‘Yes would have been a disaster': Maine Senator Collins faced familiar balancing act on Trump's sweeping bill
is well-accustomed to the high wire act of a Republican moderate in a blue state. Perhaps the best case politically may be that this vote allows her to continue to walk that line, with Trump-supporting Republicans unable to blame her for killing the bill and Democrats unable to blame her for cementing its passage.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'I don't know if 'no' is helpful, but I think 'yes' would have been a disaster,' said Representative Chellie Pingree, the Democrat from Maine's 1st Congressional District, on the implications of Collins' vote in 2026. The legislation's deep cuts to Medicaid and the federal food stamp program will be 'very, very bad for Maine,' Pingree added.
Advertisement
Indeed, in explaining her no vote, Collins pointed to her concerns over Medicaid, saying the bill's proposals 'could threaten not only Mainers' access to health care, but also the very existence of several of our state's rural hospitals.' She ultimately secured language in the bill to establish a $50 billion relief fund for rural hospitals, but it did not change her final vote.
Advertisement
The GOP bill — which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and boosts spending on immigration enforcement while cutting funds for Medicaid and social services — is not popular nationally or in Maine, polls show.
A June 25 survey from the University of New Hampshire found that 58 percent of Mainers opposed the package while 30 percent supported it. Among independents, long a key base for Collins, 72 percent were against the legislation.
That may explain why Democrats wasted no time attempting to link Collins to the bill she voted against. In a statement, Maine Democratic Party spokesman Tommy Garcia noted that the senator on Sunday night voted in favor of allowing the legislation to proceed to debate, clearing a key procedural hurdle.
'Make no mistake: Susan Collins made the deliberate choice to advance this bill, and she'll be held accountable for it in 2026,' Garcia said.
The package would have proceeded without Collins' support on Sunday, given Vance could have broken the tie had she voted to block it. But her willingness to advance it — not uncommon for her, even with bills she eventually opposes — underscored that despite moments of breaking with her party, she is not usually inclined to present herself as a major obstacle.
'She's a team player,' said Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, referring to her vote to advance the legislation to debate. He said Republicans knew when it came to the final vote, Collins likely 'couldn't get there just because of her state.'
Advertisement
But Hoeven credited Collins, who 'helped us get on the bill at a time when we needed that help... people appreciate that and respect that about Susan.'
Those kinds of maneuvers have long been a key ingredient of Collins' political success. In her 2020 campaign, she overcame deepening polarization and partisan backlash to several very significant votes and easily defeated her Democratic rival, Sara Gideon.
Heading into the 2020 campaign, Collins
voted
against Trump's 2017 attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, with the late Senator John McCain providing the ultimate vote to scuttle the president's first big goal. But she also supported the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Those votes, along with her support of confirming Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, provided plenty of fodder for both Republicans and Democrats to oppose her in that campaign.
Collins has not yet announced her reelection plans. The Democratic field of hopefuls for the seat has yet to fully materialize, with Jordan Wood, a former top aide to California Representative Katie Porter, the only candidate so far raising money and campaigning.
But the political environment for Collins could be different than it was six years ago. The UNH poll from June had Collins earning only a 14 percent approval rating. Less than one-third of self-identified Republicans approved of her performance.
'The problem she's got this time around is that any support she's had among Republicans has disappeared,' said Andrew Smith of UNH, who conducted the poll.
The overarching strategy for Collins with this legislative fight, Smith added, may be to 'get this out of the way.' By going against Republicans and Trump, he added, she may also be particularly keen to head off any rumblings of a primary challenge, which has so far failed to seriously materialize.
Advertisement
While Trump has threatened to destroy the political careers of Republicans who oppose his signature legislation, he has been noticeably quiet on Collins. In a social media post after the Senate vote Tuesday, the president wrote, 'Almost all of our Great Republicans in the United States Senate have passed our 'ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.'' He did not mention Collins.
It was a stark difference from Trump's repeated diatribes against GOP holdouts like Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who is already facing Trump-funded primary attacks, or Tillis, who after vocally opposing the bill, announced he would retire rather than face reelection.
Both Massie and Tillis loudly railed against Trump's signature legislation, though, while Collins largely expressed cautious doubts in public while attempting to change it in private. Speaking to
Democrats, along with Collins and Tillis, came to believe that the bill's Medicaid cuts and changes would force an unacceptable number of rural hospitals out of business.
Still, Maine Democrats attacked Collins for not doing enough to block or change the GOP bill, arguing that she should have leveraged her 'power and seniority she likes to campaign on' to dull the worst impacts, said Garcia, of the Maine Democratic Party.
In a lengthy statement explaining her vote, Collins emphasized her support of aspects of the legislation, like extending the 2017 tax cuts, as well as tightening work requirements for 'able-bodied adults who are not raising young children, who are not caregivers, or attending school.'
Advertisement
The senator did not take questions before leaving the Capitol following Tuesday's marathon session, saying she had to catch a plane. On her way out of the chamber, Collins was stopped by Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who shepherded the bill through his Budget Committee. He extended his arm to shake her hand.
The scene may have encapsulated the broader dynamic for Collins.
'She's not going to antagonize anyone even more with this vote,' said UNH's Smith. 'She may disappoint some people; for most, it would be a shrug.'
Sam Brodey can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
There's a sinister reason for Democrats' collapsing pride in America
One of America's two great political parties no longer thinks of itself as proudly American. As recently as 20 years ago, Democrats were almost as keen on their country as Republicans were, according to Gallup polling. In 2005, fully 81 per cent of Democrats said they were 'very' or 'extremely' proud of being American. Today that number is just 36 per cent. Republicans have hardly changed in that time: 93 per cent were 'very' or 'extremely' proud 20 years ago, and 92 per cent feel that way now. Their national pride didn't decline much even during the Democratic administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Democrats have grown more disenchanted with America whenever Donald Trump has been president, but their alienation isn't only about him. There was a time when even the Communist Party USA went out of its way to present itself as patriotic, insisting that 'Communism is 20th-century Americanism'. The 21st-century Democratic Party is rather less eager to present itself as characteristically American. If the Gallup surveys provide one indication of a post-American mentality taking root among Democrats, recent events supply further evidence. When illegal immigrants clash with law-enforcement in cities like Los Angeles, many Democrats, including office holders, side with the foreign lawbreakers. There are some 212 Democrats currently serving in Congress, but only seven voted for a House of Representatives resolution condemning the recent violent protests in LA. The Democrats have come to see themselves as a party that represents populations other than just American citizens. The charismatic 33-year-old who is the Democratic party's nominee for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, is himself an American citizen. But in 2013 his mother, the filmmaker Mira Nair, was quite emphatic in telling the Hindustan Times that Zohran 'is not an [American] at all. He was born in Uganda, raised between India and America. … He thinks of himself as a Ugandan and as an Indian.' That may have changed since he acquired US citizenship in 2018. Then again, his mother was already a US citizen when she made her boast to the Indian newspaper. Mamdani's father, for his part, is a professor at Columbia University renowned, the New York Times notes, as 'a major figure in the field of post-colonialism'. Mamdani might very well tell Gallup he's very or extremely proud to be an American, if he gets called during the next poll. But it's still fair to suggest that a Democratic Party already drifting in an ideologically 'post-colonial' and post-American direction is apt to accelerate down that path if the son of a top post-colonial academic becomes one of its future leaders. At the elite level with the Mamdanis and at the street level with the riots against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Left side of America's political spectrum is consistently committed to breaking down the connections between citizenship and the nation-state. Instead of the American federal government serving as an instrument of its citizens, the Left envisions a government administered by an elite without strong national loyalties, which rules in the name of humanity. To their minds, citizenship and national pride are anachronisms, indeed barbarities, that prevent the realisation of a more just, redistributive, 'post-colonial' society – the kind of thing that Mamdani's mayoral campaign might well have in mind with its call to 'shift the tax burden … to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighbourhoods.' Republicans have a steady sense of pride in being American because their view of politics prioritises country over party: America doesn't stop being a source of pride simply because Barack Obama or Joe Biden is president. Democrats, however, clearly have a weaker attachment to the country in general, and that attachment is more party-dependent than it is for Republicans, according to the data. This suggests that what is a source of pride for Democrats is how well America's government approximates the Left's post-national ideal. Trump moved steadily away from that ideal during his first term in office, causing Democrats' degree of pride in America to slump, dropping every year to a low of 42 per cent of Democrats who said they were very or extremely proud of their country in 2020. (The number then shot up to 62 per cent – still 25 points below the Republican mark – in Biden's first year.) In his second term, Trump has asserted national distinctions against transnational ideals still more aggressively, triggering a corresponding collapse in Democrats' sense of pride in America, to today's record lows. For Democrats, 'national pride' means being proud of transcending the old nation. This wasn't always the case. For all the bad publicity Democrats rightly received for the antics of their anti-American, radical Left-wing during the Vietnam War, the party had a patriotic mainstream. The high levels of pride in America recorded by Gallup's polls of Democrats 20 years ago attest to how long that mainstream survived. But since then the party has adopted a new outlook, fostered by a highly educated elite. This first cost the party much of its working-class white support and is now eroding its working-class Hispanic and black support, while Democrats have picked up new donors and publicists from the ranks of old guard Republicans with an internationalist outlook. Yet this influx of a few libertarians and neoconservatives isn't nearly enough to offset the loss of working-class voters, and what's worse, it contributes nothing to restoring the party's feel for the nation – quite the opposite, in fact. One of America's two parties is now a world party instead. Yet voters, especially Americans, prefer the nation to the world. Daniel McCarthy is the editor in chief of Modern Age Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Trump says he will start talks with China on TikTok deal
President Donald Trump late Friday said that the United States 'pretty much has a deal' for an American company to acquire the U.S. branch of TikTok, adding that he intended to restart talks next week with China to approve the deal. 'We're going to start Monday or Tuesday talking to China,' Trump told reporters traveling on Air Force One on Friday night as it headed to Bedminster, New Jersey. 'We think we probably have to get it approved by China. Not definitely, but probably.' He added, 'I think the deal is good for China, and it's good for us. It's money, it's a lot of money.' Trump did not say who the potential buyer was. The president said earlier in the week that he had found a buyer for the U.S. branch of TikTok, the popular Chinese-owned video app that faces a ban adopted by Congress over national security concerns. A 2024 law required that the app effectively be banned in the United States unless its parent company, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese company. Congress was concerned that sensitive user data could end up in the hands of the Chinese government. It was not clear if the deal would comply with some of the requirements Congress adopted for a sale of TikTok, particularly if ByteDance chose not to share the app's algorithm with the U.S. buyers. Private equity firms have been hesitant to invest in a deal without some form of indemnification. Trump has declined to enforce the law banning the app, which was passed by large bipartisan majorities and unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court. Shortly after being sworn in, Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to suspend enforcement of the TikTok ban and has since repeatedly extended it. Attorney General Pam Bondi has told tech companies that Trump has the constitutional power to effectively set aside laws. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
