‘Little Lobbyists' Urge Senators to Oppose Trump's Bill Cutting Medicaid
Landry Bell, a 1-year-old boy who was born with Down syndrome, wriggled and smiled in his big sister's lap on the floor outside Republican Senator Mike Lee's office this week as he took a break from going office to office with his mother while she explained how cuts to Medicaid would devastate their family.
Wearing a bright blue T-shirt emblazoned with the words 'Little Lobbyists,' Landry was among a group of children with serious medical needs who crisscrossed the Capitol with their parents urging senators to vote 'no' on the sprawling Republican bill carrying President Trump's agenda. The legislation would cut deeply into Medicaid to help pay for large tax cuts that would benefit businesses and the richest Americans.
The Senate version of the legislation would make even more aggressive cuts to Medicaid than the version of the legislation that passed the House last month. Those proposed reductions, and the elimination of some clean-energy tax credits, are among the most contentious provisions driving debate on the bill among Republicans, as party leaders push to complete it and send it to Mr. Trump's desk within weeks.
The Little Lobbyists formed in 2017 during Mr. Trump's first term to push back against Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, taking to Capitol Hill to demand that lawmakers oppose the move. Their successful campaign to save the law was part of a broader backlash against the proposal, which was driven in large part by major health care lobbies, like hospitals and insurance companies, as well as patient groups worried about losing insurance coverage.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
15 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump may authorize strikes against Iran. Can he just do that?
The question being projected by the White House as President Donald Trump mulls an offensive strike against Iran is: Will he or won't he? It has blown right by something that should come earlier in the process, but hasn't gotten much attention: Can he? Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle — but mostly Democrats at this point — have proposals to limit Trump's ability to simply launch strikes against Iran. 'We shouldn't go to war without a vote of Congress,' Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, told CNN's Jake Tapper on 'The Lead' Wednesday. Kaine has been trying for more than a decade to repeal the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force that presidents from both parties have leaned on to launch military strikes. The strictest reading of the Constitution suggests Trump, or any president, should go to Congress to declare war before attacking another country. But Congress hasn't technically declared war since World War II and the US has been involved in a quite a few conflicts in the intervening generations. Presidents from both parties have argued they don't need congressional approval to launch military strikes. But longer-scale wars have been authorized through a series of joint resolutions, including the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against any country, person or group associated with the 9/11 terror attacks or future attacks. There's no indication Iran was involved with 9/11, so it would be a stretch to argue that vote, taken nearly a quarter of a century ago, would justify a strike against Iran today. But that vote has been used to justify scores of US military actions in at least 15 countries across the world. The Trump administration has said recent assessments by US intelligence agencies from earlier this year that Iran is not close to a nuclear weapon are outdated and that Iran's close proximity to developing a nuclear weapon justifies a quicker effort to denude its capability, perhaps with US bunker-busting bombs. Israel apparently lacks the ability to penetrate Iran's Fordow nuclear site, which is buried in a mountain. Prev Next Kaine, on the other hand, wants to hear more, and requiring a vote in Congress would force Trump to justify an attack. 'The last thing we need is to be buffaloed into a war in the Middle East based on facts that prove not to be true,' Kaine said. 'We've been down that path to great cost, and I deeply worry that it may happen again.' In 1973, responding to the disastrous war in Vietnam, Congress overrode President Richard Nixon's veto to pass an important piece of legislation, the War Powers Resolution, that sought to rein in presidents regarding the use of military force. The War Powers Resolution seeks to limit the president's ability to deploy the military to three types of situations: a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. An effort to end Iran's nuclear program would not seem to fall into any of those buckets, but Trump has plenty of lawyers at the Department of Justice and the Pentagon who will find a way to justify his actions. The law also requires Trump to 'consult' with Congress, but that could be interpreted in multiple ways. The law does clearly require the president to issue a report to Congress within 48 hours of using military force. It also seeks to limit the time he has to use force before asking Congress for permission. The Reiss Center at New York University has a database of more than 100 such reports presidents from both parties have sent to Congress over the past half-century after calling up the US military. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, cite the War Powers Resolution in their proposal to bar Trump from using the US military against Iran without congressional approval or to respond to an attack. 'This is not our war,' Massie said in a post on X. 'Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.' Nixon clearly disagreed with the War Powers Resolution, and subsequent presidents from both parties have also questioned it. For instance, when Trump ordered the killing of a top Iranian general who was visiting Iraq in 2020, lawyers for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, in what we know from a heavily redacted legal opinion, argued the president inherently had authority to order the strike under the Constitution if he determined that doing so was in the national interest. A similar memo sought to justifying US airstrikes in Syria during Trump's first term. That 'national interest' test is all but a blank check, which seems on its face to be inconsistent with the idea in the Constitution that Congress is supposed to declare war, as the former government lawyers and law professors Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue at Lawfare. The OLC memo that justified the killing of the Iranian general suggests Congress can control the president by cutting off funding for operations and also that the president must seek congressional approval before 'the kind of protracted conflict that would rise to the level of war.' Presidents have frequently carried out air strikes, rather than the commitment of ground forces, without congressional approval. The OLC memo that justified the strike against the Iranian general in Iraq also argued Trump could rely on a 2002 vote by which Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. That 2002 authorization for use of military force (AUMF) was actually repealed in 2023, with help from then-Sen. JD Vance. OLC memos have tried to define war as 'prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period.' Air strikes, one could imagine OLC lawyers arguing, would not rise to that level. What is a war? What are hostilities? These seem like semantic debates, but they complicate any effort to curtail presidential authority, as Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, both former national security lawyers for the government, argued in trying to explain the law at Just Security. The most effective way to stop a president would be for Congress to cut off funds, something it clearly can do. But that is very unlikely in the current climate, when Republicans control both the House and the Senate.
Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
It's time for sports to take a stand against Trump's excesses
Several hours before President Trump's vainglorious military parade, officially called the 250th Army Birthday Parade and Festival — paid for in part by the NFL — rolled past the National Mall last Saturday, a protest against what many of us see as the diminution of the Constitution was underway a few miles away at Logan Circle. And just as I visited there, Jim Keady was introduced.
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Two years after train derailment, NIH to commission longer-term health studies of East Palestine residents
The National Institutes of Health said Thursday that it will fund longer-term health studies of the residents of East Palestine, Ohio, after a 2023 train derailment that sent more than a million pounds of hazardous chemicals into the soil, water and air. The community has long asked the government to do more to help answer questions about the mental and physical effects of the disaster, which some people say they continue to struggle with more than two years later. The funding will be available through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. In 2024, under the Biden administration, the institute funded six two-year rapid-response projects to study different aspects of exposures and health problems after the disaster. Those projects were worth more than $1 million in total. The new grants will award up to $10 million for one to three projects over the next five years. Vice President JD Vance, who was a senator from Ohio when the derailment occurred, pushed for the funding, the NIH said. 'NIH is working to ensure that the people of East Palestine and the surrounding communities are listened to, cared for, and get the answers they deserve,' NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said in a news release. 'This multi-disciplinary research program will focus on public health tracking and surveillance of the community's health conditions to support health care decisions and preventive measures.' East Palestine resident Misti Allison, who ran for mayor after the disaster and campaigned for long-term health studies in the area, said she was pleasantly surprised by the announcement. She sits on the board of one of the current community health studies. 'This next level of funding will enable us to conduct comprehensive and high-impact studies that can truly make a difference in the area,' Allison said. She notes that the funding announcement mentions that the research will be co-developed with input from the community. 'This will really ensure that our concerns and needs are at the forefront,' she said. 'So that is really great.' More than two years after the disaster, there's been a surge in post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, respiratory complaints and even some cancers, Allison said. Because cancers have many causes, however, it's difficult to tie those directly to chemical exposures from the derailment, she noted. Jessica Conard, whose son developed asthma a few months after breathing toxic fumes from the derailment, said the announcement brought 'a complicated mix of emotions.' 'We have had real symptoms now for 2½ years, and all we've received is gaslighting and dismissals from state, local and federal agencies,' Conard said. 'We still need an organized medical response, and this should have happened immediately after the disaster,' she said. 'This feels like a political afterthought. 'My hope is that this $10 million doesn't just fund another academic report that sits on the shelf without any actionable takeaways,' she said, 'We desperately need real medical support.' Allison said the community has advocated for an emergency declaration to activate special provisions for victims of environmental exposures that would enable residents to receive Medicare benefits to help pay for their ongoing health needs. 'These funds would be a lifeline for many families who are still grappling with health concerns and some economic hardship,' she said. Dr. Andrew Whelton, a civil and environmental engineer at Purdue University who helps communities assess the impacts of disasters, said the need for the funding is unfortunate. The government and community would have been better served if they'd made more money available up-front to prevent exposures to residents in the first place, he said, and inadequate indoor air testing allowed residents to be exposed to chemicals in their homes for months after the disaster. 'It's positive that there is funding to potentially help people investigate long-term health impact questions, but none of it would have been necessary if the right decisions were made and people in agencies didn't fail the public' in the first place, Whelton said. The NIH said it will accept applications for the East Palestine study grants until July 21.
