
Republicans plot a strategy to fend off Democratic onslaught against Trump megabill
Republicans start on the back foot, with recent surveys showing the bill is unpopular, even with pro-Trump cohorts. Still, GOP leaders say they have a plan to turn things around and make the legislation Trump signed into law last week part of an offensive push to protect their House and Senate majorities.
Meanwhile, Democrats are gearing up for a political onslaught aimed at unseating Republicans who voted for it. The House Democrats' campaign arm has already launched a digital ad buy on Meta across 35 GOP-held competitive districts slamming lawmakers for voting to harm rural hospitals. Part of Democrats' strategy is to highlight that many Republicans who threatened to vote down the bill because of steep Medicaid cuts ended up voting for it anyway.
'The so-called moderate House Republicans have shamelessly lied for months — hiding behind meaningless letters and performative tweets — claiming they'd protect Medicaid, food assistance and energy jobs,' said Justin Chermol, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'But their vote is the only thing that matters, and they'll pay the price next year.'
Republicans say they have a strategy to avoid a repeat of the midterms in 2018, when Democrats attacked them for Trump's original tax cuts, which they argued disproportionately benefited the wealthy, and for seeking to cut health care for the working class by unsuccessfully trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Democrats went on to take back the House majority.
This time around, Republicans say they will campaign on individual pieces of the bill that poll well and ignore the provisions that are less popular. GOP leaders and strategists are encouraging their candidates to lean into the 'wins' of Trump's agenda: tax cuts on overtime and tips, child care subsidies and work requirements for able-bodied adults.
'Last time, we ceded ground to Democrats,' a senior aide to Republican leadership told NBC News. 'We won't do that again.'
Republicans also argue that some working-class people will begin to feel savings from two particular provisions of the bill, tax cuts on tips and overtime pay, when they take effect next summer, just ahead of the midterm elections.
But most of the tax provisions are extensions of the current rates, meaning most voters will see little change in their tax bills — another challenge for Republicans in selling the bill.
Pressed about how candidates will defend cuts to Medicaid, a high-ranking GOP strategist who is close to Trump said they won't focus on it, instead touting 'the money in the pockets of working-class Americans and their increased safety' from other provisions in the bill.
Republicans see bill as the 'defining issue of 2026'
Republican leaders are expected to hit the road, including in swing districts, in the coming months to sell the bill. In the meantime, they plan to flood local airwaves promoting the legislation, according to a senior GOP source familiar with the plans. And the National Republican Congressional Committee plans its own spate of attack ads accusing Democrats of supporting a tax hike for having voted against the bill, which extends tax cuts Trump enacted in 2017, the source added.
In a new memo obtained by NBC News, the NRCC encourages Republicans to accuse Democrats of voting to 'block tax cuts' and 'leave the border wide open,' referring to roughly $150 billion in the bill for immigration enforcement.
'House Republicans will be relentless in making this vote the defining issue of 2026, and we will use every tool to show voters that Republicans stood with them while House Democrats sold them out,' NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee recently circulated internal polling instructing candidates to message aggressively on tax cuts. The only mention of Medicaid in the three-page document touts the popularity of work requirements and frames the nearly $1 trillion in cuts as 'reforms' to keep benefits from undocumented immigrants.
The calculation among many Republicans in battleground states and districts who voted for the bill is that the Democratic warnings about massive cuts to Medicaid will fall flat with voters — not only because the cuts were tailored to target 'waste, fraud and abuse,' but also because the changes aren't set to kick in until after the 2026 midterms.
Still, it's a risky gamble, and many vulnerable Republicans are privately bracing for potential political blowback in their districts. The bill is projected to lead to 11.8 million fewer people having insurance by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Perhaps the biggest driving force behind their 'yes' votes was not wanting to defy Trump. He had threatened to back primary challengers to two Republicans, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who opposed the bill. (Tillis ended up deciding not to seek re-election.)
'Seventy-seven million Americans voted to give Donald Trump a platform to make positive changes for the United States; 1.7 million Wisconsinites voted for Donald Trump,' said Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., who is expected to face a competitive re-election race next year. 'This is a mandate by the American people, and we're fulfilling this mandate.'
When he was pressed about whether Republicans are just falling in line because of Trump, Van Orden pushed back: 'The president of the United States didn't give us an assignment. We're not a bunch of little b------ around here, OK? I'm a member of Congress that represents almost 800,000 Wisconsinites.'
The Democratic group House Majority Forward is working on ads to attack vulnerable Republicans for the vote — including Van Orden, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Tom Barrett of Michigan, who all narrowly won their 2024 races.
Democrats plan to target wobbly Republicans
In the run-up to the vote, politically vulnerable Reps. David Valadao, R-Calif., and Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., led sternly worded letters signed by more than a dozen of their colleagues slamming steep cuts to Medicaid and clean energy tax credits.
But when it came time to vote, nearly all of them folded under pressure from Trump and ended up supporting provisions that they loudly criticized — and that could have major impacts on their constituents. Most of those lawmakers are targets of the DCCC's new ad campaign.
Two weeks ago, Valadao led a group of 16 Republicans in writing a letter vowing to oppose the Senate bill's aggressive Medicaid cuts.
'Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent,' they wrote. 'Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers.'
All 16 of them voted for the bill Thursday.
Valadao, who represents a swing district with a large share of Medicaid recipients, warned five days before the final vote that Republicans must undo the Medicaid changes in the Senate bill — 'otherwise, I will vote no.'
His office didn't respond to messages seeking comment on his vote.
In a statement, Kiggans said that 'no legislation of this size is perfect—but there's no question that this bill includes major priorities I've been fighting for on behalf of Coastal Virginia.'
Valadao was among the group of lawmakers who visited the White House before the vote last week. During the meeting, Trump and Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, walked them through how the bill's changes to Medicaid will be implemented.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, who had been one of the loudest Republicans calling to protect Medicaid, walked away from the meeting arguing they have time to change the law back if they later determine it will be too harmful, since the biggest changes don't take effect for several years.
Asked by NBC News whether it was risky to bank on the prospect of Congress' reversing key components of the bill, Van Drew said: 'No, I think that it's possible. The point being that it is being done slowly.'
Another moderate GOP lawmaker who had been on the fence, granted anonymity to discuss internal party deliberations, said what ultimately made them feel comfortable voting for it is that many of the Medicaid changes, like the provider tax, won't take effect until after the midterm elections.
Under the bill, the new work requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will kick in latest by the start of 2027, while new restrictions on state provider taxes — which trigger federal payments that are a major source of revenue for rural hospitals — will start in 2028.
Last month, an overlapping group of 13 House Republicans, led by Kiggans, wrote a letter calling for saving clean energy funding and tax credits, saying they were 'deeply concerned by several provisions' in the emerging package. They warned that 'project cancellations will continue to snowball' without protecting the incentives that caused the investments.
Twelve of the 13 Republicans voted for the bill — every signer except Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
Along with Valadao and Kiggans, Republicans who signed both letters include Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania, Mike Lawler and Andrew Garbarino of New York, Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, Young Kim of California and Don Bacon of Nebraska. (Bacon announced last week that he will retire.)
Meanwhile, some Republicans have already started to lean into parts of the bill.
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who openly acknowledged the bill's Medicaid changes will 'take away health care from working people,' is holding an event Tuesday morning to celebrate the inclusion of his bipartisan effort to expand federal compensation for nuclear waste victims.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ukraine-Russia war latest: Trump warned Putin he will bomb Moscow if Ukraine is attacked as Kyiv faces relentless drone strikes
Donald Trump threatened to 'bomb the s*** out of Moscow ' if Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, according to a new book. 'With Putin I said, 'If you go into Ukraine, I'm going to bomb the s*** out of Moscow. I'm telling you I have no choice,' Mr Trump said in the audio, referring to a conversation with the Russian president. 'And then [Putin] goes, like, 'I don't believe you.' But he believed me 10%,' Mr Trump said. The remark was among several captured in a series of audio tapes from 2024 fundraisers in New York and Florida but it is not clear when the exchange took place. CNN aired the clips on Tuesday night. This comes as Kyiv faced another relentless night of attacks from Russian drones and missiles, leaving at least 12 injured, officials said. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has resumed sending some weapons to Ukraine, a week after the Pentagon had directed that some deliveries be paused, US officials said. The weapons heading into Ukraine include 155 mm munitions and precision-guided rockets known as GMLRS, two officials aware of the developments said.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Russia hits Kyiv with more missiles and drones, causing fires and injuring at least 10
Russia pounded Ukraine's capital with another mass missile and drone attack overnight into Thursday, causing fires in areas across the city and injuring at least 10 people a day after the heaviest aerial attack of the three-year war so far, according to Ukrainian officials. In a post on the Telegram messaging app, Kyiv mayor Vitali Klitschko said rescue workers were working at a residential building in Shevchenkivskyi District, after falling debris caused a fire on the top floor of an apartment building. Tymur Tkachenko, head of the Kyiv Regional Administration, said there were fires in at least five other districts at residential buildings, cars, warehouses, office and other non-residential structures. He said three of the injured had shrapnel wounds. Russia has recently sought to overwhelm Ukraine's air defenses with major attacks that include increasing numbers of decoy drones. The previous night, it fired more than 700 attack and decoy drones, topping previous nightly barrages for the third time in two weeks. Russia's army has also launched a new drive to punch through parts of the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line, where short-handed Ukrainian forces are under heavy strain. U.S. President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he was 'not happy' with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who hasn't budged from his ceasefire and peace demands since Trump took office in January and began to push for a settlement. Trump said Monday that the U.S. would have to send more weapons to Ukraine, just days after Washington paused critical weapons deliveries to Kyiv. On Wednesday, the U.S. resumed deliveries of certain weapons, including 155 mm munitions and precision-guided rockets known as GMLRS, two U.S. officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity so they could provide details that hadn't been announced publicly. It's unclear exactly when the weapons started moving. ___ ___


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Gaza permanent ceasefire 'questionable' - but possible 'within weeks, not a day', says senior Israeli official
A senior Israeli official has issued a less-than-optimistic assessment of the permanency of any ceasefire in Gaza. Speaking in Washington on condition of anonymity, the senior official said that a 60-day ceasefire"might" be possible within "a week, two weeks - not a day". But on the chances of the ceasefire lasting beyond 60 days, the official said: "We will begin negotiations on a permanent settlement. "But we achieve it? It's questionable, but Hamas will not be there." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to conclude a four-day visit to Washington later today. There had been hope that a ceasefire could be announced during the trip. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that it's close. 0:44 Speaking at a briefing for a number of reporters, the Israeli official would not be drawn on any of the details of the negotiations over concerns that public disclosure could jeopardise their chances of success. The major sticking point in the talks between Hamas and Israel is the status of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire and beyond, should it last longer. The latest Israeli proposal, passed to Hamas last week, included a map showing the proposed IDF presence inside Gaza during the ceasefire. This was rejected by Hamas and by Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who reportedly told the Israelis that the redeployment map "looks like a Smotrich plan", a reference to the extreme-right Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich. The official repeated Israel's central stated war aims of getting the hostages back and eliminating Hamas. But in a hint of how hard it will be to reconcile the differences, the official was clear that no permanent ceasefire would be possible without the complete removal of Hamas. "We will offer them a permanent ceasefire," he told Sky News. "If they agree. Fine. It's over. "They lay down their arms, and we proceed [with the ceasefire]. If they don't, we'll proceed [with the war]." On the status of the Israeli military inside Gaza, the official said: "We would want IDF in every square meter of Gaza, and then hand it over to someone..." He added: "[We] don't want to govern Gaza... don't want to govern, but the first thing is, you have to defeat Hamas..." The official said the Israeli government had "no territorial designs for Gaza". "But [we] don't want Hamas there," he continued. "You have to finish the job... victory over Hamas. You cannot have victory if you don't clear out all the fighting forces. "You have to go into every square inch unless you are not serious about victory. I am. We are going to defeat them. Those who do not disarm will die. Those who disarm will have a life." On the future of Gaza, the official ruled out the possibility of a two-state solution "for the foreseeable future". "They are not going to have a state in the foreseeable future as long as they cling to that idea of destroying our state. It doesn't make a difference if they are the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, it's just a difference of tactics." On the most controversial aspect of the Gaza conflict - the movement of the population - the official predicted that 60% of Palestinians would "choose to leave". But he claimed that Israel would allow them to return once Hamas had been eliminated, adding: "It's not forcible eviction, it's not permanent eviction." Critics of Israel's war in Gaza say that any removal of Palestinians from Gaza, even if given the appearance of being "voluntary," is in fact anything but, because the strip has been so comprehensively flattened. Reacting to Israeli Defence Minister Katz's recent statement revealing a plan to move Palestinians into a "humanitarian city" in southern Gaza, and not let them out of that area, the official wouldn't be drawn, except to say: "As a permanent arrangement? Of course not."