Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio won election as the House Republican leader for the next Congress, defeating current Majority Leader Steve Scalise as the party organised its leadership after the midterm elections. The result puts Jordan in line to lead House Republicans in the minority. His election came as the House blocked an effort to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his handling of the war with Iran and other issues.

Jordan prevailed by 106 to 73, according to people familiar with the tally. Those figures measure support in the Republican leadership contest, rather than seats won in the midterms or votes on the House floor. They establish a clear result between the two candidates while also showing that Scalise retained support within the party. The contest determined who would lead House Republicans in the next Congress, with Jordan defeating a colleague who currently holds a senior leadership position.

The distinction between the candidates’ current and incoming roles is important to the transition. Scalise entered the contest as House majority leader; Jordan was elected to serve as House minority leader in the next Congress. The outcome therefore concerns both a change in the party’s leadership and its organisation for minority status. It is not an election of Jordan to Scalise’s existing majority-leader position, nor does the leadership tally itself provide a measure of the parties’ strength across the chamber.

Read more: House votes 211 to 204 to halt Hegseth impeachment push

The vote gives a concrete indication of Republican preferences between Jordan and Scalise, but its explanatory reach is limited. The 106 votes for Jordan and 73 for Scalise do not, on their own, identify the issues that shaped members’ decisions. Nor do they establish how those members will align on legislation or other leadership questions. The available details contain no statements from either candidate explaining the outcome, setting out a programme or describing how they intend to work together.

Scalise’s position as current majority leader makes the result a defeat for an established member of the House Republican leadership. Jordan’s victory nevertheless should not be read as evidence of a particular policy mandate beyond the choice of leader. The reported figures identify the winner and the support received by each candidate, not the motivations behind those votes. Without accounts from the participants, attributing the outcome to a specific ideological dispute or a reaction to the midterms would go beyond the available facts.

Republican leadership selection also extended to the Senate as the party organised after the elections. The information available for this report, however, identifies no Senate winner, candidate list or vote tally. Jordan’s election supplies a definite House result, but it cannot establish the outcome in the other chamber. The distinction leaves the picture of Republican congressional leadership incomplete: the House contest has a named winner and a reported count, while a comparable Senate result is not provided.

Read more: California voters reject proposed 5% billionaire wealth tax, projections show

Separately, the House blocked an attempt to impeach Hegseth over his handling of the war with Iran and other issues. That action concerned the defense secretary rather than the selection of congressional leaders. The available account gives the outcome of the impeachment effort but does not supply a roll-call tally or explain the procedure used to stop it. It also does not detail the other issues cited in the effort, limiting the conclusions that can be drawn about its scope.

The two developments should therefore be considered separately. Jordan’s 106-to-73 victory was a Republican leadership decision; the action involving Hegseth was a House response to an impeachment effort. There is no supplied vote breakdown linking support for either leadership candidate to positions on the defense secretary. The leadership numbers cannot be used to describe the strength of the impeachment effort, and the decision to block that effort does not explain why Republicans chose Jordan over Scalise.

Nor does the defeat of the impeachment effort, by itself, resolve the underlying criticism of Hegseth’s conduct. The established outcome is narrower: the House stopped the attempt to impeach him. No response from Hegseth or statement from those pursuing impeachment is included in the available details. Reporting their competing arguments would require information beyond the stated grounds involving the Iran war and other issues.

For House Republicans, the next-Congress leadership choice is settled in Jordan’s favour. The immediate result is a new minority leader chosen over the current majority leader, with the reported tally documenting support for both candidates. Further details on Jordan’s plans and the Senate selections are needed to complete the account of the party’s post-midterm organisation.