Two centrist House Democrats who voted to help Republicans get a procedural motion across the finish line are now facing down possible punishment from party leaders who say they were blindsided by the move.

Why it matters: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is taking an uncharacteristically aggressive public approach to the defections, to the thrill of some of his members.

---

• “I ‘effing love it,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). “We have to draw a bright line here and kick some ass or this will be the new norm.”
• Another House Democrat said Jeffries and his deputies “are right to make an example” of the two rogue centrists.

Catch up quick: Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) voted with Republicans to pass what is called a “rule” — a procedural measure that sets the terms for House debate on a package of bills.

• While lawmakers often break away from party leaders on standard legislative votes on legislation, these procedural votes almost always fall along party lines.
• The legislation advanced by the measure included a Republican resolution denouncing “socialism in all its forms,” which infuriated many Democrats because it also included language praising the GOP’s SAVE America Act.

What they’re saying: Jeffries, in a joint statement with Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) released Tuesday night, signaled plans to take action.

• “The decision by two of our colleagues to blindside the entire House Democratic Caucus and join with the Republican majority to pass a procedural rule on the brink of failing represents a significant breach of trust,” the trio said.
• “It is an action that necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order.”

The other side: Golden defended his vote by noting that the rule also contained a bill he co-authored to shield lobstermen from federal regulations protecting whales.

• Golden argued that leadership should not have been surprised by his vote and that his intentions were neither veiled nor unpredictable, telling Axios: “They couldn’t possibly think I would vote against my own bill, right?”
• Gluesenkamp Perez also cited Golden’s bill protecting lobstermen as the reason for her vote in a statement.
• Neither office immediately responded to requests for comment on the joint leadership statement.

What we’re hearing: A “general conversation about consequences” sprang up among members almost immediately after the vote on Tuesday, a second House Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Axios.

• The lawmaker said that while only “a few people” explicitly raised the idea of punishment, the “sentiment is wider spread.”
• Democratic leadership is “upset that they put all of the front liners in the position to take hard votes. Very upset,” said a third House Democrat.
• Several lawmakers told Axios that one idea being circulated is stripping Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez of their committee assignments.

Between the lines: Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez are facing intense anger from colleagues, who feel they snatched a potential win from the party with just a few months until the November midterm elections.

• “Golden and MGP not only broke trust with our leadership and the caucus writ-large, it was also a deeply selfish act,” said the first House Democrat.
• “They threw their frontline and other colleagues under the bus. There are votes that could have been avoided had the rule failed that members will now have to take a vote on.”

Reality check: Even members who are furious with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez acknowledge any action would likely be symbolic and, could, in the case of the latter, backfire politically.

• Golden is retiring come Jan. 3, while Gluesenkamp Perez is running for reelection in one of the most Republican-leaning House districts held by a Democrat.
• A moderate House Democrat also told Axios that the action outlined in Jeffries’ statement represents a “pretty strong response” and “thus needs to be consistent and dished out accordingly to all factions of caucus.”

Between the lines: While Jeffries and Clark were together on the joint statement, sources said there was significant tension between their offices in the immediate aftermath of Tuesday’s vote.

• Jeffries’ initial reaction to the vote was to point to Clark, whose job is to get members in line on votes, telling reporters, “You’ll have to talk to Katherine.”
• A Clark spokesperson stressed that, like Jeffries, Clark did not get a heads-up about how Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez planned to vote.

The bottom line: “I think if you throw all of your colleagues under the bus by voting with the other party on a procedural rule vote, you should lose your committee assignments and get reassigned to the arts and crafts committee,” said Huffman.