‘Yes would have been a disaster': Maine Senator Collins faced familiar balancing act on Trump's sweeping bill
is well-accustomed to the high wire act of a Republican moderate in a blue state. Perhaps the best case politically may be that this vote allows her to continue to walk that line, with Trump-supporting Republicans unable to blame her for killing the bill and Democrats unable to blame her for cementing its passage.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'I don't know if 'no' is helpful, but I think 'yes' would have been a disaster,' said Representative Chellie Pingree, the Democrat from Maine's 1st Congressional District, on the implications of Collins' vote in 2026. The legislation's deep cuts to Medicaid and the federal food stamp program will be 'very, very bad for Maine,' Pingree added.
Advertisement
Indeed, in explaining her no vote, Collins pointed to her concerns over Medicaid, saying the bill's proposals 'could threaten not only Mainers' access to health care, but also the very existence of several of our state's rural hospitals.' She ultimately secured language in the bill to establish a $50 billion relief fund for rural hospitals, but it did not change her final vote.
Advertisement
The GOP bill — which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and boosts spending on immigration enforcement while cutting funds for Medicaid and social services — is not popular nationally or in Maine, polls show.
A June 25 survey from the University of New Hampshire found that 58 percent of Mainers opposed the package while 30 percent supported it. Among independents, long a key base for Collins, 72 percent were against the legislation.
That may explain why Democrats wasted no time attempting to link Collins to the bill she voted against. In a statement, Maine Democratic Party spokesman Tommy Garcia noted that the senator on Sunday night voted in favor of allowing the legislation to proceed to debate, clearing a key procedural hurdle.
'Make no mistake: Susan Collins made the deliberate choice to advance this bill, and she'll be held accountable for it in 2026,' Garcia said.
The package would have proceeded without Collins' support on Sunday, given Vance could have broken the tie had she voted to block it. But her willingness to advance it — not uncommon for her, even with bills she eventually opposes — underscored that despite moments of breaking with her party, she is not usually inclined to present herself as a major obstacle.
'She's a team player,' said Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, referring to her vote to advance the legislation to debate. He said Republicans knew when it came to the final vote, Collins likely 'couldn't get there just because of her state.'
Advertisement
But Hoeven credited Collins, who 'helped us get on the bill at a time when we needed that help... people appreciate that and respect that about Susan.'
Those kinds of maneuvers have long been a key ingredient of Collins' political success. In her 2020 campaign, she overcame deepening polarization and partisan backlash to several very significant votes and easily defeated her Democratic rival, Sara Gideon.
Heading into the 2020 campaign, Collins
voted
against Trump's 2017 attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, with the late Senator John McCain providing the ultimate vote to scuttle the president's first big goal. But she also supported the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Those votes, along with her support of confirming Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, provided plenty of fodder for both Republicans and Democrats to oppose her in that campaign.
Collins has not yet announced her reelection plans. The Democratic field of hopefuls for the seat has yet to fully materialize, with Jordan Wood, a former top aide to California Representative Katie Porter, the only candidate so far raising money and campaigning.
But the political environment for Collins could be different than it was six years ago. The UNH poll from June had Collins earning only a 14 percent approval rating. Less than one-third of self-identified Republicans approved of her performance.
'The problem she's got this time around is that any support she's had among Republicans has disappeared,' said Andrew Smith of UNH, who conducted the poll.
The overarching strategy for Collins with this legislative fight, Smith added, may be to 'get this out of the way.' By going against Republicans and Trump, he added, she may also be particularly keen to head off any rumblings of a primary challenge, which has so far failed to seriously materialize.
Advertisement
While Trump has threatened to destroy the political careers of Republicans who oppose his signature legislation, he has been noticeably quiet on Collins. In a social media post after the Senate vote Tuesday, the president wrote, 'Almost all of our Great Republicans in the United States Senate have passed our 'ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.'' He did not mention Collins.
It was a stark difference from Trump's repeated diatribes against GOP holdouts like Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who is already facing Trump-funded primary attacks, or Tillis, who after vocally opposing the bill, announced he would retire rather than face reelection.
Both Massie and Tillis loudly railed against Trump's signature legislation, though, while Collins largely expressed cautious doubts in public while attempting to change it in private. Speaking to
Democrats, along with Collins and Tillis, came to believe that the bill's Medicaid cuts and changes would force an unacceptable number of rural hospitals out of business.
Still, Maine Democrats attacked Collins for not doing enough to block or change the GOP bill, arguing that she should have leveraged her 'power and seniority she likes to campaign on' to dull the worst impacts, said Garcia, of the Maine Democratic Party.
In a lengthy statement explaining her vote, Collins emphasized her support of aspects of the legislation, like extending the 2017 tax cuts, as well as tightening work requirements for 'able-bodied adults who are not raising young children, who are not caregivers, or attending school.'
Advertisement
The senator did not take questions before leaving the Capitol following Tuesday's marathon session, saying she had to catch a plane. On her way out of the chamber, Collins was stopped by Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who shepherded the bill through his Budget Committee. He extended his arm to shake her hand.
The scene may have encapsulated the broader dynamic for Collins.
'She's not going to antagonize anyone even more with this vote,' said UNH's Smith. 'She may disappoint some people; for most, it would be a shrug.'
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
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's ‘chilling effect' is coming for museums, historians warn
Historians and researchers are expressing 'grave concern' about President Trump's push to purge museums of information he dislikes. 'Such political interference stands to impose a single and flawed view of American history onto the Smithsonian, placing at risk the integrity and accuracy of historical interpretation,' Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, told CNN Wednesday. 'Such actions diminish our shared past and threaten to erode the public's trust in our shared institutions.' Weicksel said she has been fielding messages of concern not just from fellow historians, but also from people with no professional affiliations. 'Many of them are parents who are concerned about the Smithsonian's future,' she said. 'Others are frequent museum visitors.' On Tuesday, Trump called museums 'the last remaining segment of 'WOKE'' and said, 'We are not going to allow this to happen.' He was seemingly following up on last week's letter from the White House informing the Smithsonian Institution of a content 'review' that would aim to 'ensure alignment with the president's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.' That announcement prompted the American Alliance of Museums, which represents 35,000 professionals in the sector, to speak out against 'growing threats of censorship against US museums.' 'This is not just a concern for select institutions,' like the Smithsonian, the group said. 'These pressures can create a chilling effect across the entire museum sector.' The American Association for State and Local History argued in a statement that the Trump administration's broader goal is to 'delegitimize the work of the history field and to rob the public of its ability to learn from the past.' 'Censoring and manipulating content to fit a predetermined, triumphalist narrative is the antithesis of historical practice and a disservice to us all,' the association said. The ultimate danger 'is that you get an incomplete picture of what happened in the country,' Annette Gordon-Reed, the Pulitzer-winning Harvard historian, said on CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360.' 'If you can't learn from history, if you don't know what actually happened,' Gordon-Reed said. 'So, it's a way of keeping people ignorant of the past.' Trump's follow-up message on Truth Social said, 'We have the 'HOTTEST' Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it, including in our Museums.' The president said he had directed attorneys to 'go through the Museums' and 'start the exact same process that has been done with colleges and universities where tremendous progress has been made.' In some ways, his rhetoric is a continuation of a fight that liberals and conservatives have been having for decades about how much to emphasize America's sins versus its strengths. 'America's national museums have been captured by a niche ideological faction that believes that Western civilization, and, indeed, our nation, is irredeemable,' the editors of the conservative publication National Review wrote last week. 'If the White House gets this review right, it can help make the Smithsonian a cultural gem that all Americans can once again take pride in.' Weicksel and other leaders in the field argue that Americans already have a great deal of trust in museums and historical sites, and MAGA-style ideological meddling will diminish that trust. 'Across numerous surveys, a majority of Americans consistently say they want a full, honest, and unvarnished presentation of our nation's history,' the Organization of American Historians said in a statement last week. The organization predicted that the administration's review would 'undoubtedly be in service of authoritarian control over the national narrative, collective memory, and national collections.' The Smithsonian is not part of the executive branch, but it is federally funded, and it has a Board of Regents that includes the vice president. The institution began a review of its own in June, and last week it said that it would 'continue to collaborate constructively' with the White House. Dozens of groups representing historians came to the Smithsonian's defense back in March when a Trump executive order disparaged the institution, presaging this month's actions. 'Our goal is neither criticism nor celebration; it is to understand — to increase our knowledge of — the past in ways that can help Americans to shape the future,' the groups said in an open letter. 'The stories that have shaped our past include not only elements that make us proud but also aspects that make us acutely aware of tragedies in our nation's history,' the letter continued. 'No person, no nation, is perfect, and we should all — as individuals and as nations — learn from our imperfections.'
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Korea's democracy prospers and the Korea-US alliance is intact
We express our deep concern over the recent commentary by Gordon Chang published in The Hill, which presented inaccurate and misleading portrayal of the Republic of Korea's democracy, its president, and its alliance with the U.S. Korea's democracy has evolved through the resilience of its people, and it continues to thrive. At the same time, the Korea-U.S. alliance has developed into a future-oriented comprehensive strategic alliance. President Lee Jae Myung's upcoming visit to Washington D.C. and his summit with President Trump will mark yet another milestone in this enduring and indispensable alliance. The claim that Korea's June 3 presidential election was marred by irregularities, or that our democracy is in crisis, is entirely without foundation. Korea's democracy is internationally recognized as transparent and vibrant. The election was held freely and fairly, and no evidence of irregularities was found. The absence of any objection from Korea's independent judiciary or major political parties proves this fact.. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and leaders across the world publicly congratulated Lee on his victory, reaffirming confidence in the integrity of Korea's democratic institutions. More than 100 countries likewise recognized the strength and resilience of Korea's democracy. Lee earned 49.4 percent of the vote, the second-highest share since the introduction of direct presidential election in 1987. Baseless attacks against a duly elected leader who secured the support of a majority of citizens are more than political criticism. They represent a disregard for the Korean people themselves, dismissing their democratic choice, the resilience they have shown in overcoming grave constitutional challenges, and the trust that sustains Korea's partnerships with the international community. Equally false is the assertion that former President Yoon Suk Yeol faced fabricated charges of insurrection. He was unanimously impeached by Korea's Constitutional Court after unlawfully declaring martial law. The allegations of insurrection against Yoon will be decided in accordance with fair judicial procedures, which constitutes another cornerstone of democracy. He has been treated in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, in the same manner as any other criminal suspect in Korea, and allegations that he was denied medical care are entirely unfounded. Claims that the current Korean government restricts freedom of expression on social media, investigates citizens, and raids religious facilities are patently false. Rather, the majority of Koreans have been deeply shocked by allegations in the media that certain religious figures provided bribes to Yoon and his wife. Our government will continue to respond firmly to such falsehoods and to the grave affronts and attacks they represent against the people of the Republic of Korea. The allegation that Lee is weakening our alliance with the U.S. is simply incorrect. Since his candidacy, Lee has consistently stated that the alliance is the cornerstone of Korea's diplomacy and security. Since taking office, he has repeatedly reaffirmed this commitment. The Ulchi Freedom Shield joint exercise is being conducted as planned. Adjustments to the schedule were made only after thorough consultation between the two governments to ensure the safety of troops under extreme heat and to maintain a balanced combined defense posture throughout the year. The investigation at Osan Air Base was limited to the area controlled by Korea and did not involve U.S. personnel or materials. The alliance is not only the bedrock of Korea's security but also a pillar of stability in the region. Also, the two countries are working closely together to respond to both threats and opportunities under a firm shared commitment. Under Lee's leadership, the Republic of Korea will continue to develop the alliance into a future-oriented comprehensive strategic alliance. Lee's visit to Washington D.C. and his summit with Trump will be a defining milestone in charting the course of future cooperation. To claim otherwise is to misrepresent reality and to disregard the bipartisan, multi-dimensional cooperation that has long underpinned the alliance. If the contributor of the above-mentioned commentary truly wishes to see the Korea-U.S. alliance flourish, then, ahead of this important first summit since Lee's inauguration, the responsible course is not to spread baseless accusations but to support this opportunity for the alliance to advance and prosper.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Even Hillary Clinton admits Trump's foreign policy is working
Well, here's something you don't see every day. President Trump's foreign policy is getting high marks from an unusual grader — Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the former first lady, secretary of State and Democratic presidential candidate is typically no fan of The Donald; she's called him an illegitimate president, a threat to our democracy, a Russian stooge, and every other smear in the book. But even Clinton admits Trump is doing a pretty good job strengthening the U.S. relationship with European allies while getting more out of them in terms of NATO defense and their financial contributions. Watch Clinton speaking with liberal Fox News commentator Jessica Tarlov: 'I actually was encouraged by the events of the last several months,' said the former secretary of State. 'The NATO commitment by individual member states to increase their defense spending, it's something that prior administrations have certainly sought, and I think it's great that we're seeing these commitment they now have to follow through on.' Clinton continues: 'There is beginning to be a better understanding, both by the president and the people around him, as well as by the leaders of our European allies, that there can be common ground amongst us. The kind of dismissiveness of that we saw in the first Trump administration has been replaced by a much more obvious working relationship, to the good of European security, transatlantic security, and hopefully Ukrainian security.' That's high praise from a Democratic political figure who previously accused Trump of being totally beholden to Vladmir Putin and Russia, and of working to subvert the NATO alliance, and of being an isolationist — all notions that are explicitly disproven by Trump's diplomatic efforts to engage the West in the project of mediating peace between Russia and Ukraine. And, actually, it's not just Russia and Ukraine. Trump is working to achieve peace all over the globe — something that has attracted the notice of moderate liberal commentator Bill Maher. Let's watch: 'If you're the kind of person who can find some good in anybody, this would be the good in Donald Trump. He really does not like war. Thailand and Cambodia were firing at each other, Rwanda and the Congo — most people don't even know about these — India and Pakistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, he got involved in all of them.' All we are saying is give peace a chance! That's what I believe in, it's what Donald Trump seems to believe in, and it's what America First really means. War should be a last resort. Diplomacy can accomplish more than sanctions or airstrikes or, god forbid, boots on the grounds. Letting countries trade with each other and benefit from each other's resources is a surer way to get our allies and our enemies to serve our interests than twisting their arms with force. We don't need to ask the American people to send their hard-earned tax dollars overseas in some naive hope that it will make foreign peoples friendlier to us, nor should we bomb them into somehow loving America. Neither of those strategies — liberal interventionism and neoconservatism — work for us. What does work is libertarianism, or you can call it military noninterventionism, or foreign policy populism, or just call it America First. It's what the people want, and it's what they're currently getting, and even Hillary Clinton has to admit, it's sort of working.
