments, the occasional quip and a five-minute opening speech from Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

Democrats used the space to deliver speeches with no pushback. And as the meeting drew on, they took the liberty of bantering amongst themselves as they continued to introduce amendments — all of which were rejected by the Republican majority.

GOP lawmakers, for their part, sat quietly and seemingly uninterested in their seats, or filtered in and out of the committee room periodically to vote down the amendments.

Even the topic of immigration, among the most divisive issues on Capitol Hill, wasn’t enough to entice Republicans into debating. Nor were the Democrat attacks on Trump’s immigration and deportation agenda.

At the markup, lawmakers were considering GOP text that would provide about $81 billion in new spending on immigration enforcement, among other topics, as part of its portion of the GOP budget reconciliation package.

Still, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the panel’s ranking member, noted that Republicans were simply voting down Democratic amendments without any explanation. The framers wanted Congress to be a place of speech and debate, he argued.

“There are profound things going on in America right now, very serious, heavy things taking place with the Trump administration,” Raskin said. “We need to be talking about them.”

The Republican approach left Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., with an apparent sense of disbelief. At one point he prodded Rep. Chip Roy, the outspoken Texas Republican, to debate him on a Democratic amendment that aimed at securing the reinstatement of recently canceled Justice Department grants.

“Mr. Roy, seriously? You won’t respond? We can’t have any conversation?” Neguse asked.

“Nice of you to join us,” Roy told Neguse, who had missed a long line of amendment votes before showing up.

Neguse laughed off the comment and pressed further, but Roy didn’t give in.

“Nothing? Mr. Roy, come on. Cause here’s the thing, I know for a fact you disagree with this strategy,” Neguse said. “I mean it is insanity. This is not elementary school.”

Roy, for his part, didn’t debate.

_____

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.