AOC Turns Up Pressure on Senator Murkowski Over Trump Bill
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called out Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican who has at times bucked her party, for siding with Senate Republicans to advance President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" spending bill.
Three Republicans broke with their party earlier this week, forcing Vice President JD Vance to cast the tiebreaking vote and underscoring the weight of Murkowski's decision.
Newsweek has contacted Murkowski's press team for comment via email on Thursday.
Why It Matters
Ocasio-Cortez has been a pillar of the Democratic Party's left wing since her 2018 election. She shook the party's establishment when she defeated longtime incumbent Representative Joe Crowley in New York's 14th Congressional District.
Her brand of progressive politics has gained traction as she and others speak out against Trump and Republicans, but many Democratic establishment figures remain less outspoken as they catch their bearings following widespread 2024 election losses. Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani's victory over former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayoral primary offers evidence of the growing left flank.
Murkowski, an Alaskan Republican, has at times broken with her party. In 2021, she voted against Trump during his second impeachment. In 2022, she backed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination, and she has voted against some of Trump's recent nominees.
A composite image showing Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York on Capitol Hill on June 10 and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska at the U.S. Capitol on June 3.
A composite image showing Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York on Capitol Hill on June 10 and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska at the U.S. Capitol on June 3.
Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images
What To Know
On Tuesday, Murkowski wrote a long post on X, formerly Twitter, outlining why she ultimately voted for Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
After voting in favor of the spending bill, she told reporters, "My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
On Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez responded to the senator's post, writing: "This isn't about you. This is about the 17 million Americans whose health insurance you're taking away."
The congresswoman added, "And after you turned your back on them to vote 'YES', you said your fellow House GOP should vote NO."
This isn't about you.
This is about the 17 million Americans whose health insurance you're taking away.
And after you turned your back on them to vote "YES", you said your fellow House GOP should vote NO.
Americans are going to suffer. YOU admit that. And YOU supported it. https://t.co/N8oQtgPw23 — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 3, 2025
A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that 11.8 million more Americans would be uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law.
Murkowski was one of the final holdouts in the Senate, citing concerns about the bill's effects on Alaska's vulnerable populations. GOP leaders spent hours negotiating with her, offering carve-outs for Alaska on Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding. While some provisions passed parliamentary review, others—such as enhanced Medicaid payments—were ruled noncompliant with Senate budget rules.
Trump's massive budget proposal, while backed by many of the president's supporters, has drawn sharp criticism from some lawmakers and health experts over its proposed Medicaid cuts. The CBO estimated that the bill would slash the program by about $790 billion over the next decade to help offset about $4.5 trillion in tax breaks. Medicaid provides health coverage to tens of millions of low-income Americans, with about 71 million people enrolled in the program.
Other provisions include permanently extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts while exempting overtime pay, tips and some Social Security income from taxation; repealing most clean‑energy tax credits created under President Joe Biden; authorizing a $40 billion border security surge and funding a nationwide deportation initiative; and raising the federal debt ceiling.
Ocasio-Cortez wrote in her post: "Americans are going to suffer. YOU admit that. And YOU supported it."
Murkowski, who took office in 2002, said in her July 1 post that her decision to support the bill was "one of the hardest votes" she's had to cast. "My goal throughout the reconciliation process has been to make a bad bill better for Alaska, and in many ways, we have done that," she added.
"While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska, it is not good enough for the rest of our nation—and we all know it," she continued, adding, "This bill needs more work across chambers and is not ready for the President's desk."
What People Are Saying
House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X on July 3: "The time is now! President Trump is waiting with his pen. Today, we will deliver the One Big Beautiful Bill to the President's desk—and the American people will FINALLY get the relief they demand and deserve."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote on X on July 3: "Just took to the House Floor to speak in support of a country where everyone can afford to live the good life. And in strong opposition to Trump's One Big Ugly Bill that is devastating to everyday Americans. We will not be silenced."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune wrote on X on July 1: "Since we regained the majority in January, our Republican team has been laser-focused on achieving the mission before us today. Now we're here—passing legislation that will make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X on July 1: "Today's vote will haunt Senate Republicans for years to come. Americans will see the damage done as hospitals close, as people are laid off, as costs go up, and as the debt increases. Democrats will make sure Americans remember the betrayal that took place today."
Elon Musk wrote on X on June 30: "Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame! And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth."
Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky wrote on X on June 29: "There's no such thing as a tax relief without spending cuts. Gov't can reduce the tax rate, but the spending still must be paid for. Gov't must borrow money (which raises interest rates & requires more taxes later) or print money (which causes inflation). Both hurt Americans."
What Happens Next
Both chambers must agree on the final version of the bill for it to advance to the president's desk to be signed into law.
The House minority leader is holding the House floor in a speech that has already run for more than six hours, delaying what Republican leaders hoped would be a quick march to the final vote on Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
8 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump pleads ignorance after using antisemitic slur
President Trump on Friday morning said he was unaware that the word "Shylock" is considered by some to be antisemitic, after using it during a Thursday night rally in Iowa. What to know: Shylock, the villain of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice," was written as a greedy and vengeful Jewish moneylender who eventually is forced to convert to Christianity. What Trump said at the rally: "Think of that: no death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker. And in some cases, Shylocks and bad people." What the Anti Defamation League said via X: "The term 'Shylock' evokes a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jews and greed that is extremely offensive and dangerous. President Trump's use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible. It underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country. Words from our leaders matter and we expect more from the President of the United States." What Trump said the next day to reporters: "I've never heard it that way. To me, Shylock is somebody that's a money lender at high rates. I've never heard it that way, you view it differently than me. I've never heard that." Flashback: In 2014, then-Vice President Biden used the term "Shylocks" to refer to rapacious bankers, after which he apologized for his "poor choice of words."
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Russia welcomes Trump's cut to Ukraine's military aid but it could be deadly for Kyiv
The reactions to the Trump administration's decision to pause some weapons shipments to Ukraine couldn't be more illustrative of the conflict: welcomed by the Kremlin, branded 'inhumane' by Kyiv. The Pentagon said on Wednesday that it was pausing some aid because it needs to review whether the assistance that is provided to Ukraine is aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda. But the move could have deadly consequences for Ukraine as the halt on shipments includes missiles for Patriots, the US-made air defense systems that are currently protecting millions of Ukrainian civilians from Russia's increasingly massive daily aerial attacks. Kyiv endured the biggest ever attack overnight into Friday, with 13 dreadful hours of explosions and buzzing overhead as Russia launched a record 539 drones towards the Ukrainian capital and 11 cruise and ballistic missiles, according to the country's air force. As the smoke began to clear over the city, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky praised the military for shooting down or jamming the majority of the Russian drones and missiles. 'It is critically important that our partners continue to support us in defending against ballistic missiles. Patriots and the missiles for them are true protectors of life,' he said – a remark clearly aimed at trying to persuade Trump to reconsider the pause. Zelensky got a chance to make the case directly to Trump when the two spoke by phone on Friday. A readout of the call from Zelensky's office said the two leaders 'agreed that we will work together to strengthen protection of our skies.' 'We are ready for direct projects with the United States and believe this is critically important for security, especially when it comes to drones and related technologies,' the readout said. No other air defense system can match the Patriots in its effectiveness – but their power comes at a huge cost, their production is limited and the demand for them is growing rapidly around the world, especially in areas deemed by the Trump administration to be more strategically important – such as the Middle East or, southwest Asia and South Korea. The announcement by the US sent shockwaves through Ukraine, with presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak saying it would be 'very strange' and 'inhumane' to stop supplying missiles that are used to protect civilians. But despite the panicked reaction, the move was not entirely unexpected. Trump has threatened to withdraw Ukraine's support in a bid to force Kyiv to the negotiating table, and he has previously briefly paused shipments of aid. While the US was for a long time Ukraine's biggest supporter, singlehandedly covering about 40% of Ukraine's military needs, it has not announced any new aid to Ukraine since early January, when Trump returned to power. Meanwhile, European countries have stepped up their support of Ukraine. According to the German Kiel Institute, which monitors aid to Ukraine, Europe has now surpassed the US as the biggest donor – having supported Ukraine to the tune of 72 billion euro ($85 billion) in total military aid since the start of the full-scale invasion to the end of April, compared to 65 billion euro ($76.6 billion) from the US. But the numbers don't tell the whole story. 'Ukraine has a lot of different needs, and some of them can be filled by other suppliers, but some can only be filled by the United States,' Daniel Byman, director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told CNN. 'For ballistic missiles in particular, only the US can provide this. A cut off in those leaves a huge gap in Ukraine and air defenses. And given the kind of daily and horrible Russian attacks, that's very consequential.' Russia has ramped up its airborne attacks against Ukraine in recent weeks. Ballistic missiles pose the deadliest threat and, according to Ukrainian officials, Russia fired as many as 80 of these in June alone. While Ukraine managed to shoot some of them down, likely with the Patriot system, the ones that slipped through caused unimaginable suffering. One ballistic missile strike killed 21 people in Dnipro last week. The week before that, 21 people were killed when a ballistic missile hit an apartment building in Kyiv. Deadly attacks like this will become more frequent if Ukraine loses access to the Patriots, which are widely considered to be among the best air defense systems available. They are capable of bringing down cruise and hypersonic missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and aircraft. According to analysts, the Ukrainian military has been using them in an extremely effective way, shooting down missiles that Moscow claimed were impossible to intercept, such as the Kinzhal ballistic missiles. At an estimated cost of about $1.1 billion for each system, the Patriots are by far the most expensive piece of equipment sent by allies to Ukraine. According to the CSIS, missile rounds for the Patriot come in at roughly $4 million each – an incredibly high price tag. But even if Ukraine had the cash to purchase these systems, which it doesn't, it would find it difficult to source them. 'The production pace of Patriot missiles is low. Not because the US doesn't want to produce more, but because it's very sophisticated – you can't produce thousands a year, you can produce hundreds and you have allies all over the world who need them,' Pavel Luzin, a senior fellow at the Centre for European Policy Analysis, said Thursday during a discussion at the NEST Center, a think tank. Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the Patriot missiles for the US Army, has been ramping up production to record levels – but even so, it is only able to make just over 500 per year, with a plan to increase production to 650 a year by 2027. A major $5.5 billion deal between US and German companies to begin manufacturing the Patriot missiles outside of the US for the first time was approved last year following a NATO order of up to 1,000 rounds – but the first deliveries are not expected until several years from now. Germany, which has donated several of its Patriot systems to Ukraine in the past, is looking into the option of purchasing some missiles for Ukraine from the US, the spokesperson for the German government said in a news conference on Friday. Sidharth Kaushal, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a UK-based defense think tank, said that while global stockpiles of Patriot missiles are not 'critically low,' there are some grounds for concern about shortages. 'The requirement for Patriots, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, is growing significantly,' he said. He said that given that some of the missiles initially meant for Ukraine were diverted to other allies, including Israel, it was likely that the US wanted to – or even had contractual obligations to – deliver interceptors to countries who are, in some cases, located within range of Iranian missiles. Still, Kaushal said the US itself is highly unlikely to face any kind of urgent shortage of missiles. 'While the US has sent a considerable number of Patriot interceptors to Ukraine it has replenished stocks through buy-back schemes from Japan and more recent shipments were diverted from export customers rather than the US' own inventory,' he said in a note emailed to CNN. Zelensky said previously that Ukraine would need some 25 Patriot batteries to defend its airspace effectively. It has roughly half a dozen at the moment, although the exact numbers and their locations are closely guarded secrets. What is known, though, is that the Ukrainians are very worried about running out of the munitions – especially because the latest US pause doesn't concern future aid but impacts deliveries that have been approved and funded and were on their way to Ukraine, where the military was counting on receiving them in the very near future. 'One thing is not having future sales approved; another is stopping what is already in the pipeline. And so that's a very negative shift that is harmful for the future defense of Ukraine and the effect is going to be pretty quick. The Russian attacks are happening daily, and Ukraine relies on these systems to counter them,' Byman said. The pause in shipments is likely to give yet another boost to Russia. 'It's part of (the Russians') strategy. They believe that without the US support, Ukraine is more likely to collapse or at least make concessions… so it certainly increases the incentives for Russia to keep military pressure on Ukraine,' Byman said. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a US-based conflict monitor, said that previous delays in deliveries of aid to Ukraine have invariably accelerated Russian gains on the battlefield. When the US dragged its feet on military aid in late 2023 and early 2024, Russia pushed forward in Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine. When the US paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March, Russian forces advanced in Kursk. 'The suspension of US aid to Ukraine will reinforce Russian President Vladimir Putin's theory of victory that posits that Russia can win the war of attrition by making slow, creeping advances and outlasting Western support for Ukraine,' the ISW said. The pause in shipments will likely reinforce Putin's belief that time is on Russia's side – and that if he can delay negotiations for long enough, his troops will eventually outlast Western assistance to Ukraine. For Ukrainians, who have sacrificed so much trying to defend their country against a bigger, stronger aggressor, the absence of US military aid is not just yet another setback – it's potentially a disaster. CNN's Svitlana Vlasova, Kosta Gak and Victoria Butenko contributed reporting.
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Gavin Newsom Is Heading to a Key 2028 State
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. California Governor Gavin Newsom is heading to South Carolina, likely to be a key Democratic primary state, amid speculation he plans to run for president in 2028. Newsweek reached out to Newsom's office for comment via email. Why It Matters Newsom has long been believed to be a potential presidential candidate for Democrats, and his trip to early-voting South Carolina is likely to continue to fuel that speculation. Newsom has cast himself as a leading rival to President Donald Trump amid his second term in office. Several prominent Democrats are expected to jump into the race. While the primary is still more than two years away, potential candidates are already making early moves with the goal of giving themselves an advantage among Democratic primary voters. What to Know The South Carolina Democratic Party (SCDP) announced a multi-county tour with Newsom across some of the most "economically challenged and environmentally vulnerable rural counties in South Carolina" next week. Several of these counties have experienced "hardship" from job loss, wildfires and hurricanes, the SCDP wrote in a statement, adding that the rural areas have been "left behind" by Republican leaders in the state. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference on March 26, 2025 in Los Angeles. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a press conference on March 26, 2025 in Los Angeles. Frazer Harrison/WireImage via Getty Images It will also give Newsom the opportunity to engage with voters in what is likely to be an early-voting state. South Carolina voted first in the 2024 primary but has long been among the four first states to vote—along with Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. Whether the schedule may change remains unclear at this point. The statement, however, makes no mention of his potential 2028 ambitions. SCDP Chair Christale Spain wrote in a statement that Newsom "leads the largest economy in America and the fourth largest in the world" and is "coming to meet folks in towns that have been hollowed out by decades of Republican control." "This is about building partnerships, uplifting communities, and showing rural voters they aren't forgotten," Spain wrote. Gavin Newsom's Chance of Winning 2028 Primary—Polls Newsom has been among the leading candidates in most polls of the 2028 primary, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The latest Morning Consult poll of the potential 2028 field showed that Newsom's standing doubled after the Los Angeles protests over Trump's immigration policies and mass deportations. Eleven percent said they planned to support him, up from 5 percent in March. Still, 34 percent said they leaned toward Harris. Seven percent said they planned to vote for Buttigieg and Ocasio-Cortez. The poll surveyed 1,000 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents from June 13 to June 15, 2025. An Emerson College poll last month showed Newsom with 12 percent support, compared to 16 percent for Buttigieg, 13 percent for Harris and 7 percent for Ocasio-Cortez. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters from June 24 to June 25, 2025, and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. What People Are Saying Spain wrote in the press release: "Our strategy isn't about chasing cable news coverage, it's about showing up and building trust, town by town, county by county, that is our path back to power. We're proud of the gains we are making but we're even more focused on what's ahead." Newsom told The Wall Street Journal in June: "I'm not thinking about running, but it's a path that I could see unfold." What Happens Next Typically, most candidates do not begin announcing presidential runs until after the midterm elections. Newsom has not confirmed plans to run for president.
