The Center for Renewing America, an influential right-wing think tank, has promoted a strategy that could prevent some Democratic candidates from taking office even if they win their elections. The proposal comes as polls suggest Democrats may perform strongly in the midterm elections and as the Trump administration pursues legal challenges in some races.
In a post titled “Can Congress Seat a Member-Elect Who Vows to Destroy our Constitution?”, CRA legal fellow Benjamin Osborne argues that candidates associated with what the organization calls a “Red-Green Alliance” could be barred from being seated. The post claims that people who allegedly support destroying the constitutional order could not truthfully swear to uphold it, as required before taking office.
CRA publications have used the term “Red-Green Alliance” to describe progressive politicians and Muslim politicians. One earlier publication included the House’s “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 publication characterized their politics as hostile to capitalism, Christianity and Western political traditions. None of the politicians named has identified as Marxist, although Ocasio-Cortez and Mamdani are Democratic Socialists.
Constitutional scholars say the proposal would face serious legal obstacles. Richard Pildes, a New York University law professor, described it as an attempt to distort established norms for partisan purposes. Corey Brettschneider, a Brown University professor of politics and constitutional law, said the arguments amounted to using the law and the Constitution to attack political opponents. He also noted that excluding a Muslim candidate because of religion would conflict with the Constitution’s prohibition on religious tests for office.
The CRA was founded by Russell Vought, a major architect of Project 2025 who now directs the Office of Management and Budget. Vought has faced criticism over past comments about Islam. He and his allies have described themselves as “radical constitutionalists,” while critics have accused Vought of expanding executive power by withholding or delaying funds approved by Congress. Last year, he froze $5 billion in foreign aid, and more than $800 million was later recovered, a move Senator Susan Collins said might violate the Impoundment Control Act. The CRA did not respond to a request for comment.
The practical impact of the proposed strategy could depend on the size of any Democratic victory. Christian Grose, a University of Southern California political science professor, said Republicans might be more likely to challenge results if Democrats won the Senate by only one or two seats. A larger majority, he argued, would make such efforts less viable.
In the House, the possibility could also depend on which party controls the chamber. If Republicans retained the majority, they could vote against seating incoming Democrats. The House took a similar step in 1967 when it refused to seat Adam Clayton Powell Jr. over allegations that he had misused public funds.
Grose said disputes could continue beyond the start of the new Congress in 2027, potentially requiring judges to decide whether challenged senators could take their seats. He described the situation as a possible confrontation between Congress and the courts. Pildes offered a more definitive assessment, saying the proposed strategy would not succeed.
Brettschneider nevertheless warned that an unsuccessful legal theory could still create pressure and fear. He said the proposal appeared to be testing whether the argument could gain traction, while broader attacks on political opponents could undermine institutional safeguards even if courts ultimately reject them.
Sources: WIRED.