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
republicans
Progressive Group Takes Aim at Four Texas Republicans Who Voted to Cut Medicaid in New Ads
"We're holding these members of Congress accountable for voting for the Republican tax law that strips health care away from millions of Texas families," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal.
Jul 28, 2025
The progressive advocacy group Unrig Our Economy launched a new $2 million advertising campaign Monday against four Texas Republicans who voted for the massive Medicaid cuts in this month's GOP megabill.
At the behest of President Donald Trump, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is mounting an unusual mid-decade effort to redraw Texas' congressional map to keep control of the U.S. House of Representatives come 2026.
The plan is expected to net the GOP five seats. But the flipside is that some seats that were once GOP locks may become more vulnerable to Democratic challengers.
Those include the ones held by Republican Reps. Lance Gooden (5), Monica De La Cruz (15), Beth Van Duyne (24), and Dan Crenshaw (2)—all of whom voted for the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act."
Put together, these four congresspeople alone represent around 450,000 Medicaid recipients, according to data from KFF.
The law remains dismally unpopular, with the majority of Americans believing that it benefits the rich, while providing little to ordinary Americans. According to a Navigator survey conducted last week, 7 in 10 Americans said they were concerned about its cuts to Medicaid.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that 10 million Americans will lose health insurance as a result of the law's Medicaid cuts.
Around 200,000 of them are in Texas according to KFF. In total, up to 1.7 million people in the state may lose their insurance as a result of other subsidies that were also cut.
Those are the people Unrig Our Economy hopes to reach with its new ad blitz.
One ad hits Crenshaw—whose district has nearly 92,000 Medicaid recipients—for making false promises to protect the program.
(Video: Unrig Our Economy)
It shows a video of the congressman from May 14 assuring Texans: "You have nothing to worry about. Your Medicaid is not going anywhere," less than two months before voting for "the largest Medicaid and healthcare cuts in history."
Another singles out De La Cruz—who represents over 181,000 Medicaid recipients—for her vote for the bill after warning that the cuts "would have serious consequences, particularly in rural and predominantly Hispanic communities where hospitals and nursing homes are already struggling to keep their doors open."
Among hundreds at risk across the country, 15 rural hospitals in Texas are in danger of closing because of the cuts, according to a study by the health services research arm of the University of North Carolina.
The ads targeting Gooden and Van Duyne, meanwhile, draw more attention to the effects of their cuts on Texan families: "Medicaid covers a third of all children, half of all pregnant women, the elderly in long-term care, and the disabled."
(Video: Unrig Our Economy)
Gooden's district contains more than 120,000 Medicaid recipients—over half of whom are children. In Van Duyne's district, children make up close to two-thirds of the more than 57,000 enrollees.
According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the bill cuts more than $930 billion in total from Medicaid over the next ten years. Over that same ten-year period, the wealthiest 1% of Americans will receive over $1 trillion worth of tax breaks.
All the ads hammer home the fact that these devastating cuts were passed "to fund tax breaks for billionaires."
Unrig Our Economy's ad blitz is the first salvo of a $20-million effort by the House Majority PAC—the largest national PAC supporting Democrats—to beat back the effects of the Republican gerrymandering effort.
"We're holding these members of Congress accountable for voting for the Republican tax law that strips healthcare away from millions of Texas families," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal.
Unrig Our Economy has launched similar ads against vulnerable Republicans across the country, such as first-term Rep. Rob Bresnahan, whose northeast Pennsylvania constituency is made up of more than one-fourth Medicaid recipients.
"These ads," Tal said, "are just the latest in our nationwide campaign to show the horrible impacts of this law, which benefits the superwealthy at working families' expense."
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
Senate GOP Adds $1 Billion Tax 'Giveaway' for Big Oil to Budget Bill
That provision was secured by Senator James Lankford, who has received more than $546,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 2019.
Jun 20, 2025
Senate Republicans have added a provision to their draft of the budget reconciliation package that would exempt domestic oil and gas companies from paying corporate taxes, saving them more than $1 billion over the next decade.
On Wednesday, David Dayen reported in The American Prospect that the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill, released Monday, "shields domestic onshore oil and gas drillers from the Inflation Reduction Act's corporate alternative minimum tax," or CAMT.
That provision was secured by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), and the benefits would largely flow to companies based in his home state.
As Dayen wrote, the CAMT is "a fairly clean tax provision as these things go." It currently requires companies that bring in more than $1 billion to pay 15% of the profits they report to shareholders.
However, the Senate Republican draft would modify that calculation to account for "intangible drilling and development costs," which would allow companies to declare lower profits and put many of them below the threshold required to pay the 15% tax.
According to Bloomberg, companies including ConocoPhillips, Ovintiv, and Civitas Resources lobbied in favor of the bill. Lankford, meanwhile, received more than $546,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry—his top source of industry donations—between 2019 and 2024 according to OpenSecrets.
Big Oil will be rewarded handsomely for its efforts. The provision in the Senate GOP bill is virtually identical to another bill proposed by Lankford, which the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found would hand $1.1 billion in government revenue to the fossil fuel industry over the next 10 years.
"This disastrous piece of legislation includes giveaway after giveaway for the fossil fuel industry, while cutting crucial clean energy programs that help consumers save money on their electric bills," said Alan Zibel, an oil and gas researcher with the consumer rights group Public Citizen.
In addition to this tax loophole, the Senate GOP's bill includes billions of dollars in upfront subsidies to Big Oil and cuts royalties paid by oil and gas companies for drilling on public lands. At the same time, the bill guts subsidies for wind and solar energy, including a tax credit that saved money for consumers who made their homes more energy efficient.
Through its combination of tax breaks and cuts to safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps, the so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" constitutes a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office last week, it would result in the richest 10% of households bringing in an extra $12,000 a year while the poorest 10% would lose nearly $1,600.
"You have got to be kidding me," tweeted the account for Americans for Tax Fairness in response to the Senate GOP's draft. "Not only does the bill gut Medicaid and SNAP to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Now it gives Big Oil MORE money while they price-gouge us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular