5
#000000
#FFFFFF
healthcare
Senate GOP Faces Fresh Pressure After House Vote for Affordable Care Act Subsidies
"Today's vote represents a glimmer of hope for the 22 million Americans desperately trying to hold onto affordable health coverage for themselves and their families," said one campaigner.
Jan 08, 2026
US Senate Republicans are under renewed pressure to restore the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits after 17 GOP members of the House of Representatives helped Democrats pass legislation to extend the recently expired ACA subsidies by three years.
The 230-196 vote—in which five Republicans did not participate—came after GOP Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Michael Lawler (NY), Rob Bresnahan (Pa.), and Ryan Mackenzie (Pa.) broke with their party's leadership last month and signed a Democratic discharge petition that allowed the bill's backers to bypass House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
Joining those four Republicans and all House Democrats on Thursday were GOP Reps. Mike Carey (Ohio), Monica De La Cruz (Texas), Andrew Garbarino (NY), Jeff Hurd (Colo.), David Joyce (Ohio), Thomas Kean Jr. (NJ), Nick LaLota (NY), Max Miller (Ohio), Zachary Nunn (Iowa), Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.), David Valadao (Calif.), Derrick Van Orden (Wis.), and Rob Wittman (Va.).
"Despite Speaker Johnson's best efforts to block legislation to extend the ACA tax credits—Democratic leadership forced a vote and it passed!" declared Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.). "The Senate must immediately follow our lead to lower costs for millions of Americans who are seeing their premiums skyrocket."
Senators also celebrated the development and called for a vote in their GOP-controlled chamber.
"Finally after we pushed this for a year!" said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), noting that 17 House Republicans helped advance the bill. "The Senate must vote on it ASAP to lower costs for tens of millions of Americans."
Over 20 million Americans face soaring premiums because of the lapsed subsidies, and some people are forgoing health insurance coverage because of the new rates—which have surged alongside other rising costs tied to President Donald Trump's agenda.
"At a time when millions of Americans are being crushed under the weight of higher healthcare prices and cost-raising tariffs, this vote to bring back the healthcare tax credits is a testament to thousands of constituents nationwide who never let their members of Congress off the hook," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal.
"Now, we are taking this fight to the Senate," Tal continued. "Just like in the House, Senate Republicans have a choice—either stand with your constituents or vote to raise their healthcare costs exponentially. The answer should be clear."
While similarly welcoming the House passage, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin also called out the majority of Republicans in the chamber who opposed the bill, arguing that they "have once again chosen to abandon working families."
"Millions of everyday Americans have already seen their healthcare premiums skyrocket, and what are Donald Trump and Republicans doing to help? Not a damn thing," Martin said. "They already gutted Medicaid while handing out massive tax cuts to billionaires—and now they see no problem with allowing costs to skyrocket even more. House Democrats fought tooth and nail to pass this bill, and now the Senate must come to the table and extend the tax credits—it's time to stop screwing around with Americans' healthcare."
As the Associated Press reported:
A small group of senators from both parties has been working on an alternative plan that could find support in both chambers and become law. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said that for any plan to find support in his chamber, it will need to have income limits to ensure that the financial aid is focused on those who most need the help. He and other Republicans also want to ensure that beneficiaries would have to at least pay a nominal amount for their coverage.
Finally, Thune said there would need to be some expansion of health savings accounts, which allow people to save money and withdraw it tax-free as long as the money is spent on qualified medical expenses.
Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA, said Thursday that the House "discharge petition and vote put pressure on the president and the Republican congressional leadership to stop with the poison pills and procedural barriers and extend the enhanced tax credits so Americans can afford coverage."
"Millions of Americans began the new year facing staggering increases in their monthly health insurance premiums—in many cases seeing health costs double overnight," he noted. "This sudden spike, of more than $1,000 on average, is not just a shock—it's a breaking point. Without action, an estimated 4 million marketplace enrollees are expected to go uninsured, and many millions more will become underinsured, paying more and getting less."
"Today's vote represents a glimmer of hope for the 22 million Americans desperately trying to hold onto affordable health coverage for themselves and their families," he said. "Congress should not have needed a discharge petition to force a vote on something so overwhelmingly supported by the public and so essential to the health and financial security of American families. Every day we delay does further damage, so it's urgent for the Senate to stand with the 77% of voters who want to see a clean extension passed."
Wright also stressed that "with open enrollment ending in most states in just six days, families are being forced to make impossible choices in real time. Doing nothing is a choice to price out and push millions to lose coverage, rack up debt, and go without care. The Senate must now do its job and deliver the relief American families urgently need."
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) president Lee Saunders also took aim at the Senate on Thursday, saying that "the cost-of-living crisis is an unaffordable and unsustainable reality for millions of people, and it's getting worse."
"Thankfully, pro-worker lawmakers in the House voted today to restore the Affordable Care Act premium credits—a lifeline helping tens of millions of families afford healthcare," he said. "These tax credits also help keep costs lower for everyone else on health insurance—supporting them should be a no-brainer. We call on the Senate to act quickly and restore these tax credits. Working families are counting on them."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Sick of Illegal Wars and Staggering Healthcare Costs? Blame Congress
Members of Congress passed a $1 trillion war budget at the same time that congressional Republicans voted to refuse help for millions of Americans struggling to afford health insurance.
Jan 08, 2026
At a time when nearly half of Americans say they’re struggling to afford basic necessities, President Donald Trump has turned his attention to invading and ruling Venezuela.
One in two Americans are having trouble affording groceries, utilities, healthcare, housing, and transportation, according to a recent poll. Healthcare costs are rising—and in many cases doubling—for millions of Americans because Republicans in Congress refuse to help. And while grocery prices remain high, those same GOP lawmakers chose to cut food stamps for millions of struggling people.
Our government should be helping working people and families. Instead, the president chose to use our tax dollars to invade a foreign country. And while Trump said plenty about how the US will now rule over the people of Venezuela, he hasn’t explained why the same tax dollars that paid for this invasion can’t be used to make healthcare, food, or housing more affordable for people here.
The president added he’s “not afraid of boots on the ground” in Venezuela. But the last times the US attempted to take over other countries—in Iraq and Afghanistan—it cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and potentially millions of lives in the Middle East. It’s way too soon to make this mistake again—and Trump had previously promised he wouldn’t, calling those wars “foolish” and “stupid.”
But it’s not too late to improve this situation. Members of Congress can stop another unjustifiable war—and help Americans pay their bills instead.
To be sure, someone will benefit from this invasion—just not ordinary Americans. The president has offered oil companies taxpayer dollars to take Venezuela’s oil. They hardly need the help, though they did contribute handsomely to his campaign.
Despite previous claims by the administration, this move is far more about oil than drugs, since Venezuela isn’t a supplier of the fentanyl that still causes so many deaths—and even the cocaine trafficked through Venezuela tends to head to Europe, not the United States. Either way, the US shouldn’t be in the business of deposing every questionable leader in the world by military force.
Congress is to blame here, too. It’s their job to declare war, not the president’s—and they didn’t do their job to stop this. The president sent plenty of signs that this invasion might be coming. But in recent weeks, despite bipartisan efforts in both the House and Senate, narrow majorities in Congress refused to pass measures that would have halted it. Both measures failed by just a handful of votes.
And in December, members of both parties passed a $1 trillion war budget with zero safeguards to stop something like the Venezuela invasion—which, again, was easy to see coming. Members of Congress passed the $1 trillion war budget at the same time that congressional Republicans voted to refuse help for millions of Americans struggling to afford health insurance. So the invasion went forward even while millions of Americans did the math on just surviving until the next paycheck.
But it’s not too late to improve this situation. Members of Congress can stop another unjustifiable war—and help Americans pay their bills instead. Congress can refuse to allow the president to send troops back into Venezuela with a simple vote. And while they’re at it, Congress should extend some real help to Americans struggling to get by.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Sees Women as the Enemy
The president’s deep and abiding contempt for females has taken a giant leap forward (or do I mean backward?) in policy terms in the Trump 2.0 years.
Jan 08, 2026
“Quiet, Piggy.” The president was intent on silencing Catherine Lucey. The Bloomberg reporter had provoked him with a question about the release of the Epstein files. His insult caught the public’s attention. But Donald Trump’s tongue-lashing lexicon against women has a long history. Other female journalists have been dubbed “obnoxious,” “terrible,” “third-rate,” and “ugly.” Vice President Kamala Harris, opposing him in the 2024 presidential election, was labeled “retarded” and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “crazy as a bedbug.” The list goes on (and on and on). And who knows what was redacted from the Epstein files along those very lines?
Mind you, those Trumpian insults hurled at women (and regularly offered about them) are anything but performative throwaways. They reveal Donald Trump’s deep and abiding contempt for females, an attitude that has taken a giant leap forward (or do I mean backward?) in policy terms in the Trump 2.0 years. Well beyond a simple cascade of insulting words, the commander-in-chief and his allies have deemed women the enemy. And not surprisingly, under the circumstances, they are now distinctly under attack.
The Purges
From day one of his second term as president, Trump has made his intention to rid the government of women crystal clear—with some window-dressing exceptions. Without mentioning women per se, he nonetheless targeted them on his very first day in office. Executive Order 14151 vowed to end the “forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs” of the Biden era. (On his first day in office, Biden had issued an executive order opening the door for “underserved communities” via a “whole of government equity agenda.”). Trump’s EO, however, decreed an end to DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and to any appointments that were meant to reflect diversity hiring, claiming that such policies “demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination.”
Immediately, women began to be flung from their government perches. Those holding high positions were the first to go. US Archivist Colleen Shogan was removed, as were the three top women at the National Labor Relations Board. Head of the Federal Trade Commission Rebecca Slaughter was promptly fired, a case still under review by the Supreme Court (though it’s hard to expect good news from SCOTUS these days). The Pentagon cleaned house early and fast, removing women from positions of leadership, including the head of the US Naval Academy in Annapolis; the commandant of the Coast Guard, the chief of naval operations, and the only woman flag officer on NATO’s Military Committee. All had been the first females to occupy those posts. Also sent packing was the woman serving as the senior military assistant to the secretary of defense.
Better, it seems, to overtax a man than allow a woman to lead anything whatsoever.
Black women in particular found themselves under attack. Early removals of Black women included Carla Hayden, the librarian of Congress; Gwynne Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve on the National Labor Relations Board; and Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the board of governors of the Federal Reserve Board. Meanwhile, Peggy Carr, the first Black person and the first woman to be commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, was cruelly and unexpectedly escorted out of the building in front of her staff.
The circumstances surrounding the ouster of the first female to lead the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), acting administrator Janet Petro, highlighted the conviction that emptying offices of women occupants took precedence over quality, efficiency, or overall professionalism. Petro was replaced by an interim appointee, Sean Duffy, who continued to serve in the demanding job of secretary of transportation even as he assumed the leadership of NASA. Better, it seems, to overtax a man than allow a woman to lead anything whatsoever.
The Pentagon
The Pentagon took an early lead in the crusade against women. Even before he was confirmed as secretary of defense (now the Department of War), nominee Pete Hegseth signaled the changes to come under his leadership. Former President Barack Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had opened up combat roles to women in 2015. Hegseth promised to change that. “I’m straight up just saying that we should not have women in combat roles,” he told podcaster Shawn Ryan. “It hasn’t made us more effective, hasn’t made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.” The Hill summed it up well in late July this way: “All women have now been purged from the military’s top jobs, with no female four-star officers on active duty and none in pending appointments for four- or three-star roles.”
Hegseth’s anti-female campaign focused on substance as well as numbers. Women, he suggested, just didn’t have the skills to conduct business with sufficient lethality. According to him, the Pentagon’s Women, Peace, and Security program, signed into law during Trump’s first term in office, only served to weaken the Pentagon. Women would merely distract the department from its “core task—FIGHTING,” he tweeted (as Politico reported). Hegseth summarily ended the program. As a United Nations spokeswoman suggested, the removal of women’s voices from the realm of peacekeeping would impede the protection of women and children worldwide.
Healthcare
Back at home, removing protections for females has amounted to a full-scale attack, consistent with warfare, on their bodies. A restructuring of the Department of Health and Human Services has crippled reproductive health programs. In April, HuffPost reported that “the majority” of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Division of Reproductive Health was laid off and two of the three main programs of the Maternal and Infant Health division were eradicated. While the Trump administration has consistently tried to hide data about such purges and policies, journalists have kept at it, unearthing some of the facts. Citing “piecemeal and crowd-sourced information,” the Guardian, for example, was able to report that “the entire staff of a gold-standard maternal mortality survey… was also put on leave.”
As it happens, the Republican Congress has joined the assault. Trump’s much-ballyhooed Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), which passed in July, included reductions in funding to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, programs that are projected to hit adult women the hardest. Of note, the BBB included a prohibition on federal Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood. Even before the passage of the bill, the administration had withheld Title X funding from 20 states and 144 Planned Parenthood clinics that, since 1970, had received grants for family planning and reproductive health services. Expectations are that more drastic cuts will follow. In May, the Commonwealth Fund summarized the devastating consequences of the president’s first 100 days in office for women’s reproductive health, detailing a drastic decline in access to medical abortions. And if such reproductive issues weren’t enough to alarm us, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has removed its recommendation for Covid-19 vaccines for pregnant women and children.
The Record
To add insult to injury, the administration has made it clear that it’s not just women’s positions in government or their healthcare that are subject to eradication. The historical record of women and their accomplishments is also under attack. Across government databases, museum displays, and archival holdings, information about women has been systematically deleted. As I wrote in an earlier TomDispatch post, the erasure of information, historical and statistical, has been a signature weapon of this administration. The websites of the Army and Navy have dutifully removed information about the history of women in the military, while Arlington Cemetery took down its webpage on women buried there, including First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. And in a similar fashion, NASA opted to remove any mention of women as part of the DEI purge of its website.
The Deception
No essay on the plight of women in the era of Trump 2.0 would be sufficient without commentary on the seeming contradiction between the multipronged attack on women and the presence of women in a striking number of cabinet roles. Seven of Trump’s cabinet appointments are held by women, and his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, is the first woman to hold that cabinet-level post.
And yet, that doesn’t seem to have changed the narrative of Trump 2.0 or the impulse to assault women’s rights nationwide. If anything, it has at times enabled it, only further amplifying the administration’s anti-female screed. At the Department of Justice, for instance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, who a decade earlier had voted against the Violence Against Women Act, has reportedly intervened in a number of asylum cases, banning entry to the US for women fleeing domestic violence. At the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the directorship of Secretary Kristi Noem, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has been shuttered, while “at least 25 sexual abuse complaints” have been dismissed. And when it comes to immigration detention, reports of the sexual and physical abuse of women abound. In the words of Human Rights Watch researcher Clara Long, the conditions are “jaw-dropping.” As Long puts it, “Grievous abuses—assaults, sexual abuse, and discriminatory treatment by US agents—are an open secret within DHS.”
For those who continue to embrace the exclusion of women from positions of power and consequence, what better proof do they need than Lindsey Halligan—or, for that matter, other women who are being patched into roles they can’t possibly fulfill at a high standard?
In short, the performances of the women in this administration have undermined the cause of women even more. Chosen for their loyalty to Trump rather than their expertise, their incompetence has been laid out for all to see, scoring high marks when it comes to furthering the perception of women as insufficient to the important tasks at hand. Exhibit One is certainly Lindsey Halligan. A former insurance lawyer who had previously been on Trump’s legal team, she was appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi to serve as the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan subsequently headed up the prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General of New York Letitia James, who had been at the helm of lawsuits against the president before he entered office a second time. Both of Halligan’s cases were thrown out after a federal judge ruled her appointment to be an unlawful use of the attorney general’s appointment power. The Department of Justice is appealing both cases.
But even before that judge had a chance to issue his ruling, Halligan had harmed the cause of women. Having never led a prosecution before, she faced the grand jury seeking an indictment of Comey without the presence of her own team at the Justice Department to back her up. (After all, her predecessor, Trump-nominated and Trump-fired Erik Siebert had resigned in part because he had determined that there were insufficient grounds for bringing just such a prosecution.) Due to her lack of expertise, she displayed a profound lack of knowledge about trial procedure and courtroom norms. As former prosecutor Elie Honig reported in New York Magazine’s Intelligencer, “the bumbling novice prosecutor” botched many things, including making incorrect statements to the jury and failing to present the final version of the indictment to jury members for their sign-off. Though the case was ultimately thrown out, criticism of Halligan has continued relentlessly.
For those who continue to embrace the exclusion of women from positions of power and consequence, what better proof do they need than Lindsey Halligan—or, for that matter, other women who are being patched into roles they can’t possibly fulfill at a high standard? As French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir long ago commented when it came to women seeking to advance in the world, “Her wings are cut and then she is blamed for not knowing how to fly.”
In sum, women are in trouble in Donald Trump’s second presidency. And yet, there are signs of hope, promising both sustenance and strength for women in the days to come. While the Center for American Women and Politics reports that the number of women in elected office is down overall for 2025, 26 of the 100 senators are now women, the highest percentage ever. (And who knows what the congressional elections in 2026 are likely to bring, given the strong showing of Democrats in elections in 2025?)
Moreover, outside of government, women are far from absent. They currently sit atop the country’s largest philanthropic foundations—Heather Gerken at the Ford Foundation, Amber Miller at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Louise Richardson at the Carnegie Corporation of New York. They are presidents of some of the country’s most prestigious universities, including Brown, Columbia, New York University, and Yale. At Microsoft, Google, Anthropic, and other tech companies, women are distinctly on the rise, offering expertise, guidance, and leadership, while undoubtedly preparing for a future in which their expertise will be sought.
About-Face?
In recent weeks, inside the Trump administration, there have been signs, however minor, that some of the president’s most devout female allies are starting to dissent. Congressional Rep. and Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has taken the lead in that female about-face, announcing that she is going to leave Congress before her term is up and going so far as to suggest that she is more in touch with the president’s MAGA base than he is. Like Greene, longtime Trump ally Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) has chosen to “call it quits” and leave public office behind. Trump had failed to support her bid to run for governor of New York, just as he had pulled her nomination to the UN earlier in the year. And then there’s Chief of Staff Susie Wiles who, however much she subsequently reneged on remarks she made over the course of 11 interviews with Vanity Fair’s Chris Whipple, clearly indicated that she had moved away from the president’s stances on Venezuela, the January 6th pardons, and the Epstein files.
Maybe, just maybe, the undermining of decades of progress stands a chance of reversal.
No wonder he’s so afraid of women!
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular