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
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
Most Popular