Iowa House speaker denies pressuring members over anti-trans bill

Fourth in a series on the new Iowa law that removed legal protection against discrimination for transgender and nonbinary Iowans, as well as any path for the state to officially recognize their gender identity.

Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley has denied that GOP leaders threatened to block progress on unrelated legislation as a way to convince reluctant Republican lawmakers to vote for a bill targeting transgender Iowans.

Grassley made the comments during his weekly “gaggle” with statehouse reporters in the House chamber on March 13. Here’s the relevant exchange:

I asked the question because in the days leading up to the February 27 floor debate on Senate File 418, some who worked in or around the legislature questioned whether House leaders had the votes to pass the bill. In the end, 60 of the 66 House Republicans voted for its passage, with five Republicans voting no on the floor and a sixth later indicating he would have opposed the legislation.

Several factors could have persuaded ten or more wavering lawmakers to support the anti-trans bill. They may have changed their mind after learning more about its provisions. They may have feared backlash from the grassroots, including social conservatives and MAGA Republicans, who might get behind a GOP primary challenger.

I also heard speculation that the holdouts faced pressure from the speaker or from committee leaders, who had the power to keep members’ legislation from advancing by the March 7 “funnel” deadline. Most policy bills not approved by at least one standing committee before that date are considered “dead” for the remainder of the 2025 session.

Bills that don’t make statewide news can nonetheless be important to lawmakers and their constituents. So I asked Grassley whether he or House Majority Leader Matt Windschitl had warned any members “that if they didn’t vote for the gender identity bill, that certain legislation that they really cared about either wouldn’t get through the funnel or wouldn’t be brought to the floor for debate.”

Grassley was adamant: “We have not operated that way in the caucus, and I don’t know how much clearer I can be.” He noted that members who voted against the gender identity bill have been running legislation on the House floor, or had their bills brought to the floor. That’s accurate: five of the six Republicans who opposed the anti-trans bill—State Representatives Austin Harris, Brian Lohse, Michael Bergan, Chad Ingels, and Norlin Mommsen—floor managed at least one bill during House debate between March 10 and March 13. However, those non-controversial measures weren’t necessarily the members’ top legislative priorities.

Grassley added, “So I think that that’s completely untrue. Anyone that’s sharing that clearly doesn’t know the dynamic of our caucus. But, you know—the caucus function and us getting our bills done should not be impacted by decisions that individuals make on bills.” He noted that some GOP lawmakers had voted against bills “that maybe aren’t as significant,” and said leaders expect to be informed about such plans “so we can make good decisions before we bring things to the floor.”

Indeed, earlier on March 13, four House Republicans voted against a bill that would allow foster parents to consent to routine medical care for children in their care, six voted against a bill on local boards of adjustment, and five voted against a bill on court-appointed public defenders.

In a previous Q&A with reporters, Grassley denied threatening to remove House Republicans from committee chairmanships if they didn’t vote for the anti-trans bill. At this writing, none of the GOP opponents have lost their positions on any legislative panel.

About the Author(s)

Laura Belin

  • Why make such posts?

    Why would you make a post about something that has hear say and speculation and lacking facts based on testimony ? Or actions. ?

  • Thank you, Laura...

    …for asking the question and providing this interesting answer. I appreciate this post as a followup to what has already appeared on BH regarding SF 418. And thank you for providing the link to the board of adjustment bill.

  • Agree to disagree

    I agree with PrairieFan that you asked good and pertinent questions. I disagree that you were asking questions that jumped on speculation. Grassley needs to be held accountable and asking him about statements made by other members of his caucus. It is well known that Kim Reynolds Republicans are bound to her and if they choose to go astray, she is vindictive. Ask those Republicans who opposed her voucher plan.

  • oops.

    “asking him about statements made by other members of his caucus” is not out of line.

Comments