

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.
"The trade powers Trump is illegally usurping are expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution," said Rep. Don Beyer.
Republicans in the US House on Tuesday tried—and narrowly failed—to advance a measure containing language that would have temporarily blocked votes on resolutions disapproving of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
Democrats voted unanimously to defeat the measure, and were joined by just three House Republicans—Don Bacon of Nebraska, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and Kevin Kiley of California—in a final vote of 214 in favor to 217 opposed.
As reported by MS NOW, House Republicans tucked language preventing challenges to Trump's tariff policies into a rule setting up floor consideration for legislation related to US energy security.
While a similar provision was passed in the House in September before expiring at the end of January, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was unable to cobble together votes to get it passed this time.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) celebrated what he described as a "heartening" victory, while expressing concern that the vast majority of Republicans were comfortable letting the president take their constitutionally mandated power over taxation.
"Most Republicans again tried to surrender Congress’ power as a coequal branch of government to check a president who is behaving like a mad king," Beyer wrote in a social media post. "The trade powers Trump is illegally usurping are expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution."
Matt Fuller, director of congressional reporting at MS NOW, similarly argued that "it's a lot more notable to me that 214 House Republicans voted to hand Donald Trump unchecked authority to levy tariffs until August than it is that three House Republicans said 'no.'"
While Tuesday's vote suggests a narrowly divided House, Punchbowl News co-founder Jake Sherman argued that it actually represented a "watershed moment" that could open the door to several defeats for the Trump administration on the House floor in the coming days, as Democrats prepare to hammer the GOP with tariff disapproval resolutions.
"Now Democrats have the opportunity to force unlimited votes on the president's global tariffs, putting Republicans on the spot all the time," Sherman explained in a Wednesday social media post. "If Dems handle this well, this is going to get bad for rank and file House Republicans. And it will piss off Trump."
Sherman's assessment of the situation was echoed by the Wednesday edition of Politico Playbook, which noted that Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) is already teeing up a resolution to overturn Trump's tariffs against Canada that is set for a vote on Wednesday afternoon.
"Given the current mood in the House—every single Dem showed up to vote last night, while plenty of Republicans are uncomfortable with tariffs—Johnson looks all but certain to lose," Politico declared.
Matt Maasdam, a Democratic US House candidate running in Michigan's 7th Congressional District, started putting pressure on incumbent Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.) the morning after the Michigan Republican voted to protect Trump from tariff resolutions.
"Tom Barrett has voted over and over to protect the Trump tariffs that make costs go up," wrote Maasdam on social media. "The tariffs on Canada hit Michigan hard. Auto parts for a car made here cross the border multiple times—in a trade war, it’s our workers and businesses who get hurt."
As some Democrats suggest compromising in order to reform the agency, Rep. Rashida Tlaib said that “ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change.”
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a bill to end a brief government shutdown after the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the $1.2 trillion funding package.
While the bill keeps most of the federal government funded until the end of September, lawmakers sidestepped the question of funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Democrats have vowed to block absent reforms to rein in its lawless behavior after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and a rash of other attacks on civil rights.
The bill, which passed on Tuesday by a vote of 217-214, extends funding for ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for just two weeks, setting up a battle in the coming weeks on which the party remains split.
While most Democrats voted against Tuesday's measure, 21 joined the bulk of Republicans to drag it just over the line, despite calls from progressive activists and groups, such as MoveOn, which Axios said peppered lawmakers with letters urging them to use every bit of "leverage" they can to force drastic changes at the agency.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who voted for the bill, acknowledged that it was "a leverage tool that people are giving up," but said funding for the rest of the government took precedence.
The real fight is expected to take place over the next 10 days, with DHS funding set to run out on February 14.
ICE will be funded regardless of whether a new round of DHS funding passes, since Republicans already passed $170 billion in DHS funding in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Democrats in both the House and Senate have laid out lists of reforms they say Republicans must acquiesce to if they want any additional funding for ICE, including requirements that agents nationwide wear body cameras, get judicial warrants for arrests, and adhere to a code of conduct similar to those for state and local law enforcement.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against Tuesday's bill reiterated that in order to pass longterm DHS funding, "there must be due process, a requirement for judicial warrants and bond hearings; every agent must not only have a bodycam but also be required to use it, take off their masks, and, in cases of misconduct, undergo immediate, independent investigations."
Some critics have pointed out that ICE agents already routinely violate court orders and constitutional requirements, raising questions about whether new laws would even be enforceable.
A memo issued last week, telling agents they do not need to obtain judicial warrants to enter homes, has been described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Tuesday that Republicans will not even consider negotiating the warrant requirement, calling it "unworkable."
"We cannot trust this DHS, which has already received an unprecedented funding spike for ICE, to operate within the bounds of our Constitution or our laws," Jayapal said. "And for that reason, we cannot continue to fund them without significant and enforceable guardrails."
According to recent polls, the vast majority of Democratic voters want to go beyond reforms and push to abolish ICE outright. In the wake of ICE's reign of terror in Minneapolis, it's a position that nearly half the country now holds, with more people saying they want the agency to be done away with than saying they want it preserved.
"The American people are begging us to stop sending their tax dollars to execute people in the streets, abduct 5-year-olds, and separate families," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who gathered with other progressive lawmakers in the cold outside DHS headquarters on Tuesday. "ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change... No one should vote to send another cent to DHS."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who comes from the Minnesota Somali community targeted by Trump's operation there, agreed: "This rogue agency should not receive a single penny. It should be abolished and prosecuted."
"They are actively choosing to go into the holiday break, knowing healthcare premiums are doubling and tripling for millions of Americans in 2026, and doing nothing about it."
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that he will not allow a vote to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the month, solidifying his party's decision to let tens of millions of Americans face massive premium increases in the new year.
Speaking to reporters, Johnson acknowledged that some swing-district Republicans pushed him for a vote on the ACA subsidies as people across the country face sticker shock, with premiums more than doubling on average.
"We looked for a way to try to allow for that pressure release valve, and it just was not to be," Johnson said of the ACA tax credit vote. "We worked on it all the way through the weekend, in fact. And in the end there was not an agreement."
Johnson's comments, which sparked angry backlash from some of his GOP colleagues, came less than a week after Senate Republicans voted down a Democratic measure that would have extended the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) called Johnson's obstruction of a subsidy vote "bullshit" and "political malpractice."
Around 22 million Americans received the subsidies, which were first put in place in 2021 amid the Covid-19 pandemic. A survey released earlier this month by the health policy group KFF found that 25% of ACA marketplace enrollees would "very likely" go without insurance if their monthly insurance premiums doubled.
The ACA open enrollment period ended Monday for those with coverage starting start January 1, 2026.
"With no extension of enhanced tax credits, ACA enrollees are going to start the year with premium payments increasing by an average of 114%, or over $1,000 a year per person," Larry Levitt, KFF's executive vice president for health policy, noted Tuesday. "Some will find a way to pay it, some have switched to higher deductibles, and some have dropped coverage."
"Johnson is choosing chaos, higher costs, and uncertainty for working families."
Ahead of next week's holiday recess, House Republicans are expected to vote on legislation that cobbles together various GOP healthcare ideas that experts say wouldn't do much to lower healthcare costs. Even if the bill—which would not extend the ACA tax credits—passes the House, it stands no chance of getting the necessary 60 votes in the Senate.
"They are actively choosing to go into the holiday break, knowing healthcare premiums are doubling and tripling for millions of Americans in 2026, and doing nothing about it," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said of Republican lawmakers.
Last-ditch, bipartisan efforts to force Johnson to allow a vote using a discharge petition also appear unlikely to garner enough support. NBC News noted that "even if a discharge petition secured the votes to pass, which is far from certain, it would take time to reach the House floor," effectively guaranteeing "it’ll be pushed into next year, with Republicans hoping to adjourn after this week."
Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement Tuesday that "Mike Johnson is running out the clock while millions of families face higher premiums and the loss of affordable coverage in just a couple of weeks."
"Across the country, working Americans are preparing for unimaginable sacrifices," said Woodhouse. "They are getting ready to shut down the small businesses they spent blood, sweat, and tears building because the GOP healthcare hikes are simply unbearable. Many are preparing for what life looks like without insurance. Others are considering leaving their jobs or making the impossible choice between paying for medications, rent, or groceries."
“The solution is simple and already on the table: a clean, three-year extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits," he added. "Johnson is choosing chaos, higher costs, and uncertainty for working families. The choice for House Republicans is clear. If not, the out-of-touch Republican Party will be in for another electoral reckoning in 2026 for raising costs, ripping away coverage, and gambling with the lives of their constituents."