SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
house of representatives
Alito Temporarily Reinstates Texas' Trump-Requested Redrawn Maps
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the new congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
Nov 22, 2025
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
"It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court," Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court's ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again."
Friday's ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas' new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case "on a fast-track."
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump's request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven't given up on voters.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again," said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, "but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn't come for us. We save ourselves."
"100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket," Campolo continued. "Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We'll be seeing you at the polls."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowl reporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Hell No,' Say Critics as Trump's Megabill Poised to Drastically Expand ICE's Dragnet
"This is the level of funding where all the possibilities for American politics that have been described as hyperbolic over the past decades—the comparisons to Nazi Germany and other nightmares of the 20th century—become logistically possible and politically likely," wrote one observer.
Jun 30, 2025
Critics are sounding the alarm as congressional Republicans edge closer to passing a sweeping tax and spending bill desired by U.S. President Donald Trump that would inject tens of billions of dollars of funding into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency at the forefront of the president's immigration crackdown.
"Republicans' Big, Bad Betrayal Bill shovels BILLIONS OF DOLLARS more into ICE's budget. Yes, the same ICE that has arrested U.S. citizens, carried out illegal deportations, and denied members of Congress access to detention facilities. HELL NO," wrote Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on X on Sunday.
On Monday, the Senate kicked off a vote-a-rama process where senators can demand an unlimited number of votes on amendments to the reconciliation package.
While negotiations on the legislation are still ongoing, the version of the reconciliation bill that was narrowly advanced in the Senate on Saturday includes $29.85 billion for ICE to "remain available through September 30, 2029" for personnel recruitment, technology for "enforcement and removal operations," and other priorities. It also includes $45 billion "for single adult alien detention capacity and family residential center capacity," also available through the same period.
The bill text also includes $46.5 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to spend on border infrastructure, to remain available through September 30, 2029.
Journalist Nicolae Viorel Butler, who reports on immigration for the outlet Migrant Insider, reported on Sunday that all told the measure proposes in excess of $175 billion in "direct immigration-related funding for fiscal year 2025."
This, Butler wrote, reflects "a historic expansion of immigration enforcement operations under a Republican-controlled Congress and the Trump administration."
This money would be a big addition on top of what these agencies already receive. For example, a National Immigration Forum explainer focused on the House version of the reconciliation package noted that $45 billion for ICE detention capacity constitutes an 800% increase in detention funding compared to fiscal year 2024.
"This is the level of funding where all the possibilities for American politics that have been described as hyperbolic over the past decades—the comparisons to Nazi Germany and other nightmares of the 20th century—become logistically possible and politically likely," wrote the philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò on Bluesky, commenting on the infusion of funding.
In every state, immigration arrests carried out by ICE have sharply increased. Also the number of those arrested and detained by ICE who have no criminal record is up more than 1,400% compared to a year ago, according to The Washington Post.
Increased funding for ICE and immigration enforcement is not the only part of the bill drawing scrutiny.
In May, nonpartisan budget scorekeepers said that the U.S. House of Representatives-passed version of the legislation would, if passed, cut household resources for the bottom 10% of Americans while delivering gains to the wealthiest in the form of tax breaks. Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, called the House version of the legislation the "the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history."
"If the Republican budget passes, a lot of Americans will indeed suffer. But so too will millions of noncitizens who came to the U.S. seeking better lives for themselves and their families," wrote Post columnist Philip Bump of the increase in funding for ICE.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s One Big Beautiful (Ugly) Bill Versus an Unsung Hero
An unlikely hero blocked a provision that amounted to an assault on the Constitution: the Senate parliamentarian. Will her ruling stick?
Jun 25, 2025
In the dead of night at 2:53 am on May 22, the House of Representatives began to consider President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
Four hours later, Republicans passed it by a single vote—215 to 214. It included a provision that effectively forgave most of Trump’s unconstitutional actions and undermined the federal courts.
Republicans in the Senate made it worse.
Over the weekend, an unlikely hero blocked this assault on the Constitution: the Senate parliamentarian. Will her ruling stick? Or will Senate Republicans detonate the “nuclear option” to save the provision?
Negating Trump’s Courtroom Losses
Buried in the House bill’s 1,000-plus pages was Section 70302, which allowed Trump to disregard all existing injunctions and continue his unconstitutional policies with impunity. It provided—retroactively—that unless a court required a bond, it could not enforce a contempt charge for violating an injunction or temporary restraining order.
Rarely are bonds required in cases challenging the constitutionality of government policies. Dozens of judges—including Trump appointees—have issued such injunctions to halt his attacks on Big Law firms, closure of federal agencies, deportation of migrants without due process, and more. In case after case, the Trump administration violated those injunctions or stonewalled. Faced with such disobedience, a court’s only enforcement weapon is a contempt charge.
The House was letting Trump off the hook.
“We Can Look at the Language”
Protecting Trump is one thing. But in their myopic quest to make Trump king, House Republicans committed legislative malpractice: Section 70302 also rendered unenforceable hundreds of previous injunctions issued over decades in cases, ranging from antitrust to school desegregation to police reform.
The provision emerged from the House Judiciary Committee after Democrats tried to kill it. Then it went to the Rules Committee where the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, longtime Trump loyalist Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), seemed not to grasp its scope.
Unfortunately, Trump—who has urged elimination of the filibuster—doesn’t care about preserving the institutional value of anything. If he can neuter the courts in the process of bending the Senate to his will, so much the better.
In response to questions from Rules Committee member Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), Jordan asserted incorrectly that the law would apply only to nationwide injunctions in immigration cases. Rep. Neguse pointed out that the provision had no such limitations. It did not contain the words “immigration” or “nationwide.”
Obviously confused, Jordan—a lawyer—briefly consulted with attorneys before responding that Republicans can “look at the language.”
“It’s 6:00 am. You’re voting on this thing in like 10 hours. What are we talking about?” Rep. Neguse replied.
The language didn’t change, and the vote on the One Big Beautiful Bill proceeded.
“This Provision Was Unknown to Me”
Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) has a law degree from the University of Nebraska. At a town hall meeting after voting for the bill, he told angry constituents that he didn’t know about Section 70302.
“I am not going to hide the truth,” he said. “This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill.”
“You voted for it!” came shouts from the audience.
Rep. Flood promised to seek its deletion.
The Senate Version is Worse
The Senate proposed a different way to protect Trump’s unconstitutional actions from judicial scrutiny: an enormous bond that would close the courts to the vast majority of potential litigants. It would require any plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the federal government to post a bond “in an amount proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by the Federal Government.”
That could be millions—sometimes billions—of dollars. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick outlined the tragic irony:
“The basic idea of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is to prevent the damage to the rights and well-being of citizens from the government carrying out an action or policy that is likely to be found illegal or unconstitutional.”
“The new Senate version turns that logic on its head, instead seeking to protect the government from any costs that might be incurred from citizens asserting their rights…” [emphasis in original]
The Senate version would also prohibit a court from considering “any factor other than” the costs and damages that the government will sustain if it gets the injunction reversed on appeal. In other words, a plaintiff’s inability to pay the bond and the hardship that a plaintiff will sustain if the court refuses to grant the injunction are irrelevant.
The provision would prevent most lawsuits against government action from being filed in the first place because few would have the means to pay upfront. As Justice Bolick observed, Trump’s victims would have no choice but to “accept violations of their rights rather than seek legal redress, severely undermining the Constitution.”
An Unsung Profile in Courage
The Senate is relying on the “reconciliation” process to pass Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill with a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes that would otherwise be required to overcome a Democratic filibuster. But the process is available only for legislation relating to government spending, taxes, and the deficit. “Extraneous” measures are not allowed.
The Senate parliamentarian determines what is “extraneous.” Elizabeth MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney, has held the nonpartisan position since 2012. Several times under both Republicans and Democrats she has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills. The current attempt to limit federal court injunctions is among many provisions that she struck from the Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill.
That’s a problem because there are only 53 Senate Republicans, and they need 60 votes to overcome any objection to an extraneous provision, unless…
The “Nuclear Option”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) could accept the parliamentarian’s rulings and strip the Senate bill of its offending provisions.
Or he could overrule the parliamentarian with a simple majority (50 + Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote)—a rare event. On January 6, 2025, Thune said he wouldn’t use that “nuclear option”:
“Yeah, and that’s totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can’t go there. People need to understand that.”
Sen. John Thune is about to get the test of his political career: loyalty to Trump or to the Constitution?
On May 21, Thune led Republicans in disregarding the parliamentarian’s opinion and repealing California’s electric vehicle mandate banning the sale of most new gas-powered cars by 2035. On the Senate floor, he assured Democrats that it was a one-off based on the Congressional Review Act:
“We are not talking about doing anything to erode the institutional character of the Senate.”
Unfortunately, Trump—who has urged elimination of the filibuster—doesn’t care about preserving the institutional value of anything. If he can neuter the courts in the process of bending the Senate to his will, so much the better.
Sen. John Thune is about to get the test of his political career: loyalty to Trump or to the Constitution? He swore an oath only to one of them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The GOP Hates You and Wants You to Have a Harder Life
Having a steady and reliable supply of cheap labor to maintain high profits requires widespread poverty, ignorance, death, and disease. So their policy agenda is built around creating that.
May 15, 2025
Republicans in the House of Representatives voted out of committee early Wednesday morning legislation that would strip as many as 14 million Americans of their Medicaid-based healthcare, including millions of seniors in nursing homes and children living in poverty.
Ironically, red states will be hit harder by this than blue states, as they’re generally less capable of making up the loss of federal funds (Medicaid is administered at the state level with block grants from the feds).
Which provokes some serious head-scratching among the pundit class: Why would Republicans kneecap their own people? Do they really think they can get away with it, just to fund tax breaks for Elon, Mark, Jeff, and Donald? And, for that matter, why is it that red states are so vulnerable to this GOP perfidy?
Republicans are more than willing to tolerate massive, desperate levels of human suffering to make sure there’s a steady supply of cheap labor. In fact, they intentionally run their states that way to produce those results.
One of the enduring mysteries of America is why the citizens of red states are generally poorer, less educated, and sicker than the citizens of blue states. To that question, I step up as your hierophant with an answer to this deep mystery that you may not have previously considered.
First, that generalization is broadly true:
- Blue states account for about 71% of America’s GDP, whereas red states only produce 29% of our income and wealth.
- The median family income in blue states is $74,243. In red states it’s $63,553. Individual states highlight the disparity: New Jersey’s median income is $89,703, while Mississippi’s is $49,111.
- Counties that voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020 are more diverse, being 35% nonwhite compared to 16% nonwhite populations in counties that voted for President Donald Trump.
- Counties that voted for Biden in 2020 are better educated, with 36% of their population having some college education compared to Trump’s counties at 25%.
- Residents of blue states live 2.2 years longer, on average, than residents of red states.
And, second, it’s undeniably true (and documented with each hotlink below) that Republican-controlled red states, almost across the board, have higher rates of:
- Spousal abuse
- Obesity
- Smoking
- Teen pregnancy
- Sexually transmitted diseases
- Abortion (at least before Dobbs; now it would be “forced births”)
- Bankruptcies and poverty
- Homicide and suicide
- Infant mortality
- Maternal mortality
- Forcible rape
- Robbery and aggravated assault
- Dropouts from high school
- Divorce
- Contaminated air and water
- Opiate addiction and deaths
- Unskilled workers
- Parasitic infections
- Income and wealth inequality
- Covid-19 deaths and unvaccinated people
- Federal subsidies to states (“Red State Welfare”)
- People on welfare
- Child poverty
- Homelessness
- Spousal murder
- Unemployment
- Deaths from auto accidents
- People living on disability
- Gun deaths
But are all these things happening because Republicans simply hate their citizens and explicitly want high levels of poverty, ignorance, death, and disease?
Turns out there’s a much simpler answer.
The problem for red states is that Republicans worship cheap labor, because it drives up profits for the fat cats who own American businesses—and having a steady and reliable supply of cheap labor to maintain high profits requires widespread poverty, ignorance, death, and disease.
That poverty, of course, brings along with it the long list of social ills above, but Republicans are more than willing to tolerate massive, desperate levels of human suffering to make sure there’s a steady supply of cheap labor. In fact, they intentionally run their states that way to produce those results.
If you have any doubts about this, if that sounds like hyperbole, simply look at the policies the GOP has promoted for the past century:
- Republicans hate unions, because unions raise wages and benefits for workers, shifting them from poverty into the middle class. Once thus empowered, those uppity middle-class people then start to demand “unreasonable” things like overtime pay (Project 2025 would functionally end it), healthcare, paid vacations, paid sick leave, and paid family leave.
- Republicans hate Social Security and have worked to gut, privatize, or outright end it ever since FDR signed it into law in 1935. They do this because elderly workers in poverty are a great source of compliant, cheap labor. Former President Ronald Reagan’s changes in Social Security benefits have led to millions of Boomers having to take gigs as greeters, waiters, etc., for low wages; prior to Reagan’s changes in the Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) and his raising the retirement age to 67, you could safely retire on Social Security in most parts of America at 65. Now, Republicans want to raise that age to 69 or 70.
- Republicans hate universal or inexpensive healthcare (and real Medicare for the elderly) because having massive medical debt provides a large pool of desperate workers willing to work crappy jobs for pathetic wages to pay it off. It’s why the 10 states that refuse to expand Medicaid for low-income workers are all Republican-controlled. Medical debt is a non-issue in every other developed country in the world, but here in America 79 million people are struggling to pay off doctors’ or hospital bills (7 million of those debtors are elderly, many the victims of the Medicare Advantage scam).
- Republicans hate the minimum wage because it cuts into profits. That’s why the minimum wage in blue states can be more than twice that of red states (Washington State is $17 per hour versus Texas’ $7.25 per hour). When most families are barely earning enough to get by, employers have their pick of distraught, panicked workers willing to work for subsistence wages.
- Republicans hate empowered women because forced pregnancies create more potential workers and unwanted children exacerbate poverty. Thus their 50+ years of opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and their embrace of abortion bans.
- Republicans promote hatred of racial, religious, and gender minorities because when Americans are at each other’s throats they’re not organizing to throw off the GOP-corporate yoke. It’s hard to remember that the billionaires have stolen fully $50 trillion from the middle class over the past 44 years of the Reagan Revolution when you’re constantly distracted with hysteria about Black Haitians, Brown Mexicans, and trans students who just want to use the damn bathroom.
- Republicans hate education because it’s the main tool for people to lift themselves out of poverty and thus demand higher wages and better benefits. Before the Reagan Revolution, every American who wanted to and could pass the entrance exams could go to college; many universities (like the entire University of California system) were free, and you could pay your tuition at most other colleges like I did in the 1960s working weekends as a dishwasher at Bob’s Big Boy in East Lansing, Michigan and pumping gas at the Esso station across the street. This is also why so many red states are gutting their public education systems with private school vouchers. Less education, more poverty; more poverty, more cheap labor.
- Republicans hate atheism and embrace a neofascist form of Protestant Christianity and a bizarre, right-wing version of Catholicism that goes by a Latin name because both are hierarchical and male-dominated, just like corporate culture. It’s why the Confederacy was explicitly Christian. “Don’t worry about how much you’re paid, boy, or bother organizing into a union; just keep picking that cotton and you’ll get your reward in heaven when you die.” After all, according to the Bible your fate was preordained “before the foundation of the world,” as was that of your boss, who must have been selected for particular grace by God or he wouldn’t be so rich.
- Republicans hate food stamps, housing supports, aid to women and dependent children, and every other form of what they call “welfare” because these programs slightly reduce the desperation of people who might otherwise be easily forced to work for a pittance.
- Republicans hate environmental protections because they cut into profits; who cares if the lack of them creates things like the “Cancer Alley”—which hits children particularly hard—that runs through Texas and Louisiana?
- Republicans hate unemployment insurance because it reduces the privation people can experience when they lose a job. It’s why all the blue states offer at least 26 weeks of benefits, but red states often radically reduce that (Florida, North Carolina, Kentucky; 12 weeks; Alabama: 14 weeks; Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri: 16 weeks).
So, the next time somebody asks why Republican policies so often hurt their own people, just tell them, “It’s all because of the cheap-labor Republicans and their loyalty to their greedy billionaire owners.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nothing Short of Fiscal Sabotage': GOP Spending Bill Would Blow $1 Billion Hole in DC Budget
One D.C.-based observer accused the GOP of "attempting to casually cut the budget of a major city simply because they hate us and they can."
Mar 12, 2025
The government spending bill passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Tuesday that aims to avert a government shutdown would effectively cut Washington, D.C.'s budget by almost $1.1 billion dollars, a move that city leaders warned would be devastating for city services, schools, and more.
"The proposed one billion [dollar] cut to D.C.'s budget is senseless, reckless, and would have devastating consequences for our nation’s capital," a spokeswoman for Democratic D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's office said in a statement that was sent to multiple outlets.
The dilemma stems from the fact that Congress has the final word over D.C.'s budget.
The Republican spending bill is a continuing resolution and largely freezes federal spending at levels approved in the prior fiscal year, with $13 billion in cuts to non-military spending. Generally, Congress includes language in the continuing resolution that allows D.C. to spend its locally generated revenue at spending levels it has separately approved, but did not include that provision this time. In 2024, D.C. passed a 2025 budget of $21 billion, funded largely with local tax revenues.
" Republicans opted instead to treat D.C. the same as a federal agency, freezing funds and thus forcing the city to revert to its fiscal year 2024 budget—even as the city has been operating under its larger fiscal year 2025 budget since last October," explained the local D.C. outlet The 51st.
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) released a statement Monday blasting the text of the bill.
"With this bill, House Republicans have intentionally committed nothing short of fiscal sabotage against D.C.," said Norton. "D.C. has not been treated as a federal agency for funding purposes in more than 20 years precisely because doing so can force dramatic overnight cuts to essential services, including police, sanitation, and schools. Cuts to these services would work against Republicans' stated goal of improving public safety and order in D.C."
A memo from D.C. officials explains that reducing local spending by over $1 billion would force a 16% cut to all remaining funds that are not expended. A cut that large would result in layoffs of direct services workers and a reduction or elimination of direct services, per the memo.
The Washington Post reported that it's hard to predict exactly how the cuts will play out, but budget officials believe the reduction could cause $200 million in cuts to D.C. Public Schools and $166 million in cuts to charter schools.
D.C. Water, which distributes drinking water and provides regional wastewater treatment services, could see $51 million in cuts.
"The federal government saves no money from reducing D.C.'s locally funded expenditures," according to the memo from the District, which also noted that the cuts could cause D.C.'s bond rating to be downgraded.
"This is all completely pointless," wrote one observer on X. "There should not be a single vote in Congress in favor of these catastrophic cuts."
Another D.C. resident shared the Post's story and wrote the GOP is "attempting to casually cut the budget of a major city simply because they hate us and they can."
The spending bill now heads to the Senate. Democrats can try to block the measure, though that carries the risk of being blamed for a government shutdown, which would go into effect if no spending bill is passed by Friday.
"Big vote upcoming for Senate Democrats," wrote Post reporter Jeff Stein on Wednesday. "The Trump administration is asserting massive new powers to control federal spending unilaterally, and many Dems view the shutdown bill as their only possible point of leverage. We'll see what they do soon."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Won't Let Them,' Vows Sanders as Trump Endorses House GOP Attack on Medicaid
"If Trump only needed 12 hours to go all-in on slashing Medicaid to fund giveaways to the wealthy, why should anyone expect other entitlements to be off the table?" wrote one editor in an op-ed for MSNBC.
Feb 25, 2025
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had sharp words for a GOP budget resolution that seeks to fund trillions of dollars in tax cuts by almost certainly making major cuts to programs that lower-income Americans rely on, like Medicaid, and could be voted on in the House of Representatives as soon as Tuesday evening.
Medicaid, Sanders wrote on social media Monday, provides coverage for over 60% of people in nursing homes and millions of children. "Trump and his Republican friends want to enact massive cuts to the program. We won't let them," wrote Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats.
While the budget resolution doesn't explicitly call for cuts to Medicaid, the resolution directs the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid spending, to come up with $880 billion in cuts.
Sanders' post on social media was accompanied by a clip from an MSNBC interview from last week, where he and host Ali Velshi discussed U.S. President Donald Trump's backtracking on his statement that he would not make cuts to Medicaid.
On February 18, Trump told Fox News that "Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched." Less than 24 hours later Trump endorsed the House budget blueprint on Truth Social, saying he liked that plan better than a separate Senate version.
"The House Resolution implements my FULL America First Agenda, EVERYTHING, not just parts of it!" Trump wrote.
That flip flop inspired an op-ed from James Downie, an editor for MSNBC, who wrote Monday that "that pirouette should worry not only the millions of Americans on Medicaid, but those drawing Medicare and even Social Security benefits as well."
"If Trump only needed 12 hours to go all-in on slashing Medicaid to fund giveaways to the wealthy, why should anyone expect other entitlements to be off the table?" Downie wrote.
Cutting the federal government's share of Medicaid spending could mean millions of Americans lose health coverage unless states step up and fill the gap, according to The New York Times.
" House Republicans hunting for ways to pay for President Trump's tax cuts have called for cutting the federal government's share of Medicaid spending, including a proposal that would effectively gut the Affordable Care Act's 2014 expansion of the program," the outlet reported Tuesday.
Meanwhile, steep cuts in the budget outline have made some GOP House members nervous. With a razor-thin majority in the House, Republicans can't afford more than a single defection if they want to pass the resolution—and a couple have already said they are against the measure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hey GOP! No One Voted to Cut Social Security
Let there be no doubt: Trump and the Republicans will try to cut our earned benefits. But just as a grassroots movement around the country succeeded in saving the Affordable Care Act during Trump’s first term, we can save Social Security and Medicare.
Nov 13, 2024
No one voted to cut Social Security. No one voted to cut Medicare. And no one voted for higher drug prices.
Donald Trump ran on a promise to protect Social Security and Medicare. Based on Trump’s long record of working to cut and undermine our earned benefits, we don’t trust that promise for one second. But we plan to make him keep it.
There’s a good reason Trump didn’t campaign on cutting Social Security: Ninety-two percent of Americans think that’s a terrible idea.
What will Trump do once he’s actually in the White House? During his first term, he tried to cut Social Security every single year. He appointed an unqualified crony, Andrew Saul, to head the Social Security Administration. And he surrounded himself with advisors who had long records of working to cut and privatize Social Security.
Now, Trump has a new advisor, Elon Musk. He just put Musk in charge of a commission to slash $2 trillion of federal spending. That is essentially impossible without cutting Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid. Indeed, incoming Vice President JD Vance has specifically said that Musk will target Social Security.
We are never going to stop fighting to protect and expand Social Security.
Musk is the wealthiest man in the world. It’s no surprise that Musk and his fellow billionaires want to cut our earned benefits rather than pay their fair share in taxes.
Trump’s top priority is to extend the tax cuts he gave the ultra-wealthy in his first term. Then, Republicans will turn around and claim that we “can’t afford” Social Security and Medicare.
Republicans in Congress have already telegraphed what those cuts could look like. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus that counts over 80 percent of House Republicans as members, released a budget proposal earlier this year that makes massive cuts to Social Security. That includes raising the retirement age to 69, and decimating benefits for the middle class.
The RSC budget would also repeal Medicare’s power to negotiate lower drug prices. That means seniors and people with disabilities would have to turn over more of their hard-earned Social Security checks to Big Pharma.
In case anyone doubted that Republicans are serious about passing these cuts into law, House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (who angrily chased me down the street last year after I confronted him about his support for Social Security cuts) just pledged to cut health care benefits through reconciliation—meaning that Republicans would only need 50 votes in the Senate.
Trump and Republicans will try to cut our earned benefits. But just as a grassroots movement of Americans around the country succeeded in saving the Affordable Care Act during Trump’s first term, we can save Social Security and Medicare.
Musk is the wealthiest man in the world. It’s no surprise that Musk and his fellow billionaires want to cut our earned benefits rather than pay their fair share in taxes.
Here’s how:
- Hold Every Republican Accountable: Republicans will have only a slim majority in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. Every member of the House, and one-third of the Senate, is on the ballot in 2026. We will target every Republican in a competitive district with protests and billboards saying: Hands off our Social Security and Medicare!
- Keep Democrats Unified: There’s nothing Republicans want more than bipartisan cover for benefit cuts. Democrats must stand united and refuse to give it to them. We are calling on every Democrat in Congress to stand strong against even one penny of cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
- Refuse To Go Behind Closed Doors: Republicans want to create a closed-door, fast-track commission to cut benefits without political accountability. We’ve beaten back this type of commission before, and we’re prepared to do so again. Any changes to Social Security must happen through regular Congressional order, in the light of day.
We are never going to stop fighting to protect and expand Social Security. Social Security has stood strong for nearly a century. It has survived wars, depressions, and pandemics. And with your help, it will survive Donald Trump.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Will Fight Tyranny and Defend the Common Good From Trump—Starting Now
How will we conduct this resistance? By organizing our communities. By fighting through the courts. By arguing our cause through the media. We won't stop until the battles are won.
Nov 06, 2024
I won’t try to hide it. I’m heartbroken. Heartbroken and scared, to tell you the truth. I’m sure many of you are, too.
Donald Trump has decisively won the presidency, the Senate, and possibly the House of Representatives and the popular vote, too.
I still have faith in America. But right now, that’s little comfort to the people who are most at risk.
Millions of people must now live in fear of being swept up by Trump’s cruel mass deportation plan – documented immigrants, as he has threatened before, as well as undocumented, and millions of American citizens with undocumented parents or spouses.
Women and girls must now fear that they’ll be forced to give birth or be denied life-saving care during an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage.
America has become less safe for trans people – including trans kids – who were already at risk of violence and discrimination.
Anyone who has already faced prejudice and marginalization is now in greater danger than before.
Also in danger are people who have stood up to Trump, who has promised to seek revenge against his political opponents.
Countless people are now endangered on a scale and intensity almost unheard of in modern America.
Our first responsibility is to protect all those who are in harm’s way.
We will do that by resisting Trump’s attempts to suppress women’s freedoms. We will fight for the rights of women and girls to determine when and whether they have children. No one will force a woman to give birth.
We will block Trump’s cruel efforts at mass deportation. We will fight to give sanctuary to productive, law-abiding members of our communities, including young people who arrived here as babies or children.
We will not allow mass arrests and mass detention of anyone in America. We will not permit families to be separated. We will not allow the military to be used to intimidate and subjugate anyone in this country.
We will protect trans people and everyone else who is scapegoated because of how they look or what they believe. No one should have to be ashamed of who they are.
We will stop Trump’s efforts to retaliate against his perceived enemies. A free nation protects political dissent. A democracy needs people willing to stand up to tyranny.
How will we conduct this resistance?
By organizing our communities. By fighting through the courts. By arguing our cause through the media.
We will ask other Americans to join us – left and right, progressive and conservative, white people and people of color. It will be the largest and most powerful resistance since the American revolution.
But it will be peaceful. We will not succumb to violence, which would only give Trump and his regime an excuse to use organized violence against us.
We will keep alive the flames of freedom and the common good, and we will preserve our democracy. We will fight for the same things Americans have fought for since the founding of our nation – rights enshrined in the constitution and Bill of Rights.
The preamble to the Constitution of the United States opens with the phrase “We the people”, conveying a sense of shared interest and a desire “to promote the general welfare”, as the preamble goes on to say.
We the people will fight for the general welfare.
We the people will resist tyranny. We will preserve the common good. We will protect our democracy.
This will not be easy, but if the American experiment in self-government is to continue, it is essential.
I know you’re scared and stressed. So am I.
If you are grieving or frightened, you are not alone. Tens of millions of Americans feel the way you do.
All I can say to reassure you is that time and again, Americans have opted for the common good. Time and again, we have come to each other’s aid. We have resisted cruelty.
We supported one another during the Great Depression. We were victorious over Hitler’s fascism and Soviet communism. We survived Joe McCarthy’s witch-hunts, Richard Nixon’s crimes, Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam war, the horrors of 9/11, and George W Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We will resist Donald Trump’s tyranny.
Although peaceful and non-violent, the resistance will nonetheless be committed and determined.
It will encompass every community in America. It will endure as long as necessary.
We will never give up on America.
The resistance starts now.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Yes, Trump and the GOP Have a Plan to Steal This Election If Defeated
The pieces are already being put into place, which is giving me a terrible sense of déjà vu.
Oct 15, 2024
Sometimes I hate being right.
Donald Trump is campaigning in Blue states right now, including California, Colorado, and New York. It has pundits scratching their heads: is it just all about his ego? Is he crazy? Or crazy like a fox?
I’d argue the latter: that this is part of a strategy to legally seize the White House after he’s lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote, much like Republican Rutherford B. Hayes did in the election of 1876.
Eight months before the 2020 election, I wrote a largely-ridiculed article for Alternet.org predicting that Trump would lose the election but would then use multiple phony slates of swing-state electors to try to get the Electoral College count thrown to the House of Representatives where, under the 12th Amendment, the Republican majority would crown him president.
I noted that I’d first heard of the plan that month from a Republican insider I knew from my days living and doing my radio/TV program from Washington, DC.
And, as we all now know, that’s pretty much exactly what happened.
Fortunately, Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi stopped Trump and his merry band of corrupt lawyers and lawmakers (including Mike Johnson, who led the effort in the House) from executing the plan, but not before five civilians and three police officers lay dead because Trump incited a violent attack on the Capitol in his final, desperate attempt to pull it off.
Now we know, I believe, why Donald Trump thinks it’s so important to call out the military around election day this year. He expects millions of Americans to be in the streets because his plan is for the House, Republicans in the states, and the Supreme Court to hand him the presidency regardless of the election’s outcome.
Last Friday, my SiriusXM colleague Michelangelo Signorile mentioned to me (on his program) that a prominent rightwing hate radio host had claimed Trump is campaigning in Blue states right now so he can help out down-ballot House members in those states. According to that host, it’s all about holding the House so when the time comes for the election to be certified Republicans will be able to deny that still-necessary certification and vote Trump in themselves.
Which is giving me a terrible sense of déjà vu. At the risk of again playing the reluctant role of Cassandra, here are some examples of how Trump and the GOP could try to steal the White House this winter, regardless of how the vote turns out. And how Republicans are today telegraphing this very outcome.
Article II (the Executive Branch), Section I, Clause 2 of the Constitution (and the 12th Amendment, which revises it) gives solely to the legislatures of the states the power to control the electors who will decide the presidential election.
It does not say — and there is no federal law that says — that the people of the states shall vote for their choice of president and then that vote shall be reflected in the states’ electoral votes. It’s entirely up to each state’s legislature (without any input from the governor).
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…” is how it appears in Article II of the Constitution.
As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in the 2000 Bush v Gore decision when the US Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s order for a recount that would have given the election to Al Gore:
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States… [T]he state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution.”
Every state’s legislature generally directs all their electors to vote for the candidate who won the majority in the state (Maine and Nebraska are the exception, allowing for split decisions), a system we call “winner takes all,” but, as Rehnquist noted, a state’s legislature (its combined house or assembly and senate) can, by simple majority vote, direct its electors to vote for any candidate they want, even over the objection of their governor.
In the 2000 election, for example, when the Florida Supreme Court ordered a complete recount of the vote for president in that state, Jeb Bush and his Republicans knew that a full, statewide recount would give Al Gore the presidency. (It would have discovered the additional 45,599 votes for Al Gore that Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris arbitrarily and illegally chose not to count, as The New York Times noted a year later.)
In other words, had the U.S. Supreme Court not intervened to stop the Florida recount, the Republicans in the Florida legislature were fully prepared to hand the entire Florida electoral college vote — and, thus, the White House — to George W. Bush, even if a recount showed that Al Gore actually won the state. It was, after all, their constitutional right, as Rehnquist later noted in Bush v Gore.
As David Barstow and Somini Sengupta wrote for the New York Times on November 28, 2000, just before the Supreme Court intervened:
“The president of Florida’s Senate said today that Gov. Jeb Bush had indicated his willingness to sign special legislation intended to award Florida’s 25 Electoral College votes to his brother Gov. George W. Bush of Texas even as the election results were being contested.”
“But,” some say, “Kamala Harris is the Vice President, so she won’t refuse to accept the Electoral College votes like Trump wanted Pence to do!”
That’s true, but irrelevant.
While the updated Electoral Count Act explicitly redefines the Vice President’s role as purely ceremonial, it does not — and could not without a constitutional amendment —alter the power of individual Republican-controlled swing states to send Trump electors (claiming that the Harris-winning results in their states are the result of voter fraud) to DC.
Regardless of how transparently dishonest such an effort would be, its primary result would be to throw to the Supreme Court the decision over which electors to count.
Multiple Court observers have noted how light the Court’s docket is this fall because, they speculate, Roberts is fully expecting to play a role in the election similar to what five Republicans on the Court did in 2000 when they stopped the Florida recount, handing the White House to George W. Bush.
The Court could then declare the election flawed because of the alleged voter fraud — Republicans across the country, as well as Trump and Vance, are already preparing the ground for this claim — and, citing the 12th Amendment, throw it to the House of Representatives.
Under that scenario, each state’s House delegation has one single vote for president (the Senate is not involved under the 12th Amendment) and right now there are 26 states controlled by Republicans: the 26-24 vote would put Trump and Vance in the White House for the next four years.
That strategy would require one or more individual states to either refuse to certify their vote, delay certifying their vote, or submit multiple slates of electors.
And we’re already hearing from both local elections officials and state legislators’ rumblings that this is exactly what they intend to do.
Another option to produce the same result would be for a majority vote in the House to refuse to certify a Harris win.
Which brings us back to Trump campaigning in Blue states. As Ed Kilgore wrote for The New Yorker:
“As it happens, there are ten highly competitive House races in California and New York, and a Trump appearance nearby could goose GOP turnout and promote party-organizing efforts in ways that could make a difference in those contests.”
This brings us back to the scenario Michelangelo shared with me. The new, 2025-2026 House is sworn in on January 3rd, whereas the presidential vote is certified on January 6th.
If Democrats win the House in November and are sworn in on January 3rd, it’s unlikely that Speaker Hakeem Jeffries would go along with Trump’s scheme on January 6th, and Republicans wouldn’t have the necessary majority in any case.
But if Republicans can hold the House, there’s a good chance that Speaker Mike Johnson would happily hold the vote to declare Harris’ win as “fraudulent.” After all, he’s the guy who corralled fully 147 votes against certifying the 2020 election in the House; his being the ringleader of that effort is the main reason he’s the speaker right now.
There are multiple razor-tight House races in California, Colorado, and New York. Trump and his co-conspirators may well believe that his holding rallies in those states represents the best bet for helping Republicans win those races, thus insuring Johnson is in charge of the House so they can refuse certification and throw the case to themselves via the Supreme Court.
Seizing control of the Senate would be the icing on the cake for this scheme, as it’s also sworn in on January 3rd and also votes to certify the Electoral College vote, but a deadlock is only necessary in one of the two legislative bodies, and if the 12th Amendment is invoked by six Republicans on the Supreme Court because of that deadlock only the House votes for president.
Keep in mind, JD Vance is still refusing to say that Trump lost the 2020 election, most recently stonewalling the question five times in a podcast interview with Lulu Garcia-Navarro of The New York Times last week. Donald Trump is also still asserting that he won, and is already signaling that he intends to declare victory in November regardless of the “official” outcome.
And, unlike in 2020, there are no longer Mitt Romneys, Adam Kinzingers, or Liz Cheneys in Congress who could gum up the works. The GOP is today unified in its assertion that voter fraud handed Joe Biden the 2020 presidency: this is the perfect setup for the scenarios I’m describing, and Republicans know it. They created it, in fact.
The most likely scenario, though, would involve local election officials gumming up the works by slow-walking counts, challenging counts, or outright refusing to certify counts at the state level long enough that several individual state votes can’t be certified by January 6th, very much like in the election of 1876.
That would provide an easy excuse for the six Republicans on the Supreme Court to intervene, invoke the 12th Amendment, and throwing the election to the House, guaranteeing Trump’s victory.
As Jim Rutenberg and Nick Corasaniti recently wrote for The New York Times:
“The Republican Party and its conservative allies are engaged in an unprecedented legal campaign targeting the American voting system. Their wide-ranging and methodical effort is laying the groundwork to contest an election that they argue, falsely, is already being rigged against former President Donald J. Trump. …
“Even if the cases fail, Mr. Trump’s allies are building excuses to dispute the results, while trying to empower thousands of local election officials to disrupt the process. Already, election board members in several states have moved to block certification of primary election tallies, including in a major swing county in Nevada last week.”
The updated Electoral Count Act sets a hard date of December 11th for states to certify the vote, but doesn’t detail any consequences or outcomes if states fail to meet that date. Thus, in the case of conflict, confusion, or multiple lawsuits the case would, again, end up before the six Republicans who control the Supreme Court.
As the Times’ Rutenberg and Corasaniti note:
“For his part, Mr. Whatley, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, was noncommittal when reporters recently asked him if his party would seek to block certification in any states this fall.
“‘We’re not going to cross any of those bridges right now,’ he said.”
Gee, ya think? They couldn’t be telegraphing their plans any more clearly if they were skywriting them.
I wrapped up my March 2020 article predicting the GOP’s upcoming fake elector strategy by imploring Democrats and the media to ring the alarm before they tried to pull it off:
“Get it into the media and repeat it over and over again: The GOP plans to claim Democratic voter fraud in this election to steal the election for themselves, and they’re already getting people primed for it!”
It’s worth repeating today.
Pass it along.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy