One thing that you did not mention: True that it requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but if Democrats DO filibuster, that means they are shutting down the government. That is a major part of why the NDAA bill that banned trans youth care under Tricare passed last year.
The House and Senate versions will have to be agreed on by both sides. The difficulty is if the Senate A) takes up the House version or B) passes the provisions in its conference committee, then a Dem filibuster = a government shutdown.
This happened last year and Dems blinked on the NDAA.
That’s absolutely true. Democrats did capitulate on that and I don’t think it’s impossible for this to happen. I do think that because of the attacks against discrimination protections, them being added in by the House won’t be agreed on by the Senate so easily.
So if the House adds both, the Senate may reject them. However, if the House only adds the Medicaid cuts, I can definitely see that squaking by. We need to hope that any anti-LGBTQ+ amendments proposed by House Republicans don’t pass, but the odds of that are fairly minimal.
I will also add that Democrats passed the NDAA because stalling that would allow Trump to demand worse cuts, and I imagine Democrats also wanted to exercise what little control over the national budget they had left before the congressional term ended a few weeks later (whereas not agreeing would hand it to Republicans, which were going to be the majority anyways).
At this point though, a shutdown of the HHS wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world and I hope Democrats can realise that. Until then, we’ll just have to watch anxiously.
That’s a clear-eyed read of the terrain. What you’re naming isn’t indecision so much as constraint — Democrats operating inside a shrinking window of leverage, trying to prevent worse harm while knowing the floor keeps dropping.
You’re right that bundling Medicaid cuts with anti-LGBTQ+ riders is the real danger zone. Once those issues are tied together, the vote stops being about budgets and becomes a test of whose lives are considered expendable. The Senate friction you mention is exactly where that calculus shows up.
The NDAA point is especially important. People forget that refusing to pass it wouldn’t have stopped militarization or cuts — it would have shifted control entirely to a side openly eager to escalate both. Sometimes what looks like capitulation is actually damage containment under asymmetric power.
And you’re also right that a shutdown isn’t automatically the apocalypse it’s framed as. In some moments, disruption exposes what “normal operations” are already doing quietly. Watching anxiously makes sense — but so does refusing the idea that stability, at any cost, is always the moral choice.
Yay, certainly helpful - the info will help me create talking points to build allies here in L.A.! Not sure how to do all of this but I'm trying to help in any way possible 💅🏳️⚧️
One thing that you did not mention: True that it requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but if Democrats DO filibuster, that means they are shutting down the government. That is a major part of why the NDAA bill that banned trans youth care under Tricare passed last year.
The House and Senate versions will have to be agreed on by both sides. The difficulty is if the Senate A) takes up the House version or B) passes the provisions in its conference committee, then a Dem filibuster = a government shutdown.
This happened last year and Dems blinked on the NDAA.
That’s absolutely true. Democrats did capitulate on that and I don’t think it’s impossible for this to happen. I do think that because of the attacks against discrimination protections, them being added in by the House won’t be agreed on by the Senate so easily.
So if the House adds both, the Senate may reject them. However, if the House only adds the Medicaid cuts, I can definitely see that squaking by. We need to hope that any anti-LGBTQ+ amendments proposed by House Republicans don’t pass, but the odds of that are fairly minimal.
I will also add that Democrats passed the NDAA because stalling that would allow Trump to demand worse cuts, and I imagine Democrats also wanted to exercise what little control over the national budget they had left before the congressional term ended a few weeks later (whereas not agreeing would hand it to Republicans, which were going to be the majority anyways).
At this point though, a shutdown of the HHS wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world and I hope Democrats can realise that. Until then, we’ll just have to watch anxiously.
I'm definitely on team shut it down, for what it's worth.
That’s a clear-eyed read of the terrain. What you’re naming isn’t indecision so much as constraint — Democrats operating inside a shrinking window of leverage, trying to prevent worse harm while knowing the floor keeps dropping.
You’re right that bundling Medicaid cuts with anti-LGBTQ+ riders is the real danger zone. Once those issues are tied together, the vote stops being about budgets and becomes a test of whose lives are considered expendable. The Senate friction you mention is exactly where that calculus shows up.
The NDAA point is especially important. People forget that refusing to pass it wouldn’t have stopped militarization or cuts — it would have shifted control entirely to a side openly eager to escalate both. Sometimes what looks like capitulation is actually damage containment under asymmetric power.
And you’re also right that a shutdown isn’t automatically the apocalypse it’s framed as. In some moments, disruption exposes what “normal operations” are already doing quietly. Watching anxiously makes sense — but so does refusing the idea that stability, at any cost, is always the moral choice.
Well written and informational - thank you. I appreciate your work!
Thank you! I’m glad you’ve found it helpful and informative, that’s what I strive for <3
Yay, certainly helpful - the info will help me create talking points to build allies here in L.A.! Not sure how to do all of this but I'm trying to help in any way possible 💅🏳️⚧️
Very well said.