Tag Archive for: Democratic Party

Survey of Economists Finds Solid Opposition to Huge Minimum Wage Hikes Sought by House Dems, Mamdani

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

House Democrats, left-wing political activists, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) are pushing for historic hikes in the federal minimum wage, but a new survey of economists who specialize in labor economics found overwhelming opposition to the proposals.

The survey was conducted by the Employment Policy Institute (EPI) in March and April, with responses from 166 professional economists, most of whom are academics specializing in labor economics. The respondents were unusually balanced in terms of their political affiliations, with 21% each identifying themselves as Democrats and Republicans, 23% as Libertarians, and the rest as having no affiliation.

While the survey’s sample represents only 0.5% of the more than 35,000 professional economists working in sectors of the U.S. economy, their unanimity of opinion across such a representatively balanced sample is likely to command significant attention among opponents and supporters of the proposal advanced by a coalition of House Democrats and left-wing political activists to boost the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 per hour to $25 per hour, and the $30 per hour sought by Mamdani.

The results indicate overwhelming opposition to such hikes, according to the survey made public by the Arlington, Virginia-based EPI:

  • Ninety-six percent of economists across the political spectrum oppose minimum wages of $20 per hour or more;
  • A vast majority also believe steep wage hikes will lead to lost jobs (96%), automation (97%), and an increase in the cost of living (84%);
  • Three-fourths oppose minimum wages up to $15/hour.

The professional economists’ opposition reflects other findings of the survey, including 39% of the respondents who contend that minimum wage hikes to $15 per hour will increase poverty, while a hike to $20 per hour would increase poverty in the view of 59% of the respondents. The $15 per hour rate would kill jobs for young, entry-level individuals in the view of 74% of the economists surveyed, with the percentage increasing to 89% with a hike to $20 per hour. The $15 per hour will prompt the loss of more jobs due to automation, according to 71% of the respondents, with 90% agreeing with that conclusion if the minimum wage is hiked to $20 per hour.

Other negative impacts big majorities of the respondents agreed would result from large minimum wage increases include 69% contending the $15 hike would be damaging to small businesses and 91% saying the same for the $20 hike. Similarly, 59% claim the $15 hike will increase the cost of living for all Americans either “significantly” or “somewhat,” and 80% foreseeing significant or somewhat increases at the $20 rate.

The EPI survey results were not available in April when Virginia Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger signed a law incrementally hiking her state’s minimum wage to $15 per hour.

In Congress, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) and Rep. Analilia Mejia (D-N.J.) introduced their “Living Wage for All Act of 2026” that would boost the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour. The proposal was introduced with 13 additional co-sponsors, all Democrats. The big increases mandated by the proposal would be delayed to 2031 for large corporations and 2038 for small businesses. The proposal also makes it illegal for state or local governments to have sub-minimum wage laws that enable employers to hire certain workers on an exceptional basis.

“The legislation reflects a national push to match wages with the rapidly growing cost of living. Across the country, campaigns are already moving at $25 and above — with $30 proposals advancing in Alameda County and Los Angeles, $27 legislation in Illinois, $30 efforts in New York, and $25 campaigns underway in Washington, D.C., and Maryland. These are part of a coordinated, multi-front strategy backed by a coalition of more than 100 labor, community, and social justice organizations. The Living Wage for All Act brings that momentum to the federal level — translating what workers and voters are already demanding across states and cities into a national standard,” Ramirez said in announcing the proposal.

The Mamdani proposal to make New York City’s minimum wage $30 per hour is currently being considered by the city council.

The survey was conducted on behalf of EPI by CorCom, Inc., a research consulting firm headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pa. It was founded by Dr. Lloyd Corder, who holds faculty appointments at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh.

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Johnson, Thune Hatch Plan to End DHS Shutdown and Launch Second Reconciliation Push

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

As the almost 50-day partial shutdown drags on, travelers have definitely found some creative coping mechanisms for their long waits at U.S. airports. In Houston, one man went viral for walking up and down the security line with a vodka bottle, pouring shots for annoyed adults. Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson brought in live entertainment, a violinist who was supposed to ease some of the tension. “[A] violin playing like on the deck of the Titanic. Is it that bad?” one passenger joked. And in Baltimore, volunteers passed out “pick-me-up snacks.” Now that TSA workers are finally getting paid, Americans’ aggravation is starting to subside — just not where Congress is concerned.

What was a four-hour checkpoint in Houston had dwindled to just 10 minutes on Monday, PBS reported — a world of difference from the endless nightmare passengers were experiencing just 48 hours earlier. After weeks of maddening scenes across the country, there are signs that things may slowly be returning to normal. On Capitol Hill, though, there’s been no reprieve from the biggest standstill: Homeland Security funding. But that’s about to change.

While the president found a workaround for TSA agents, the two chambers have been logging long phone calls in search of a solution to turn the lights on across DHS. As Politico points out, “While about 50,000 airport security officers are now getting paid under Trump’s executive action, thousands more workers remain furloughed or working without pay. Those include more than 2,000 employees of the premier federal cybersecurity agency, more than 4,000 FEMA workers as well as more than 1,000 Coast Guard civilians.”

On Wednesday afternoon, the situation took a dramatic turn when the two GOP leaders — who were at odds on strategy before the Easter recess — released a joint statement agreeing to compromise on their differences. In it, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) both agreed to swallow pieces of the other chamber’s proposal in an effort to get all of Homeland Security funded.

“In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the President’s directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process,” they explained. “We appreciate,” they continued, “that Senator [Lindsey] Graham (R-S.C.) and the Senate Budget Committee have already initiated the process of developing a budget resolution that will ensure border security and immigration enforcement will be funded for the balance of the Trump Administration and insulated from future attempts by the Democrats to defund those agencies.”

Translation: House Republicans will be pressured to accept the Senate’s proposal to partially fund Homeland Security in exchange for Thune’s help in passing another reconciliation bill (which would presumably finance ICE and Customs and Border Patrol). Of course, the advantage of reconciliation, that tricky budgetary process the GOP used to move the One Big Beautiful Bill, is that it lets conservatives bypass the Senate’s 60-vote threshold and get legislation over the finish line with a simple majority — an absolute necessity in the era of absurd Democratic obstruction.

Last Friday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) pushed hard to bring the Senate-passed proposal to the floor — to no avail. Wednesday afternoon, he reiterated that position, posting that it was “time to pay TSA agents, end the airport chaos and fully fund every part of the Department of Homeland Security that does not relate to Donald Trump’s violent mass deportation scheme.”

Assuming that position holds, the Democrats’ help will be crucial in getting the Senate bill over the hump in Johnson’s chamber, where some conservatives were already grumbling about the new, two-track plan. But even they must recognize the quandary leadership is in when Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) party is determined to put political messaging above American safety.

“We operated under a belief that while our country is in the midst of an international armed conflict, Democrats might finally come to their senses and understand that defunding our homeland security agencies is beyond reckless and very dangerous,” the two leaders pointed out. “[But] it is now abundantly clear that Democrats place allegiance to their radical left-wing base above all else — including their own power of the purse — which means open borders and protecting criminal illegal aliens. That is not acceptable to Republicans in Congress, nor is it to the American people. We cannot allow Democrats to any longer put the safety of the American public at risk through their open border policies, so we are taking that off the table.”

By early Thursday morning, the new plan was already moving. In its pro-forma session, the Senate sent its partial funding bill back to the House, where action will likely be taken early next week. Meanwhile, conservatives are bracing for the wild race toward reconciliation.

The challenge, most people agree, will be political discipline. There’s always a temptation for the party chasing reconciliation to throw every possible thing at the wall and see if it sticks. But this cannot be a catch-all, conservatives warn. “I would keep it as simple as possible so it could pass,” Johnson reiterated. While some Republicans will want to slip in Iran funding, pieces of the SAVE America Act, or other logjammed bills, an injection of too many priorities could “kill the whole thing,” one senator acknowledged anonymously.

“If you want to keep all of our members tight,” outgoing Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) insisted, “… we need to agree to parameters and not allow scope creep.” The majority leader echoed the sentiment. “We’re just trying to make sure we keep our expectations realistic,” Thune said.

One advantage of the idea is that Republicans could fund all of DHS for multiple years — sparing them (and the country) this headache every time Homeland Security appropriations comes up. On that, both chambers agree. “We’re going to send [the House something] that actually funds DHS for the next three years. We’re not going through this again with the Dems, okay?” Senator John Hoeven (R-N.D.) emphasized.

Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) wonders if the House can find a sweet spot on reconciliation the second time around. “The reality is, we will be fine in the Senate,” he explained, recognizing that Thune can still lose three Republicans on reconciliation and still pass the bill. “The House is where we’re going to have the problem,” he cautioned on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch.” But we’re going to have people in swing districts [who] are going to have a real problem with it. The speaker knows that. We all know that, and we’re working hard to try to figure out a way forward.”

Singling out the perpetual thorn in Johnson’s side, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Hern acknowledged, “… There are a lot of reasons why we don’t have the full vote margins that we need. … And we know that we have one member [who’s] going to vote against everything that we do going forward. So we can’t lose any[one]. And that’s a very difficult situation when you’re trying to pass something as monumental as a second reconciliation bill.” Especially when the president throws down this timeline: “I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st,” he posted Wednesday.

But the current situation isn’t just unsustainable, it’s historic. “Listen, not every single Democrat is against funding the security of our border and ICE,” Hern wanted people to know, “but the stranglehold by the Democrat[ic] leadership is making it such [that] if you vote to do the right thing for America, you’re a bad person. [And] I do think that it’s unprecedented.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

What Constitution? Progressive States, Cities Join WHO Network after U.S. Withdrawal

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

For the past decade, left-wing Democrats have calibrated their actions by assessing whatever Donald Trump wants, and doing the opposite. This tactic is evident everywhere, but far fewer people understand how close this pattern comes to triggering a constitutional crisis.

One recent example came after the Trump administration officially withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 22. “Like many international organizations, the WHO abandoned its core mission and acted repeatedly against the interests of the United States,” announced Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy. “Although the United States was a founding member and the WHO’s largest financial contributor, the organization pursued a politicized, bureaucratic agenda driven by nations hostile to American interests.”

The U.S. Congress reserved the right to withdraw from the WHO when it joined the U.N. organization in 1948. President Trump initiated the process in the waning months of his first administration in response to its mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic. President Joe Biden suspended this withdrawal in 2021, but President Trump reinitiated it in 2025. Each of these policy reversals came as American voters decided to exchange one party for the other.

Now, some of Biden’s fellow Democrats have decided that they will simply refuse to follow the Trump administration’s foreign policy lead and engage with the WHO on their own.

On January 23, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) announced that his state was “becoming the first, and currently the only, state to join WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network (GOARN).” Newsom met with WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus during the World Economic Forum “to detect and respond to emerging public health threats.”

In Newsom’s announcement, foreign policy disagreement with the Trump administration features prominently. “The Trump administration’s withdrawal from WHO is a reckless decision that will hurt all Californians and Americans,” Newsom declared. “California will not bear witness to the chaos this decision will bring. We will continue to foster partnerships across the globe.”

On February 3, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) made a similar announcement for similar reasons. “By withdrawing from the World Health Organization, Donald Trump has undermined science and weakened our nation’s ability to detect and respond to global health threats. I refuse to sit idly by and let that happen,” Pritzker protested. “By joining the World Health Organization’s coordinated network, GOARN, we are ensuring that our public health leaders — and the public — have the information, expertise, and partnerships they need to protect the people of our state. Across our state and alongside valued partners around the world, Illinois will continue to put science, preparedness, and people first.”

The Illinois Department of Public Health outlined the benefit from WHO membership resources, such as “Direct access to global early-warning alerts and outbreak intelligence,” “Opportunities for technical collaboration and surge support during major public health events,” “Participation in international training, exercises, and best-practice exchanges,” and “Stronger coordination between state-level public health systems and global response efforts.”

Never one to miss a bandwagon hurtling to the left, the New York City government under Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) also jumped on board the trend on February 5. “New York City is a global city with 8.5 million residents and more than 12 million international visitors every year,” explained New York City Acting Health Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer Michelle Morse. “To best prevent disease outbreaks and public health emergencies and to protect New Yorkers and visitors from them, the NYC Health Department is joining hundreds of public health institutions worldwide that share critical public health information to support life-saving prevention and response efforts. Infectious diseases know no boundaries, and nor should the information and resources that help us protect New Yorkers.”

The problem with all of this talk of international cooperation and its benefits is that American states and cities are not allowed to have their own foreign policy. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution stipulates that “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.” In fact, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”

The original reason for the 13 “States of America” to become “United” was to present a unified front on matters of foreign policy. State governments have sovereignty, but only over their domestic affairs. Once that principle is breached, once individual states begin forging independent side-partnerships with foreign governments, American unity would be fundamentally compromised, and American security with it.

Consider the implications of California universities collaborating with the Chinese Communist Party on defense research, or the Texas Military Department sharing intelligence with a foreign power, independent of the federal government.

What California, Illinois, and New York City are proposing is a uniquely unconstitutional manifestation of nullification, where states unilaterally declare federal law to be null and void in their territory.

The Constitution Center records at least “three prominent attempts by states at nullification in American history.” Kentucky tried to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. South Carolina tried to nullify federal tariffs in 1832 (with slavery providing an ugly backdrop). Arkansas tried to nullify Brown v. Board of Education in 1957.

For decades, progressives have derided southern states for their past nullification attempts. Now, it appears that such derision was based on the unfounded belief that progressive values would always (or eventually) prevail in the U.S. federal government. However, progressives have grown increasingly alarmed with their lack of power over federal policy, to the point that they have begun embracing their own versions of nullification.

For instance, Pritzker recently opined, “We need ICE out of our cities and, frankly, out of our state.” What is this but an attempt to dictate where federal officers can enforce federal law? Any expression of “ICE Out” is really an endorsement of the constitutionally illegitimate principle of nullification. (In contrast, a declaration that state or local law enforcement “does not enforce federal immigration law” is simply a recognition of the fact that states enforce state laws, and the federal government enforces federal laws.)

On December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson described nullification as “the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution,” and that “the true construction” of the Constitution “permits a State to retain its place in the Union and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional.” Such a position, Jackson argued, was absurd, “having for its object the destruction of the Union.”

Only one element of uncertainty may save the decision by progressive jurisdictions to join the GOARN network from being an indefensible violation of the Constitution. One could make a case that GOARN’s cooperation is not so much with a foreign government or international organization as with a global network of research institutes. GOARN has at least 365 partner institutions, of which 36 are in the United States.

Under this theory, these three progressive governments are not directly rejecting the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the WHO; that point might save them constitutionally, but it defeats the whole point of their choosing to join GOARN as a way to stick a finger in Trump’s eye.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Always Ready: Speaker Johnson Gives Biblical Defense of Borders

FRC’s Pray Vote Stand Chapters Equip Christians for Biblical Engagement in the Public Square

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Americans Are Continuing to Flee Blue States for Red States, Census Data Show

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Newly released census data has revealed that the trend of a mass exodus from states controlled by Democrats to states run by Republicans is continuing. Census Bureau population estimates indicate that the five fastest-growing states are red, while four of the five states that are facing a shrinking population are blue.

As noted by the National Review editorial board Monday, the data show that since 2020, the U.S. has added about 10.3 million people, only 1.9 million of which were natural births over deaths. The remaining 8.3 million constituted immigrants. “[T]he notion of a future in which we add four new immigrants for every net increase of one homegrown American is alarming,” the editors observed.

The census estimates further demonstrated that states run by Democrats (with one exception) continue to lose residents. The only five states that suffered losses in population were Vermont, Hawaii, West Virginia, New Mexico, and California, with New York narrowly breaking even. Many of these former blue state inhabitants seem to be fleeing to red states. The five fastest-growing states have Republican-controlled governments — South Carolina, Idaho, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

This latest data indicates that the population trends that began in 2020 are only continuing. An Institute for Family Studies (IFS) report from September 2024 found that in 2021-2022, the five states that lost the most families were the Democratic strongholds of California, New York, Illinois, Washington, and Oregon. Meanwhile, the states that gained the largest number of families were the Republican bastions of Texas, Florida, and South Carolina, along with the purple states of Georgia and Arizona.

Compounding the population problem for blue states is further data showing that fertility rates in Republican-run states are higher than they are in Democrat-run states. An October 2024 report from IFS analyzing 2023 data found that the 10 states with the highest fertility rates were all red, with the top three being South Dakota, Nebraska, and North Dakota. True to form, the 10 states with the lowest fertility rates were blue, with Vermont, Rhode Island, and Oregon being the three states with the lowest rates. The trend dovetails with studies showing that conservatives marry at higher rates and have more children than liberals.

A recent tax proposal for billionaires in California has left many scrambling the exits. The levy is emblematic of the heavy tax burden that Democrat-led states put on their citizens, with blue states securing the top 10 highest income tax rates in the nation. In addition, red states generally have fewer restrictions on home construction, have more business-friendly policies, have more jobs, and have lower energy costs, among other factors that make the cost of living less.

Experts like FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter say that the migration from blue states to red states will also likely have a big impact on future elections.

“If these projections hold up, the apportionment following the 2030 census will undoubtedly tilt future elections toward the GOP,” he told The Washington Stand. “With red states looking to pick up additional seats in Congress and additional electoral college votes, the Republican path to winning the presidency and Congressional majorities will depend less on winning swing states and swing districts in blue or purple states and will be achievable staying within red states alone.”

“It’s bad form in politics to assume outcomes, and red states will likely have to deal with an influx of more moderate and even liberal voters fleeing blue states,” Carpenter acknowledged. “But it’s even worse form to drive your population out of your state with insanely unpopular agendas.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED PODCAST: Is this the Left’s Blueprint for the Nation?

RELATED VIDEO: People are leaving blue states in droves and they’re all heading to five Red States

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Dems Join Communist Regimes in Wagging Fingers at Trump over Venezuela Raid

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The high-profile capture of Venezuelan autocrat Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces has sparked a firestorm of controversy, both at home and abroad. Domestically, Democrats are crying, “Foul,” framing President Donald Trump’s Venezuelan raid as a violation of both his constitutional authorities as president and international law. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) claimed in a Sunday interview that there was “no evidence” that Maduro’s regime posed “an imminent threat to the health, the safety, the well-being, the national security of the American people.”

“This was not simply a counter-narcotics operation. It was an act of war,” Jeffries argued. “This was a military action involving Delta Force, involving the Army, apparently involving thousands of troops, involving at least 150 military aircraft, perhaps involving dozens of ships off the coast of Venezuela and South America. So, of course, this was the military action,” he continued. “And pursuant to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, to authorize acts that take place in this regard. And we’ve got to make sure when we return to Washington, D.C., that legislative action is taken to ensure that no further military steps occur absent explicit congressional approval.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced that he and Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.), along with frequent Trump critic Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), will introduce legislation this week to bar the commander in chief from further military action without congressional approval. “It’s a violation of the law to do what they did without getting the authorization of Congress,” the top Democrat said in an interview Sunday. He shared that his “War Powers Act” will be brought to the Senate floor this week. “It’s going to come to the floor this week, and if it is voted for, if it’s voted positively in both houses, then the president can’t do another thing in Venezuela without the okay of Congress.”

“The American people this morning,” Schumer claimed, “are scratching their heads in wonderment and in fear of what the president has proposed. The United States will run Venezuela. We have learned through the years when America tries to do regime change and nation building in this way, the American people pay the price in both blood and in dollars.” He continued, “The American people are worried that this is creating an endless war. The very thing that Donald Trump campaigned against over and over and over again was no more endless wars. And right now, we’re headed right into one with no barriers, with no discussion. This is reckless.”

Likewise, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) disparaged the raid on Venezuela as “wildly illegal.” “This is a president who has been operating illegally since he was sworn into office, stealing from the American people, seizing spending power. What’s illegal now? Dragging America into a war overseas,” the senator claimed. “The president cannot run a military operation of this size, cannot invade a foreign country without coming to Congress first, without allowing the American public to weigh in. America doesn’t want this war. Nobody asked for this because it has nothing to do with American national security.”

Murphy further averred that Maduro and his regime are “not a security threat to the United States. They’re not threatening to invade us. There is no terrorist group like al-Qaeda operating there that has plans to attack the United States.” He continued, “To the extent that you care about the drug trade, yes, they produce drugs, but those drugs go to Europe. Fentanyl is the drug that’s killing Americans. That’s not coming from Venezuela. Venezuela produces cocaine.”

In a lengthy social media post, Vice President J.D. Vance responded to the claim that Venezuela is not responsible for drug trafficking into the U.S. “First off, fentanyl isn’t the only drug in the world and there is still fentanyl coming from Venezuela (or at least there was). Second, cocaine, which is the main drug trafficked out of Venezuela, is a profit center for all of the Latin America cartels,” he explained. “If you cut out the money from cocaine (or even reduce it) you substantially weaken the cartels overall. Also, cocaine is bad too!”

Vance also addressed claims that the U.S. was targeting Venezuela in order to obtain the Latin American country’s massive oil reserves. “About 20 years ago, Venezuela expropriated American oil property and until recently used that stolen property to get rich and fund their narcoterrorist activities,” he recounted. “I understand the anxiety over the use of military force, but are we just supposed to allow a communist to steal our stuff in our hemisphere and do nothing? Great powers don’t act like that. The United States, thanks to President Trump’s leadership, is a great power again.”

The president and other Trump administration officials have likewise defended the raid on Venezuela. In a press conference Saturday announcing Maduro’s capture, the president asserted, “This was one of the most stunning, effective, and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history.”

He continued to note that Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, had previously been indicted in the U.S. Southern District of New York for crimes against the U.S., including drug trafficking. “The illegitimate dictator Maduro was the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States. As alleged in the indictment, he personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles, which flooded our nation with lethal poison, responsible for the deaths of countless Americans,” Trump expounded, touting the “overwhelming evidence” to be presented against the Maduros in court. “Maduro and his wife will soon face the full might of American justice and stand trial on American soil.”

“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition. So we don’t want to be involved with having somebody else get in,” the president added. “We can’t take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn’t have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind. We’ve had decades of that. We’re not going to let that happen.”

Trump also addressed the issue of Venezuelan oil, calling the Venezuelan oil industry “a total bust.” According to the president, U.S. oil companies will invest in Venezuela’s oil production facilities to “fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.” The president argued that Venezuela “unilaterally seized and stole American oil, American assets, and American platforms costing us billions and billions of dollars. They did this a while ago, but we never had a president that did anything about it. They took all of our property. It was our property. We built it.” He continued, “We built [the] Venezuela oil industry with American talent, drive, and skill, and the socialist regime stole it from us during those previous administrations and they stole it through force. This constituted one of the largest thefts of American property in the history of our country.”

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth also spoke at the press conference, noting that the U.S. had given Maduro multiple opportunities over the past several months to surrender and abdicate power peacefully. “Nicolás Maduro had his chance … until he didn’t. He effed around and he found out,” Hegseth quipped. “President Trump is deadly serious about stopping the flow of gangs and violence to our country, deadly serious about stopping the flow of drugs and poison to our people, deadly serious about getting back the oil that was stolen from us, and deadly serious about reestablishing American deterrence and dominance in the Western Hemisphere,” he continued. “This is about the safety, security, freedom, and prosperity of the American people. This is America first. This is peace through strength and the United States War Department is proud to help deliver it. Welcome to 2026. And under President Trump, America is back.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio spent the weekend appearing on various news programs to quash allegations of constitutional overreach, forever wars, and violations of international law. “There’s not a war. I mean, we are at war against drug trafficking organizations and not at war against Venezuela. We are enforcing American laws,” Rubio insisted in a Sunday appearance on NBC. “This was, at essence, at its core, a law enforcement function,” he added. Rubio noted that previous administrations, including the Biden administration, issued bounties for Maduro’s capture, ranging from $25 million to $50 million, but never “enforced” those bounties. “It’s easy to make a wanted poster and say $50 million for the capture of Maduro, but no one takes that seriously because you’re not going to do anything about it. President Trump did something about it.”

Rubio also addressed potential military actions against Cuba, run by communist dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel, successor to Fidel and Raúl Castro. When asked if the Cuban regime is the “next target” for the U.S., Rubio replied, “Well, the Cuban government is a huge problem, first of all, for the people of Cuba.” He added, “I think they’re in a lot of trouble, yes.” The secretary of State said that he was “not going to talk” publicly about future U.S. policy and actions regarding Cuba, but suggested, “I don’t think it’s any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro.” He explained that Maduro’s “entire internal security force, his internal security apparatus, is entirely controlled by Cubans. … It was Cubans that guarded Maduro. He was not guarded by Venezuelan bodyguards. He had Cuban bodyguards. In terms of their internal intelligence, who spies on who inside to make sure there are no traitors, those are all Cubans.”

Following the raid on Venezuela, Díaz-Canel ordered a period of national mourning for a reported 32 Cuban military personnel who were killed by U.S. forces while protecting Maduro. “Honor and glory to the brave Cuban combatants who fell confronting terrorists in imperial uniform, who kidnapped and illegally took out of their country the President of [Venezuela] and his wife, whose lives our own helped to protect at the request of that sister nation,” the Cuban autocrat said in a social media post.

In an interview with the New York Post, Trump acknowledged the alliance between Cuba and Venezuela but clarified that he has no specific plans against Cuba at the moment. “No, Cuba is going to fall of its own volition. Cuba is doing very poorly,” he said. “Cuba was always very reliant on Venezuela. That’s where they got their money, and they protected Venezuela, but that didn’t work out too well in this case.”

Communist China has also maintained a close relationship with Maduro’s regime and, in fact, had several diplomats visiting Venezuela when the U.S. military strikes took place. A spokesperson for the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP’s) Foreign Ministry said in a statement, “China is deeply shocked by and strongly condemns the US’ blatant use of force against a sovereign state and action against its president.” The CCP, which has enacted a program of oppression against its own people, including mass arrests and genocide, asked the U.S. to “abide by international law” and “stop violating other countries’ sovereignty and security.” The CCP statement continued, “Such hegemonic acts of the US seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty, and threaten peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean region. China firmly opposes it.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Rightward Shift in Latin America

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Americans Fear Surging Political Violence Will Lead to Assassination

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Political violence has been on the rise in recent months, and most Americans expect the fatal trend to continue, according to a new survey. Politico and Public First released a poll Monday which found that a majority of Americans anticipate political violence in the U.S. to worsen in the coming years.

In total, 55% of respondents said that they expect political violence to increase, while only 29% said that they expect political violence to decrease. Additionally, 50% of respondents said that they believe it is either somewhat likely (31%) or very likely (19%) that a political candidate will be assassinated within the next five years. Only 18% said that such an occurrence was somewhat unlikely (9%) or very unlikely (9%).

While a total of 24% of Americans polled replied that political violence can sometimes be justified, that share was even higher among young voters. Over a third of voters aged 18 to 24 (36%), 25 to 34 (35%), and 35 to 44 (34%) agreed that some circumstances justify political violence. In comments to The Washington Stand, Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Biblical Worldview Joseph Backholm said, “The expectation of more political violence and the rising belief that it can be justified are largely connected. Unfortunately, growing secularism in the West has turned government into our God. Somehow, we see government as both the cause and the solution to all our problems.”

He explained, “Since the people are the government, we see those who enable government we dislike not as neighbors we disagree with but as the source of all our problems. Secularism provides both unreasonable expectations for the present and no reason for hope when our expectations are not met. When we believe certain individuals are the source of all the world’s problems, we can see why some people would come to believe a little violence is justified to bring about utopia.”

“People across the political spectrum all recognize the world is broken, but misunderstanding the source of the problem leads to solutions that actually make the problem worse,” Backholm continued. “The solution to all of it is understanding that God is God, not government. If we do that, we are much less likely to despair when government fails to solve all our problems.”

Although Politico noted that its survey found “little partisan divide in that belief,” much of the political violence seen in recent months has been perpetrated by left-wing actors. Last year, President Donald Trump survived two assassination attempts, and this year has seen violence and rioting targeting federal immigration authorities, the murder of Turning Point USA founder and Trump administration ally Charlie Kirk, and Democratic nominee for Attorney General of Virginia Jay Jones admitting to sharing text messages discussing killing a Republican opponent and his children. Trump administration officials have also been forced to live on military bases as progressive activists target them for harassment and death threats.

Shortly after Kirk’s murder in September, an Economist/YouGov survey found that one-third (33%) of Americans faulted the Left for the rise in political violence, while 29% said that the right-wing is responsible, and 24% blamed both Left and Right. Overall, 67% of respondents agreed that the country has become more politically divided over the last five years. Immediately following the first assassination attempt against Trump last year, an Unheard poll discovered that “one-third of Democrat respondents agreed with the statement, ‘I wish Trump’s assassin hadn’t missed.’” Likewise, a Napolitan News Service survey following the second assassination attempt against Trump found that over a quarter of Democrats said that the U.S. would be “better off” if Trump had been assassinated.

Backholm explained, “Political violence is more of a problem on the Left because leftism is inherently secular and therefore offers no hope when life isn’t going the way you prefer. Their worldview tells them sin isn’t a problem, everything bad is caused by systemic injustice, and government should be able to solve that problem if only the right people are in charge.” He continued, “When the plan doesn’t work, and things are going badly, they have no reason for hope. So when you despair, it’s normal to lash out violently against the people you blame for your problems unless you have a reason not to.”

“Faith in God, and the gospel specifically, gives people a reason to have hope despite bad circumstances,” Backholm emphasized. “It gives us a reason to forgive those who have wronged us and even work for their good. The gospel is inherently hopeful, but secularism is inherently despairing, which is why despair is more common on the Left. A world without God is very sad.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Dems Feel the Squeeze as Schumer’s Shutdown Approaches Historic Levels

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

When Democrats flipped off the lights of the government, no one was quite sure how long the tantrum would last. Now, more than a month later, it seems almost ironic that the record-tying day of the shutdown falls on November 4, when tens of millions of voters head to the polls to make a rare, off-year statement. But this time around, that statement won’t just include how Americans feel about dozens of ballot initiatives and candidates — but Republicans’ leadership and Democrats’ defiance.

To a lot of observers, Election Day might finally be the break federal workers have been waiting for. “They’re setting everything up for next week,” Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) told Politico Friday. “If they [agree to open the government] before Tuesday, then their base may not show up because it looks like they caved. … That’s why they’re setting everything up to open next week. We’ll be open next Wednesday, or Wednesday night, or Thursday.”

RealClearPolitics’ White House Correspondent Phil Wegmann agrees. Maybe, he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” “if Democrats are able to put a few points on the scoreboard” by winning a few big races in New Jersey or Virginia, “they’ll be more eager to come to the table here in D.C.” Even so, Wegmann insisted, “It’s been remarkable. We have seen Republicans, for the most part, stay in lockstep — both in the House and the Senate. And I think that’s because they’re taking their cues not just from President Trump, but also from Majority Leader [John] Thune (R-S.D.) [and] Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). The only reason I want to point that out is because we began the year with a lot of consternation in the Republican ranks, but as of right now, they’re standing pat.”

Unfortunately for Johnson and Thune’s party, so are Democrats. The difference is, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) party is feeling the squeeze. After 14 votes to reopen the government by Republicans, America’s business and union leaders have publicly turned on Democrats. Airlines like Delta and United are calling on Congress to pass a clean continuing resolution (CR), which is what the GOP has lobbied for from the beginning. Then, adding to the Democrats’ PR nightmare, a “broad coalition of business associations” — including banking, real estate, retail, manufacturing, technology, wholesalers, and even the Chamber of Commerce — piled on. The groups, which represent corporate behemoths like Walmart and Apple, didn’t mince words when they warned that every day, “the larger and more durable the economic damage becomes — and some of it might never be recovered.”

In what may be the Democrats’ most surprising critics, five unions — including the American Federation of Government Employees and Teamsters—broke with Schumer’s party, demanding they pass a clear CR.

Even the media, Schumer’s most reliable cheerleaders, have tired of the party’s rebellion for individual gain. “Schumer has allowed the shutdown to drag on because he’s worried about fending off a primary challenger in 2028, and he’s still smarting from blowback he got from angry liberals after he agreed to fund the government this spring,” The Washington Post’s editorial board declared. As for the grand façade that Democrats are fighting to keep health care costs low, the Post argued, “Keeping the government open should be separated from policy disputes about how to spend taxpayer money. It is wrong that Democrats have held the government hostage for a month in hopes of extending costly Obamacare subsidies, just as it was for Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to shut down the government in 2013 for 16 days in a bid to defund the Affordable Care Act altogether.” The answer, they contended, “is to reopen the government with a clean funding bill.”

Speaking of the Obamacare tax credits, which is apparently the political hill Democrats are willing to die on, Wegmann reminds people that what we’re talking about here “is the extension of former President Biden’s expansion of Obamacare, which was designed to be temporary. It was a COVID-era measure, and it made a lot more individuals eligible for coverage.” As even Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) insisted, Democrats are the ones who, in 2022, wrote the legislation to end these subsidies in 2025.

And the reality is, Paragon Health Institute emphasized in damning research, health care costs wouldn’t really be rising because these tax credits end. By their calculations, sunsetting these subsidies “accounts for only 4 percent of the expected 20 percent average premium increase next year.” In other words, their experts wrote, Democrats can’t blame the “sharp jump in premiums” on the end of these subsidies. “The real drivers are the same structural flaws that have plagued Obamacare since 2014 and rising health care costs,” Paragon’s Gabrielle Kalisz explained.

The real problem, many stress, is “the premium increase to higher medical utilization, inflation, health care consolidation (which the ACA contributed to), and surging costs for expensive drugs — especially GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes medications, specialty drugs, and biologics (including new gene therapies). Insurers also cite workforce shortages, price transparency measures, and tariffs as nominal contributors to increasing premiums.”

Under these pandemic credits, Kalisz says, “the federal government has been paying 93 percent of the premium for the typical enrollee. Even after the COVID Credits expire, the federal government will still cover more than 80 percent of the typical enrollee’s premium through the regular subsidy. Taxpayers, not consumers, will remain the overwhelming source of revenue for insurers selling ACA exchange plans.”

No wonder Republicans have never voted for these subsidies, FRC’s Perkins shook his head before raising some of the major problems with Obamacare. “First off, many of them see these subsidies as propping up a program that doesn’t work because it is anything but affordable as its name, Affordable Health Care Act, [implies].” In a slap to taxpayers, Obamacare isn’t subject to the Hyde Amendment. “So it funds abortion and now funds these transgender surgeries in particular for minors.”

If the White House wants to negotiate with Democrats on this issue as a condition of ending the shutdown, they do so at their own peril, Wegmann cautions. “They’re going to [face] a lot of heat from Republicans and the pro-life lobby. … Hyde has never applied to Obamacare. There’s nothing in the statute that prevents these dollars from going to abortion,” he reiterated. “… Just this summer, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, you had Maryland dip into a $24 million Obamacare fund to provide abortion services for women coming from outside of that state. So for conservatives and pro-life lobby, this is a bright line. This is their brick wall.”

That may be why, when Perkins asked Speaker Johnson what he’d like people to pray about, the Louisianan said, “For God’s wisdom and guidance. We do live in a great nation. We can’t take it for granted,” he emphasized. “… And we need to get past all the bitter partisanship. We need to get the government open and do the basic responsibility that we’re given by God. I think we will. I’m optimistic.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dems Cling to Woke Policies, Rhetoric as State and Local Elections Loom

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Democrats Skip Town after Nixing a Bill to Pay Federal Workers during Shutdown

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

It’s an ironic day to celebrate the “spirit of bipartisanship” in the Senate, but 23 days into a government shutdown, that’s exactly what both parties sat down to do. When Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) decided to host a special chamber-wide lunch (complete with fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and blueberry crumble), no one could’ve dreamed that the two sides would be hunkered down on opposite sides of a funding war with no signs of budging. But at least for a couple of hours on Thursday, Democrats and Republicans broke bread — even if they couldn’t break through their differences.

Humble pie obviously wasn’t on the menu, as leaders retreated from the delicious spread to their separate corners, voting down bills that would’ve broken the logjam — or at least made the ordeal easier on cash-strapped staffers, who are working around the clock (thanks in large part to grandstanding filibusters) without paychecks. Asked if Democrats could possibly be talked into realistic negotiations, Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) shook his head. “I’m afraid I don’t,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Wednesday’s “Washington Watch.”

Looking ahead to Thursday’s votes, he worried Democrats would, in fact, shoot down the push to compensate some federal workers. After all, Marshall pointed out, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has already rejected the idea of paying our military. “We have Capitol Police up here,” the senator reminded everyone. “My staff is working without paychecks as well.” And yet, Democrats refuse to even make those exceptions. “I don’t know what their off-ramp looks like right now,” Marshall admitted. “It’s a dire predicament for them right now.”

Marshall’s prediction was right. On Thursday, all but three Democrats — Senators Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and John Fetterman (D-Pa.) — voted to leave federal workers in a lurch. The outcome surprised even House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who had hoped Congress would “do something that makes sense around here for once.” Instead, Schumer’s party was left scrambling to explain why they thought our troops and other government employees should work for free. “I’m fine to support it,” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said before, ironically, voting no. “I think we need to pay our military, but I want to define and limit it in a way that provides pay to essential workers who serve our public safety and our national defense.”

Ossoff, meanwhile, a surprising outlier in his party (who also happens to be facing a tough reelection next year), explained his break with Democrats by telling reporters, “Military servicemembers, TSA workers, and air traffic controllers are among those who simply must come to work, and they should be paid for that work.”

For now, Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), whose bill failed to find the magical 60 votes it needed to start signing paychecks for certain workers, stood outside the only thing the chamber can agree on — Paul and Peter’s bipartisan lunch — and insisted, “I’m going to work over the weekend, our staffs, figure out how to take my bill, make it acceptable to Democrats. Hopefully, we can pass it early next week. That’s my game plan. Wish me luck.”

But it’ll take a lot more than luck this time around. And although Democrats are publicly stoic, the optics certainly aren’t helping Schumer’s party. While he’s being showered with praise by the fringe Left for rebuffing Republicans’ attempts to sit down and find a solution, Americans are feeling the squeeze. And instead of seeing Democrats spring into action to help them, they see leadership content to sit back and try to score political points. “Every day gets better for us,” the New Yorker bragged to the press. This, while everyday people work without pay, offices are understaffed, and routine benefits trickle out at half speed. November 1 is rapidly approaching, The Daily Signal’s Elizabeth Mitchell told Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” “which is when SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] funding will run out.” That’s food for low-income people, moms and kids. Surely, that’s “another thing that’s putting pressure on Democrats,” she underscored.

But if families are hurting, Schumer’s party says, that’s just too bad. Democrats have their upcoming elections to think about. “Shutdowns are terrible, and of course, there will be families that are going to suffer,” House Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) said, while claiming they take that problem “very seriously.” “But it is one of the few leverage times we have,” the number two House Democrat explained to Fox News.

“So there you have it,” Breitbart’s John Nolte wrote. “Even though Republicans have made clear that they are willing to negotiate with Democrats on the health care issue… Even though President Trump has said this is a priority… Democrats refuse to open the government. They are openly admitting here [that] they are willing to make American families suffer just to gain leverage.”

And exactly what leverage have they gained? While Democrats have a slight edge among voters in the blame game, it’s nothing compared to the shellacking Republicans took for turning off the government’s lights in 2018. And Donald Trump’s approval rating has actually climbed as a result. According to Reuters/Ipsos, Trump’s approval is at 42% — up two from a couple of weeks ago.

Speaking of the president, he knows exactly what’s fueling this shutdown: Schumer’s insecurity. “He’s shot,” Trump stressed Wednesday. “This poor guy. I feel sorry for him. I’ve known him for a long time, but I think he’s mentally gone. He’s been beat[en] up by young radical lunatics. And I think that Chuck Schumer is — he’s gonzo. I really do.” Referring to the threats from his extreme flank, the president predicted that the minority leader wouldn’t run again. “It shows that he’s losing in every poll. … I’m just giving you the facts. I think Chuck is probably finished.”

The New Yorker’s colleague, Senator Jon Husted (R-Ohio), can’t help but notice that Schumer’s grip on power is slipping. “I think we all know that Chuck Schumer is feeling the pressure of younger Democrats who think he’s a failure as a leader. And so, he’s trying to prove to his political left base that he can fight back against President Trump,” the Ohioan noticed. “But fighting back against President Trump is at the expense of what’s best for the American people in this case,” he told Perkins on Thursday’s “Washington Watch.” “And I think ultimately, this is a terrible thing for everyone. But it just proves that they’re not interested in being serious about trying to serve the American people.”

“Remember,” Husted paused, “this is a clean CR that we’re asking them to vote for — meaning that there [are] no politics in it, no games. We’re spending at Biden-era levels in these agencies. So why should they be against that? And it would only create funding through November the 21st, at which time we will have to go through this again. So even if you vote for the CR and you get people funded, then do that, and then we’ll keep negotiating about whatever you want.” Until then, Husted said, “Chuck Schumer is going to have to decide that he cares about the American people and not just his own political fortunes.”

In the meantime, senators are headed home without a solution — again. Obviously, it’ll take a lot more prayers like Senate Chaplain Barry Black’s to bring Democrats to the table. “We continue our importunity for the ending of this shutdown,” he prayed, “particularly praying for our Capitol Police and the many others who are serving without monetary compensation. We pray also for those who are not considered essential workers. Lord, reward them all.”

If God needs a shortcut, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said, “I have great news. The clean CR would pay everyone. We just need five more Democrats to support it.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED VIDEOS:

HANNITY MONOLOGUE: This venom has spread throughout the Dem Party like a cancer

The Red-Green Coup Has Reached New York City, Led by Mamdani

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Dems’ Shutdown Strategy Benefits Health Insurance Firms That Give Millions in Campaign Contributions

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Congressional Democrats claim their refusal to end the government shutdown unless President Donald Trump and Capitol Hill Republicans agree to make permanent Obamacare’s temporary COVID-related tax credits is intended to protect the health care coverage of millions of low and middle-income Americans.

But an analysis by The Washington Stand of campaign contributions data compiled by OpenSecrets.org suggests such solid-wall support for the shutdown also shields a health care insurance industry that gives hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to Democratic incumbents, challengers, committees, and PACs.

The temporary COVID-related tax credits are hugely important sources of revenues for many of the largest health care insurers that are active in the Obamacare segment, according to Economic Policy Innovation Center Researcher Gudai Bulgac. And the tax credits are significant incentives for fraudulent enrollment.

“The Biden COVID Credits are paid directly to health insurance companies from the U.S. Treasury. Since the funds do not go to individuals, millions of people have been fraudulently enrolled and often do not even know that they have been signed up. About 40 percent of people who are fully subsidized by Biden’s COVID Credits did not make a single claim for a medical procedure or medication in 2024,” Bulgac reported earlier this month.

“This allows the insurance companies to collect thousands of dollars in credits from the government per enrollee while incurring little to no cost. An estimated $27 billion in these improper payments to insurance companies were made in 2025 alone as many insurance companies jumped to take advantage of these credits,” Bulgac continued.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), for example, is viewed as the Democrats’ chief shutdown strategist. The New York Democrat’s Impact leadership PAC received $271,284 in contributions from Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group and the St. Louis-based Centene, two of the 10 biggest health care insurance firms that depend on Obamacare for significant portions of their annual revenue.

The Schumer PAC received an additional $78,024 from Indianapolis-based Elevance, which was formerly known as Anthem, as well as $49,024 from Rhode Island-based CVS Health. That brings the Schumer PAC’s total haul for the period 2019 to 2024 to $398,332. Each of these four firms are among the 10 biggest health care insurance firms in the Obamacare universe, as ranked by Venteur.

UnitedHealth Group is the biggest health care insurance firm in Obamacare, and its political contributions to Democrats far exceed those to Republicans. In the 2024 election cycle, $988,411, or nearly 59% of all the firm’s donations went to Democrats.

Centene gave $38.88 million to Democratic Senate contenders during the 2018-2024 period, compared to $19.16 million to GOP Senate candidates. Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris was the recipient of Centene’s biggest individual contribution, at $225,262 out of a total of $634,223 to six Democrats during the 2024 campaign cycle. The Centene total to the four GOP recipients in the firm’s top 10 came to $348,478, slightly more than half the Democrat total.

Bulgac explains another key factor in Centene’s significance in the behind-the-scenes shutdown influences.

“Centene is the largest Obamacare insurer by market share,” he noted. “Their Obamacare membership nearly doubled from 3.3 million enrollees in 2023 to 5.9 million in 2025. This comprises 21 percent of their total membership of 28 million, with their Medicaid membership making up an additional 12.8 million enrollees. In their 2024 10-K filing for their investors, Centene stated that ‘[r]evenues from CMS are significant to the Marketplace segment.’ In other words, Centene is heavily reliant on payments from the federal government to sustain their business.”

Molina, which ranks ninth in the top 10 of Obamacare insurers, further illustrates the importance of the temporary COVID-related subsidies, Bulgac writes. “Molina also noted in their 10-K that they ‘expect [their] Marketplace enrollment to increase by almost 50 percent in 2025, to a total of 580,000 members by the end of the year … This would represent an estimated Marketplace premium revenue increase of approximately 60 percent in 2025, while continuing to maintain [their] target margins.’”

A more balanced picture is seen with CVS Health political contributions. Republican recipients during the 2024 cycle, led by the Congressional Leadership Fund’s $575,000, received $832,805, while Democrats got $551,352. Among Senate candidates, Democrats in the 2024 cycle received $18.99 million, while Republicans got $28.53 million from CVS Health.

Curiously in the context of the intense partisan deadlock between Senate Republicans and Democrats that occasioned the present shutdown, the excessive influence of health care insurance firms on American politics is a bipartisan concern, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Of the eight groups and institutions we asked about in this survey — such as Congress, the general public and federal courts — health insurance companies are the one that a majority of Americans agree has too much sway in health policy. Just 9 percent say they have about the right amount of influence, and an equal share say they don’t have enough,” Pew reported in a July 10 survey analysis.

“Although politics and health policy are often deeply entangled, this dim opinion of health insurance companies’ influence is an area of notable partisan agreement. Roughly equal shares of Democrats (including those who lean to the Democratic Party) and Republicans (and GOP leaners) express this view. Similar shares of Democrats and Republicans also say Congress has too much influence on health policy, although this view is less widely held than it is for health insurance companies,” Pew said.

Among Republicans, 71% said health care insurers have too much influence of federal health policy, while 69% of Democrats said the same thing.

It is important to understand that the Obamacare temporary subsidies that Democrats backed in 2021 and now demand be made permanent were effective in expanding enrollment by lower and middle-income families because the government made premiums artificially cheap.

“Since enhanced subsidies began in 2021, the market enrollment has grown tremendously, rising from 11 million people in 2020 to 25 million today. Again, Democrats and Republicans interpret this growth in opposite ways. Democrats see it as a sign of success, whereas Republicans are concerned about waste and over-use,” states Mark Shepherd, Harvard Kennedy School associate professor of public policy.

In other words, more customers paying the government subsidized premiums keeps more revenue flowing into the health care insurers’ coffers, while terminating those subsidies could dramatically reduce such revenues for the companies.

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

White House Prepares for Extended Shutdown as Dems Refuse to Yield on Obamacare Subsidies

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

As the federal government shutdown stretches into its 14th day, reports from Capitol Hill and the White House suggest that the impasse won’t end anytime soon, with the Trump administration refusing to budge on the Democrats’ demands of expanding COVID-era Obamacare subsidies and other spending by $1.5 trillion.

According to a report from Punchbowl News, the Trump administration appears to be finding new sources of federal dollars in order to fund critical functions such as paying federal law enforcement officers and continuing to serve the over six million Americans who rely on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (known as WIC). The hundreds of millions of dollars that will be needed will reportedly come from Section 32 tariff revenue.

One Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official told Punchbowl that the agency is “making every preparation to batten down the hatches and ride out the Democrats’ intransigence. Pay the troops, pay law enforcement, continue the RIFs [reduction in force], and wait.”

During “This Week on Capitol Hill” over the weekend, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) underscored just how painful the shutdown is for civilian federal employees and military servicemembers due to the Democrats’ refusal to sign on to a short-term continuing resolution (CR) that would continue Biden-era spending levels.

“[A]s of today, they have now voted eight times to keep the government closed,” he pointed out. “Now, who’s going to be hurt? Not just vital services, not just national parks and that kind of stuff. I mean, you’re talking about two million federal employees, civilian employees of the government who will not get a paycheck. … We have 1.3 million active duty servicemembers, men and women in uniform, who will not be paid. They’re going to miss a paycheck. Real hardship for families who live paycheck to paycheck. This is not a game.”

Johnson went on to express surprise over the Democrats’ refusal to sign on to a “clean” CR — one that did not contain any added Republican spending priorities — for the first time in U.S. history.

“I just assumed that [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer [D-N.Y.] and the Democrats would do what they’ve done every year,” he acknowledged. “I mean, they voted 13 times for CRs during the Biden administration. And when we were in the minority party, we never shut the government down over something like that because we knew real Americans would be hurt, but they seem not to care. You’ve seen what Chuck Schumer said two days ago, … ‘Every day the government is closed is better for us.’ It is stunning to me that they say these things out loud. He tried to clean [it] up … but that tells you what they really think. He’s getting accolades from the far Left and that is 100% what all this was about.”

As Johnson further observed, the Democrats are attempting to extort increased funding for a government program that failed to deliver on its promises.

“[N]ever forget when the government subsidizes something, it means it’s not working,” he noted. “Obamacare did not achieve what they promised everyone that it would. It was supposed to bring down the cost of care. It’s done the opposite. Premiums [have] gone up 60% since Obamacare became law in 2010. Everybody knows it’s not working, so now they want to prop it up with these subsidies, just as they did, for example, with electric vehicle mandates. Nobody wanted to buy electric cars, so they said, ‘We’ll pay you. The government will pay you $7,500 if you do it.’ That means it’s not working.”

Not only are Obamacare subsidies failing to improve health insurance premiums, experts are also emphasizing that the subsidies are forcing taxpayers to pay for highly controversial procedures like abortion and gender transitions.

“Although the Schumer shutdown is hitting many hard-working federal employees who deserve better treatment, it’s encouraging to hear that the administration is making preparation to meet the Democrats’ unprecedented intransigence with a stubborn refusal to be bullied,” Quena González, Family Research Council’s senior director of Government Affairs, told The Washington Stand. “There is too much at stake in this debate to fold. Family Research Council is carefully tracking the Democrats’ central demand — to make the COVID-era subsidies for the ‘Affordable’ Care Act permanent — because those subsidies force taxpayers to pay for gender transitions and abortion.”

“Republicans are right to demand that the subsidies be reformed and ended; taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions or gender transition procedures,” González underscored. “It is critical that Americans weigh in with Congress and tell their elected officials not to spend their taxpayer dollars on gender transition procedures or abortion.”

As to the underlying reasons why Chuck Schumer is backing his party into a corner, Johnson argued that it can largely be attributed to the highly influential leftist movement within the Democratic Party. “There’s a rising Marxist movement in the Democratic Party right now. They’re about to elect a mayor of New York City. … Chuck Schumer serves from the state of New York, and he’s terrified he’s going to get a challenge in his next Senate reelect. That is all this is about.”

Johnson went on to observe that the picture of how long the shutdown will go on will likely become clearer after this weekend’s “No Kings” rally in Washington, D.C.

“We call it the ‘Hate America Rally,’ because it will be a collection of the pro-Hamas wing and the socialist[s] and the Marxist[s] and all the rest,” he described. “[T]hey’re coming to the National Mall on October 18th. Chuck Schumer is terrified of that group, and it is being whispered around here that there’s no way he could open the government before that is finished.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats block legislation to pay troops during shutdown

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permision. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

No Surprise in ‘Arctic Frost’ Scandal, as Every Dem President in 21st Century Has Weaponized the Government

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Cries of “Worse than Watergate” quickly followed Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley’s (R-Iowa) revelation from a whistleblower within the FBI that eight Republican senators and a House GOPer had been illegally spied upon during the Biden administration’s failed prosecutions of then-former President Donald Trump.

Grassley called Arctic Frost “arguably worse than Watergate” during his opening remarks at an October 6 committee hearing, a cry that was quickly echoed by multiple GOP senators. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the emerging scandal during the hearing, and Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) warned that the FBI targets may well be “suing the hell out of the Department of Justice and the individuals involved.”

Subsequent investigation and revelations may indeed confirm that Arctic Frost was an even more profoundly serious constitutional violation than the Watergate scandal in which President Richard Nixon and members of his inner circle sought to cover up their knowledge of a “third-rate burglary” of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) at the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 election campaign.

But when viewed in a wider context, Arctic Frost should not come as a surprise to anybody for the simple reason that every Democratic president during the 21st century — including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden — has weaponized tax and law enforcement resources of the federal government against Republicans, conservatives, and Christians.

During the Clinton era (1993-2001), the White House staff produced a 331-page report in 1995 entitled “The Communication Streams of Conspiracy Commerce” that argued multiple conservative political figures, think tanks, and media outlets were all part of a conspiracy to discredit the president. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton famously described the groups as “a vast right-wing conspiracy.”

In the months after the report became public, multiple conservative groups, including most notably the Heritage Foundation think tank and Citizens Against Government Waste, found themselves being subjected to intense tax audits by the IRS. When no complaints about similar IRS audits were heard from liberal groups, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation convened an investigation that led to passage by Congress in 1998 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act to prevent such abuses.

Barack Obama was the next Democrat elected to the Oval Office in 2008 and then re-elected in 2012. His administration also used the IRS against groups perceived to be political enemies, but rather than harassing audits, the tax agency found multiple ways to slow-walk tax-exemption applications submitted by conservative, Tea Party, and evangelical Christian groups.

The IRS effort was centered in its Cincinnati regional office, but direction came from the tax agency’s headquarters in the nation’s capital from then-IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner. The scandal prompted multiple congressional hearings, and Lerner was found in contempt of Congress.

Then-House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) explained that “the Oversight Committee upheld its obligation to pursue the truth about the IRS targeting of Americans because of their political beliefs. Our investigation has found that former IRS Exempt Organizations division Director Lois Lerner played a central role in the targeting scandal and then failed to meet her legal obligations to answer questions after she waived her right not to testify.”

Lerner’s criminal contempt citation was upheld by the full House of Representatives and referred to the Department of Justice, which opted not to take Lerner to court in the matter.

Another Obama-era example of weaponization of government against perceived opposition could generate renewed attention as a result of Arctic Frost because it involved CIA agents breaking into the computer system of the Senate Intelligence Committee and spying on committee staffers.

Then-CIA Director John Brennan apologized to the committee after initially insisting no such illegal activities had taken place because doing so would be “beyond reason.” Senator Diane Feinstein, the California Democrat who chaired the intel panel, told the Senate after receiving Brennan’s apology that “the investigation confirmed what I said on the Senate floor in March — CIA personnel inappropriately searched Senate Intelligence Committee computers in violation of an agreement we had reached, and, I believe, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.”

Not long after the Senate intel controversy, Brennan was deeply involved in the Obama administration’s manufacturing of false intelligence reports designed to discredit Trump after he defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The false reports claimed Trump was elected in part with assistance from President Vladimir Putin and Russian intelligence assets.

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in a July 23 news release:

“The ODNI records released on Friday, Senator Chuck Grassley’s release on Monday of the appendix to the DOJ OIG’s June 2018 report known as the ‘Clinton annex,’ and the HPSCI oversight report released today confirm a treasonous conspiracy led by President Obama and his national security team, including James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey, to manipulate and manufacture intelligence that promoted a contrived false narrative falsely claiming: ‘Putin aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances, when possible, by discrediting Secretary Clinton.’

“President Obama directed the creation of this January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment after President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and it served as the basis for what was essentially a years-long coup against the duly elected President of the United States, subverting the will of the American people and attempting to delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency.”

A federal grand jury recently indicted Comey on two charges, one of lying to Congress and the other of obstructing a congressional investigation into matters related to the Trump-Russia allegations.

Obama was followed in 2020 by his former vice president, Joe Biden, whose four years in the Oval Office were marred by scandal after scandal in which the Department of Justice, the FBI, intelligence agencies, and other departments of government were turned against individuals and groups perceived by White House officials as opponents.

Those included multiple Republican and conservative organizations, including Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, prosecutions of Catholic pro-life demonstrators for praying in front of abortion facilities, investigations of parents protesting “woke” educational policies at public school board meetings, and the multiple prosecutions of Trump, including the FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago, Florida, compound in which agents conspicuously went through Melania Trump’s underwear drawer in search of classified documents that weren’t there.

Now that Trump is back in the White House, Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) repeatedly blast the 47th president, as in this recent statement claiming “he has turned this judicial system to be his own political fighter, do what he wants politically, so that he tells them to go after people he doesn’t like, he tells them to exonerate people that he likes.”

Such assertions by Democrats in Congress, the mainstream media, the academic and corporate communities about Trump “weaponizing” the Department of Justice by investigating Arctic Frost should be viewed in the context of this background of politicized actions by every Democratic president of the 21st century.

AUTHOR

Mark Tapscott

Mark Tapscott is senior congressional analyst at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Top 10 Donors of Va. AG Candidate Jay Jones Won’t Say If They Want Their $5.2 Million Back

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Public Trust in Mainstream Media Falls to New Low

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Nine months into President Donald Trump’s second administration, the American public’s trust in mainstream media has cratered to an all-time record low. According to a Gallup poll published Thursday, a mere 28% of Americans say that they trust mainstream media a “great deal” or a “fair amount” to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, down from 31% last year. Meanwhile, 36% of Americans say that they have little trust in the media and 34% say that they have no trust in the media at all, totaling 70% who simply do not trust mainstream media outlets.

Age and political affiliation play a role in predicting trust in mainstream media, according to Gallup. Only 8% of Republicans say that they trust mainstream media, the first time that Gallup has recorded single digits in it’s 53 years of studying the question, and 62% of Republicans say that they don’t trust mainstream media at all. Among Independent voters, 27% report trusting mainstream media, 38% say that they have very little trust, and 32% report no trust at all. Democrats are the only political group with a majority (51%) expressing trust in mainstream media. Only 9% of Democrats say that they don’t trust mainstream media at all.

When examined by age, those aged 65 or older have the highest rate of trust in mainstream media at 43%, while only 28% of those aged between 50 and 64 and those aged between 18 and 29 express trust in media. Those aged between 30 and 49 reported the lowest level of trust in media at only 23%. Republicans of all age groups have the lowest rate of trust in mainstream media: 12% among those aged 18 to 29, 6% among those aged 30 to 49, 8% among those aged 50 to 64, and 17% among those aged 65 or older.

Among Independent voters aged 18 to 29, trust in mainstream media stands at 29%, at 24% among Independent voters aged 30 to 49, at 23% among Independent voters aged 50 to 64, and at 42% among Independent voters aged 65 or older. Democrats aged 18 to 29 trust mainstream media at a rate of 38%, at a rate of 42% among Democrats aged 30 to 49, at a rate of 59% among Democrats aged 50 to 64, and at a rate of 69% among Democrats aged 65 or older.

“Confidence in the mass media is historically low, with fewer than three in 10 Americans now placing trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fully, fairly and accurately,” Gallup senior editor Megan Brenan wrote of the statistics. “With confidence fractured along partisan and generational lines, the challenge for news organizations is not only to deliver fair and accurate reporting but also to regain credibility across an increasingly polarized and skeptical public.”

Tim Graham, an executive editor with the Media Research Center’s (MRC’s) NewsBusters, said in comment to The Washington Stand, “Trust in the media has collapsed because everyone has figured out the media now exist to elect Democrats and destroy Donald Trump.” He continued, “They’ve sought not merely to defeat him politically — they’ve sought to bankrupt him and put him in jail for the rest of his life. Their toxic ardor against Trump has led most people to see them for the partisans they are.”

“Everyone knows the media play on the team of the Democrats, which is why Democrats trust them most. But even there, Democrat numbers are lower, because they’re apparently not pro-Democrat enough, just as many Democrats think their national leaders aren’t doing enough to destroy Trump,” Graham posited. “Part of the decline in trust isn’t just the bias. It’s that the press has undercut the credibility of all the other institutions in society, leading to an overarching cynicism that comes back to bite them,” he observed. “But their arrogance about how they are saving democracy daily clearly suggests cynicism is in order.”

According to a June 26 report from the MRC, mainstream media outlets CNN, MSNBC, and PBS used variations of the label “far right” over 1,200 times between Trump’s inauguration and June 21, compared to only 86 mentions of the “far left.” Additionally, despite days-long riots targeting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and multiple assassination attempts against Trump the previous year, mainstream media outlets were 5.5 times more likely to associate political violence with the “far right” than the “far left.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Goes Full Damage Control On Major Scandal That Could Cost Dems Key Election

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Democrats Box Themselves into a Shutdown America Blames Them for

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

While the country keeps a weary eye on the latest spectacle on Capitol Hill, some D.C. establishments are trying to have a little fun with the government shutdown. On Wednesday, a local restaurant called Butterworth’s tried to lighten the mood by offering a themed drink menu, including a “furlough-rita” and a “continuing rye-solution.” It’s one of the few bright spots in an otherwise tense standoff that shows no signs of ending.

For Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), it’s a tricky spot to be in. Not only is the hypocrisy aspect dogging Democrats (Speaker Mike Johnson’s X feed has Democrat leaders on a loop decrying the stupidity of shutdowns), but no one is quite sure what Democrats expect to gain by grinding the government to a halt. Even the few brownie points Schumer might gain from supposedly “standing up to Donald Trump” are crumbs compared to the buzzsaw of public opinion, which even the liberals at The New York Times polled as bad news for the minority.

There was no sugar-coating it for the Left in the Gray Lady, which found that a full 65% of Americans objected to Democrats moving forward with a government shutdown. In “a further dagger” to the heart of Schumer’s party, even his own base is surprisingly split (47% for, 43% against).

Making matters worse, Democrats have no real case for pulling the plug on federal funding. As outraged as they may be over the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, trying to overturn President Trump’s signature legislation, after he won the popular vote, and in a Congress controlled by Republicans no less, is a fool’s errand.

Even Democrats like John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who’s sounding more reasonable by the day, recognize what a frightening precedent that would set. “I’ve at least been one [who] says, ‘Hey, now, I would love to restore a lot of those health care things.’ That’s the right outcome,” he told CNN’s “State of the Union,” “but that’s a dangerous tactic if you’re going to shut the government down for one of our policies. I condemned it when the Republicans threatened to do that thing. And it’s entirely wrong for us to do the same thing.”

Old soundbites are becoming increasingly stubborn things for his party, as footage from some of the most extreme Democrats echoes like bad campaign ads. “It’s not normal to shut down the government when we don’t get what we want,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has argued. “Families will be hurt. Farmers will be hurt,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is caught saying. “This shutdown — you know who’s going to feel the pain?” radical Democrat Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) asked last year. “You know who it hurts? You. Everyday people and the most vulnerable. Seniors, veterans, working families, hungry kids, y’all.”

Even the man who’s putting his party in this precarious position sang a very different tune almost one year ago. “If the government shuts down, it will be average Americans who suffer most. A government shutdown means seniors who rely on Social Security could be thrown into chaos,” Schumer claimed.

So what changed? For the minority leader, his grasp on power. After Schumer’s March decision to cooperate with Republicans and keep the government open, he was savaged by the radical fringe. How dare he engage in civil debate! How dare he give the appearance of bipartisanship! Resist Trump or step down!

As his Oklahoma colleague, Senator James Lankford (R), told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch” Tuesday evening, “This is all about Chuck Schumer’s personal politics, all about it. Multiple Democrat[ic] senators that I’ve talked to have said, ‘Hey, we should just keep it open. We should keep it going — except for Chuck Schumer and his politics that he’s in right now.’ So we’re there; I get it,” he shrugged. “We’ve got the socialists that [are] leading the mayoral race in New York City right now. The New York politics have shifted hard, hard, hard to the far, far, far Left. And Chuck Schumer is trying to be able to fight off the far-left socialists in his own party on it. And we’ll see where that goes.”

Vice President J.D. Vance also cut through the media’s noise to the heart of the issue. “The primary reason the government is shut down,” Vance claimed, is because “Chuck Schumer is terrified he’s going to get a primary challenge from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez” in 2028. “Here you have a career politician who is more afraid of his reelection … than he is doing what’s right for the American people,” Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) agreed. “This is what happens when you have a career politician.”

In the meantime, any slim hopes that insiders had for a quick end to this standoff came to a predictable end on Wednesday when both parties offered their versions of a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the lights on. The Democrats’ bill, which essentially overturns Trump’s signature OBBB legislation, failed again 47 to 53. The seven-week extension from Republicans, which had the backing of two Democrats — Fetterman and Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto — and one Independent, Angus King of Maine, also didn’t manage to attract any new cross-aisle support, striking out by a 55-45 vote.

Of course, the irony of the situation — and there are several — is that by keeping the government closed, Democrats are effectively handing the keys to Trump. “In a shutdown,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) reminded everyone on “This Week on Capitol Hill,” “the president gets the power of the purse. Donald Trump. [So] they’re not even going to achieve their goal,” he shook his head.

Worse than that, some argue, they’ve supercharged the White House to radically overhaul federal agencies. Under the executive branch, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has a “surprising amount of discretion” in deciding whether the furloughed employees come back at all. Employees whose work “is not consistent with the President’s priorities,” as OMB Chief Russell Vought put it, could pay personally for Schumer’s gamble. Vought has “the power to tell agency leaders to move past the usual furloughs — “temporary, nonduty, nonpay status” — to RIFs [Reductions in Force] — being permanently fired,” Donald Kettl warns.

“Vought could choose the programs that the administration has been wanting to eliminate and give a very big haircut to others,” he continued. “The result would be a dramatic, instantaneous shift in the separation of powers.” The reality is, “The Trump team could kill programs unilaterally without the inconvenience of going to Congress. To top it all,” he added, “this would all be perfectly legal.”

Trump himself has warned of the dire consequences of Democrats not cutting a deal to pass the CR. “We’re doing well as a country, so the last thing we want to do is shut it down,” the president explained, “but a lot of good can come down from shutdowns. We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn’t want,” he said, referring to jobs and spending Republicans have been trying to eliminate.

That’s the trap Democrats find themselves in. “They could roll over and agree to all of the administration’s demands, as they did back in March,” Kettl points out. “That would weaken the party further as leaders try to right the ship. Or they could refuse to give in, trigger a shutdown — what the Republicans are already calling a ‘Schumer Shutdown’ — and then stand back to watch an awesome stripping away of their power. Either way, the Democrats lose. It’s like an old western, where cowboys ride into a box canyon with no way out.”

It’s a sad hill to die on, especially since there’s absolutely nothing controversial in the GOP’s short-term proposal. “I had a lot of colleagues who wanted us to load this up with our priorities, but the leaders decided we should do this in good faith,” Johnson reiterated to reporters. “… There is nothing we can pull out of this bill to make it any leaner and cleaner, it’s absolutely sparkling clean.” If anything, Democrats should be tickled pink that the government is being flooded with the same dollars it enjoyed under their own president.

And yet suddenly, the speaker told Perkins, “They want to throw in $1.5 trillion in new spending. That’s with a ‘T.’ They want to have American taxpayers give free health care to illegal aliens. … They want to give a half-billion dollars to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting so they can prop up left-wing media outlets. … We’re not doing that,” he vowed. “The American people did not vote for that stuff. And they’re playing games with very serious issues.”

Quena González, Family Research Council’s senior director for Government Affairs, has been talking both to congressional insiders who have seen this coming for months and to regular citizens who were surprised to read about the shutdown in the news. “Proverbs 29:2 says that when the rulers of the land are righteous, the people rejoice, but when the wicked are in authority the people groan,” he observed. “The current stand-off, in large part over subsidies to fund abortion under the guise of ‘health care,’ is an opportunity for Americans everywhere to pray for wisdom for those in authority.”

In a sign of how dire the political situation is becoming, the Senate (whose work week rarely begins before Monday night and which famously rushes to the airports on Thursday morning) is now toying around with coming back on Friday to vote, once again, on the clean CR. Wednesday at sundown to Thursday at sundown is Yom Kippur, the Jewish high holiday associated with personal reflection. “We can only hope,” González added, “that on reflection righteousness will prevail.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Admin Uses Agency Websites To Troll Democrats Over Shutdown

John Fetterman Now Has Higher Approval Rating With Republicans Than Democrats

Hakeem Jeffries Squirms When Asked If He Will Withhold Paycheck During Shutdown

Democrats Double Down On Shutdown Despite Americans’ Healthcare Programs Lapsing

RELATED VIDEOS:

Sombrero postings of 44 Senate Democrats will continue until they re-open our government

SPEAKER JOHNSON: “[Democrats] did something that is rather shocking to us.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

White House Prepares for Potential Government Shutdown with Mass Firings Plan

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

As the threat of a government shutdown looms, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has directed federal agencies to brace for significant workforce reductions in programs not legally mandated to continue.

The possibility of a government shutdown next week hinges on a heated dispute between Democrats and Republicans over federal funding. According to Politico, “The House passed a stopgap spending measure to float federal operations through Nov. 21,” but Democrats “refused to advance it, demanding that Republicans come to the table to negotiate a bipartisan package that could include an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.” This standoff centers on proposed revisions to President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” enacted in July, which has become a flashpoint in the negotiations.

Should Congress fail to reach an agreement, the OMB is poised to implement drastic measures outlined in a recent memo. The memo begins with a stark warning: “Over the past 10 fiscal years, Congress has consistently passed Continuing Resolutions (CRs) on or by September 30 on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, congressional Democrats are signaling that they intend to break this bipartisan trend and shut down the government in the coming days over a series of insane demands, including $1 trillion in new spending.”

The OMB memo then addressed the House-passed Continuing Resolution, which all but one House Democrat voted against, stating that “congressional Democrats are currently blocking this clean CR due to their partisan demands.” It underscored the urgency of preparation, noting, “it has never been more important for the Administration to be prepared for a shutdown if the Democrats choose to pursue one.” The plan directs agencies to take the following steps:

“Programs that did not benefit from an infusion of mandatory appropriations will bear the brunt of a shutdown, and we must continue our planning efforts in the event Democrats decide to shut down the government. If Congress successfully passes a clean CR prior to September 30, the additional steps outlined in this email will not be necessary.

“With respect to those Federal programs whose funding would lapse and which are otherwise unfunded, such programs are no longer statutorily required to be carried out. Therefore, consistent with applicable law, including the requirements of 5 C.F.R. part 351, agencies are directed to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees in programs, projects, or activities (PPAs) that satisfy all three of the following conditions: (1) discretionary funding lapses on October 1, 2025; (2) another source of funding, such as H.R. 1 (Public Law 119-21) is not currently available; and (3) the PPA is not consistent with the President’s priorities.”

The memo concluded: “We remain hopeful that Democrats in Congress will not trigger a shutdown and the steps outlined above will not be necessary. The President supports enactment of a clean CR to ensure no discretionary spending lapse after September 30, 2025, and OMB hopes the Democrats will agree.”

The plan has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic leaders. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) denounced the move, stating, “Trump is lawless,” and argued that such actions would persist “with or without [a shutdown].” He further claimed, “This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government. These unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back, just like they did as recently as today.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) took to X with a more fiery response, writing, “Donald Trump and MAGA extremists are plotting mass firings of federal workers starting October 1. Their goal is to ruin your life and punish hardworking families already struggling with Trump Tariffs and inflation.” However, many Republicans are joining the dialogue. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote on X how “the problem is that Democrats only want to meet to repeat their demands that we include FREE healthcare to illegal aliens, half a billion dollars to prop up liberal news outlets, other leftist priorities, and a MASSIVE $1.5 TRILLION spending HIKE in a simple 7-week funding bill. They are holding government funding hostage.”

Democrats are claiming that, should the government shut down, the blame would fall on Republicans. Johnson addressed this, stating, “House Republicans are doing our job and restoring regular order to the appropriations process. If Democrats fail to pass our clean, nonpartisan, 24-page CR to keep the government open the American People will know where the blame lies.”

Efforts to negotiate have hit a wall. President Trump had planned a meeting with top congressional Democrats late this week to discuss funding and avert a shutdown, but on Tuesday, he canceled it, labeling the Democrats’ demands “unserious and ridiculous.” He emphasized, “We must keep the Government open, and legislate like true Patriots rather than hold American Citizens hostage,” warning that failure to do so would lead to “another long and brutal slog through their radicalized quicksand.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Empower TWS to continue reporting the truth and save tomorrow’s children today! This week only, your gift to defend the unborn will be TRIPLED thanks to FRC’s challenge match.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Texas, California Kick off Redistricting Wars

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Legislatures in Texas and California this week both advanced bills to redraw their congressional maps halfway through the census cycle, kicking off what could become a partisan redistricting war over control of the U.S. House of Representatives, which is currently closely divided.

In Texas, House Republicans on Wednesday easily (88-52) advanced a bill to redraw the congressional map in a way that shifts five U.S. House seats toward the GOP. Democratic representatives initially fled the state to deny the House a quorum, but they eventually returned after the month-long special session had expired. Governor Greg Abbott (R) immediately called a second special session, and House leaders took steps to ensure the Democrats did not flee the state again.

The redistricting bill now heads to the Texas Senate. The Senate passed the bill easily during the first special session (Democratic senators did not abscond), but it must vote again in the new session. If the bill reaches Abbott’s desk, he is expected to sign it.

In California, the Democrat-controlled legislature has moved much more quickly. On Thursday, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed two bills to redraw California’s congressional districts that the legislature passed earlier in the day. These bills aim to move five congressional seats from Republican to Democrat. “We’re responding to what occurred in Texas. We’re neutralizing what occurred,” argued Newsom, “because when all things are equal, we’re all playing by the same rules.”

As a matter of fact, California and Texas do not play by the same redistricting rules. In 2008 and 2010, California voters passed a ballot measure that authorized a bipartisan commission to redraw California’s state and federal legislative districts. This commission drew the lines that California has used since 2022. Thus, before the California legislature can redraw the map, they need the voters’ permission to supersede the map created by the redistricting commission. To that end, Governor Newsom has called a special election on November 4, a mere 10 weeks away.

It remains unclear whether California’s voters will approve this redistricting gambit, as contradictory early polling points in both directions. Only 15 years ago, California voters overwhelmingly approved the redistricting commission (61.2% to 38.7%); it would be a remarkable shift if they undermined its authority now.

In fact, many California voters likely have some inkling that the district map drawn by the bipartisan commission already tilts heavily in Democrats’ favor. In 2022, California Democrats won 63.3% of the congressional vote but almost 77% of the seats. In 2024, Democrats won 60.4% of the vote but 82.6% of the seats. Somehow, without an obvious partisan gerrymander by Sacramento legislatures, California Democrats have maneuvered themselves into quite a comfortable advantage.

If California voters do second the legislature’s effort to neutralize Texas’s redistricting effort, it might kick off a redistricting war that Democrats are not well positioned to win. By Punchbowl’s calculation, “Republicans can get 12 or more new seats fairly easily. Democrats can get two or three without amending a state constitution, and eight if Newsom’s California gambit works.”

A New York Times analysis helps explain why: there are 15 states with unified Democratic control and 26 with unified Republican control. But partisan gain is not possible in all these states, either because a state only has one congressional seat (like Delaware or Wyoming), or because the dominant party already holds all the congressional seats (like Massachusetts or Oklahoma).

This leaves eight Democrat-controlled states with Republican-held districts and 15 Republican-controlled states with Democrat-held districts. However, in five of these Democrat-controlled states, the legislature is not in control of drawing the map. This leaves only three Democrat-controlled states (besides California) where the legislature could potentially redraw the map to knock Republicans out of Congress, compared to 15 states where Republicans could do the opposite.

Across these three states (Illinois, Maryland, and Oregon), Democrats have already maximized their advantage, leaving a total of five Republicans in Congress across the three states. It would be extremely difficult to draw maps that would favor the Democrats any further. Maryland Democrats already tried this census cycle, but their gerrymander was struck down in court. Likewise, New York (another large, Democrat-controlled state) already tried to override its redistricting commission to enact a partisan gerrymander, which was also struck down in court.

Some analysts believe California Democrats are pushing their new map simply to oppose Trump. The Trump administration provided the impetus for Texas’s redistricting effort, in hopes of giving the president’s party a more effective House majority in Congress. California Democrats may not believe they can win a nationwide redistricting war, but they do believe their base wants to see them stand tow-to-tow with Trump.

Thus, California Assemblyman Marc Berman (D), who sponsored one of the redistricting bills, offered this half-hearted defense on Thursday, “We don’t want this fight, and we didn’t choose this fight, but with our democracy on the line, we cannot and will not run away from this fight.” Begun, the Redistricting Wars have.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.