Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy.
Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces.
He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans.
But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care.
Story continues below advertisement
Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil.
Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce.
Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.'
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.'
Hard to reap the rewards
Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections.
Story continues below advertisement
A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation.
Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill.
Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017.
Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden.
'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics.
Social net setbacks
Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains.
During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.'
Story continues below advertisement
'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.'
That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed.
'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.'
Some unhappy Republicans
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism.
'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. 'The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.'
Story continues below advertisement
Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not.
Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that.
So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president.
In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
UN adopts Afghanistan resolution criticizing Taliban rule and treatment of women
UNITED NATIONS — The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution Monday over U.S. objections calling on Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to reverse their worsening oppression of women and girls and eliminate all terrorist organizations. The 11-page resolution also emphasizes 'the importance of creating opportunities for economic recovery, development and prosperity in Afghanistan,' and urges donors to address the country's dire humanitarian and economic crisis. The resolution is not legally binding but is seen as a reflection of world opinion. The vote was 116 in favour, with two — the United States and close ally Israel — opposed and 12 abstentions, including Russia, China, India and Iran. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Since returning to power in Afghanistan in 2021, the Taliban have imposed harsh measures, banning women from public places and girls from attending school beyond the sixth grade. Last week, Russia became the first country to formally recognize the Taliban's government. Germany's UN Ambassador Antje Leendertse, whose country sponsored the resolution, told the assembly before the vote that her country and many others remain gravely concerned about the dire human rights situation in Afghanistan, especially the Taliban's 'near-total erasure' of the rights of women and girls. The core message of the resolution, she said, is to tell Afghan mothers holding sick and underfed children or mourning victims of terrorist attacks, as well as the millions of Afghan women and girls locked up at home, that they have not been forgotten. U.S. representative Jonathan Shrier was critical of the resolution, which he said rewards 'the Taliban's failure with more engagement and more resources.' He said the Trump administration doubts they will ever pursue policies 'in accordance with the expectations of the international community.' 'For decades we shouldered the burden of supporting the Afghan people with time, money and, most important, American lives,' he said. 'It is the time for the Taliban to step up. The United States will no longer enable their heinous behaviour.' Last month, the Trump administration banned Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those seeking to come temporarily, with exceptions. The resolution expresses appreciation to governments hosting Afghan refugees, singling out the two countries that have taken the most: Iran and Pakistan. Shrier also objected to this, accusing Iran of executing Afghans 'at an alarming rate without due process' and forcibly conscripting Afghans into its militias. While the resolution notes improvements in Afghanistan's overall security situation, it reiterates concern about attacks by al-Qaida and Islamic State militants and their affiliates. It calls upon Afghanistan 'to take active measures to tackle, dismantle and eliminate all terrorist organizations equally and without discrimination.' The General Assembly also encouraged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to appoint a coordinator to facilitate 'a more coherent, coordinated and structured approach' to its international engagements on Afghanistan. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Edmonton Journal
an hour ago
- Edmonton Journal
UN adopts Afghanistan resolution criticizing Taliban rule and treatment of women
UNITED NATIONS — The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution Monday over U.S. objections calling on Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to reverse their worsening oppression of women and girls and eliminate all terrorist organizations. Article content The 11-page resolution also emphasizes 'the importance of creating opportunities for economic recovery, development and prosperity in Afghanistan,' and urges donors to address the country's dire humanitarian and economic crisis. Article content Article content Article content The resolution is not legally binding but is seen as a reflection of world opinion. The vote was 116 in favour, with two — the United States and close ally Israel — opposed and 12 abstentions, including Russia, China, India and Iran. Article content Article content Since returning to power in Afghanistan in 2021, the Taliban have imposed harsh measures, banning women from public places and girls from attending school beyond the sixth grade. Last week, Russia became the first country to formally recognize the Taliban's government. Article content Germany's UN Ambassador Antje Leendertse, whose country sponsored the resolution, told the assembly before the vote that her country and many others remain gravely concerned about the dire human rights situation in Afghanistan, especially the Taliban's 'near-total erasure' of the rights of women and girls. Article content The core message of the resolution, she said, is to tell Afghan mothers holding sick and underfed children or mourning victims of terrorist attacks, as well as the millions of Afghan women and girls locked up at home, that they have not been forgotten. Article content Article content U.S. representative Jonathan Shrier was critical of the resolution, which he said rewards 'the Taliban's failure with more engagement and more resources.' He said the Trump administration doubts they will ever pursue policies 'in accordance with the expectations of the international community.' Article content 'For decades we shouldered the burden of supporting the Afghan people with time, money and, most important, American lives,' he said. 'It is the time for the Taliban to step up. The United States will no longer enable their heinous behaviour.' Article content Last month, the Trump administration banned Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those seeking to come temporarily, with exceptions. Article content The resolution expresses appreciation to governments hosting Afghan refugees, singling out the two countries that have taken the most: Iran and Pakistan. Shrier also objected to this, accusing Iran of executing Afghans 'at an alarming rate without due process' and forcibly conscripting Afghans into its militias.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Judge recommends that case against Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan proceed
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal magistrate judge recommended Monday that the case proceed against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted on allegations that she helped a man who is in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested in April and indicted on federal charges in May. She pleaded not guilty. The case highlighted a clash between President Donald Trump's administration and local authorities over the Republican's sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition. Dugan filed a motion in May to dismiss the charges against her, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. She argued that the federal government violated Wisconsin's sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge. U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on Monday recommended against dropping the charges. The ultimate decision is up to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who can accept the other judge's recommendation or reject it. 'We are disappointed in the magistrate judge's non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it,' Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic, a former federal prosecutor, said in a statement. 'This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.' Joseph wrote in her recommendation that while judges have immunity from civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts, that does not apply to criminal charges like those in this case. Joseph also rejected Dugan's other arguments in favor of dismissal. 'It is important to note that nothing said here speaks to the merits of the allegations against Dugan,' the judge said in the recommendation. 'Dugan is presumed innocent, and innocent she remains, unless and until the government proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury at trial.' No trial date has been set. Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him for being in the country without permanent legal status. Agents arrested Ruiz outside of the courthouse after a brief foot chase. Dugan could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts. Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
