The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.
Senators rejected a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts — an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.
Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.
“Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”
Republicans have argued that Affordable Care Act plans are too expensive and need to be overhauled. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Donald Trump.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said ahead of the vote that a simple extension of the subsidies is “an attempt to disguise the real impact of Obamacare’s spiraling health care costs.”
But Democrats immediately rejected the GOP plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.
The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. In September, Republicans tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees.
The Senate voted 51-48 not to move forward on the Democratic bill, with four Republicans — Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan — voting with Democrats. The legislation needed 60 votes to proceed, as did the Republican bill, which was also blocked on a 51-48 vote.
Some Republicans have pushed their colleagues to extend the credits, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who said they should vote for a short-term extension so they can find agreement on the issue next year. “It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” Tillis said Wednesday.
But there appeared to be little interest in compromise. Despite the potential for bipartisan agreement, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the 43-day government shutdown in exchange for a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.
Still, the deal raised hopes for bipartisan compromise on health care. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.
The votes were also the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.
Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that health care is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy health care on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.
“When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek compromise.
Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.
Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”
Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.
Thune announced earlier this week that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.
In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.
Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.
Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on health care.
If they fail to act and health care costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
U.S. Senate rejects health care subsidy extension as costs are set to rise for millions of Americans is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Joel Brennan, former top Cabinet official for Gov. Tony Evers, has joined the Democratic primary for governor, vowing to “stand up to Trump’s dysfunction” and be “laser-focused” on improving people’s lives if elected.
In a campaign launch video released Thursday, Brennan discussed growing up with 10 siblings in Wisconsin in a family that was “long on potential, although sometimes a little short on resources.” Brennan talks about working a variety of jobs to get through college and boasts that his first car didn’t even have working taillights.
Brennan described getting a call from Evers in 2018, asking him to lead the Department of Administration “as his top Cabinet official.” Brennan served in that role from 2019 through 2021. During that time, he said the administration put the state on firmer financial footing and generated a state budget surplus of nearly $4 billion. He also said the administration “stood up to the extremists” and offered assistance to thousands of small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“But today, thanks to Donald Trump’s chaos and incompetence, the numbers just aren’t adding up for Wisconsin families,” Brennan says in the video. “Costs, like everything else, are out of control. And coming from a family that had to make every dollar count, I know what that feels like.”
Brennan’s video ends with a nod to the race for the Legislature, where Democrats are hoping to flip Republican majorities for the first time in more than a decade. He said with “fair maps” and a Democratic governor, “we can stay true to our values and deliver change.”
Brennan is currently the president of the Greater Milwaukee Committee. Prior to joining Evers’ administration, he was CEO of the Discovery World museum for 11 years. He also worked previously for the Redevelopment Authority of Milwaukee and the Greater Milwaukee Convention and Visitors Bureau. He was a legislative assistant to Democrat Tom Barrett when Barrett served in Congress.
Brennan joins an already crowded field of Democrats vying for the party’s nomination. Other candidates to announce include Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Madison state Sen. Kelda Roys, Madison state Rep. Francesca Hong, former Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes and former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes.
Only two Republicans — U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Minocqua, and Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann — are running for the GOP nomination at this point. It’s been reported that former Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels, who lost to Evers in 2022, and former Republican U.S. Senate candidate Eric Hovde, who lost to Tammy Baldwin in 2024, are also considering entering the 2026 race for governor.
This story was originally published by WPR.
Joel Brennan, former top Tony Evers aide, enters race for Wisconsin governor is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to note the U.S. Senate’s rejection on Thursday of legislation to address the expected rise in health care premiums.
Cars filled the small parking lot outside of Milwaukee’s Cross Lutheran Church on a recent Monday afternoon. The church’s pews sat empty, but downstairs visitors waited around folding tables. Not to hear a sermon, but to see a volunteer physician.
Staff and volunteers walked patients past a row of dividers used to separate the “waiting room” from the folding tables where doctors and counselors filled out paperwork.
In front of the free health clinic’s four exam rooms, two phones rang.
“This is the Bread of Healing Clinic. Can you hold for a moment?” asked Diane Hill Horton, the free health clinic’s assistant.
Across from Hill Horton, another staff member scheduled an appointment in Spanish.
On a typical Monday, the clinic sees up to 30 patients. Bread of Healing treated 2,400 patients in 2024 across three clinics it runs in Milwaukee. Patients typically lack any health coverage and aren’t asked to pay for their visits.
“We don’t turn anyone away,” Hill Horton said.
But without action from lawmakers in Washington, clinic staff worry that it will become harder to answer every call.
Free clinics like Bread of Healing serve as a final safety net for community members who can’t afford health care. They are bracing for higher demand as more residents are expected to forgo insurance as a crucial tax credit is set to expire and premiums spike.
Affordable Care Act premiums in Wisconsin will increase on average by 17.4% next year, a previous Wisconsin Watch analysis showed, with wide variation depending on age, income, family status and geography. Meanwhile, experts estimate more than 270,000 Wisconsinites rely on the enhanced premium tax credit to make insurance more affordable. It will expire at the end of the month without intervention.
People without insurance are less likely to get preventative care. Bread of Healing focuses on treating chronic conditions to prevent people from overwhelming emergency rooms, said Executive Director Erica Wright.
“If we don’t try our best to move with that demand, we’re not going to be able to see as many people, and there’s going to be a lot of folks falling through the cracks,” she said.
Wright oversees all three Bread of Healing locations. While the clinics have some room to take on more patients right now, she wants to significantly increase their capacity over the next year — adding money and volunteers to serve a possible “monsoon” of demand.
“We’re never going to be able to serve everybody, we know that,” Wright said. “But I don’t want it to be where our phones are ringing off the hook and we just can’t meet at least a good chunk of the demand.”
Ashley Bratz paid about $545 a month for a low-deductible marketplace plan this year. That same plan cost over $700 when she went to sign up for 2026.
Even with her job at Open Arms Free Clinic in Walworth County covering a portion of her health care costs, the only option in Bratz’s price range had deductibles higher than what she expects to spend.
“It’s supposed to be reasonable, and this is not reasonable,” Bratz said.
Bratz, who works as the nurse clinic coordinator, said she did not receive enhanced marketplace subsidies this year. Those who did will face a particular shock as the tax credit expires — while also confronting rising prices and shrinking options.
The income-based tax credits have lowered some marketplace enrollees’ monthly premium payments since they became available in 2014.
In 2021, the federal government expanded those subsidies, further bringing costs down for lower-income enrollees and extending smaller subsidies to people making over four times the federal poverty level — $62,600 a year for one person in 2025.
Without an extension, monthly premiums are expected to more than double on average nationally for subsidized enrollees, according to KFF, an independent source for health policy research.
A quarter of enrollees surveyed by KFF said they were “very likely” to go without insurance if their premiums doubled.
The U.S. Senate on Thursday rejected a Democratic plan to extend marketplace subsidies. Republicans, who have long criticized the Affordable Care Act (ACA), have instead called for a broader overhaul. The Senate also rejected a Republican plan that would have expanded access to high-deductible insurance plans and deposit $1,000 to $1,500 in enrollees’ health savings accounts — without renewing enhanced subsidies.
Sara Nichols, Open Arms Clinic executive director, is forging ahead regardless. When Bratz told her about her shrinking affordable coverage options, Nichols started working with an insurance broker to find a new plan for the clinic’s small team of paid staff.
“We cannot have health care workers not have health insurance,” Nichols said.
The move left Bratz relieved. Now she’s preparing to help more clients who can’t afford coverage or just need help navigating the complicated system.
They face challenges beyond lost subsidies and premium hikes. President Donald Trump’s “big” bill-turned law included additional changes to Medicaid funding and the ACA that are expected to increase the number of people without insurance by 10 million over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
“We always take what is thrown at us and we figure out how to handle it,” Bratz said. “Do I think we could also use more help? Yes.”
Open Arms Free Clinic is already seeing higher demand, Nichols said.
It operates a dental clinic five days a week, and she’s considering whether further demand would require opening its medical clinic for an additional day.
That would take more volunteers and money.
While the Legislature sent state dollars to free clinics in its latest budget, private grants and donations have been harder to secure this year, Nichols said. She expects the clinic will have to get even leaner next year.
But she won’t start turning patients away.
The clinic provides dental, medical and behavioral health to low-income people who live and work in Walworth County. Its 250 volunteers help with things like translating, nursing, greeting patients and connecting people to the clinic. They also provide vision and pharmacy services.
“I know that we have enough smart people and kind people that we’re going to come up with a solution to anything that comes up,” Nichols said.
This is far from the first time Wisconsin’s free clinics have faced big changes, said Dennis Skrajewski, the executive director of the Wisconsin Association of Free and Charitable Clinics.
Free clinics adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic, operating with fewer volunteers and switching to telehealth services and opening vaccine programs, Skrajewski said. Then clinics prepped for increased demand in 2023 after Medicaid unwinding.
“We’re used to waking up and the world changed yesterday, so we’ll adjust,” Skrajewski said.
Wisconsin’s free and charitable clinic association is collaborating with other safety net health providers as part of the Wisconsin Owns Wellbeing initiative, which will host statewide planning meetings to strengthen the state’s safety net services.
Rick Cesar started working as a parish nurse at Cross Lutheran Church in the 1990s. He took people’s blood pressure at a weekly food pantry and ran an HIV testing site and needle exchange out of the church’s basement.
He helped co-found the Bread of Healing Clinic in 2000, a decade before the ACA passed.
“There were so many people that had no coverage,” Cesar said.
Demand for free services persisted even after more people enrolled in marketplace plans. The clinic expanded to two other locations and hired paid staff. Cesar retired from nursing in 2019 but still regularly volunteers. He feels proud watching the clinic grow.
“I just wish it weren’t needed,” he said.
The clinic is adaptable, Cesar said, whether it’s responding to a pandemic with vaccine drives or helping clients navigate ACA changes.
“We’re going to be here and do as much as we can,” Cesar said. “But those resources, you never know how long they are going to last when the demand is so great.”
Find a map of free or charitable clinics near you at wafcclinics.org.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
‘We don’t turn anyone away’: Wisconsin’s free clinics fill gaps as thousands expected to go uninsured is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
The Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 10 stopped requiring warning labels on a range of hormone therapy treatments for women experiencing menopause and perimenopause symptoms.
The post The latest on care for women in all stages of menopause appeared first on WPR.
The report released Wednesday by the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project found nearly two-thirds of states have cut staffing and more than half have reduced funding for environmental agencies since 2010. Wisconsin was among the top 10 states in the nation for these cuts.
The post Wisconsin’s cuts to environmental funding were among nation’s highest, report says appeared first on WPR.
A Republican-led state legislative committee approved new teaching requirements for Universities of Wisconsin faculty Thursday, a condition of the bipartisan state budget passed this summer.
The post Legislative panel approves new teaching requirements for UW faculty appeared first on WPR.
Wisconsin health officials say all babies should be vaccinated against hepatitis B at birth despite a recent change from federal vaccine advisers.
The post Wisconsin reaffirms support of hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, defying federal advisers appeared first on WPR.
George Meyer, an influential leader in Wisconsin in conservation, died Wednesday in Madison surrounded by his family. He was 78.
The post George Meyer, former Wisconsin DNR Secretary, has died appeared first on WPR.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin says extending federal tax credits used to lower the cost of marketplace health insurance plans is the "only workable solution" to keep premiums affordable for Wisconsinites.
The post As US Senate votes down ACA subsidy extension, Baldwin says premiums will skyrocket appeared first on WPR.
Jury selection took place Thursday in the case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan, who's accused of helping a man evade U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The post Jurors chosen to hear case against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan appeared first on WPR.
This week’s new release comes from social media megastar HAUSER. He’s a cellist with billions of YouTube views, and with good reason. He creates sumptuous and moving videos to accompany […]
The post WPR Music new album of the week: ‘Cinema’ by HAUSER appeared first on WPR.
The exhibit, which runs through Jan. 25, includes several of the Wisconsin architect’s chair designs that had never been fabricated until now.
The post Frank Lloyd Wright’s forgotten chair designs on display at Museum of Wisconsin Art appeared first on WPR.
Wisconsin politicians denounce the "billionaire loophole" that makes state elections so expensive, but they're still raising tons of cash. | Getty Images
Two high-profile candidates for governor of Wisconsin, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and Democratic former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, have denounced the unlimited flow of cash into state political campaigns. Then, practically in the same breath, both men announced their plans to raise tens of millions of dollars, signalling to their less well funded primary opponents that they might as well get out of the way.
In an interview with PBS Wisconsin on Dec. 5, Tiffany criticized “that pass-through loophole, I call it the ‘billionaire loophole,’” in Wisconsin law, adding, “there’s just so much money that comes into Wisconsin.”
“You can cry about it or you can compete,” Tiffany continued. “We choose to compete … We’re hoping to raise $40 million.”
As Baylor Spears reports, Tiffany actually voted for the “billionaire loophole” he now criticizes back when he was serving in the state Senate in 2015.
Mandela Barnes, in a recent campaign stop in Madison, told Spears and other reporters that he has raised a “strong haul,” in the first week of his campaign, and that he intends to raise a staggering $50 million by the end of the race. He added that he doesn’t like the role of money in politics. “It’s not a good sign,” he said, and his future goal is “to get big money out of politics” and enact “campaign and ethics reform.”
Back in 2015, when Republicans were ramming through the “billionaire loophole,” Barnes opposed it, saying at the time that it would allow “shady special interest money and allow for more corruption to go undetected and unprosecuted.”
Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, remembers that moment well. Under former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Republican legislative majorities passed the law eviscerating campaign finance limits along with other measures getting rid of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board and eliminating the John Doe procedure that was used to criminally prosecute leaders of both political parties for campaign finance crimes in the infamous caucus scandal of the early 2000’s.
The 2015 law doubled the amount individuals could give to candidates. More importantly, it eliminated all limits on state party contributions to candidates and allowed coordination between candidates and outside groups that make issue ads supporting the campaigns. Donors were able to give as much as they wanted to political parties, which then funneled that money to candidates, creating the billionaire loophole to which Tiffany belatedly objects. The 2015 law cleared the way for outsiders like Elon Musk to pour limitless cash into state races to try to affect the outcome.
“The Republicans did that in 2015 because they were convinced that they would have a great financial advantage since they generally raised more money from donors and special interests,” says Heck. “Of course, what they didn’t anticipate was [former Wisconsin Democratic Party chair] Ben Wikler and the Democratic Party’s ability to take that big hole in the law and use it to raise massive amounts of money.”
Recently, Democrats in Wisconsin have been beating Republicans in the fundraising arms race. In 2025, in the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, Susan Crawford, the candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court supported by the Democratic Party, raised $28.3 million compared with Republican-supported Brad Schimel, who raised $15.1 million. Outside special interests accounted for most of the spending on the race, with Musk alone putting in nearly $20 million through his political action committees and millions more laundered through the state Republican Party for Schimel, while the Democratic Party of Wisconsin funneled $10 million to Crawford.
The lesson of the 2015 law, says Heck, is, “be careful what you wish for.”
That certainly applies to Republicans, who lost the two most expensive state Supreme Court races in history as well as the last two record-breaking gubernatorial races won by Gov. Tony Evers with $93 million in total spending in 2018 and $164 million in 2022.
But it also applies to Democrats, who cannot count on continually bringing in more money than Republicans.
More importantly, when it costs tens of millions of dollars to win state elections, regular voters’ voices are drowned out by billionaires, who are not investing in candidates just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Heck believes that change will only come when voters demand reform, most likely because a big scandal clearly illustrates that politicians are doing favors for their donors in exchange for campaign cash.
“It’s going to require a bipartisan coming-together to establish some limits,” Heck says.
Even as the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the floodgate for campaign spending with the Citizens United decision, which in 2010 struck down a federal ban on political donations from corporations, and McCutcheon v. FEC, which in 2014 found that annual caps on total political donations from one person are unconstitutional, states have the ability to impose limits.
A report by the National Conference of State Legislatures shows Wisconsin is one of only 11 states that allow unlimited candidate contributions by state parties and among the top 10 for the highest limits on PAC contributions to candidates. Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and most other states limit how much political parties can accept, which reduces the Elon Musk effect. Plus, “We are one of few states that allows so-called coordination between political candidates and outside groups,” Heck says.
The problem is that candidates, while acknowledging that massive amounts of money fueling their campaigns is a bad look, don’t want to unilaterally disarm.
But now, as the Trump administration drags the country to new levels of overt corruption, it could be a good time for a campaign that ties together billionaires’ destructive influence on society and the fact that they are buying our democracy.
“There has to be public disgust with the amount of money being spent,” says Heck. “If a candidate put corruption front and center, it might get a lot of traction.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order as, left to right, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks look on in the Oval Office of the White House on Dec. 11, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday night that aims to preempt states from enacting rules governing artificial intelligence, a major departure from the typical federalist structure of American government that Trump said was necessary because of the issue’s high stakes.
In an early evening signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump said the order would position the United States to win a competition with China to dominate the burgeoning AI industry. Coordinating policy among 50 different states would put the U.S. at a disadvantage, Trump said, adding that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not have similar restraints.
“This will not be successful unless they have one source of approval or disapproval,” he said. “It’s got to be one source. They can’t go to 50 different sources.”
The order creates a task force to monitor state laws on AI and to challenge them in court, and directs the Commerce secretary to complete a review of state laws within three months.
David Sacks, the chair of a White House board on technology, said there were more than 1,000 pending AI bills in state legislatures.
White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the Oval Office event that the order would “ensure that AI can operate within a single national framework in this country, as opposed to being subject to state level regulation that could potentially cripple the industry.”
“The big picture is that we’re taking steps to ensure that AI operates under a single national standard so that we can reap the benefits that will come from it.”
The order, a major assertion of presidential power over state governments and Congress, is likely to see court challenges, including from environmental groups that oppose AI expansion because of the energy resources the technology requires.
“Congress has repeatedly rejected attempts to undermine states’ and local communities’ efforts to protect themselves from the unchecked spread of AI, which is driving a wave of dangerous data center development,” Mitch Jones, the chief of policy and litigation at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch, said in a statement.
“We’ll be following the administration’s attempts to implement this farcical order, and we’ll fight it in Congress, in the states, in the courts, and with communities across this country.”
Protesters rally outside of the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building headquarters of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed a bill Thursday that would overturn an executive order from President Donald Trump that strips collective bargaining rights for roughly 1 million federal employees.
The 231-195 vote was a rare bipartisan pushback against the president. The bill was sponsored by Maine’s Jared Golden, a Democrat, and Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican. Twenty Republicans joined all Democrats in supporting the bill.
It’s now referred to the Senate, but it’s unclear if it will garner enough support to reach the chamber’s 60-vote threshold — or even be brought to the floor for a vote.
The move also bucked House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, who did not bring the bill to the floor for Wednesday’s vote. Instead, lawmakers were able to vote on it through a legislative maneuver known as a discharge petition.
The procedure allows rank-and-file members to compel the lower chamber to vote on measures that are not brought up by the leadership of the majority party, which is how bills typically reach the floor.
On Wednesday’s vote to advance the discharge petition, 13 Republicans joined all Democrats.
Following Wednesday’s procedural vote, Golden said in a statement that the bill would restore the rights of federal employees.
“President Trump said ending collective bargaining was about protecting our national defense,” he said. “But in my District, many affected workers build our warships and care for our veterans. If the majority we built over the past few months sticks together, we can overturn this union-busting executive order, and we can show America that this body will protect workers’ rights.”
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, argued against the bill on the floor Thursday, saying lax accountability among the federal workforce harmed taxpayers.
“Accountability problems in the federal workforce are legendary,” he said. “It takes a Herculean effort to fire a poorly performing federal worker or one who is engaged in misconduct.”
Trump signed an executive order in March that banned collective bargaining agreements for federal agencies dealing with national security.
Those agencies include the departments of Defense, Veteran Affairs, Homeland Security, State and Energy, along with the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Coast Guard, most entities within the Department of Justice and several pandemic response and refugee resettlement agencies within the Health and Human Services Department, among others.
Federal police and firefighters are exempt from the order.
Federal employees have limited bargaining agreements, compared to the private sector. Workers cannot strike or bargain for higher wages or benefits, but they can push for better working conditions, such as protection from retaliation, discrimination, and illegal firings.
Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island speaks during a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Dec. 11, 2025, as Chairman Roger Wicker looks on . The hearing examined the Trump Administration's deployment of the National Guard across the United States. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers who oversee armed services policy split along party lines Thursday when examining the deployments of the National Guard to cities across the country under what President Donald Trump describes as a crime-fighting strategy.
Members of the Senate Committee on the Armed Services questioned for nearly two-and-a-half hours high-level Department of Defense officials, including the Pentagon’s No. 2 lawyer and the head of U.S. Northern Command who oversees National Guard troops under federal deployment.
The hearing on Capitol Hill came less than one month after a gunman shot two West Virginia National Guard members in broad daylight outside a Washington, D.C., Metro station just blocks from the White House.
U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died of her injuries the following day, Thanksgiving, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, is recovering from critical injuries. A 29-year-old Afghan national who worked with American troops in Afghanistan has been charged with first-degree murder.
Senators on the panel expressed bipartisan messages of support and gratitude for Beckstrom, Wolfe and their families, but divisions were apparent over why and on what grounds Trump deployed the guard to five U.S. cities since June: Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Portland, Ore.; Chicago and Memphis, Tenn.
Trump also threatened to send the guard to other places, including New York City, Baltimore, St. Louis and New Orleans.
Trump first federalized the California National Guard in early June, deploying them to Los Angeles against the wishes of Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom, both Democrats.
A California federal district judge ruled Wednesday the Trump administration must return the troops to Newsom.
A federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled Nov. 20 — six days before Beckstrom and Wolfe were attacked — that Trump’s deployment of the guard in the district was illegal. A federal appeals court has allowed the service members to remain in the district while the appeal plays out.
Other cases, including challenges to Trump’s deployment of the guard to Oregon and Illinois, have also been tied up in court.
Sen. Roger Wicker, Armed Services Committee chair, opened the hearing by saying, “In recent years violent crime, rioting, drug trafficking and heinous gang activity have steadily escalated,” citing the Department of Justice.
For that reason, he said, Trump “ordered an immediate and coordinated response by deploying the National Guard to some of our nation’s most dangerous cities.”
“Not surprisingly, Democratic governors and left-wing pundits have decried these deployments,” the Mississippi Republican said, dismissing any concerns as “manufactured and misguided.”
While capturing accurate crime statistics is challenging — as many crimes go unreported — murder, rape, aggravated assault and robbery all decreased nationwide in 2024, according to the FBI’s latest crime statistics.
Data also show U.S. property and violent crime plunged between 1993 and 2022, according to the Pew Research Center.
However, the analysis showed attitudes about crime split according to party affiliation.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., argued Thursday that guard deployments to cities across the U.S. are not out of the ordinary.
He asked Charles Young III, principal deputy general counsel at the Department of Defense, to explain how the process works.
Young, pointing to a stack of books on the table, said the examples are “voluminous.”
“Rather than bringing in troops from the regular Army or the active component … the Founding Fathers wanted to resort to utilizing the National Guard because they were citizens and from the communities that were involved. And these books that I have here are just books on the role of federal military forces in domestic disorders,” he said.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Army National Guard veteran who said she pushed for the hearing, slammed Trump’s guard deployments when she delivered the Democrats’ opening remarks.
Duckworth said Beckstrom’s death and Wolfe’s injuries “should never have happened in the first place.”
“Military service involves risks, and our service members accept those risks knowingly, selflessly. So we better be damn sure that the mission is the right one,” said Duckworth, who lost her legs and partial use of her right arm in Iraq when her Black Hawk helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade
Duckworth and other Democratic senators on the panel questioned the legality of Trump’s guard deployments and alleged the president was using the show of force to curtail public demonstrations and free speech.
Duckworth recalled Trump’s Sept. 30 speech to military generals in Quantico, Virginia, when he said the administration should use American cities as “training grounds for our military, National Guard, but military because we’re going into Chicago very soon.”
In that same speech, Trump said Democratic-run cities are “in bad shape,” and “it’s a war from within.”
Harking back to reports that Trump asked former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper about shooting protesters in 2020, Duckworth asked, “Let’s say the president issued such an order. He said so. Is that a legal order?”
“Senator, orders to that effect would depend on the circumstances,” Young replied.
“We have a president who doesn’t think that the rule of law applies to him, and he wants to show force,” Duckworth responded.
Sen. Jack Reed, the committee’s ranking member, delivered a similar line of questioning, asking Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot, commander of U.S. Northern Command, “If the president declared an organization, a terrorist organization … and you were ordered to attack them on U.S. soil, would you carry out that order?”
“Sen. Reed, as with any order I get, I would assess the order, consult the legal authorities to ensure that it was a lawful order, and I would, if I had questions, I would elevate that to the chairman and the secretary, as they welcome at all times,” Guillot said.
“And if I had no concerns and I was confident in (the) lawful order, I would definitely execute that order.”
Reed noted that Guillot was present for Trump’s speech in Quantico.
“The president essentially indicated that you should be prepared to conduct military operations in the United States against this enemy within. Are you doing that?” he said.
“Sir, I have not been tasked to do anything that reflects what you just said,” Guillot replied.
Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he didn’t believe testimony delivered Thursday by Mark Ditlevson, principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for homeland defense, that Trump is “clearly doing the right thing” and the guard is working in conjunction with local authorities.
King, of Maine, said the testimony “was borderline humorous.”
“That didn’t happen in Illinois or in California,” King said. “We’re talking about a broader issue here that I think is extremely dangerous, and the reason it’s particularly dangerous in the present moment is we have a president who has a very low bar as to what constitutes an emergency.”
Trump deployed thousands of guard troops to Los Angeles after local immigration raids sparked protests that city officials said local law enforcement were able to handle without assistance.
In D.C., he based his deployment on a “crime emergency” and the deployment of troops on the district’s streets happened as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents carried out weeks of raids, traffic stops and other actions as part of Trump’s mass deportation campaign.
District residents protested the deployment, and opposition posters, stickers, flags and graffiti sprang up across the city.
Trump justified sending the guard to Portland after falsely claiming the city was “burning down.”
District of Columbia and Tennessee officials have worked with the administration to bring the guard to their cities, which grants the troops power to assist local law enforcement.
Illinois, Oregon and California officials have not agreed to work with the guard, which results in an order restricting members to only duties of protecting federal property.
Trump previously activated the National Guard to the nation’s capital in response to protests during the summer of 2020 following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
“Costs, like everything else, are out of control, and coming from a family that had to make every dollar count, I know what that feels like,” Joel Brennan said in his launch video. (Screenshot from campaign video)
Joel Brennan, formerly the Department of Administration (DOA) secretary under Gov. Tony Evers, announced his campaign for governor Thursday, saying that President Donald Trump’s “chaos and incompetence” are hurting the state and that “the numbers just aren’t adding up for Wisconsin families.”
“Costs, like everything else, are out of control, and coming from a family that had to make every dollar count, I know what that feels like,” Brennan said in his launch video. “I’ll be a governor who will stand up to Trump’s dysfunction and be laser focused on improving the lives of people across our state.”
In the video, Brennan introduces himself, saying many voters “probably don’t know much about me.” He talks about growing up as one of 11 children in a family that was “long on potential, although sometimes a little short on resources.” He relates that he worked in many jobs including landscaping, retail and deep frying egg rolls to help put himself through college and that his first car had no working blinkers.
“I’ve raised two great kids with my wife, Audra, passing on lessons like rolling up our sleeves to get things done and showing up for our community, and for 25 years I’ve worked with businesses and non-profits to create jobs and strengthen Wisconsin’s economy.”
Brennan served as the DOA secretary from 2019 through 2021. The agency is responsible for assisting the governor with the state budget, providing centralized purchasing and financial management for state agencies and working with the 11 federally recognized Native Nations in Wisconsin on gaming and coastal programs.
“It’s easy to forget how broken things were after [former Gov.] Scott Walker and his right-wing Legislature had spent eight years gutting state government,” Brennan said. “We got to work putting the state on firmer financial footing, generating a budget surplus of nearly $4 billion dollars and growing our rainy day fund to $1.7 billion, then COVID hit and all of that progress was put at risk. We stood up to the extremists and delivered help to tens of thousands of small businesses, farmers, and families across Wisconsin.”
Prior to his time in Evers’ administration, Brennan worked as the executive director of Discovery World, the largest science museum in Wisconsin.
Brennan stepped down from leading the DOA in December 2021 to serve as the president of the Greater Milwaukee Committee (GMC). The private-sector, nonprofit civic organization works to foster economic development and cultural growth in Wisconsin’s largest metro area.
According to the Greater Milwaukee Committee, Brennan is stepping aside from the role as he runs for governor.
Brennan joins a crowded field of hopefuls seeking the Democratic nomination next year. Candidates include Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, state Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison), state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison), Milwaukee County Exec. David Crowley, former Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation CEO Missy Hughes, former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and former state Rep. Brett Hulsey. The primary is scheduled for Aug. 11, 2026.
Roys criticized Brennan in a statement after his announcement over a position the GMC took on a Milwaukee Public Schools referendum last year, saying that Wisconsin needs “a leader who knows how to deliver higher wages, lower costs and the freedom to thrive.”
“While I look forward to a spirited primary, I will not be able to overlook the fact that only one of the candidates in this race tried to defeat a desperately needed referendum to fund our biggest school district,” Roys said.
The GMC, under Brennan’s leadership, was one of the city’s business organizations that opposed the $252 million operational referendum successfully sought by Milwaukee Public Schools in 2024. GMC expressed concerns at the time over transparency and the “failure to clearly articulate a measurable plan for how these additional financial resources will improve student outcomes.”
The Republican field for governor is not as expansive with just two candidates: U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the frontrunner in the race, and Washington Co. Executive Josh Schoemann.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., center, joined by Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., speaks to reporters following a Senate Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 9, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate in long-anticipated votes failed to advance legislation Thursday that would have addressed the rising cost of health insurance, leaving lawmakers deadlocked on how to curb a surge in premiums expected next year.
Senators voted 51-48 on a Republican bill co-sponsored by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo that would have provided funding through Health Savings Accounts for some ACA marketplace enrollees during 2026 and 2027.
They then voted 51-48 on a measure from Democrats that would have extended enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace for three years. A group of Senate Democrats in November agreed to end a government shutdown of historic length in exchange for a commitment by Republicans to hold a vote on extending the enhanced subsidies.
Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted for the Democrats’ bill. Paul also voted against the GOP bill.
Neither bill received the 60 votes needed to advance under the Senate’s legislative filibuster rule.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., criticized the ACA marketplace and the subsidies for leading to large increases in the costs of health insurance.
“Under Democrats’ plan insurance premiums will continue to spiral, American taxpayers will find themselves on the hook for ever-increasing subsidy payments,” Thune said. “And don’t think that all those payments are going to go to vulnerable Americans.”
Thune argued Democrats’ bill was only an extension of the “status quo” of a “failed, flawed, fraud program that is increasing costs at three times the rate of inflation.
Thune said the Republican bill from Cassidy and Crapo would “help individuals to meet their out-of-pocket costs and for many individuals who don’t use their insurance or who barely use it, it would allow them to save for health care expenses down the road.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the three-year extension bill was the only option to avoid a spike in costs for people enrolled in ACA marketplace plans.
“By my last count, Republicans are now at nine different health care proposals and counting. And none of them give the American people the one thing they most want — a clean, simple extension of these health care tax credits,” Schumer said. “But our bill does extend these credits cleanly and simply and it’s time for Republicans to join us.”
Schumer referred to the Cassidy-Crapo proposals as “stingy” as well as “mean and cruel.”
“Under the Republican plan, the big idea is essentially to hand people about $80 a month and wish them good luck,” Schumer said. “And even to qualify for that check, listen to how bad this is, Americans would be forced onto bare-bones bronze plans with sky-high deductibles; $7,000 or $10,000 for an individual, tens of thousands for a couple.”
After the votes failed, Schumer outlined some of the guardrails Democrats would put in place regarding negotiations with GOP colleagues.
“They want to talk about health care in general and how to improve it — we’re always open to that, but we do not want what they want — favoring the insurance companies, favoring the drug companies, favoring the special interests and turning their back on the American people,” he said.
The Cassidy-Crapo bill would have the Department of Health and Human Services deposit money into Health Savings Accounts for people enrolled in bronze or catastrophic health insurance plans purchased on the ACA marketplace in 2026 or 2027, according to a summary of the bill.
Health Savings Accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts that consumers can use to pay for medical expenses that are not otherwise reimbursed. They are not health insurance products.
ACA marketplace enrollees who select a bronze or catastrophic plan and make up to 700% of the federal poverty level would receive $1,000 annually if they are between the ages of 18 and 49 and $1,500 per year if they are between the ages of 50 and 64.
That would set a threshold of $109,550 in annual income for one person, or $225,050 for a family of four, according to the 2025 federal poverty guidelines. The numbers are somewhat higher for residents of Alaska and Hawaii.
The funding could not go toward abortion access or gender transitions, according to the Republican bill summary.
Members of Congress have introduced several other health care proposals, including two bipartisan bills in the House that would extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits for at least another year with some modifications.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has been reluctant to bring either bipartisan bill up for a floor vote, though he may not have the option if a discharge petition filed earlier this week garners the 218 signatures needed.
Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick wrote in a statement the legislation represents a “solution that can actually pass—not a political messaging exercise.”
“This bill delivers the urgent help families need now, while giving Congress the runway to keep improving our healthcare system for the long term,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “Responsible governance means securing 80 percent of what families need today, rather than risking 100 percent of nothing tomorrow.”
But Johnson said Wednesday that he will put a package of bills on the House floor next week that he believes “will actually reduce premiums for 100% of Americans who are on health insurance.” Details of those bills have not been disclosed.
Thune told reporters that if “somebody is successful in getting a discharge petition and a bill out of the House, obviously we’ll take a look at it. But at the moment, you know, we’re focused on the action here in the Senate, which is the side-by-side vote we’re going to have later today.”
Alaska’s Murkowski said lawmakers can find a compromise on health care by next week “if we believe it is possible.”
The issue of affordability and rising health care costs is likely to be central to the November midterm elections, where Democrats hope to flip the House from red to blue and gain additional seats in the Senate.
The Democratic National Committee isn’t waiting to begin those campaigns, placing digital ads in the hometown newspapers of several Republicans up for reelection next year, including Maine’s Collins and Ohio’s Jon Husted.
“Today’s Senate vote to extend the ACA tax credits could be the difference between life and death for many Americans,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a press release. “Over 20 million Americans will see their health care premiums skyrocket next year if Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Jon Husted, and Dan Sullivan do not stand with working families and vote to extend these lifesaving credits.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blasted Senate Democrats’ proposal during Thursday’s press briefing, calling it a “political show vote” meant to provide cover for Democrats, whom she blamed for creating the problem.
Trump and Republicans would “unveil creative ideas and solutions to the health care crisis that was created by Democrats,” she said. “Chuck Schumer is not sincerely interested in lowering health care costs for the American people. He’s putting this vote on the floor knowing that it will fail so he can have another talking point that he can throw around without any real plan or action.”
Shauneen Miranda and Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.
Login