This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

A familiar group of conservative rebels stands between House Speaker Paul Ryan and his goal of passing an Obamacare repeal measure on Thursday: the House Freedom Caucus.

The group says it has enough votes to block the measure, arguing that it's not a complete enough repeal of the health-care law, and Thursday's vote could be the first sign of whether the caucus will be able to enforce its conservative principles in the age of President Donald Trump.

"I do not see the votes there to pass it," Representative Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and former chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told MSNBC Wednesday morning. "We want the president to succeed," he added, but "that doesn't change what's in the legislation."

If the Freedom Caucus is unable to win major changes —- or block the measure —- it could mark a double victory for Ryan by diminishing the influence of a group that led the ouster of his predecessor, John Boehner.

Indeed, a Republican aide said that House leaders see the prospect of damaging the clout of the Freedom Caucus as a satisfying byproduct of passing the health-care measure.

Trump and Republican leaders spent Tuesday trying to woo the remaining Republican holdouts to support the health-care bill after leaders unveiled a set of modest tweaks to the measure Monday night.

So far, about a dozen members of the Freedom Caucus have come around to embrace the bill. The group claims to have roughly 40 members, but doesn't publish an official roster.

Whether any of the Freedom Caucus' remaining holdouts will drop their opposition to the health-care measure before Thursday's vote will determine the outcome. Those holdouts are being cheered on by several Senate conservatives, including Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah.

The group's chairman, Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, acknowledged Tuesday that its negotiating position would be weakened in future debates if the bill makes it through the House with no changes beyond a manager's amendment released Monday.

"Without a doubt," he said. "It would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise."

But Meadows said the stakes are high enough to take the risk.

"I think it's more important that we get it right for the American people. Most Americans could care less what happens to the Freedom Caucus —- they only care about what happens to them, and as long as I keep my focus on them I'm in good shape," Meadows said.

Meadows was singled out as a holdout by Trump during a closed-door meeting with House Republicans Tuesday morning. He said that he later received two calls from administration officials, but hasn't changed his mind on the measure.

A growing number of Republicans are questioning the mission of the Freedom Caucus with Trump in the White House.

"I've said they don't serve a purpose any longer," said Rep. Chris Collins, a New York Republican and early Trump supporter. "They served a purpose on the far right to message to Barack Obama. It is now President Trump."

On top of that, there's been a growing perception among some lawmakers and congressional analysts that the caucus has simply lost its nerve.

"There's a sense on . . . (Capitol) Hill that the Freedom Caucus always caves," said Sarah Binder, a congressional expert at the Brookings Institution. "So caving this time would surely further diminish their leverage for future fights."

Of course, the group's reputation for ultimately yielding ground in past fights may say more about their limited power when Obama was in the White House —- and when every bill had to move toward the center to secure passage.

But for the caucus to fold again, said Binder, would provide another lesson that Republican leaders will draw that they can mold bills by picking off a few caucus members without having to engage the entire group.

Meadows said Tuesday that his group still has the 21 votes necessary to prevent the bill from passing. There are also several other pockets of holdouts in the caucus.

Rep. David Brat, a Republican caucus member from Virginia, said that while Trump called him personally last week, he was still opposed to the bill. For him, the Freedom Caucus' goals haven't changed just because the president has.

They still "want to move this bill toward free market solutions, not the federal government running one sixth of the economy," he said. "Everything's exactly the same, same logic."

But Collins said the Freedom Caucus should fold itself back into the 170-member Republican Study Committee, which it broke away from several years ago, and "join the team."

"We are the governing body with the White House, the House and the Senate," he said. "They are acting like a minority obstructionist group, which was fine when we were."

Rep. Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina, said the Freedom Caucus will damage itself if it ends up blocking the measure, though he predicts most members eventually will come on board.

"How can they go back and face their constituents if they're the reason we didn't get the most significant entitlement reform in a generation, if they're the reason we didn't keep our promise of repealing Obamacare," Hudson said. "It defies me to understand where they're coming from."

Rep. Tom Cole, a Republican from Oklahoma, said that the Freedom Caucus still has an important role to play in the conference, and credited them for the additions of two key changes to Medicaid, an optional work requirement and the option to states for block grants. But while the Republican party has proven that it's a "very good opposition party," it now has to prove it can govern, he said.

"If you accept credit for the improvements you've made, you have to take responsibility for the defeats you inflict, and it would be a great disappointment to me if we lost," he said.

But there is plenty of political cover if they do bring down the bill. A number of conservative groups have also come out against the measure, including Heritage Action and the Club for Growth.

"That's fertile territory for Freedom Caucus members to stand pat at relatively little political cost," said Binder.

—With assistance from Anna Edgerton and Margaret Talev