When one vote costs everything

Politico

15-07-2025

Presented by
Welcome to POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government, your guide to Donald Trump's unprecedented overhaul of the federal government — the key decisions, the critical characters and the power dynamics that are upending Washington and beyond.
Send tips | Subscribe | Email Sophia | Email Irie | Email Ben
When all but five Republicans voted earlier this month for DONALD TRUMP's 'big, beautiful bill,' the president once again flaunted his ability to strongarm his party into submission — even if it costs them their jobs.
Democrats, enraged by stinging defeats in November, plan to focus their midterm messaging on the legislation's cuts to Medicaid and tax breaks for the richest Americans as they fight to retake a majority in one or both chambers. And ELON MUSK, infuriated that the law will add trillions to the national debt, has promised to use his vast wealth to start his own 'America Party' and primary conservative Republicans who voted for the bill.
To be successful, Democrats would need to recreate the 1994, 2010 or 2018 midterms, in which the minority party successfully crafted a political message around a major piece of legislation. In 1994, the GOP took back control of Congress for the first time in 40 years on a message against former President BILL CLINTON's agenda. In 2010, Republicans seized on outrage over the Affordable Care Act to flip 63 House seats and six Senate seats, and in 2018, Democrats used the GOP's unsuccessful ACA repeal effort to net 40 seats in the House. (They weren't as successful in the Senate, where Republicans maintained control.)
Former Democratic Rep. CHRIS CARNEY credits his vote for the ACA in 2010 for his ouster from the Pennsylvania district he'd represented for two terms — and cautioned that Republicans may have cause for concern next year.
'I took that vote knowing I was going to lose,' Carney said in an interview with West Wing Playbook. 'But to be a good member of Congress, you have to be willing to lose your seat for things that are important. And the Republicans who voted for the BBB probably understood that they run the risk of losing their seat by voting for it.'
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What similarities and differences do you see between the ACA and the BBB in terms of the degree of electoral liability they pose to the lawmakers who voted for them? Do you think the megabill will be the defining piece of legislation for the midterms?
Both the ACA and the BBB were organizing principles for the opposition party. The Tea Party movement used Obamacare as a way to rally forces against Democrats who voted for it, and, in fact, against Democrats who didn't vote for it. Democrats this time will use the BBB probably in the same way.
The real question is: How well can Democrats message against it, and how well can Republicans defend it? Back in 2010, I don't think we were given exactly the tools we needed to defend decisions to vote for it.
How worried should House Republicans be as they approach 2026?
As a member, you have to decide what you're willing to lose your seat over. I took the vote in 2010 knowing full well that I was going to lose in November. But for me, a bill that created that much health care was important, and as it turned out, 33,000 families and individuals in my district got health care who never had it before.
As a member of Congress, you are exquisitely aware of the electoral impact your votes have. I'm sure that Republicans in Kamala Harris and Joe Biden districts are making that same calculation: Is it more important that I appease Donald Trump and take the vote for him, or do I take a vote that may preserve my reelection in the next cycle?
How should Democrats seize on this moment?
It's important that Democrats message in an effective way: Talk about how the BBB reduces health care while providing tax cuts to the very rich — those bread-and-butter issues resonate. As the BBB is gone through with a fine-tooth comb, there are going to be a lot of things in there that the Democrats can take advantage of in terms of messaging. The question is, can they be effective in the messaging, and can they be consistent in the messaging, and can they sustain the messaging? If they can do all those things, I think 2026 might be a tough year for Republicans, certainly in the House.
If you talk about it in terms of Medicaid, a specific program, that's a little bit harder to sell than if you talk about it generally as health care, which it is.
There are quite a few similarities between the situation in Washington in 2010 and today — but one new variable is Musk. What do you make of his threats to primary conservative Republicans? Who, in your opinion, are the winners and losers if the America Party comes to fruition?
If the America Party actually becomes a thing, the Republican Party will lose more of its votes, and certainly lose the votes it gained in 2024. I don't think that there are many Democrats that would be supportive of Elon Musk's party, but I think that there are a number of libertarian and Trump-curious voters that might be turned off by how he's governed since he's been in office in his second term, and what the Republicans in Congress have done. If the America Party does end up forming, I think it hurts Republicans far more than it hurts Democrats.
MESSAGE US — West Wing Playbook is obsessively covering the Trump administration's reshaping of the federal government. Are you a federal worker? A DOGE staffer? Have you picked up on any upcoming DOGE moves? We want to hear from you on how this is playing out. Email us at [e-mail].
Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe!
POTUS PUZZLER
Who was the first president to have his Cabinet appointee rejected?
(Answer at bottom.)
Agenda Setting
YOU CAN STAY: Senate Republicans will scale back the White House's request for $9.4 billion in spending cuts as they look to shore up their votes, our JORDAIN CARNEY and CASSANDRA DUMAY report. Sen. ERIC SCHMITT (R-Mo.), who is leading the recissions effort with the White House, said Republicans will restore a $400 million cut to the global AIDS program known as PEPFAR, bringing the total amount of cuts to $9 billion.
Senate Majority Leader JOHN THUNE said he expects the PEPFAR switch to be the only change made to the package, adding that there was a 'lot of interest' among his caucus in funding the GEORGE W. BUSH-era program, which has been credited with saving tens of millions of lives.
RURAL FOOD ACCESS HIT: The Department of Agriculture has cut nearly all funding for a dozen rural centers that support farms and food businesses across the country, our MARCIA BROWN reports. Funding for Regional Food Business Centers, established under the Biden administration, has been frozen since January. The department has not provided the centers with a reason aside from saying that the funding was under review for its alignment with Trump administration priorities.
USDA confirmed the end of the program later today, saying that the centers 'should not have been established in this manner in the first place.'
TWIDDLING OUR THUMBS: Despite employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau still getting paid, the bureau has in practice been mostly inoperable for nearly six months, AP's KEN SWEET reports. CFPB employees say they essentially spend the workday not doing anything, forbidden from doing any work by directive from the White House.
One current employee told AP that outsiders would be amazed at how little work gets done. Conversations between colleagues are seldom out of fear that they would be possibly violating the directive. The agency's press office doesn't respond to emails.
WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT
ETHICS CHANGES AT DOJ: The Justice Department is ramping up its efforts to strip law enforcement officials with civil service protections intended to insulate their work from political interference, NYT's DEVLIN BARRETT reports. On Friday, a new batch of more than 20 career employees at the department and its component agencies were fired, including the attorney general's own ethics adviser, JOSEPH W. TIRRELL. The rest included senior officials at the U.S. Marshals Service, as well as prosecutors and support staff who once worked for JACK SMITH when he was a special counsel prosecuting the president.
Some DOJ veterans say the move represents a pattern of the administration ignoring and eventually demolishing longstanding civil service legal precedents meant to keep politics out of law enforcement work, and to give more leeway to Trump's loyalists.
A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.
Knives Out
LIKE HE NEVER LEFT: Former national security adviser MIKE WALTZ pledged today to push for reform at the United Nations, following in the administration's footsteps in slashing the size of the federal government, our AMY MACKINNON reports. Waltz, who Trump nominated as his ambassador to the organization, said that the administration was conducting a number of reviews of the UN to examine how it is spending its funds, calling for the body to refocus on its founding principles.
What We're Reading
'We're not buying it': Trump ties Ukraine aid to America First (POLITICO's Eli Stokols and Dasha Burns)
Federal Workers' 'Emotional Roller Coaster': Fired, Rehired, Fired Again (NYT's Eileen Sullivan)
The government wants AI to fight wars and review your taxes (WaPo's Douglas MacMillan, Faiz Siddiqui, Hannah Natanson and Elizabeth Dwoskin)
Event Planners Are Cancelling on Trump-Era Washington. Is This a Sign of Things to Come? (POLITICO's Michael Schaffer)
POTUS PUZZLER ANSWER
That would be former President ANDREW JACKSON, who had his nominee for Treasury secretary, ROGER TANEY, rejected in 1834 as part of inter-party disagreements over the National Bank.