Democrats hope Republicans just sealed their midterm election fates by voting for Trump's 'beautiful' bill
Advertisement
'Mark lives in Pennsylvania's First Congressional District,' continued Jeffries. 'I believe that district is represented by our colleague, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick.'
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
And on and on Jeffries went, until he mentioned virtually every GOP member whom Democrats hope to defeat — an uncommon display of political name-checking by the staid standards of the House chamber.
If it were not clear when Jeffries started talking, it was painfully obvious by the time he wrapped up: Democrats are treating President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' as the foundation of their case to take back majorities in Congress next year.
'This bill is an attack on Americans' financial freedom and Democrats are going to make it a centerpiece of the midterms,' said Representative Jake Auchincloss of Newton, before taking a position behind Jeffries Thursday morning as his speech extended into a sixth hour.
Advertisement
Some believe the vote could be as catastrophic for Republicans as their move in Trump's first term to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which helped fuel a Democratic wave in the 2018 midterm elections. According to Congress' nonpartisan budget analyst, the GOP bill could result in
Representative Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat, said Jeffries likely made his stand in order to mark the vote as the most decisive of this era,
much like the failed vote in 2017 to repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act or even the 2010 vote that created it.
'I'm trying to think if there's been a more consequential vote in my 10 years?' Beyer said. 'I don't think so.'
Republicans largely rejected those comparisons, arguing the legislation accomplished what goals voters sent them to Washington to do: cut taxes and drastically increase money spent on immigration enforcement.
Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee said the bill would 'absolutely not' harm the GOP's midterm hopes. Referring to its proposed tightening of work requirements for public benefits, he said, 'everybody in America wants somebody able-bodied to get off their butts and get a job if they're able to and get off of welfare, and this provides that incentive.'
But there were flashes of candor from GOP lawmakers that they understood the potential political peril presented by the bill — even if they voted for it.
Advertisement
The majority is 'always at risk in a midterm year,' said GOP Representative Don Bacon, who represents a Nebraska swing district but recently announced his retirement. While the tax cut provisions will be helpful, he admitted 'the other side's going to use Medicaid as an issue' and said the Senate version of the legislation, which makes deeper cuts to the federal program to insure low-income Americans, would make their attacks easier.
'So I think that was a mistake,' he said. (Bacon voted for the legislation.)
The bill
Already, the electoral environment for House Republicans heading into 2026 leaves little room for error: Democrats need to flip just three seats
in the chamber to claim a majority, and the party is targeting three-dozen incumbent Republicans to reach that threshold.
The House GOP, meanwhile,
In the Senate, Democrats' hopes are dimmer due to the rotation of seats up for election and the GOP's larger 53 to 47 majority. Just two seats held by Republicans are considered competitive: Maine and North Carolina. Democrats will be defending seats in the tough battlegrounds of Georgia, Michigan, and New Hampshire.
North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, who was highly critical of the bill and under considerable heat from Trump, announced he would retire just before voting against the legislation.
Advertisement
It was a different story in the House. All
The midterms may seem far off, but the election politicking around the bill began well before Jeffries stepped onto the floor for his marathon speech.
As House Democrats prepared Wednesday for the final votes, dozens gathered on the Capitol steps to decry the legislation and lay the blame on vulnerable Republicans.
'Why would anyone vote for this dangerous and extreme bill?' Jeffries asked, before name-checking a freshman Republican. 'Why would Rob Bresnahan vote for this bill? More than 30,000 people would lose access to their health care in his community in Pennsylvania.'
Democrats were trying to pressure those Republicans to vote against the bill, but also were laying down markers for their 2026 target list.
In addition to Bresnahan, who represents a swing district in northeast Pennsylvania, Jeffries spoke of Representative Scott Perry from a nearby district. The next speaker, Representative Katherine Clark of Revere, called out two California Republicans: David Valadao and Young Kim.
Finally Democratic Representative Pete Aguilar of California singled out another endangered Republican from a blue state, Gabe Evans of Colorado.
Advertisement
'Today marks the culmination of Donald Trump's betrayal of working people across this country,' Aguilar said, with words that sounded straight from an attack ad.
In the long lead-up to Thursday's vote, Democrats' outside political committees began laying the groundwork for the midterm battles ahead.
House Majority Forward, the super PAC aligned with Jeffries, was developing TV ads before the vote took place, focusing particularly on Bresnahan and Representatives Tom Barrett of Michigan and Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin.
House Majority Forward spokesperson, CJ Warnke, said House Republicans were 'throwing away their spines and throwing their constituents under the bus' with their votes.
Republicans, meanwhile, plan to go on offense against vulnerable Democrats who voted against the bill. In a statement, National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Maureen O'Toole accused Representative Jared Golden, who represents a Republican-leaning Maine district, of voting to 'raise taxes, kill jobs, and gut national security. Voters won't forget it, not now, not next November.' (Golden has been outspoken about his opposition to the bill, saying it provides 'huge tax breaks' for the wealthy, 'paid for by cutting health care for the working poor.')
An NRCC campaign memo shared with the Globe previewed its campaign messaging around the bill, arguing it prevented a massive tax hike and delivered on promises to secure the border. It also framed the changes to Medicaid as moves to 'crack down on welfare fraud and restore integrity.'
Many Republicans emphasized the extension of Trump's first-term tax cuts, which account for trillions of dollars of the cost of the legislation, or smaller-scale new tax breaks, such as one to let taxpayers deduct a limited amount of tipped wages from their taxable income.
Advertisement
'The economy is going to do well, and people are going to be happy,' said Representative Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey Republican. 'They really are.'
As Jeffries closed his speech before the ultimately successful vote, however, a new slogan emerged to add a layer of ominousness to GOP plans.
'After Project 2025,' the Democratic leader said, referring to the conservative-backed plan to scale back government under Trump, 'comes Project 2026.'
Tal Kopan of Globe staff contributed to this report.
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
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Andy Beshear's Chances of Winning 2028 Primary as He Gives Campaign Update
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear declined to rule out running for president in a new Vanity Fair interview—here's what polls say about a potential Beshear candidacy. Newsweek reached out to Beshear's political team for comment via email. Why It Matters The 2028 presidential race is still more than three years away, but candidates who could be interested are already making early moves in hopes of building their name recognition and winning support from primary voters ahead of the election. Beshear, a Democrat, is among those who have been floated as a potential presidential candidate. Proponents of a Beshear run point to his electoral success in Kentucky, a reliably Republican state, as proof he can win over Republican and independent voters. However, polls suggest he is less known than other Democrats who could run in 2028. What to Know Beshear, who was speculated to be a potential vice presidential candidate for Kamala Harris' presidential campaign, addressed speculation about a potential run in an interview with Vanity Fair published Friday. "Two years ago, I wouldn't have considered [running for president]," he told the magazine. "But if I'm somebody who could maybe heal and bring the country back together, I'll think about it after next year." Early polls suggest most Democrats favor candidates like former Vice President Kamala Harris, California Governor Gavin Newsom or former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. But the primary still years away, meaning a dark horse candidate like Beshear could still break through. The latest Emerson College poll showed Beshear with support from 2 percent of respondents. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear attends a White House meeting in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 2023. Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear attends a White House meeting in Washington, D.C. on February 10, that poll, 16 percent of respondents backed Buttigieg, 13 percent supported Harris and 12 percent leaned toward Newsom. Seven percent supported both Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, while 5 percent said they would prefer to vote for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Three percent backed New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Maryland Governor Wes Moore also received the backing of 2 percent of respondents. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from June 24 to June 25 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. A Morning Consult poll from June found him similarly trailing other candidates with 1 percent support. That poll showed Harris leading with 36 percent of the vote. Buttigieg followed at 10 percent, and 5 percent backed Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez. It polled 1,000 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents from June 13 to June 15, 2025. Beshear remains one of the most popular governors in the country. A Morning Consult survey found that he has a net approval rating of +43. Sixty-eight percent view him favorably, while only 25 percent give him negative marks. Supporters say that approval is especially impressive given President Donald Trump's 30-point victory in Kentucky. He won nearly 65 percent of the vote, compared to former Vice President Kamla Harris' 34 percent, in the 2024 election. What People Are Saying Beshear told Kentucky's WDRB in May: "But I don't want to leave a broken country to my kids. So, if I'm somebody who can bring this nation together, hopefully find some common ground, it's something I would consider." Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in June in remarks to WHAS: "If he wants to run, he should. He's a great guy. He's a wonderful governor. I've known him a long time." What Happens Next Candidates typically don't start making formal presidential runs until after the midterms, but other potential candidates are already laying the groundwork for 2028. Newsom, for instance, is heading to early-voting primary state South Carolina next week to tour several rural counties.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EPA says Trump's big bill should help in its fight to freeze billions in green bank funds
WASHINGTON (AP) — The sprawling tax and policy bill that passed Congress repeals a multibillion-dollar green bank for financing climate-friendly projects, and the Trump administration should be allowed to freeze its funding and cancel related contracts with nonprofits, federal officials said in a court filing. Climate United Fund and other nonprofits in March sued the Environmental Protection Agency, its administrator Lee Zeldin and Citibank, which held the program's money. The lawsuit argued the defendants had illegally denied the groups access to billions awarded last year through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a 'green bank.' The program was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But the bill that passed Congress on Thursday would repeal the part of the 2022 law that established the green bank and rescind money that hadn't already been obligated to its recipients. The EPA said the bill should hand them a victory in their court fight that is being heard by a federal appeals court in Washington. Now that Congress has rescinded funding, an earlier federal judge's decision forcing the EPA to release money to the groups should be reversed, the agency said in its Thursday court filing. Climate United Fund disagrees. It acknowledges that the bill in Congress is a 'significant policy setback' but argues that most of the money had been disbursed and is unaffected by the bill. And if the EPA wanted to take the money back, there's a different process the agency would need to follow. 'Our funds have already been obligated and disbursed. Any effort to claim otherwise is simply a lie to justify illegal attempts to claw back funds intended to benefit communities across the country,' CEO Beth Bafford said in a statement. According to the EPA, when the agency terminated the grants the funds 'became unobligated.' 'Grantees have desperately performed legal gymnastics to hold tens of billions of taxpayer dollars hostage. In the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, Congress made their intent crystal clear in repealing the program entirely and returning those billions in unobligated funds to the U.S. Treasury,' EPA spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said in a statement. The green bank's goals run counter to the Trump administration's opposition to policies that address climate change and its embrace of fossil fuels. Zeldin quickly made the bank a target, characterizing the $20 billion in grants as a scheme marred by conflicts of interest and potential fraud. In February, Zeldin told Fox News that he suspected the green bank 'was a clear cut case of waste and abuse' that 'in my opinion, is criminal.' The following month, Zeldin terminated the grants. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has previously said that when the federal government was asked for evidence of fraud, the agency didn't provide it and shifted its position. Chutkan decided the government can't terminate the contracts and that the groups should have access to some of their frozen money. That order was put on hold during the EPA's appeal. The agency argues the nonprofits are making constitutional and statutory arguments that don't apply in what it sees as a simple contract fight. If the government successfully argues the case is a contract dispute, then the EPA says it should be heard by a different court that can only award a lump sum – not force the government to keep the grants in place. Federal officials argue there is no law or provision in the Constitution that compels the EPA to make these grants to these groups. In its court filing, the EPA also pointed to comments by Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, as supportive of the agency's position. Capito said previously the bill intended to rescind billions in funding that had been frozen. 'This action reflects not only Congress's deep concern with reducing the deficit, but EPA's administration of the (green bank) under the Biden administration, the agency's selection of grant recipients, and the absence of meaningful program oversight," the agency quotes the senator as saying. ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit
Associated Press
33 minutes ago
- Associated Press
EPA says Trump's big bill should help in its fight to freeze billions in green bank funds
WASHINGTON (AP) — The sprawling tax and policy bill that passed Congress repeals a multibillion-dollar green bank for financing climate-friendly projects, and the Trump administration should be allowed to freeze its funding and cancel related contracts with nonprofits, federal officials said in a court filing. Climate United Fund and other nonprofits in March sued the Environmental Protection Agency, its administrator Lee Zeldin and Citibank, which held the program's money. The lawsuit argued the defendants had illegally denied the groups access to billions awarded last year through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a 'green bank.' The program was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But the bill that passed Congress on Thursday would repeal the part of the 2022 law that established the green bank and rescind money that hadn't already been obligated to its recipients. The EPA said the bill should hand them a victory in their court fight that is being heard by a federal appeals court in Washington. Now that Congress has rescinded funding, an earlier federal judge's decision forcing the EPA to release money to the groups should be reversed, the agency said in its Thursday court filing. Climate United Fund disagrees. It acknowledges that the bill in Congress is a 'significant policy setback' but argues that most of the money had been disbursed and is unaffected by the bill. And if the EPA wanted to take the money back, there's a different process the agency would need to follow. 'Our funds have already been obligated and disbursed. Any effort to claim otherwise is simply a lie to justify illegal attempts to claw back funds intended to benefit communities across the country,' CEO Beth Bafford said in a statement. According to the EPA, when the agency terminated the grants the funds 'became unobligated.' 'Grantees have desperately performed legal gymnastics to hold tens of billions of taxpayer dollars hostage. In the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, Congress made their intent crystal clear in repealing the program entirely and returning those billions in unobligated funds to the U.S. Treasury,' EPA spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said in a statement. The green bank's goals run counter to the Trump administration's opposition to policies that address climate change and its embrace of fossil fuels. Zeldin quickly made the bank a target, characterizing the $20 billion in grants as a scheme marred by conflicts of interest and potential fraud. In February, Zeldin told Fox News that he suspected the green bank 'was a clear cut case of waste and abuse' that 'in my opinion, is criminal.' The following month, Zeldin terminated the grants. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has previously said that when the federal government was asked for evidence of fraud, the agency didn't provide it and shifted its position. Chutkan decided the government can't terminate the contracts and that the groups should have access to some of their frozen money. That order was put on hold during the EPA's appeal. The agency argues the nonprofits are making constitutional and statutory arguments that don't apply in what it sees as a simple contract fight. If the government successfully argues the case is a contract dispute, then the EPA says it should be heard by a different court that can only award a lump sum – not force the government to keep the grants in place. Federal officials argue there is no law or provision in the Constitution that compels the EPA to make these grants to these groups. In its court filing, the EPA also pointed to comments by Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, as supportive of the agency's position. Capito said previously the bill intended to rescind billions in funding that had been frozen. 'This action reflects not only Congress's deep concern with reducing the deficit, but EPA's administration of the (green bank) under the Biden administration, the agency's selection of grant recipients, and the absence of meaningful program oversight,' the agency quotes the senator as saying. ___ The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP's environmental coverage, visit
