March 1, 2025

Here’s a comprehensive dive into what’s been going down in Congress over the past week from the Congressional Progressive Caucus Committee. If you want to catch up a bit, read from the bottom up.

Keep the faith.

Lauri

Most of our recent updates have focused on Republicans’ efforts to move President Trump’s legislative agenda through Congress, risking millions of Americans’ access to Medicaid and food for kids to widen tax loopholes for billionaires and corporations (the latest on that here). Lest we forget, though, we’re two weeks away from the government running out of funding, threatening a government shutdown if Congress fails to act.

Feb. 28

We’re only two weeks away now from the government running out of funding, threatening a government shutdown if Congress fails to act.

Here’s what to know about the looming “shutdown showdown.“

Didn’t Congress just pass a budget?

Yes—two, in fact!—but that has nothing to do with current government funding. I realize this sounds absurd. Nonetheless, the budgets that just went through the House and Senate, respectively, were simply the first steps necessary in a process that allows Republicans to advance the President’s agenda without any Democratic support.

You can read more about that process, known as “reconciliation,” here.

So, what are you talking about when you talk about government funding?

I’m talking about annual appropriations bills, which fund federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and programs like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Appropriations bills typically fund the government through the end of each fiscal year (September 30). If a new appropriations bill has not been signed into law by that expiration date, Congress must pass a stopgap measure known as a “continuing resolution” (CR) to fund the government at current spending levels. Without a new appropriations bill or a CR, the government shuts down.

Right now, the government is operating under a CR that extended Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 spending levels. That CR expires on March 14.

Republicans control Congress and the White House, can’t they pass whatever government funding bill they want?

No. Passing most legislation—including appropriations bills—in the Senate requires 60 votes, and Republicans only hold 53 seats. Even if Senate Republicans could garner seven Democratic votes, though, the GOP would still have a problem. Despite only needing a simple majority to pass legislation, House Republicans have shown repeatedly that they cannot keep the government open without Democratic votes.

Bottom line: Republicans must negotiate with Democrats to keep the government open.

Where are negotiations?

Last night, President Trump endorsed a CR—in his words, a “clean, temporary government funding Bill…to the end of September.” As a result, Republicans in Congress appear to be giving up on negotiating a new government funding package in favor of kicking the can once more.

What’s so bad about that?

CRs = lost opportunities.

When Congress passes a CR, it’s not passing bills to actually fund the government in a way that meets current needs—remember, the government is still operating based on FY2024 spending levels.

On top of that, CRs don’t include community project funding, better known as “earmarks.” These funds facilitate community projects that individual members of Congress vet and advocate for. A CR through this fiscal year would forgo funds for lead service line replacements in Michigan, expanding a food bank in Texas, building a tornado shelter in Minnesota, and thousands more similar projects.

Different definitions of “clean.”

When it comes to CRs, clean typically means “the same”—meaning, no changes from the funding measure currently in place. However, last night, the White House sent Congress a list of changes they’d want to see in that so-called clean CR. While the list includes some noncontroversial priorities, like providing adequate funds for veterans’ care, it also includes cutting $20 billion from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)—a funding boost Democrats passed under President Biden to help the IRS pursue ultra-wealthy tax cheats.

This isn’t a cost-saving measure: the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that taking these resources from the IRS would actually cost taxpayers $46 billion, as it deprives the IRS of the resources it needs to ensure the mega-rich pay what they owe.

Dogged by DOGE.

President Trump and Elon Musk’s efforts to illegally reshape government to suit their interests has continued to wreak havoc on programs and services that keep Americans safe. In recent days, that’s entailed hundreds of firings at the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Weather Service; ending Ebola tracing in Uganda; threatening the ceasefire in Gaza; shutting down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that recouped about $20 billion for defrauded Americans; and much, much more.

While Democratic congressional leaders sought to forestall further chaos as part of a government funding deal, Republicans have now suggested enshrining DOGE’s actions into law as part of a CR as a way to garner votes from GOP deficit hawks who loathe CRs. However, this would discourage Democratic support.

The Democratic House and Senate Appropriations Committee leaders, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) said this morning that this “would only help Trump and Musk cut off support for our veterans, cancel lifesaving cancer research, and threaten seniors’ Social Security benefits,” and noted that the move was “raising the risk of a shutdown.”

So…what happens if the government shuts down?

For that, check out FAQs about Government Shutdowns.

House Republicans passed their budget proposal last night, overcoming what at points seemed like insurmountable intraparty opposition and marking another step towards advancing President Trump’s legislative agenda. Sort of.

February 26

House Republicans passed their budget proposal last night, overcoming what at points seemed like insurmountable intraparty opposition and marking another step towards advancing President Trump’s legislative agenda. Sort of.

Below I’ll explain how GOP leaders encouraged their members to vote yes, where those encouragements fall short, and what to watch next.

How House Republicans assuaged their members’ concerns about Medicaid…

Last week, “at least double digits” of House Republicans were wary of supporting their leaders’ Trump-endorsed budget proposal given massive cuts on the table for programs their constituents depend on—namely, Medicaid, the health insurer for more than 72 million people.

House GOP leaders spent the past week working to convince hesitant Republicans that their votes for the GOP budget resolution would not clear the path for kicking Americans off their health care coverage. Rather, they argued, they’d hit their savings targets by rooting out Medicaid waste, fraud, and abuse.

As evidenced by last night’s vote, that argument seems to have worked: ultimately, just one House Republican joined Democrats to oppose the budget blueprint. One previous holdout Republican said, “there’s a lot of space to address the issue without hurting beneficiaries.”

…while continuing to threaten Medicaid.

The idea that House Republicans can cut anywhere close to the amount of money their budget proposes without taking health care away from families is simply not credible. Here’s why.

First: the House GOP budget tasks the committee in charge of Medicaid with making the deepest cuts.

Republican leaders have tried assuaging holdouts’ concerns by claiming the budget doesn’t mention Medicaid. Technically, that’s true. However, the budget directs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, to make at least $880 billion in cuts.

To argue that Medicaid won’t be on the chopping block here is kind of like saying we’re going to an ice rink to play a sport, but we didn’t say we were going to play hockey—we could go there to swim or play soccer. All signs point to: we’re going to play hockey defund Medicaid.

Second: House Republicans’ own documents propose Medicaid policies to kick people off the program—not improve program integrity.

Our January 21 update discussed a leaked document listing measures Republicans might attempt to pass via reconciliation (the fast-track process they’re using to enact the president’s agenda without Democratic votes). The 50-page list describes dozens of provisions and their estimated budgetary impacts.

Despite GOP claims that they’ll save money by targeting Medicaid “waste, fraud, and abuse,” this list doesn’t echo recommendations from the Government Accountability Office or Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission to do just that. It does, however, propose several options that would force Americans off of Medicaid, including through “work requirements” and “per capita caps.” We’ve covered these policies’ expected impacts in previous updates, but I’ll briefly dig into one example below.

Data shows that Medicaid work requirements reduce participation in the program considerably—including among people who meet the requirements but are confused by mandated reporting. Reports also indicate that people who lose coverage due to work requirements suffer long-term consequences: data from Arkansas shows that half struggle to pay off medical debt and nearly two-thirds delay taking medications due to their high cost.

On top of that, there’s ample data showing that “work requirements” do little to actually promote employment. Most Medicaid enrollees already work, and most people within the minority who do not are caring for family members, have a disability, or attend school.

Third: even if Republicans were serious about improving Medicaid program integrity, there’s no evidence that there is anything close to the level of waste, fraud, and abuse that would facilitate these kinds of cuts.

Republicans have pointed to one statistic to argue that they could save Medicaid $50 billion annually by targeting wasteful spending. However, as multiple health care experts note, this metric does not measure fraud. And even if it did, $50 billion a year over the life of this 10-year budget proposal is $500 billion—well short of that $880 billion target for cuts from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

On a personal note: I worked for a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee years ago and recall hearing after hearing after hearing about eliminating Medicaid waste. I have no doubt there have been more since. I mention this because I know from experience that there’s been no shortage of congressional efforts to identify wasted Medicaid dollars. If there were hundreds of billions of dollars worth of savings to be found here, we’d be talking about those findings.

Lastly: there’s already a watchdog for Medicaid fraud. President Trump fired her.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) inspector general tracks waste, fraud, and abuse within programs like Medicaid and reports annually on efforts to improve program integrity. The most recent report came out just two months ago.

Despite the GOP’s purported interest in rooting out waste, the President fired HHS’ inspector general Christi Grimm within days of his inauguration. Grimm warned, “if you’re reducing without regard and you get rid of these watchdogs and the people that work for them, I fear for some of these programs, including oversight for Medicare and Medicaid.”

What happens now?

As a reminder, the Senate passed its own budget proposal last week, and it’s quite different from the House’s version (see our Friday update for details). Agreeing to the same budget blueprint in both chambers is step one for advancing the President’s agenda via the fast-track reconciliation process—and we’re not even there yet.

If anything, last night’s House vote was the second step one. If Republicans are actually going to advance a bill that can become law, they’ll need to take a third step one in which both chambers agree to the same budget proposal.

Bottom line: there’s a long way to go before this agenda is even close to becoming law. For a deeper dive into the next steps, check out The Basics of Budget Reconciliation. And on that note…

Join us on March 6 to ask all your reconciliation questions!

Join the Congressional Progressive Caucus Center, Indivisible, and the National Women’s Law Center on Thursday, March 6 at 2 PM ET for Reconciliation Rundown: Understanding the Basics of Budget Reconciliation!

Understanding reconciliation is essential for tracking the GOP’s policy plans and anticipating impacts on the rest of us. On March 6, we’ll break down why this process matters, discuss history’s lessons learned, and answer your questions. Register here!

Last night, the Senate took a major step in its effort to move President Trump’s legislative agenda. If you’ve been following this topic and are thinking, “didn’t Trump endorse the House’s plan?”, you’d be correct!

February 22

Last night, the Senate took a major step in its effort to move President Trump’s legislative agenda. If you’ve been following this topic and are thinking, “didn’t Trump endorse the House’s plan?”—you’d be correct!

Below is a quick recap of how we got here and what to watch next.

Reconciliation Recap

Quick reminder: to avoid having to earn any votes from their Democratic colleagues, congressional Republicans aim to use a process known as reconciliation to advance the President’s legislative agenda. That includes renewing and expanding corporate-friendly tax policies from the first Trump Administration; greenlighting hundreds of billions of dollars for the military and deportations; and defunding programs like Medicaid, which provides health care to more than 70 million Americans.

To learn more about the reconciliation process, check out The Basics of Budget Reconciliation.

The Republican-controlled House and Senate have different plans to enact Trump’s agenda. You can read about the Senate’s proposal here, and the House’s here, but here’s a quick rundown of their major differences:

The Senate’s proposal tees up a two-bill approach to reconciliation, while the House aims to do just one. For more on why that matters, see our January 10 update.
The House proposal makes room for massive tax cuts for corporations and the ultra-wealthy. The Senate’s proposal does not touch tax issues—they want to do that later this year via a separate bill (hence, the two-bill approach above).
The House aims to spend a lot more than the Senate does ($4.8 trillion in the House vs. $521 billion in the Senate). Again, this is largely because of taxes.
The House’s proposed cuts are way bigger than the Senate’s ($1.5 trillion with a goal of $2 trillion in the House vs. at least $4 billion in the Senate).
The House wants to raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. The Senate’s proposal doesn’t touch the debt ceiling.

To be clear: the Senate’s plan still sets the stage for Republicans in Congress to defund Medicaid and SNAP and plot tax giveaways to corporations and billionaires later this year—while, at the same time, Trump and Elon Musk gut the services and protections working families depend on. All of this will result in a government that serves the ultra-wealthy and corporations rather than working families.

Where Things Stand: Plan B was Step 1(🤔)

Despite Trump endorsing the House’s approach, the Senate voted last night to advance their reconciliation proposal by a nearly-party-line vote (Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote no). The Senate also rejected a host of amendments Democrats proposed, including:

An amendment to block tax breaks for the mega-rich if Medicaid is defunded (from Senator Schumer);
An amendment to prohibit tax breaks for people making more than $1 billion if inflation is raising food prices (from Senator Klobuchar);
An amendment to maintain retain federal workers who are responding to bird flu (from Senator Slotkin); and
An amendment to protect veterans’ health care benefits from cuts (from Senator Blumenthal).

Senate GOP leaders framed the vote as one to maintain a backup option should House Republicans’ plan fail (for more on the skepticism around House Republicans’ chances, see our Wednesday update). But despite this first step, Republicans’ path to actually moving a bill the President can sign into law isn’t clear.

Last night’s vote essentially amounts to the Senate deciding which issues they’ll plan to tackle in an eventual reconciliation bill, should their Plan B be necessary—they finalized their outline, if you will. But to actually fill in that outline and vote on that final product, both chambers have to agree on the same outline.

So, What’s Next?

The House plans to vote on its own plan—sticking with this metaphor, its “outline”—next week. Again, here’s a rundown of what the House has proposed (and what Trump favors over the Senate option). If the House plan passes—and that’s not a given—there may be added pressure for the Senate to get on board given Trump’s endorsement.

As a reminder: the House wants to tackle all of Trump’s legislative priorities in one bill. That means more than $4 trillion in tax cuts for the rich and corporations, gargantuan cuts to health care and food assistance, as well as mass deportations and a giant boost to the already massive Pentagon budget—all in a single piece of legislation.

Crafting a bill that big, and gathering all the votes necessary to move it, could take awhile. And as I (grossly) said in our update on one bill versus two, big legislative efforts can age like milk.

The more time it takes to put this package together, the more time reporters and analysts have to dissect its impacts and share that information with the public. From a transparency standpoint, letting that sun shine in is a good thing! But if you’re trying to get this package over the finish line, you don’t want that milk sitting out too long—and at the risk of really forcing this awful metaphor, you definitely don’t want that milk sitting out in the sun.

The upshot? This process is far from over.