Citizen Cartwright

Results of lawmakers’ all-nighters on ‘big, beautiful bill’

I’d love to be able to give you details of the legislation approved Wednesday as three House committees advanced their parts of the bill.

 

But with a gigantic bill like this — intended to make spending cuts to offset the costs of making President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent — it’s routine that important details only emerge after Congress has passed the bill and the president has signed it.

 

There’s also this dynamic: 

 

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee was 16 hours into a nearly 27-hour markup [session to change and approve the bill] when it became clear that top Republicans on the panel weren’t clear on what key Medicaid provisions in the legislation they were actively debating would actually do,” Politico says.

 

The best summary of what’s in the bill that I can find continues to be this one from The Associated Press, published before the three committees finished their work.

 

The legislative package combining all the House committees' work is to be put together by the House Budget Committee on Friday.

 

Here are some details on Energy and Commerce’s health care piece of the bill, from Politico.

 

Here is a rundown on the House Agriculture Committee’s approval of $300 billion in nutrition spending cuts, also from Politico.

What Americans can do to avoid authoritarianism

Twenty years ago, Garry Kasparov, world chess champion from 1985-2000, retired from professional chess to help Russia resist what he calls Vladimir Putin’s "budding dictatorship."

Now, he writes in The Atlantic, "Putin is still in the Kremlin, and I’m writing this from New York City — my family has made its home there, as well as in Croatia, since we were forced to leave Russia in 2013."

And "President Donald Trump and his allies in power are trying to erect an authoritarian Mafia state like the one Vladimir Putin and his cronies established in Russia," he says.

"Never lose sight of the fact that the Trump administration’s aim is to weaken and devalue the machinery of government, on one hand, and privatize the levers of power on the other," Kasparov says.

Americans have a "well-stocked toolbox" with which to defend democratic institutions, he says: a free press, strong economy, separation of powers, and federalism (power shared by the national government and the states).

So "political pressure must be brought to bear — through the courts, the press, and the states, but also applied to legislators," he says.

"Americans should invest their time and money fighting in the arena where political power still lies: with the American people and in Washington, D.C., with the handful of Republican representatives who could put a stop to the power grab. Go after the weakest links and call them out. Promise to support them against Musk’s threats to fund primary challenges if they defy him—and to raise millions against them if they don’t."

"Four votes in the Senate. Three votes in the House. That’s all it takes," Kasparov says.

How Americans can take action right now:

The House Energy and Commerce Committee could meet as soon as the week of May 5 to work on making $880 billion in spending cuts from the programs under its jurisdiction — including Medicaid, the joint federal-state safety net program for health care, says Politico.

Twelve House Republicans have sent a letter to the House leadership opposing potential Medicaid cuts. They are, according to the American Hospital Association: Reps. David Valadao, R-Calif., Don Bacon, R-Neb., Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., Rob Bresnahan Jr., R-Pa., Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz., Jen Kiggans, R-Va., Young Kim, R-Calif., Robert Wittman, R-Va., Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and Jeff Hurd, R-Colo.

In the Senate, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., says he won’t support any proposal that would lead to cuts in Medicaid benefits for people in his state, Roll Call reports.

Reasons for optimism about U.S. democracy

Columnist David Brooks writes in The Atlantic: "America may well enter a period of democratic decay and international isolation. It takes decades to develop strong alliances, and to build the structures and customs of democracy — and only weeks to decimate them, as we’ve now seen. And yet I find myself confident that America will survive this crisis. Many nations, including our own, have gone through worse and bloodier crises and recovered. 

 

"In 'Upheaval: Turning Points for Nations in Crisis,' the historian and scientist Jared Diamond provides case studies — Japan in the late 19th century, Finland and Germany after World War II, Indonesia after the 1960s, Chile and Australia during and after the ’70s — of countries that came back stronger after crisis, collapse, or defeat. To these examples, I’d add Britain in the 1830s and '40s, and the 1980s, and South Korea in the 1980s. 

 

"Some of these countries (such as Japan) endured war; others (Chile) endured mass torture and 'disappearances'; still others (Britain and Australia) endured social decay and national decline. All of them eventually healed and came back.

"Even now, as I travel around the country, I see the forces of repair gathering in neighborhoods and communities. If you’re part of an organization that builds trust across class, you’re fighting Trumpism. If you’re a Democrat jettisoning insular faculty-lounge progressivism in favor of a Whig-like [Whigs emphasized traditional morality and progressive improvements, Brooks says] working-class abundance agenda, you’re fighting Trumpism. If you are standing up for a moral code of tolerance and pluralism that can hold America together, you’re fighting Trumpism.

"Over time, changes in values lead to changes in relationships, which lead to changes in civic life, which eventually lead to changes in policy and then in the general trajectory of the nation."

 

Laura Gamboa, an assistant professor of democracy and global affairs at the University of Notre Dame, says in Foreign Affairs: "For democracy to survive, it must be protected. In the past few decades, in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Poland, opposition groups pushed back successfully against leaders with authoritarian tendencies early in the process of democratic backsliding, when they still had institutional levers to pull. 

"The Democratic Party in the United States can make the erosion of democracy visible to the public and costly to the perpetrators. It can obstruct legislation in Congress, compete in electoral districts where Republicans typically run uncontested, and coordinate to maintain a presence, even if only in protest, in as many institutional spaces as possible. Recent attempts to lead town halls in districts where Republicans refuse to hold them are great examples of this strategy.

"Well-organized social movements and civil society groups can shelter democratic institutions, mobilize voters, and increase the costs of antidemocratic behavior."

 

Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, and Lucan Way, a professor of democracy at the University of Toronto, write in Foreign Affairs: "Civil society is another potential source of democratic resilience. One major reason that rich democracies are more stable is that capitalist development disperses human, financial, and organizational resources away from the state, generating countervailing power in society. 

"Wealth cannot wholly inoculate the private sector from the pressures imposed by a weaponized state. But the larger and richer a private sector is, the harder it is to fully capture or bully into submission. In addition, wealthier citizens have more time, skills, and resources to join or create civic or opposition organizations, and because they depend less on the state for their livelihoods than poor citizens do, they are in a better position to protest or vote against the government. 

"Compared with those in other competitive authoritarian regimes, opposition forces in the United States are well-organized, well-financed, and electorally viable, which makes them harder to co-opt, repress, and defeat at the polls. American opposition will therefore be harder to sideline than it was in countries such as El Salvador, Hungary, and Turkey."

In a webinar, Levitsky and Erica Chenoweth, a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, say the important thing is for individuals to act, to choose the cause that’s most meaningful them. They cite as a resource the website Choose Democracy. 

Voters and a senator have big messages for Musk, Trump

The results of three elections on Tuesday are “early warning signs” to Republicans and President Trump, says The Associated Press.

In the race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat, conservative Judge Brad Schimel — who was endorsed by Trump and backed by Musk and his groups with $21 million — lost to liberal Judge Susan Crawford 45 percent to 55 percent in a state the president won in November. 

And while Florida Republicans held on to two of the most pro-Trump House districts in the country, both candidates also significantly underperformed Trump’s November margins, AP says.

Republican Jimmy Patronis, the state’s chief financial officer, fended off a challenge from Democrat Gay Valimont to win Florida’s 1st District seat vacated by Matt Gaetz by 15 points. Trump carried the district by about 37 points in November. 

And Republican Randy Fine won his special election in Florida's 6th District to replace Rep. Mike Waltz, who stepped down to serve as Trump’s national security adviser. But Fine’s Democratic challenger, Josh Weil, lost by 14 points, less than five months after Waltz won the district by 33 points.

The elections — the first major contests since Trump’s return to power — are seen as an early measure of voter sentiment “as Trump works with unprecedented speed to dramatically upend the federal government, clashing with the courts and seeking revenge as he tests the bounds of presidential power,” AP says.

Also on Tuesday, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., broke the record for the longest speech on the Senate floor. He spoke about his roots as a descendant of both slaves and slave-owners as he spoke for 25 hours, breaking the record of Sen. Strom Thurmond, the avowed segregationist from South Carolina who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Throughout his speech, Booker read letters from Americans about the impact Trump’s agenda is having on their lives, drawing historical parallels and warning that the country faces a “looming constitutional crisis.”

“This is a moral moment,” Booker said. “It’s not left or right; it’s right or wrong.” 

Booker invoked the words of his mentor, the late congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis: “He said for us to go out and cause some good trouble, necessary trouble, to redeem the soul of our nation.”

Protests of Trump actions are scheduled for April 5 in 1,000 places around the country.

Trump’s legislative branch majority moves to shrink power of judicial branch

Angry about court rulings against the Trump administration, Republicans in Congress are proposing to limit the reach of the federal judiciary's rulings, cut funding and even impeach judges, tightening the GOP’s grip on government, says The Associated Press.

 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said on Tuesday that “desperate times call for desperate measures,” without mentioning impeachment. 

 

“We do have authority over the federal courts,” Johnson said. “We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts, and all these other things.”

 

House GOP leaders met Tuesday with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which is to hold a hearing on the issue next week. 

 

The House also is expected to vote next week on a bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., that would limit the geographic reach of certain federal rulings, to prevent temporary restraining orders from being enacted nationwide. 

 

Passing Issa’s legislation on the House floor would be a less severe response than pursuing impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, a move called for by right-wing lawmakers and President Trump over the judge's rulings on the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.

 

“No federal judge has been impeached strictly for the outcome of a case,” says longtime New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse. “And even if the House were to summon the necessary majority to impeach a judge, persuading the required 67 senators to convict and remove a judge over a ruling would be highly unlikely.”

 

Fifteen federal judges have been impeached in the United States, and eight have been convicted and removed, mainly for criminal acts like bribery and conflicts of interest, Hulse says.

 

As far as cutting funding for the courts, the appropriations subcommittee that oversees that spending bill is chaired by Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, a former prosecutor, self-described pragmatist and one of the more moderate members of the House GOP conference, says NBC News.

 

And even if House Republicans managed to pass a defunding bill, the Senate almost certainly would reject it, NBC News says.

The fracas over Schumer’s move to keep the government open

The Constitution gives Congress the primary power to control government spending, and the narrative at the beginning of last week was that Democrats would stand together to preserve the separation of power by rejecting the House GOP bill to fund the government through September.

The GOP lawmakers supporting the bill and Democrats opposing it gave the same reason, The New York Times noted. They said the stopgap bill gave President Trump latitude to continue his campaign to dismantle and defund major pieces of the federal government through Elon Musk’s DOGE.

On Tuesday, March 11, the House passed the GOP bill with the support of all but one Republican and just one Democrat. 

But also on Tuesday, Wired reported that Musk actually “wanted a government shutdown — an aim that runs contrary to the White House’s stated desire to avoid one — in part because it would potentially make it easier to eliminate the jobs of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, essentially achieving a permanent shutdown.”

On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor that Republicans lacked the 60 votes needed to get to debate on the House bill and called for a bill to keep the government open for another month to give Congress “time to negotiate bipartisan legislation that can pass.”

On Thursday, Schumer said on the Senate floor that Republicans had rejected his proposal for negotiations. And that he would oppose a government shutdown, backing passage of the House-passed bill.

There was a “torrent of frustration and anger” after Schumer’s announcement, including calls that he be primaried in 2028, says The Associated Press.  

The most detailed explanation of Schumer’s reasoning that I’ve seen is what he told Times reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro on Saturday:

“I think it was a very, very difficult decision between two bad options, a partisan Republican C.R. [continuing resolution] and a shutdown that Musk and Trump wanted. For me, the shutdown of the government would just be devastating and far worse than the Republican C.R. Let me explain: A shutdown would shut down all government agencies, and it would solely be up to Trump and DOGE and Musk what to open again, because they could determine what was essential. So their goal of decimating the whole federal government, of cutting agency after agency after agency, would occur under a shutdown. Two days from now in a shutdown, they could say, well, food stamps for kids is not essential. It’s gone. All veterans offices in rural areas are gone. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. They’re not essential. We’re cutting them back. So it’d be horrible. The damage they can do under a shutdown is much worse than any other damage that they could do.

“One of the Republican senators told us: We go to a shutdown, it’s going to be there for six months, nine months, a year. And by then, their goal of destroying the federal government would be gone. And finally, one final point here, and that is that right now under the C.R., you can go to court and contest an executive order to shut something down. Under a shutdown, the executive branch has sole power. So, in conclusion, I knew this would be an unpopular decision. I knew that. I know politics. But I felt so strongly as a leader that I couldn’t let this happen because weeks and months from now, things would be far worse than they even are today, that I had to do what I had to do.

“We’ve had government shutdowns before, but never against such nihilists, such anti-government fanatics as Trump, DOGE, Musk. They’ve given us a playbook, by the way. [Russell] Vought has already has written what he wants to shut down if he got a shutdown. Trump wanted a shutdown. Musk wanted a shutdown. Ask yourself why.

“For weeks and months, we had said a shutdown is awful. And by the way, every Democrat, no matter how they voted, wanted to make sure there was no shutdown. We thought there could be a bipartisan plan, and I talked to Hakeem regularly during this period. We didn’t think that [Mike] Johnson could get all his votes. He did. When it came to the Senate on Tuesday, our hope was that Patty Murray could negotiate with the Republican senators and get that 30 day C.R., a bipartisan plan. She couldn’t. So we were faced with two awful choices. The choice has been made, but I think the whole Democratic Party is united on what I mentioned in the earlier broadcast, showing how bad Trump is in every way. We’re organizing this week and next week in Republican districts. We’re having rallies to not give tax breaks to millionaires, and we’re succeeding. We’re succeeding, Lulu. We’re bringing his numbers down.”

Steve Dennis, a Bloomberg reporter who’s a former colleague of my husband, said on Bluesky: “Schumer tells me Republicans might try to jam Democrats again in September, but thinks Trump will be less popular then and Republican appropriators might be more willing to stand up to him. He said they refused to do so now.”

A Times article says: “Many Democratic lawmakers continued to express deep frustration at Senator Chuck Schumer on Sunday for having broken with most of his party to allow a Republican spending bill to pass, as the Democratic base increasingly demands stauncher resistance to President Trump’s far-reaching agenda.”

We can’t know whether a government shutdown or no shutdown would, in fact, be more damaging. But personally, I’m willing to give Schumer the benefit of the doubt.

What citizens need to know about government shutdown votes this week

House Republicans unveiled on Saturday a bill to fund the government at current levels through Sept. 30, “daring Democrats to oppose it and risk being blamed for a government shutdown that would start after midnight Friday,” says The New York Times.

 

While conservative House Republicans in the past have opposed such spending bills, forcing Speaker Johnson to rely on Democrats to keep the government open, President Trump has called on Republicans to unite and push this bill through so he and Republicans on Capitol Hill can focus on their new budgetary and tax-cutting plans.

 

“Great things are coming for America, and I am asking you all to give us a few months to get us through to September so we can continue to put the Country’s ‘financial house’ in order,” Trump wrote on his social media site on Saturday after Republican leaders unveiled the bill.

 

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., who has voted against these bills throughout his career, told reporters that he was “open” to possibly supporting this one after Trump reassured him that DOGE would implement cuts.

 

Leaders of the congressional spending committees had been in bipartisan talks to find a way to pass the traditional spending bills, which would give Congress more say in how federal funds are spent and test how far the Trump administration was willing to go in defying lawmakers on spending issues.

 

But as the March 14 deadline has neared, Johnson and administration officials have made the decision that it would be to the White House’s advantage to freeze funding for the year and push through whatever changes they could convince Republicans to accept on mainly party-line votes.

 

House Democrats aren't expected to help pass the bill this time, The Washington Post and other media report. 

 

Democrats are worried that a long-term funding patch will give Trump and DOGE more control over how money is spent, The Post says, citing multiple lawmakers and aides.

 

“Congress — not Trump or Musk — should decide through careful bipartisan negotiations how to invest in our states and districts — and whether critical programs that support students, veterans, families and patients get funded or not,” says Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

 

So Democrats are standing up.

 

What citizens can do:

 

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. But Republican lawmakers appear to be too afraid of Trump to follow through on their oath to protect the Constitution and check presidential power. 

 

Yet DOGE isn’t popular, according to a PolitiFact article being run by Texas’ Austin-American Statesman newspaper.

 

Olivia Troye, a first-term Trump White House official who broke with him and spoke at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, says about former members of the “Never Trump” movement:

“We’re in a moment when there’s self-preservation, and I don’t blame people for that. But we need to remind ourselves that we have the power. The only reason that they have the power and are continuing to do what they do is that people are going silent.”

 

But members of the public are protesting nationwide. Reporters are reporting. Current and former officials are speaking up. For example, In a letter to lawmakers last week, five former defense secretaries who served under Republicans and Democrats — Lloyd Austin, Jim Mattis, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel and William Perry — condemned Trump’s firing of senior military leaders last month and asked that the House and Senate hold “immediate hearings to assess the national security implications of Mr. Trump’s dismissals.”

 

“We the people,” who the Constitution put in charge — can weigh in this week by calling and emailing our lawmakers. We can let those lawmakers who are standing up know that we support them and encourage them to do it more.

 

And we can urge the others to defend the institutions they pledged to defend.

 

If you type your address in this form on the Congress.gov website, you’ll get the contact information for your House representative and your two senators.

 

Here are other ways to help, from Robert Reich, author, professor and former secretary of Labor under President Clinton, including contacting the White House at 1-202-456-1414 (switchboard) and 1-202-456-1111 (comments).

 

Here are more suggestions from Reich.

Trump’s speech to Congress

“President Trump, in his address to Congress Tuesday, celebrated the whirlwind of changes he has brought to the federal government. His success from this point on will depend largely on whether Americans believe the unease caused by his speedy actions — an unsettled stock market, a trade war with allies and uncertainty over the extent of federal job and spending cuts — will lead to the American renewal he promised,” says The Wall Street Journal.

 

Much of the 100-minute speech — the longest presidential address to Congress in modern history — “was filled with grievances about his treatment by Democrats and exaggerations about his accomplishments,” says The New York Times.

 

AP says the speech “added up to a defiant sales pitch for the policies that Trump promised during his campaign and leaned into during his first weeks back in office. Trump pledged to keep delivering sweeping change to rescue the nation from what he described as destruction and mistakes left by his predecessor. He seldom addressed his comments directly to the American people, who are trying to keep up with the recent upheaval, while repeatedly needling the Democratic lawmakers seated before him.”

 

Republicans chanted “USA! USA!” as Trump stepped to the lectern.

 

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who pushed to impeach Trump dating to his previous term in office, stood and shook his cane toward the president in the opening minutes of his speech and subsequently was removed from the chamber.

 

Some Democrats held black signs that read “save Medicaid,” “protect veterans,” “Musk steals” and “false."

 

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who delivered the Democratic response after Trump’s speech, said “America wants change, but there’s a responsible way to make change and a reckless way, and we can make that change without forgetting who we are as a country and as a democracy.”

 

Here is reaction to the speech from experts at the Atlantic Council.

 

My thanks to my husband for compiling fact checks of Trump's speech:

 

AP

 

NYTimes

 

Washington Post

 

PolitiFact

 

ABC News

 

CBS News

 

NBC News

 

NPR

 

CNN

 

BBC News

European 'coalition of the willing' to guarantee Ukraine peace

Leaders of Europe and Canada have stepped up after the Friday Oval Office video that shot around the world of President Trump, Vice President Vance and Ukraine President Zelensky.

 

By the way, The New York Times reports that the outburst of Trump and Vance at Zelensky wasn’t planned; they were triggered by the United States not being thanked enough.

 

Zelensky subsequently went to London for scheduled talks with European leaders. 

 

There, he participated in a summit of 18 countries, including Britain, France, Poland, Sweden, Turkey, Norway, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Finland, Italy, Spain and Canada. 

 

Speaking at a news conference shortly after the summit, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said there had been agreement on four points, according to BBC News: 

 

— To keep military aid flowing to Ukraine and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia

— That any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be present at peace talks

— In the event of a peace deal, to increase Ukraine's defensive capabilities to deter any future invasion

 — To develop the "coalition of the willing" to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee peace afterward

 

Starmer also announced an additional $2 billion in British export finance to buy more than 5,000 air defense missiles. That's on top of a $2.8 billion loan to provide more military aid to Ukraine backed by profits from frozen Russian assets, BBC News says.

 

"Europe must do the heavy lifting," Starmer said, adding that the agreement would need U.S. support and had to include Russia — but that Russia couldn't be allowed to dictate terms.

 

After the summit, Zelensky met with King Charles III. He later spoke to reporters at a press briefing where he said he was ready to sign the minerals deal with the United States.

 

After leaving the Oval Office on Friday, Zelensky posted on X his thanks to Trump, Congress and the American people for their support, The Hill reports.

 

After leaving Britain, Zelensky again expressed his gratitude for U.S. support on X, BBC News says.

 

Here are 33 previous examples of Zelensky expressing gratitude to the United States, from CNN fact checker Daniel Dale. "This is not a comprehensive list," he says. "Notably, we did not review Zelensky’s many domestic remarks in Ukrainian."

 

Here are reactions to the Oval Office video of House and Senate lawmakers from both parties, from The Associated Press.

House passes ‘big, beautiful’ budget bill Trump wants

The president spent hours lobbying Republican holdouts on Tuesday to pass the fiscal 2025 budget blueprint, on a 217-215 vote, with one Republican voting no, Roll Call reports.

 

It’s just the first step toward passing the reconciliation bill, with $4.5 trillion in tax breaks and $2 trillion in spending cuts, that House Republicans are seeking to enact Trump’s agenda. The plan is at odds with Senate Republicans, who are pursuing their own budget blueprint focused on border security and defense, while deferring tax legislation until later in the year.

 

The House budget resolution had gotten criticism from both wings of the Republican Conference. 

 

Ultraconservatives, mainly from the Freedom Caucus, said an initial draft calling for $1.5 trillion in spending cuts was insufficient. 

 

And GOP moderates expressed concern about the impact spending cuts could have on Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income families. The budget would instruct the Energy and Commerce Committee to find $880 billion in savings over a decade, and Medicaid is the likeliest target for cuts in that panel’s jurisdiction. 

 

But they got assurances from House leaders after a late-night meeting Monday that cost-cutting would focus on Medicaid fraud, while not touching benefits for people eligible for the program.

 

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., noted that Trump has promised he wouldn't allow Medicaid to be cut.

“The president was clear about that. I was clear about that,” Lawler said. “We will work through this, but the objective today is to begin the process.”