comment: >
  
  He'll be stuck constantly trying to please everyone. Of course, just because one person initiates the vote doesn't mean that there'll be a majority to support it, but it certainly could be very disruptive. Since the Freedom Caucus doesn't seem to be interested in actually passing any legislation, they could just use it to disrupt proceedings when they feel like it. No confidence motions could be the new filibuster.
context: It means he’s on an insanely short leash. He’s not well liked nor trusted by members of his own caucus >
  
  I did read somewhere that this isn't an insane change. It's a revert to rules pre-2019. The requirement for a caucus head to request it is pretty recent. >
  
  Yeah, the change it’s reversing sounds stranger than the way it was before.