

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It's been clear for some time that House Republicans were headed down this harmful path, but to see the contours of this bill emerge is somehow still shocking: that they would hurt so many people who struggle to afford basic needs and whom they have promised to help.
As House Republican leaders work to advance a reconciliation bill to the floor, their agenda couldn’t be clearer: stripping health care and food assistance away from millions of people and raising families’ costs, breaking their promises to help people on the margins of the economy — while showering ever larger tax breaks on the wealthiest households.
House Republicans’ extreme SNAP cuts would take some or all food assistance away from millions of low-income people and families who struggle to afford groceries. This will drive up hunger, deepen poverty, and leave more people unable to afford basic needs.
House Republicans are trying to hide much of the impact of the SNAP cuts by slashing federal funding and then passing the buck to states. When a state can’t come up with the money to backfill for the large federal cuts totaling billions nationally, it will have to choose how to cut the number of people getting help or whether to opt out of having a SNAP program entirely. With this scheme, the plan walks away from the 50-year, bipartisan commitment to ensure that poor children get the help they need, whether they live in Alabama, Missouri, or California.
Proponents want to shift blame for the cuts to states, but the blame game won’t matter to children, families, seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, small business owners, and others when they are hungry and can’t afford food. (Republican portrayals of who gets helped by SNAP and Medicaid are selective at best — about 1 in 4 veterans and 1 in 4 small business owners live in a household getting help from SNAP, Medicaid, or CHIP at some point in the year, Census data show.)
This plan is replete with proposals that will add red tape, making things more cumbersome, more bureaucratic, and less user-friendly — and ultimately designed to fail families in ways that will leave people sicker, poorer, and hungrier.
At the same time, at least 13.7 million people would lose health coverage and become uninsured under the House Republicans’ Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplace agenda that deeply cuts Medicaid, erects new barriers to coverage, and allows the enhanced premium tax credits (PTCs) that help low- and middle-income families and small business owners afford health coverage to expire, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. Some Republicans argue they shouldn’t be blamed for the 4 million people projected to lose coverage due to the PTCs’ expiration. That’s frankly absurd: they wrote a bill that extends all of the expiring 2017 tax cuts — and even expands provisions that benefit the wealthiest people in the country — yet chose not to extend the enhanced PTCs for people who need help affording coverage. That’s their agenda and they need to own it.
Like their approach to SNAP, House Republicans seek to obscure the impact of their health care cuts through complicated proposals, like limiting the ways states can fund Medicaid and adding lots of red tape and paperwork that makes it harder for people to get and keep health coverage. But here, too, there’s no hiding the outcome: millions of people, including children, will lose coverage and access to care for life-threatening and chronic illnesses as well as preventive care.
The House Republican plan targets some of its harshest attacks on people who are immigrants and their families. It would take away Medicare and marketplace coverage from certain immigrants, including people granted refugee and asylee status after proving they face persecution in their home countries, victims of trafficking and domestic violence, and people with Temporary Protected Status. The plan also takes away the Child Tax Credit from U.S. citizen children if both parents don’t have a Social Security number (even if one parent is a citizen), and strips access to SNAP benefits from people granted asylum and refugee status and other vulnerable groups who are living and working lawfully in the U.S.
Proponents of these cuts often falsely claim that they are restricting access for people who lack documentation, when the reality is that people without a documented immigration status already do not qualify for these benefits, and the cuts will largely impact lawfully present immigrants and U.S. citizen children in immigrant families.
Despite House Republicans’ rhetoric about supporting the “working class,” the plan targets working people and their families, making it much harder for them to get help weathering life’s ups and downs.Despite House Republicans’ rhetoric about supporting the “working class,” the plan targets working people and their families, making it much harder for them to get help weathering life’s ups and downs. Workers may need help because their employer lays them off or cuts their hours, or because they get sick or have to miss work to care for a sick loved one, and the House Republican plan takes help away from people in exactly these situations.
And for all of the rhetoric coming out of DOGE about making government work more efficiently, that commitment doesn’t seem to apply to working families who need help. This plan is replete with proposals that will add red tape, making things more cumbersome, more bureaucratic, and less user-friendly — and ultimately designed to fail families in ways that will leave people sicker, poorer, and hungrier.
Moreover, the House Republican plan would deny as many as 20 million children in working families from receiving the full $2,500 Child Tax Credit because their parents — who work important but low-paid jobs — don’t earn enough. The 17 million children who currently don’t get the full $2,000 Child Tax Credit would get nothing from the credit’s $500-per-child increase, even as families earning up to $400,000 would get the full increase. Last year 169 House Republicans voted to help most of the families they are now leaving out.
In contrast to its disdain for people whose budgets are stretched thin every month, the plan showers more tax cuts on the wealthy, extending the highly skewed provisions of the 2017 law and adding permanent expansions for wealthy households. In 2027 it gives households earning more than $1 million a year an annual tax cut of roughly $90,000, while low-income households receive an average of just $90 from the tax cuts — the same households who will then bear the brunt of cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.
This agenda won’t create a future of shared prosperity and economic opportunity, which is what’s required to build a country that’s truly great.
The plan’s tax cuts would cost nearly $4 trillion through 2034 — and over $5 trillion if one sees through its timing gimmicks like turning off tax cuts for middle-class families after four years while making some of its most top-tilted tax cuts — like the cut in the estate tax and the deduction for pass-through income — permanent. Moreover, the House Republicans cut more than $500 billion in clean energy tax credits — which would worsen health outcomes for communities facing high rates of pollution, and the plan’s health cuts would make it harder for them to access health care.
It’s been clear for some time that House Republicans were headed down this harmful path, but to see the contours of this bill emerge is somehow still shocking: that they would hurt so many people who struggle to afford basic needs and whom they have promised to help. And they continue to pursue this agenda at a time when the President’s tariffs, chaotically crafted and applied, have caused increased uncertainty and raised the risk of a recession, higher unemployment, and surging prices.
Whatever Republican policymakers may think, these policies aren’t popular with the public because they aren’t consistent with core American values, which include helping people when they fall on tough times and expecting wealthy people to pay their fair share.
This agenda won’t create a future of shared prosperity and economic opportunity, which is what’s required to build a country that’s truly great. There’s a better path forward, but it requires tearing up this legislation and replacing it with a plan that lowers costs and invests in people and families, while raising the revenues from the wealthy to make those investments and reduce economic risks associated with high debt.
"The idea that corporate polluters can pay a fee to freely pollute our communities is beyond the pale," said one environmental advocate.
Lawmakers and green groups on Monday sounded the alarm on the energy and environmental provisions in the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee's section of a Republican-backed tax and spending megabill, which is slated to be marked up in a committee meeting on Tuesday.
Critics are warning the proposal will harm regular Americans by seeking savings through a take back of funds from various programs in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the signature climate legislation signed into law under former U.S. President Joe Biden, and includes "giveaways" for oil and gas companies.
Congressional Republicans are pressing ahead with a spending and tax cuts bill that will primarily benefit the wealthy and would be paid for in part through steep cuts to Medicaid, despite widespread opposition. Those cuts were first fleshed out in a House budget blueprint earlier this year and are part of the budget bill from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the text of which was unveiled on Sunday. But Medicaid cuts are not the only aspect of the bill drawing scrutiny.
"Giving giant tax breaks to billionaires while increasing electric bills for American families is wrong. Republicans are sacrificing America's energy dominance while setting up a 'pay to play' scheme for polluters to bribe the Trump Administration to obtain energy permits," said Energy Subcommittee ranking member Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) on Monday. "Dismantling our landmark Inflation Reduction Act will kill jobs, hurt businesses, and drive-up Americans' energy costs."
The legislation includes a provision that would allow energy developers to access an expedited permitting review if they pay $10 million or one percent of the anticipated cost of the construction of the project.
Another provision would have companies applying to export or import natural gas pay a nonrefundable $1 million fee and in return have their project "deemed to be in the public interest."
"The idea that corporate polluters can pay a fee to freely pollute our communities is beyond the pale," said Mahyar Sorour, a director of the Beyond Fossil Fuels Policy at the Sierra Club, on Monday.
"While it slashes much-needed support for clean energy and climate resilience, it would allow fossil fuel companies to pay to get their project approved. That's not just wrong, it's un-American," said Alexandra Adams, chief policy advocacy officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
According to E&E News, the legislation aims to rescind "the unobligated balance" of IRA funds for multiple Department of Energy programs, such as money meant for the Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program.
"Republicans just proposed cutting thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in clean energy funding, and billions of dollars in healthcare funding from their own districts. Why? Because Big Oil and healthcare CEOs told them to. This is not how a democracy should function. This is oligarchy in action," said Sunrise Movement executive director Aru Shiney-Ajay in a statement on Monday.
"Young people fought tooth and nail for the funding now on the chopping block," added Shiney-Ajay, invoking the organizing and activism that went into pressuring lawmakers to pass the IRA.
Republicans are also planning to rescind the unobligated balances from the Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, an IRA program that is supposed to support clean energy projects primarily for historically marginalized and low-income communities, per E&E.
What's more, according to E&E, the plan would go after a variety of IRA programs, such as those designed to reduce air pollution at schools and ports and limit emissions from diesel engines. Also it takes aim at the IRA's methane fee, which levies a fee on oil and gas companies who produce too much planet-warming methane.
"House Republicans are bending over backwards to give handouts to big polluters while their constituents pay the price of worse pollution and higher energy bills," said Sorour. "This is a terrible bill for the American people. The House should get their priorities straight and reject this proposal."
Think the House GOP's budget bill endorsed by the president is harmful to low-income families, working people, and the overall health of our society? You probably don't know even the half of it.
The House Republican budget passed Tuesday night calls for massive cuts in health coverage, food assistance, and help paying for college, among some other areas, to pay for huge tax giveaways for wealthy households and businesses. This betrays President Trump’s campaign promises to protect families who struggle financially, as well as his specific pledge to not cut Medicaid, which provides health coverage for 72 million people. While raising costs for families and increasing both poverty and the number of people without health coverage, the budget would swell deficits — all to further Republicans’ expensive and skewed tax agenda.
Both the House and Senate budgets significantly miss the mark on what should be their basic goals: lowering costs, increasing opportunity, and responsibly addressing our nation’s long-term priorities, including reducing future economic risks associated with high deficits. But the enormity of program cuts called for by the House budget stand as a singular threat to the well-being of people in every state, city, and rural community, threatening to take away their health coverage, make health care more expensive, and make it harder to afford food and college.
The Senate should reject the House cuts both now and if Congress ultimately moves ahead with a second budget plan and reconciliation bill this year.
The quick math on the House budget shows a stark equation: the cost of extending tax cuts for households with incomes in the top 1 percent — $1.1 trillion through 2034 — equals roughly the same amount as the proposed potential cuts for health coverage under Medicaid and food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The House Republican budget’s path of higher costs for families, more people without health coverage, increased poverty and hardship, and higher debt — all in service to tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable business interests — is the wrong direction for our nation.
Under what set of values does a budget target those who struggle to pay their bills for severe cuts, while giving an annual tax cut averaging $62,000 for those who make $743,000 or more a year? The tax cut for these wealthy households is greater than the annual family incomes for most of the 72 million people — 1 in 5 people in the U.S. — who have health coverage through Medicaid. And the $62,000 figure doesn’t account for the likelihood that this budget would shower large corporations with more tax breaks, given that it allocates $900 billion more than extending the existing tax cuts would cost.
The enormous cuts this budget calls for would increase costs, hardship, and poverty for individuals and families across the country. To be clear, the specific proposals that House Republicans have been considering for weeks to make these program cuts are largely not about curbing fraud and abuse, as some claim. For example, proposals to cap federal funding, shift costs to states, or impose harsh work requirements that trip people up with red tape are aimed at cutting health coverage and food assistance for honest people who need help, not reducing fraud.
And the impact of these cuts could be grave: think of a person who loses health coverage through Medicaid and can’t get cancer treatment, an older and frail adult who loses the home-based care they need to stay out of an institution, a young adult who can’t get insulin to control their diabetes, a parent who skips meals so their children can eat, or an older worker who loses their job and has no way to buy groceries. Make no mistake, these cuts would affect people in every state and of all races and ethnicities. At the same time, the impacts would often be especially severe in poorer states with less ability to fill in for federal cuts and among Black, Latino, and Indigenous people and people in rural communities, who have lower incomes and thus are more likely to qualify for food assistance and health coverage.
The House budget would require the Energy and Commerce Committee to cut at least $880 billion; the Agriculture Committee to cut at least $230 billion; the Education and Workforce Committee to cut at least $330 billion; and other committees to also cut programs to reach a cumulative target of at least $1.5 trillion in cuts through 2034. The magnitude of these reductions would force congressional committees to make enormous cuts in Medicaid, SNAP, student loan assistance and other vital sources of support when they develop the “reconciliation” spending and tax bill that follows the budget resolution.
But as massive as these cuts are, they don’t show the full picture of the overall program cuts that the House budget may generate. The committee targets are minimums or “floors” — meaning the committees must cut at least that amount and may cut more. And a provision included by the House Budget Committee during its consideration of the resolution pushes the committees to cut more, by requiring the overall level of program cuts to reach $2 trillion to retain the full $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.
Beyond this budget’s basic effects of taking away health, food, and other vital assistance from people who struggle to afford the basics and making student loans more expensive to partially offset tax cuts for the wealthy, it would have at least three other harmful impacts.
First, the House budget resolution and the proposals House Republicans are considering could result in enormous cost shifts to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, which are already facing tougher fiscal conditions than in recent years. For example, some of the proposed cuts in Medicaid and SNAP would force states to pick up a much larger share of the programs’ costs or leave people without needed help. In reality, states will not make up for all or even most of the federal cuts, and families will lose health coverage and food assistance.
Second, while this budget aims to extend all of the tax cuts skewed to the top, it fails to call for extending a tax cut that is well targeted to people who need it: the improved premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. Failure to extend this tax cut would raise health care premiums for more than 20 million people, including at least 3 million small business owners and self-employed workers.
And third, even with the budget’s huge cuts in assistance, and the suffering those cuts would inflict on individuals and families, it would still increase our nation’s debt because of the enormous cost of its tax cuts. When you strip away this budget’s fuzzy math with its $2.6 trillion macroeconomic gimmick — which is far beyond expert organizations’ estimates (including estimates of conservative organizations) of possible economic effects from extending the tax cuts from President Trump’s first term and enacting potential new tax cuts — the federal debt under the House budget would increase over the next ten years compared to Congressional Budget Office projections of current law.
Even with the budget calling for a $4 trillion increase in the statutory debt limit, we calculate this limit would be reached in November 2026, only 21 months from now, under the policies assumed under this budget.
The House Republican budget’s path of higher costs for families, more people without health coverage, increased poverty and hardship, and higher debt — all in service to tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable business interests — is the wrong direction for our nation. It is also directly at odds with the recent election in which so many people expressed concern about their ability to afford food, housing, health care, and other necessities — and at odds with the promises made to them by President Trump.
Republicans are hiding behind fantastic economic assumptions which they know are false in order to hide the true effects of their agenda—one that raises costs, strips away healthcare, and increases poverty—all in service of giving the super-rich another tax giveaway.
The budget plan that the House is scheduled to consider this week would add to the deficit as it calls on committees to cut $2 trillion primarily from programs that help people secure health coverage, buy groceries, and pay for college to partially offset a $4.5 trillion tax cut, with benefits that are skewed toward the wealthy. Yet the House Budget Committee (HBC) Republicans attempt to hide their plan’s additions to the deficit with unrealistic assumptions of how tax cuts will drive economic growth.
They assert that the economy will grow more than 40 percent faster each year over the coming decade than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects, yielding a ten-year “economic bonus” that would reduce the projected deficit by $2.6 trillion. Their budget math rests on this flawed bonus. Without it, the HBC plan would increase the deficit relative to CBO’s projections, even with its massive spending cuts in Medicaid and SNAP that would take away health care and food from people who are struggling to afford the basics.
This economic bonus is not credible.
CBO projects that real economic growth — growth after considering inflation — will average around 1.8 percent per year from 2026 to 2035. In contrast, the House assumes growth of 2.6 percent a year. This increase is far beyond a typical “rosy scenario” and instead reflects “fantasy math,” as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget aptly describes it.
HBC Republicans have defended their assumed growth rate by saying it is below the post-war historical average. But that is misleading. The nation’s labor force grew strongly in the post-war years, particularly as the baby boomers reached working age and because women joined the labor force in large numbers. Today, the baby boomers are retiring, and current population growth depends on immigration, which the Trump Administration is seeking to curb.
Republicans point to the extension of the expiring provisions of the 2017 tax cuts as a key driver of their assumed additional growth. But CBO comes to a much different conclusion. In its baseline projection, CBO assumes the tax cuts expire as scheduled and concludes that “the expiration of the individual income tax provisions of the 2017 tax act does not significantly affect CBO’s projections of real GDP.”
That means that extending the expiring tax cuts, as the Republicans propose, would similarly have little effect on economic growth. Overall, CBO has found that the positive economic effects of the tax cuts alone were quite modest, and that their high cost (which increases federal borrowing and leads to lower private investment) offsets any resulting economic growth. Thus, even if the costs of the tax cuts were completely offset, the economic bonus would be only a small fraction of what HBC Republicans claim. To the extent the program cuts harm investments in the future — economic support and good health care for children, education at all levels, medical and scientific research, infrastructure maintenance and development — those cuts work against better sustainable economic growth.
CBO is not alone in its findings. Economists at a range of other institutions — such as the Joint Tax Committee, Tax Foundation, Tax Policy Center, Penn-Wharton Budget Model, Yale Budget Lab, and American Enterprise Institute — have also examined the economic effects of extending the 2017 tax cuts. None came up with estimates anywhere near those assumed by the House plan.
The House Republicans point to other Trump Administration actions as further rationale for their economic assumptions, such as spending cuts, deregulation, and increasing production of fossil fuels. But their views of the impact of the Administration’s policies on the economy are one-sided, ignoring its policies that are likely to slow growth. For instance, the Administration’s policy of mass deportations and restrictions on new lawful immigration will dampen labor force growth. Analysts estimate that immigration will fall from 3 million in 2024 to 500,000 in 2026.
Similarly, the Trump Administration’s tariff policy could increase prices, possibly by 1.7 to 2.1 percent, and lower economic growth as much as 1.0 percentage point, according to recent estimates by the Yale Budget Lab.
In the end, the assumed economic bonus is a pure gimmick that House Republicans are using to try hide the true effects of their agenda that raises costs, takes health care away from people, increases poverty and hardship, worsens inequality, and increases the deficit.
Medicaid defenders are holding events across the country this week, starting Tuesday, to raise public awareness and mobilize Americans against the House GOP's proposal for $880 billion in cuts to the program that provides healthcare to tens of millions of low-income people, including children.
The in-person and virtual events were organized by the advocacy group Protect Our Care, which is also expanding its ad and billboard campaigns against the budget resolution that House Republicans unveiled last week.
The GOP budget blueprint calls for at least $4 trillion in tax cuts that would disproportionately benefit the richest Americans. Those tax breaks would be partially offset by steep cuts to Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other programs that many working-class families rely on to make ends meet or survive through financial emergencies.
If enacted, Protect Our Care warned, the GOP plan would result in "millions losing coverage, including children, new moms, seniors, and people with disabilities."
"Americans across party lines oppose cuts to Medicaid, and new polling finds that a majority of Americans think the government should spend more on healthcare—not less," the group said. "Throughout the week, speakers will discuss how these unpopular cuts will hurt families and call on lawmakers to protect access to healthcare, not take it away."
The events will kick off Tuesday with a "Medicaid Defense Press Conference" in Vista, California featuring U.S. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.). Later in the week, similar events will be held in New York, North Carolina, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Maine.
"House Republicans are putting Medicaid on the chopping block—a move that would rip lifesaving healthcare away from tens of thousands of their own constituents."
The Protect Our Care events come as House Democrats are beginning to target Republicans in battleground districts in preparation for the looming high-stakes congressional fight over Medicaid.
The House Majority PAC (HMP), a top Democratic super PAC, wrote in a memo Tuesday that "while Donald Trump and House Republicans promised to 'love and cherish' Medicaid, House Republicans have gone full Matt Bevin"—a reference to the former Republican Kentucky governor who aggressively pursued Medicaid work requirements during his time in office.
Republicans in the U.S. House are now looking to impose Medicaid work requirements nationwide, even though most Medicaid recipients under the age of 65 already work. Research has repeatedly shown that work requirements do little to boost employment—but they are effective at booting people from programs by adding onerous bureaucratic hurdles.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated earlier this month that the GOP's plan to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients—which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called "common sense"—could strip benefits from around 36 million people across the country.
In its memo on Tuesday, HMP spotlighted the number of Medicaid recipients represented by House Republicans in competitive districts across the U.S.:
"The cuts currently pushed by House Republicans will be a defining issue in 2026, and HMP will hold them accountable for abandoning their constituents to further enrich the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations," the Democratic PAC said.
"In battleground congressional districts across the country," the organization added, "House Republicans are putting Medicaid on the chopping block—a move that would rip lifesaving healthcare away from tens of thousands of their own constituents—roughly half of whom are children."
"House Republican leadership put a giant bullseye on Medicaid, with the intent to strip Americans of their healthcare benefits to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and big corporations."
House Republicans unveiled a draft budget resolution on Wednesday that calls for $4.5 trillion in tax breaks that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy while proposing $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other programs.
Lawmakers are set to mark up the House GOP's budget blueprint on Thursday as Republicans look to craft a sprawling reconciliation bill that can pass both chambers of Congress with a simple-majority vote. Last week, Senate Republicans released their own budget resolution that proposed significant cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other spending that benefits working-class families.
"Instead of tackling rising prices and delivering relief for American families, House Republicans are charging ahead with trillions of dollars in deeply unpopular tax breaks for billionaires like Donald Trump and Elon Musk," Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said Wednesday in response to the House GOP resolution.
"And, they're paying for their billionaire handouts by ransacking healthcare, food assistance, and other vital programs that American workers and families rely on," Jacquez added.
The new resolution released by the Republican-controlled House Budget Committee specifically calls on the chamber's energy and commerce panel to "submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than" $880 billion over the next decade. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over Medicaid.
The measure also instructs the House Committee on Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over SNAP, to cut no less than $230 billion in spending between fiscal years 2025 and 2034.
"They wanna do a giant tax cut that disproportionately helps the rich while taking away people's health insurance and food while still adding trillions to the debt," Bobby Kogan, a former Senate Budget Committee staffer who is now senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, wrote in response to the resolution.
Overall, the House GOP's budget resolution calls for $2 trillion in cuts to "mandatory spending" over the next decade, taking aim at a category that includes Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and SNAP. While Social Security benefits cannot be cut through the reconciliation process, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) can.
Congressional Republicans have outlined a number of ways they could slash Medicaid and SNAP, including punitive new work requirements that analysts say would strip benefits from tens of millions of low-income people.
But Families USA executive director Anthony Wright said Wednesday that "we don't need to know the mechanisms of how Medicaid would be cut to know the impact would be catastrophic: The sheer size of the proposed cuts means millions of Americans losing coverage, hospitals and clinics plunged into budget shortfalls, and healthcare services we all depend on being eliminated."
"This budget resolution is a five-alarm fire alert for our healthcare," said Wright. "House Republican leadership put a giant bullseye on Medicaid, with the intent to strip Americans of their healthcare benefits to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and big corporations."
Kobie Christian, a spokesperson for the progressive coalition Unrig Our Economy, issued a similarly scathing statement on Wednesday, arguing that House Republicans "showed us that what they value is more tax breaks for greedy billionaires and giant corporations with everyday people paying the price."
"At a time when everyday Americans face increasingly higher prices, Speaker Johnson and his stooges want to write billionaires a check and force working-class people to foot the bill for their outrageous tax breaks for corporations and the ultra-wealthy," said Christian. "Everyday Americans will not stand for these games—it's time for Republicans in Congress to end their campaign that puts the ultra-wealthy first on the backs of the rest of us."
Defeating Republican efforts to slash health coverage for the nation's poor, said one observer, is also an opportunity "to expose and deepen the fractures in Trump's coalition, and to shatter the illusion that he can't be stopped."
Defenders of Medicaid are sounding the alarm over plans by the Republican Party—led by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson—to eviscerate the nation's healthcare system used by low-income individuals and families, warning that the attack would jeopardize healthcare for tens of millions of the poorest Americans as part of an effort to give the wealthiest individuals and corporations massive tax breaks.
Internal divisions within the House GOP caucus have hinged on the overall size of cuts to federal spending in their yet-to-be-released budget blueprint, with competing proposals ranging from $1.25 trillion in cuts up to $2.5 trillion. Of that overall number, hundreds of billions in Medicaid cuts may come in the form of block grants to states, caps on per capita costs, and work requirements.
"For months," wrote Paul Heideman on Monday in Jacobin, "Republicans have said that their budget will cut spending in order to pay for making permanent Trump's tax cuts for the rich, which are set to expire this year."
One of the key targets of their austerity plan, he notes, is Medicaid, which Republicans, as reported by Politico on Tuesday, believe they can cut by an estimated $800 billion or more over the next decade.
"They are cutting healthcare to pay for tax cuts for billionaires."
Echoing the call of other progressive voices, Heideman argues that opponents should seize on the tensions within the GOP—where right-wing hardliners are openly calling for cuts while those in more swing districts have expressed increasing anxiety about what happens politically if they take the axe to a program that is resoundingly popular with voters.
CNN reporting on Monday about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering within the caucus quoted one unnamed Republican lawmaker who said that some members want "to cut to the bone" when in it comes to Medicaid and other programs. While the lawmaker said they were "willing to cut a lot" from the federal budget, "if you cut the essential stuff that affects people every day, you will lose the majority in two years. I can guarantee it.”
Meanwhile, Politico offered more evidence that Trump and House Republicans are still not on the same page:
GOP leaders told senior Republicans in a series of private meetings Monday that Trump wasn’t yet on board with the major Medicaid cuts it would take to secure up to an additional $800 billion in savings, according to three people familiar with the conversations who, like the others, were granted anonymity to describe the private talks.
Johnson and senior Republicans are wary of pursuing the Medicaid reforms only for Trump to publicly bash the move. GOP leaders indicated in private meetings Monday that "they need to work with Trump" on the Medicaid issue before proceeding, according to one of the people.
As Heideman notes, one can't fully understand the attacks on Medicaid—which could boot tens of millions of people out of the program—without recognizing the GOP's parallel strategy for massive tax giveaways for the rich and corporations:
Republicans are hoping to extend the tax cuts passed in Donald Trump's first term. These tax cuts, which were the only substantial legislative accomplishment of Trump's first term, were massively skewed toward the rich. The average household in the top 1 percent of income earners received about $60,000, while the average of the bottom 80 percent of households received only $762.
All of this largesse for the rich was expensive; estimates are it will cost the government nearly $2 trillion over ten years. Because of this, a number of Republicans in Congress insist that any extension of the tax cut must be accompanied by spending cuts to prevent it from adding massively to the deficit. With a razor-thin majority in the House, these deficit hawks could sink any attempt by Trump and the GOP leadership to ram the cuts through in spite of their impact on the deficit. Finding a way to substantially cut Medicaid spending has thus become central to the larger GOP budget plan.
On Tuesday, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) detailed how one Republican approach to cutting Medicaid—a federal spending freeze that would cap per capita costs—would drastically increase financial pressure on the state programs that administer Medicaid programs.
"If federal funding drops sharply," warned Elizabeth Zhang, a CBPP research assistant, "states would be forced to scale back Medicaid by cutting people from the program, slashing benefits for remaining enrollees, reducing payments to hospitals and physicians—or a combination of all three. This would harm Medicaid enrollees across the program."
Pushing back against the proposed assault on a program that serves over 80 million people each year, all 47 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus on Monday sent a letter to Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) saying he and his Republican colleagues should "reject proposals that use Medicaid as a piggy bank for partisan priorities and continue to defend the importance of this vital program." According to the letter:
Republicans are proposing cuts to the Medicaid program from hundreds of billions to multiple trillions of dollars. Cuts to Medicaid through drastically changing the program's financing structure or imposing additional barriers to coverage are dangerous to the millions of people who rely on the program. These proposals will also force states to make difficult decisions that will result in millions getting kicked off their coverage and providers struggling to keep their practices open. States simply cannot absorb these massive funding cuts without hurting children, seniors, people with disabilities, tribal populations, patients with chronic illnesses, and many other Americans who rely on Medicaid.
"The American people should be assured," the letter concluded, "that Medicaid will be protected."
Last week, as Common Dreams reported, a separate CBPP report estimated that a GOP proposal to institute work requirements for Medicaid recipients could result in 36 million people being axed from the life-saving program. Predictions such as this could be why, as Politico noted, "Trump and his team are worried those cuts will invite political blowback."
The problem for progressives is that Republicans have discovered that while cuts to Medicaid are demonstrably unpopular with the voting public, the implementation of so-called "work requirements" has received more traction in opinion polls. As such, GOP leaders, including House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), may believe they have a new way to trick people into helping them undermine or destroy the program.
This is why Heideman argues it is key for Medicaid defenders to be adamant in their opposition and clear in their messaging when it comes to work requirements or other deceptive messaging about Republican intentions.
Work requirements for Medicaid, Heideman argues, should be called exactly what they are: cuts. As he explains:
During the first Trump administration, states were granted waivers to institute work requirements. Only Arkansas actually implemented the policy, and the results are instructive. About a quarter of Medicaid recipients subject to the requirement (about 18,000 people) lost coverage while the waiver was in effect. Yet the requirement produced zero effect on employment. People kicked off Medicaid were no more likely to have jobs than they were while they were on it.
The reason for this is simple. Most people on Medicaid are already working. Among those that aren’t, most are either disabled, taking care of a family member, or going to school. There simply aren’t that many people on Medicaid who could go get a job, even if their health care is cut off. Moreover, work requirements often lead to people who technically shouldn’t be removed from the program being kicked off because they haven’t supplied the proper paperwork establishing their employment. Work requirements do nothing to make people work more. They simply kick people off the rolls.
Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, pointed out last week that "92% of Medicaid adult enrollees are working, or are not working due to caregiving, an illness or disability, or school attendance."
So while Speaker Johnson and other Republican leaders have tried to say they are not proposing cuts to Medicaid in their pending budget blueprint, informed critics are pointing out that this a blatant falsehood.
Heideman says that the battle to defend the program is important in its own right but also has broader political implications.
"Defeating Medicaid cuts is an urgent priority over the coming months," he argues. "It's an opportunity to reestablish the popularity of the welfare state as a principle of American politics and to hand Trump and the GOP a much-needed defeat. Because of the GOP's disarray, it also has the potential to hamstring the party's only substantive legislative priority. Finally, this kind of work can provide some balance and ability for longer-term coordination amid the daily outrage that the administration is committing. The Left should not let this opportunity slip by."
Critics of a House appropriations bill that guts environmental agencies warn it's a sign of what the Republicans will do if they retake the Senate and the presidency next year.
Democrats and watchdog groups reacted with outrage on Friday as a U.S. House environmental subcommittee led by Republicans approved an appropriations bill that would reduce funding for two federal agencies and limit their ability to protect the environment.
The House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee voted to advance a bill to weaken the regulatory capacities of the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cutting funding for conservation, climate action, national parks, and environmental justice initiatives.
"This bill sticks a finger in the eye of the American people who care deeply about clean air, climate change, endangered species, and responsible use of public lands," said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. "It's a nasty wishlist to defund the priorities of protecting a livable future."
The fiscal year 2025 bill proposes a 20% cut to the EPA's annual budget, from $9.2 billion to $7.4 billion, including a $749 million cut to state and tribal assistance grants. It also proposes reductions to many Interior agency budgets, including a $210 million cut to the National Park Service and a $144 million cut to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Taking aim at the government's ability to regulate industry, most of the Republicans' spending allocations are below fiscal year 2024 and almost all of them are below the amount requested by the Biden administration.
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, said in a statement that the proposed EPA cut was "irresponsible" and that she was "greatly disappointed and frustrated" by the bill, which "completely disregards the reality of a warming planet and ignores the need for us to do more, not less."
Pingree's Democratic colleague, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking member of the full appropriations committee, agreed.
The bill "promotes dirty energy, taking the side of fossil fuel companies and those who deny the scientific reality rather than address the escalating risk to our economy and national security presented by the changing climate and growing number of extreme weather events," DeLauro said in the statement.
Critics of the bill also objected to the large number of "poison-pill" riders that seek to undo Biden administration rules and undermine the Endangered Species Act by naming specific animals for which listing can't be funded. Per a Trump-era Interior rule, the legislation also delists most gray wolf populations from the ESA.
"This proposal is a hatchet job of disastrous proportion that in an unprecedented scale, targets our nation's most imperiled species and the law saving them from extinction," Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife, said in a statement.
The Republicans' bill includes proposed reductions to funding for clean water infrastructure projects, which Food and Water Watch (FWW) said was a step in the wrong direction—water and sewer systems need huge infusions of money just to meet current water quality standards.
"The proposed cuts would leave many with unsafe water and exacerbate the nation’s water affordability crisis, adding more pressure on household water bills at a time when families are already grappling with soaring costs for essential services," Mary Grant, a FWW campaign director, said in a statement, calling safe water "non-negotiable."
Grant said that to safeguard Americans' clean water from "foolishly political annual appropriations battles," Congress should pass the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, And Reliability (WATER) Act—a call she also made last year, when the same subcommittee advanced a similar bill.
The full appropriations committee will consider the bill on July 9. If the bill passes through the committee and then the full chamber, as last year's version did, it's unlikely to make headway in the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate. However, critics of the bill warned that it's a sign of what the Republicans will do if they retake the Senate and the presidency.
Earlier this month, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump said that he plans to gut federal agencies dealing with climate, such as the Interior Department. A union of EPA workers rebuked Trump for the remarks.
This is what it looks like if Trump loses at the ballot box, but Republicans do next time what enough of them refused to do last time.
I worry that those of us who are dedicated to democracy and therefore committed to playing by the rules are underestimating the willingness of House Republicans to break the rules to elect Trump.
Remember: Most current Republican members of the House, including Speaker Michael Johnson, refused to certify the outcome of the 2020 election. In fact, Johnson helped organize 138 Republican House members to dispute that outcome, despite state certifications and the nearly unanimous rulings from state and federal courts that it was an honest election.
If Johnson and his cronies had so few scruples then, why should we assume they’ll have more scruples in the weeks following November’s elections?
Long before we reach this constitutional crisis, Speaker Johnson and others in the Republican House leadership must pledge to certify the results of the November elections.
What happens if, in the wake of the elections, the House’s election-denying Republicans find that they can retain their majority in the next Congress only by denying certification of Democratic candidates who have won by close margins, and do so?
Then, on January 6, 2025, what if the new Republican majority refuses to certify as president any Electoral College results from states that went for Biden by close margins — thereby ensuring that no candidate receives an Electoral College majority?
Presto! The decision about who’s to be the next president is made on a state-by-state delegation vote — almost surely delivering it to Trump.
Is this scenario really so far-fetched? Two astute Washington veterans conclude in a recent article in The Washington Spectator that it’s not at all far-fetched, because “good faith can no longer be assumed.”
Long before we reach this constitutional crisis, Speaker Johnson and others in the Republican House leadership must pledge to certify the results of the November elections.
They should be asked by the media to make this commitment. If they won’t, Americans need to know — and know why.
It’s worth noting in this regard that Rep. Elise Stefanik, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House, recently refused to commit to certifying the results of next November’s elections, saying “we will see if this is a legal and valid election.”
She then claimed that the 2020 presidential race “was not a fair election” despite multiple legal reviews sought by Trump and his allies confirming that it was.
Why hasn’t this been more widely reported?
What risks being lost in this high-stakes game is a recognition that fundamental human rights are not negotiable.
On the eve of a U.S. presidential election year and under the shadow of wars in Ukraine and Gaza, asylum seekers and refugees have become chips on the Capitol Hill bargaining table.
What risks being lost in this high-stakes game is a recognition that fundamental human rights are not negotiable, including “the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Republican leaders are demanding drastic changes in decades-old U.S. immigration law that, in effect, would end the right to seek asylum on U.S. territory and mandate detention for any asylum seekers who manage to lodge claims. Their big bargaining chip is the $110 billion emergency aid bill for Ukraine and Israel, which includes an additional $5.3 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $2.3 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, among other increased funding for Department of Homeland Security operations.
Seeing the Ukraine and Israel funding as essential, and desperate to cut a deal before Congress goes into recess, the Biden administration has reportedly agreed to “a new border authority to expel migrants without asylum screenings, as well as a dramatic expansion of immigration detention and deportations.”
Many of the border enforcement and immigration control policies the Republican leaders are seeking to codify are already being practiced by the Biden administration. But they are currently either undertaken with the flexibility to make case-by-case exceptions, or legally bound by other due process guardrails that lawmakers are trying to eliminate.
For example, Republican negotiators would require asylum seekers transiting through another country to file claims in that country before reaching the U.S. The Immigration and Nationality Act has a “safe third country” provision, but it requires such countries to meet standards, such as providing access to full and fair asylum procedures.
Similarly, Republican leadership is demanding, and the White House appears open to, mandatory detention of asylum seekers. Yet the Immigration Act already makes detention mandatory for new arrivals awaiting interviews under expedited removal provisions, to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution in their home country and might qualify for a full asylum interview. Detention already continues even after an asylum officer has determined the applicant has a credible fear, unless Homeland Security exercises discretion.
Stripping that last shred of discretion would predictably increase the likelihood of harm, especially to asylum seekers who have experienced violence and abuse, because of disgraceful conditions of immigration detention, inadequate medical care, separation of families, impeded access to legal representation, sexual abuse, and discriminatory treatment.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees detention guidelines caution that detaining asylum seekers is “inherently undesirable” and “in many instances, contrary to the norms and principles of international law.” Alternatives to detention have been shown to be less expensive, less harmful, and just as effective in ensuring that asylum seekers and migrants will show up for their immigration proceedings.
The impact of mandatory detention on asylum seekers will be even greater if the White House and Senate Democrats accept another reported Republican demand: the nationwide expansion of expedited removal for the first two years after arrival, which is currently limited to recent arrivals at or near the border. Expedited removal puts new arrivals apprehended at or near the border on a fast-track for deportation if they are not able to show a “credible fear” of being persecuted in their home countries. This would open the prospect of country-wide racial profiling and short-cutting due process for immigrants facing deportation.
But perhaps the most fundamental and far-reaching demand on the table is to ratchet up the standard in credible-fear screenings. Republican negotiators are demanding that the current “significant possibility” of having well-founded fear of persecution should be changed to a “more likely than not” probability. The change would have serious implications for the standard needed to establish an asylum claim and thus access an asylum hearing before an immigration judge.
In the landmark 1987 case INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected a “more likely than not” asylum standard, saying that even “a 10 percent chance of being shot, tortured, or otherwise persecuted” should be enough to be granted asylum.
It’s unfortunate that domestic immigration policy ever got mixed up in emergency foreign policy funding. Biden and members of Congress who will be voting on the supplemental aid package should think hard about what is and isn’t fair game for negotiation.
Negotiating over how much to fund the Department of Homeland Security is perfectly fine. But erecting barriers to right to seek asylum, or raising to unreasonable and unreachable heights the standard a person with legitimate fears must establish, is not all right.