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
senate republicans
With Help From Vance, Senate GOP Votes to Decimate Medicaid to Fund Tax Cuts for Rich
"Historians—and voters—will look back at this as a dark day in U.S. history."
Jul 01, 2025
With a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance, Senate Republicans on Tuesday narrowly passed budget legislation that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history and trillions of dollars in tax breaks that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans.
The Senate tally was 50-50 prior to Vance's intervention, with Democrats unanimously opposed and Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) crossing the aisle to vote against the bill, which now heads back to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
"JD Vance was the deciding vote to cut Medicaid across the country," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote in response to the Senate vote. "An absolute and utter betrayal of working families."
The 887-page legislation includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts that would result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. Analysts and advocates warn the proposed cuts would have cascading effects across the country, shuttering rural hospitals and devastating state budgets.
"Senate Republicans just voted to close nursing homes and hospitals around the country. These cuts will hit rural areas hardest, but nowhere is safe," said Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works. "Even if your local hospital doesn't close, it will have more patients and fewer staff due to the loss of Medicaid funding. Half of nursing homes will lose staff, and a quarter will close. All to give trillions in tax handouts to billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos."
"In the end, billionaire political donors want a return on their investment, and Trump and Republicans are determined to give it to them with trillions in new handouts. The rest of us will suffer for it."
The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions and potentially inflicting major damage to local economies across the U.S.—as well as clean energy programs, Planned Parenthood funding, and more.
Even with such seismic cuts, the Senate bill would still add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years due to the size of the measure's tax breaks, which would flow primarily to the rich and large corporations. Experts have said that, if enacted, the Republican legislation would spur the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history.
"This abominable bill will make history—in appalling ways," said Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "Never before has legislation taken so much from struggling families to give so much to the richest. It makes the biggest cuts to food aid for hungry families, executes the largest cuts to healthcare ever, adds trillions to the national debt—all to give $114 billion to the richest 1% in a single year. It's no wonder that this bill is also extremely unpopular. Historians—and voters—will look back at this as a dark day in U.S. history."
The bill also contains a $150 billion boost for the Pentagon and tens of billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"This Republican bill is about caviar over kids, hedge funds over healthcare, and Mar-a-Lago over the middle class," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. "If this becomes law, only the ultrawealthy will make it through unscathed. Every other American will be hurt in one way or another, whether it's cancer patients losing their health coverage, kids going hungry, or families being forced to pay higher utility bills and insurance premiums."
"In the end, billionaire political donors want a return on their investment, and [President Donald] Trump and Republicans are determined to give it to them with trillions in new handouts," Wyden added. "The rest of us will suffer for it. The United States will be a weaker, sicker, and poorer country as a direct result of what the Republicans are doing."
The Senate just passed the largest cut to low-income programs in a single law in US history. It would rip health insurance from more than 10 million people and take food assistance away from millions of households, including families with children and veterans.
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) July 1, 2025
House Republicans are expected to move quickly to pass the Senate-approved legislation before Trump's July 4 deadline, but the bill appears likely to face significant pushback—particularly from far-right members who believe the measure's spending cuts aren't sufficiently aggressive.
Punchbowl reported that the House Rules Committee is expected to meet Tuesday "to begin to prepare the bill for floor consideration."
"The full House is expected back in Washington Wednesday morning, giving the chamber two days to pass the package before" July 4, the outlet noted.
Senate Republican leaders locked in the bill's passage after winning the support of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). The American Prospect's David Dayen reported that Murkowski "was able to secure a waiver from cost-sharing provisions that would for the first time force states to pay for part of" SNAP.
"In order to get that past the Senate parliamentarian, 10 states with the highest payment error rates had to be eligible for the five-year waiver, including big states like New York and Florida, and several blue states as well," Dayen explained. "The expanded SNAP waivers mean that in the short term, only certain states with average or even below-average payment error rates will have to pay into their SNAP program; already, the language provided that states with the lowest error rates wouldn't have to pay."
After voting for the bill, Murkowski suggested that Republicans in the House should change it—meaning it would have to pass the Senate again before reaching Trump's desk.
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, said in a statement that "this fight is not over," pointing to the House Republicans who have "voiced concern about the massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, in addition to the trillions this bill adds to the national debt."
"Since the House last voted for the bill, the Senate has only made the bill more expensive and enacted more cuts to critical programs that their constituents rely on," said Kass. "The question is: Will House members stand up for their constituents, or blindly follow Trump and his elite backers?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
It’s Not Too Late for Senate Republicans to Ditch Their Historically Harmful Bill
It shocks the conscience that Senate Republican leaders saw the impacts of the House bill—16 million more people uninsured and millions losing help buying groceries, including families with children—and chose to double down.
Jun 30, 2025
The Senate is barreling toward a vote on a still-not-finished bill that would take away health coverage and food assistance from millions of people who need it, raise families’ costs, and make a large share of people in our nation worse off—all in service to tax cuts that are heavily skewed toward the wealthy and corporations. But there is still time for senators to say no to this bill.
Senate Republican leaders are tinkering with the bill to try to secure votes, but their changes won’t alter the bottom line: This bill would cause serious harm. It would increase poverty, hunger, and preventable deaths. This agenda would cause about 16 million more people to be uninsured and make healthcare unaffordable for millions more.
The bill’s proponents tout their tax package. But the tax package extends and even increases tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy heirs, while leaving out the one expiring tax cut that helps roughly 22 million people with low and middle incomes afford healthcare.
The president and Senate Republican leaders are pressing toward an immediate vote on the bill even as poll after poll shows a clear majority of people across the U.S. oppose it.
None of this harm has anything to do with fiscal responsibility: Our deficits and debts would soar under this bill. If enacted it will stand alone in history—a reconciliation bill that drives up poverty and the number of people uninsured, while increasing deficits and debt.
And, given that they are still writing the bill, Senate Republicans don’t even know what it costs, though its price tag is surely trillions of dollars, as Congressional Budget Office estimates of earlier drafts made clear.
Still, the president and Senate Republican leaders are pressing toward an immediate vote on the bill even as poll after poll shows a clear majority of people across the U.S. oppose it.
Proponents of this destructive agenda have tried every trick in the book to claim falsely that the deep and harmful cuts to food assistance and health coverage would somehow not hurt people. They’ve done all they can to portray the people it would hurt as anything but who they are—people in communities throughout the country who need help to afford the basics, most of whom work or are children, seniors, or people with disabilities.
Despite obfuscation, the truth is clear—this bill will hurt people in every state if enacted. Senators who vote for it are responsible for its impact:
- Taking health coverage away from about 16 million people and raising costs for millions more through deep cuts to Medicaid and to Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage, and its failure to extend the enhanced premium tax credits. This will cause many to lose access to life-saving medical care, accrue unaffordable medical debt, and have poorer health. The bill will lead to avoidable deaths, more uncompensated care, and more rural hospital closures.
- Taking basic food assistance through SNAP from millions of people and cutting it for millions more. The bill’s still massive, unaffordable cost-shift to states could lead some states to end their SNAP programs entirely. Over the last 50 years, SNAP’s nationwide availability has largely eliminated severe hunger and malnutrition throughout the United States. This bill walks away from the long-standing, bipartisan, and national commitment to food assistance that made that possible.
- Singling out for especially harsh treatment people who are immigrants living and working in the U.S. lawfully. The bill takes federal Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare, ACA marketplace coverage, and SNAP food assistance away from people who are in the country lawfully, including refugees, people granted asylum, and certain survivors of domestic violence or labor or sex trafficking, among others—people who have proven that they have faced persecution or survived violence and exploitation. Because people without a documented status are already ineligible for these supports, the federal savings come from taking help away from people here lawfully.
Add in the president’s tariffs and this agenda would make all but the highest-income 20% of households worse off. The agenda directs harm on the very people the president and many Republicans say they are trying to help.
It shocks the conscience that Senate Republican leaders saw the impacts of the House bill—16 million more people uninsured and millions losing help buying groceries, including families with children—and chose to double down.
Faced with similar, catastrophic projected health coverage losses in 2017 and a deeply unpopular bill, a small group of Republican senators, along with Democrats, had the courage to defeat the disastrous ACA repeal effort. There is still time for Republican senators to find their courage and do the same again.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Senate GOP’s Great Western Land Heist
A buried budget clause could force the largest public land sell-off in modern history, without a vote, a hearing, or a warning.
Jun 21, 2025
The Owyhee Canyonlands still wake to the hush of sage wind and canyon light, where bighorns navigate basalt ledges and silence is a kind of song. That song, and many others, may soon be gated.
Buried in the Senate reconciliation package lies a directive to the Interior and Agriculture secretaries. They are ordered to sell off up to 3.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land across 11 Western states within five years.
This is no minor bureaucratic maneuver. It is a mass land transfer on a scale most Americans cannot imagine. We are talking about 227 Manhattans, nearly as large as Connecticut, six times the size of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Every acre could vanish behind a fence, a lease, or a luxury gate, permanently removed from public access.
What they see as inventory for extraction or speculation, we know as wildlife corridors, ancestral sites, and living ecosystems.
And the damage may not stop there. In addition to this directive, an amendment advanced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) dramatically expands the scope of what land can be targeted next. That amendment opens up as much as 258 million acres, more than half of all public land managed by the BLM and Forest Service, as eligible for future sale. The amendment does not raise the total acreage that must be sold now, but it vastly expands the pool of land that could be nominated for disposal, setting the stage for further mass privatizations.
The sheer scale of the amendment, expanding eligibility to 258 million acres, raises questions about intent. While the bill still caps mandated sales at 3.3 million acres, the broadened eligibility pool may serve several strategic purposes. It positions the smaller number as a “reasonable compromise,” creating the illusion of moderation while setting the legal stage for far greater disposals in future bills. It also appeases private-sector interests by offering a vast catalog of public land to lobby over, speculate on, and nominate for sale. For lawmakers like Sens. Lee and Daines, long committed to shrinking federal land ownership, it advances a deeper ideological goal: redefining public land as provisional and disposable. Even if not all of it is sold now, marking it as eligible redraws the line between what belongs to the people and what can be taken.
Even national monument lands, while currently excluded, may be at risk. The Trump administration’s Department of Justice has argued that a president has the authority to revoke monument protections unilaterally. If that view prevails, another 13.5 million acres of previously protected lands could be opened for sale with the stroke of a pen. That is nearly as much land as the entire state of West Virginia. It is the equivalent of more than 10 Grand Canyon National Parks or over 15,000 Central Parks. All of it currently protected for future generations. All of it just one legal argument away from the auction block.
The Map They Will Not Show You
Behind closed doors, agency and congressional staff, working closely with industry allies, are drawing lines around timber-rich slopes, mineral-heavy ridges, and land primed for private development. What they see as inventory for extraction or speculation, we know as wildlife corridors, ancestral sites, and living ecosystems. These are not forgotten or idle lands. They are part of a shared inheritance now being marked for liquidation.
The bill does not define these parcels as protected, but instead excludes only national parks and formally designated wilderness areas as essential for continued public stewardship. This opens the door to the disposal of millions of acres that remain critical for wildlife, water, and people. At risk are places like:
- Tensleep Canyon, Wyoming: granite walls long sought for magnesite and limestone extraction;
- The Owyhee Canyonlands: This expansive public land, encompassing deep desert canyons across three states, has already been highlighted by several groups most notably the Friends of the Owyhee as a site directly threatened by the Senate land-sale proposal.
- Molalla River, Oregon: a century-old timber corridor still featured in BLM logging plans; and
- Grand Staircase region, Utah: red-rock mesas stripped of nearly 1 million acres of monument protection in 2017, now eyed for coal and uranium leases.
These are only the best-known examples. Many more have already been, and are likely still being, quietly marked by developers, oil and gas firms, and mining consortia.
No hearings. No vote. No chance to object.
The provision does not merely authorize these sales. It mandates them. Each agency must sell between 0.5-0.75% of its total land base through competitive auction within five years. That adds up to between 2.3 and 3.3 million acres. That so-called small fraction still equals more than 3 million acres, roughly the size of Connecticut or nearly one-and-a-half of the area of Yellowstone National Park.
States are granted a “right of first refusal,” but it is a hollow gesture. There is no requirement that land be offered at fair value, no obligation to preserve public access, and no mandate for consultation with Indigenous nations. There are no environmental reviews or affordability conditions. The public has no voice in what is sold or to whom.
These are our lands. Yet we are being shut out of the decision entirely.
Who Wants It, and Who Is Fighting Back
The provision’s primary backers include Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, several Republican members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, large residential developers, fossil fuel and mining companies, and private equity firms that see public land as cheap inventory.
But opposition is accelerating. Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Ron Wyden of Oregon, both senior Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have pledged to fight the inclusion of the land-sale mandate in the reconciliation bill. Even some Republicans from traditionally pro‑development states, such as Sen. James Risch of Idaho and Sen. Steve Daines of Montana—who cosponsored the amendment enabling large‑scale land sales, but later sought to distance himself by emphasizing narrow scope and expressing opposition—have acknowledged public concern over the lack of transparency and long‑term risks.
It is worth asking whether this land policy is a public act or a private arrangement with public consequences.
Tribal governments, conservation groups, small recreation businesses, and national advocacy organizations like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Outdoor Alliance have publicly opposed the public land sell-off provision. They warn that the measure bypasses hearings and public input, threatens access to public lands, and endangers sacred sites, wildlife corridors, and rural economies. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance called it a direct threat to Utah’s redrock country, and multiple Indigenous groups have condemned the lack of tribal consultation.
And the land grab is happening in a political context where the Trump family, once again in the White House, is expanding its business empire, including foreign real estate deals. According to Eliot Brown of The Wall Street Journal, India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, is one of many international investors pouring money into Trump Organization developments. These include projects in real estate, cryptocurrency, and other sectors that stand to benefit from relaxed land-use and ownership rules. It is worth asking whether this land policy is a public act or a private arrangement with public consequences.
Why You Should Care, Wherever You Live
Public lands do more than store carbon. They store stories. They teach children the sound of a free-running stream. They preserve the last unbroken skies. They support a $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy that sustains 5 million jobs and helps recharge watersheds that irrigate crops across the American West.
The land they’re targeting is not empty. It is not surplus. It is alive. It is where the land still speaks in the languages of those who came before. Where every ridge holds a name, every stream a story. It’s where people go to breathe again. To walk without noise. To teach a child how water sounds. It’s where we remember we are small, and that smallness is sacred.
What’s being auctioned is not just land. It is access. It is silence. It is memory, future, belonging, and the last wild chance some people have to feel whole again.
Privatizing these lands is not only an economic and environmental betrayal. It is a moral one. This is not about housing. This is about extraction. This is about raw power, inherited greed, and the open theft of the commons. To do so is to erase the covenant between people and place, to sell the inheritance that binds generations.
And when it’s gone, it’s gone. You don’t replant a thousand-year-old forest. You don’t buy back a clean river. You don’t resurrect what you sold to a bulldozer.
What You Can Do Today
Congress is moving fast, and the window to stop this is closing. The provision to force the sale of public lands is buried deep in a massive budget bill, shielded from public debate and poised to pass quietly behind a smokescreen of competing headlines. This is the moment to act. Delay means disappearance. Once these lands are gone, they do not come back.
- Call your senators. Encourage family and friends to do the same. Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121. Urge them to strike the land-sale mandate from the budget bill.
- Text RESIST to 50409 to send messages to your senators through Resistbot. Resistbot has delivered over 35 million letters, with congressional staff confirming they receive and read them. Independent research shows the tool can boost civic engagement and influence legislative awareness.
- Download and share the Wilderness Society’s interactive “public lands at risk” map and policy alerts. These tools are available through their Media Resources page and recent press releases. Use them to spark conversations at trailheads, town halls, and farmers’ markets.
- Submit a letter to your local paper and help raise public pressure before the bill advances further. Letters to the editor are widely read and often monitored by congressional staff. You can also share your message through neighborhood forums, community Facebook groups, or organizations you’re part of.
- Support those on the front lines, including the Wilderness Society, Native American Rights Fund, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, the Outdoor Alliance, and the Intertribal Timber Council.
Rep. John D. Dingell, America’s longest-serving member of Congress, often reminded us that public lands are more than state assets. He believed they are held in trust, stating plainly, “In democratic government, elected officials do not have power. They hold power in trust for the people who elected them.”
We were never meant to sell the sacred. But if we stay silent now, the lines on the map will be redrawn without us. The land will forget we were ever part of it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular