Scoop: Democrats rebrand the safety net as “basic needs”
Plus: The Supreme Court takes up a challenge to birthright citizenship, Cruz’s MAGA Accounts get a closer look, and House Democrats rally behind McIver and Watson Coleman after ICE protest fallout.
👋🏾 Hi, hey, hello! I just returned from a Q&A with several other Black congressional reporters, where top members of the Congressional Black Caucus—including Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), First Vice Chair Troy Carter (D-La.), Whip Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), and Reps. Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas)—expressed no regrets about supporting former President Joe Biden after the shaky debate performance last summer that led him to ultimately not seek reelection.
Their remarks come as Original Sin, a new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, alleges Biden’s inner circle concealed signs of cognitive decline during the administration and 2024 campaign. I’ll have more from the Q&A on this and other topics in an upcoming post, so stay tuned. In the meantime, keep reading for what else is worth knowing from the Hill this week—straight from my notebook to your inbox.
○ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
First in Congress Nerd: House Democrats are ditching “safety net” in favor of “basic needs” and “economic assistance,” according to internal guidance reviewed by Once Upon a Hill—a linguistic pivot aimed at persuadable voters who may resent language that implies dependency.
House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) used the phrase “basic needs” twice during his weekly press conference on Wednesday morning. Hours later, the official House Democrats’ X account posted a video of House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) warning that cuts to basic needs programs would make life harder for kids, farmers, seniors and veterans. And the day after the guidance was issued, Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.) appeared in a video explaining how Republican budget cuts to “basic needs” programs like Medicaid and SNAP hurt everyday Americans.
Two sources familiar with the guidance downplayed the shift. One said House Democrats are simply focused on highlighting the stakes of the GOP’s proposed cuts to Medicaid and SNAP in the reconciliation bills that cleared the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees this week (more on that below). Another said there hasn’t been a top-down push from leadership to adopt specific terminology, but members recognize the importance of speaking plainly to voters disillusioned by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans’ economic agenda. A third source said “basic needs” was seen as a clearer, more relatable alternative to policy jargon.
Still, the language change reflects House Democrats’ evolving posture in the wake of the 2024 election, as they recalibrate their message to connect with voters who feel left behind—and aim to neutralize GOP attacks without sacrificing support for widely popular programs.
A spokesperson for the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee did not provide comment by publication time.
● ○ ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
CBC unites in support of McIver and Watson Coleman after ICE protest fallout
First in Congress Nerd: The Congressional Black Caucus huddled during their weekly closed-door meeting on Wednesday to discuss the political and legal fallout from a protest outside a Newark ICE detention center that resulted in the arrest of Mayor Ras Baraka—and now threatens the committee assignments of three New Jersey Democrats.
Reps. LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman were present during the demonstration at the Delaney Hall facility, which drew national attention and has sparked backlash from House Republicans. Rep. Rob Menendez was also on site.
Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-Ga.) introduced a resolution to strip all three of their committee assignments, calling the protest “an illegal raid of a federal facility.” Under the resolution, Watson Coleman would lose her seat on Appropriations, McIver would be removed from Homeland Security and Small Business, and Menendez would be booted from Energy and Commerce.
The Black Caucus issued a statement defending their members’ participation as part of their oversight responsibilities and condemning what it called “dangerous attempts to criminalize dissent.” A source familiar with internal discussions told Once Upon a Hill the caucus has been coordinating messaging and preparing to defend the members publicly and procedurally.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Wednesday morning that “conversations” are underway within the GOP conference about “appropriate action.”
“We had them this morning in the House Republican Conference meeting,” Johnson said, “about appropriate action that we need to take here to address the wildly inappropriate behavior—and we will do that.”
Pressed by reporters this week about whether Democrats would retaliate if Republicans moved forward with sanctions or arrests, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) didn’t flinch.
“They’ll find out. It’s a red line. It’s very clear,” he said. “They know better than to go down that road, and it’s been made loudly and abundantly clear to the Trump administration: We’re not going to be intimidated by their tactics to try to force principled opposition from not standing up to their extremism. And so there are clear lines that they just dare not cross.”
● ● ○ ● ● ● ● ● ●
House GOP advances Trump agenda but faces challenges ahead
House Republicans took three key steps this week toward enacting President Trump’s sweeping tax, energy, and immigration agenda—but major policy fights and procedural hurdles still stand in the way.
Taxes: House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee approved their portion of the reconciliation bill after a marathon 17-hour markup, advancing a package that would make key provisions of the 2017 Trump tax law permanent, expand certain tax breaks and impose major spending cuts.
The bill extends lower individual and business tax rates, raises the cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction to $30,000 for some filers, and introduces new deductions for seniors, tips, and overtime pay, though many of the new breaks are temporary and expire in 2028. It also repeals clean energy incentives enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act and reduces funding for Medicaid by over $600 billion.
Democrats criticized the plan for blowing a hole in the deficit, pointing to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that show up to $5.3 trillion in lost revenue over a decade if all provisions are extended. The final vote was 26–19, along party lines. Still, SALT remains a sticking point for blue-state Republicans, some of whom have signaled they may oppose the bill on the floor if the cap isn’t raised further, clashing with fiscal conservatives who view the deduction as a bailout for high-tax, Democratic-led states.
Medicaid: The Energy and Commerce Committee’s slice of the reconciliation bill proposes $880 billion in cuts, most of them from sweeping changes to Medicaid. Republicans advanced new work requirements, stricter eligibility checks, and a ban on provider taxes that many states use to finance their Medicaid programs.
The bill would also block federal funding for gender-affirming care for minors and restrict payments to providers that offer abortion services. On energy and environmental policy, it rescinds billions in unspent Inflation Reduction Act funds, repeals EPA climate programs, and fast-tracks fossil fuel permitting. It also requires the auction of at least 600 MHz of federal spectrum by 2034. The committee approved the bill 30–24 after a 26-hour session marked by public protests and Democratic warnings that the Medicaid changes could result in millions losing coverage.
SNAP: The House Agriculture Committee advanced its portion of the reconciliation package on a 29–25 party-line vote, proposing major changes to farm programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The bill would cut SNAP by $290 billion over 10 years—$60 billion more than the committee’s reconciliation target—by imposing tougher work requirements and shifting more of the program’s costs to states.
At the same time, Republicans propose raising payment limits for commodity programs, expanding base acres in the farm safety net, increasing crop insurance subsidies, and offering new support for beginning farmers. The plan also reallocates Inflation Reduction Act conservation dollars to boost baseline farm bill funding beyond 2031.
Democrats blasted the proposal as a giveaway to large producers at the expense of working families, while Republicans framed it as an effort to restore fiscal discipline and program integrity.
What’s next: The legislation now advances to the House Budget Committee on Friday morning, where it will be bundled with other committees’ contributions. Given the Senate’s differing stance—especially on Medicaid and energy policy—the bill is likely to undergo significant revisions before final passage.
● ● ● ○ ● ● ● ● ●
Lieu: GOP’s AI moratorium is “preemption with nothing”
House Energy and Commerce Republicans also tucked in a 10-year federal moratorium on most state and local artificial intelligence regulation.
While the provision is unlikely to survive the Senate, it offers a revealing glimpse into the GOP’s hands-off approach to a rapidly evolving technology.
House Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who served as co-chair of the House Artificial Intelligence Task Force during the last Congress, told me this week that he doesn’t mind if federal law preempts state laws, but any preemption should be tied to actual nationwide guardrails.
“I think if we’re going to preempt, we should say we want to do X, Y or Z at the federal level and that’s why your states cannot regulate this area.”
Lieu also criticized the length of the moratorium.
“If what Congress wants to say is, ‘Look, give us a year to figure this out, that might make more sense,” he said. “But there is no reason to have a 10-year preemption with nothing in its place.”
A spokesperson for House Energy Commerce Republicans could not be reached by publication time.
The moratorium would effectively freeze subnational attempts to regulate AI, including the establishment of guardrails for bias, transparency, consumer protections, and data privacy. States like California, New York, and Illinois have either proposed or enacted legislation regarding the use of AI in hiring, healthcare, education and law enforcement. This bill would nullify those efforts, despite the federal government's lack of a comprehensive framework for regulating AI.
● ● ● ● ○ ● ● ● ●
The Cruz-backed MAGA Accounts, explained
The House Ways and Means portion of the GOP megabill includes a provision to establish tax-exempt savings accounts for newborns.
The pilot program, known as MAGA Accounts —short for Money Account for Growth and Advancement—is championed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) as a way to promote financial literacy and savings. Babies born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, who are U.S. citizens at birth and possess a Social Security number would be eligible for a one-time federal contribution deposited into an account designed to encourage long-term savings and allow funds to grow through compound interest.
While the initiative bears some resemblance to the “baby bonds” proposals from Democrats like Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), which aim to reduce the racial wealth gap, the MAGA Accounts program is framed around universal savings rather than targeted equity measures.
Booker, the original sponsor of the baby bonds proposal, told me that the Cruz-backed MAGA Accounts pilot reflects bipartisan interest in long-term savings for children, but falls short of what’s needed to close the wealth gap.
“Obviously, it’s reflective of what we’ve been fighting for five, 10 years now. But it obviously does not go to the degree that we want to go that we think is empowering, which deals with really leveling the economic playing field,” he said. “It’s a step in the right direction. I want to look at more of the details and see what more of the vision is.”
Pressley, who co-authored the baby bonds bill with Booker, was more direct, framing the MAGA Accounts proposal as a political stunt rather than a serious investment.
“I’m glad they’re coming around to the idea of baby bonds,” she said. “That being said, their approach is not a progressive investment. I think it’s a stunt—a distraction-deflection, because if they were really serious about economic security, they wouldn’t be undercutting working families in every way with this reconciliation bill.”
Pressley also criticized the GOP plan for putting the burden of ongoing contributions on families and failing to ensure the funds are used for wealth-building.
“This is a one-time investment that then families have to pay into. And of course, the lowest-income families would be at the greatest disadvantage in paying into that,” she said. “I think this approach could contribute to the wealth gap.”
A spokesperson for Cruz did not respond to a request for comment.
The MAGA Accounts provision is estimated to cost $12.9 billion over a 10-year period, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
● ● ● ● ● ○ ● ● ●
High court takes up challenge to birthright citizenship rollback
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning in a case challenging an executive order President Trump signed days after returning to office that seeks to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.
The justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s claim that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not apply to children born on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents. Several conservative justices questioned the historical and textual justification for narrowing the clause’s scope, while the liberal justices emphasized the Reconstruction-era intent to guarantee citizenship regardless of parentage.
Hakeem Jeffries framed the case as a constitutional stress test for a country still reckoning with the legacy of slavery and the limits of executive power.
“Birthright citizenship is part of the fabric of the country. Donald Trump does not have the ability to waive a malignant MAGA wand and wipe that away,” Jeffries told me. “And I think it's pretty clear, based on the Supreme Court arguments today, that a majority of the court will come to that conclusion that Donald Trump's executive order related to birthright citizenship was both unlawful and unconstitutional, and another example of his abuse of power.”
Ahead of the oral arguments, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) introduced the Born in the USA Act, which would bar federal funds from being used to enforce Trump’s executive order. The bill is co-led by Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Rep. Derek Tran (D-Calif.), with Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) introducing the Senate companion.
“I’m concerned by how many people assume the Supreme Court will side with Trump on this,” Ramirez told me. “But the idea that an injunction could create a patchwork where Texas doesn’t recognize birthright citizenship but Illinois does? That would be chaos. That’s why I filed this bill—to affirm clearly that this order is unconstitutional. The Court should reject it, but if there’s any move toward a state-by-state outcome, Congress has to act.”
Though the Court has never squarely ruled on this question, multiple justices acknowledged that a definitive ruling may be overdue, even if this case is far from ideal. The sense in the courtroom was that the justices understood the stakes and may be hesitant to hand the Trump administration the sweeping legal victory it’s seeking. Still, some observers cautioned that the Court might seek a narrower off-ramp rather than deliver a forceful rebuke.
Want to reach the people shaping policy and politics? Once Upon a Hill puts your message in front of the Capitol’s most plugged-in audience—where influence meets insight. Let’s talk about how a sponsorship can align with your goals. Email michael@onceuponahill.com to learn more.
● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ● ●
Republicans pitch school choice as Democrats warn of cuts
The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education held a hearing Wednesday on the role of charter schools in “closing gaps and opening doors,” even as House Republicans advance a budget that slashes federal education funding and expands private-sector alternatives.
The hearing took place on the same day that House Republican Leadership Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) promoted school choice legislation at a press conference. She highlighted the High-Quality Charter Schools Act and the Educational Choice for Children Act, which would establish a 75 percent federal tax credit for donations to nonprofit schools, as tools to empower families, elevate student achievement, and promote school choice. Stefanik blamed New York Democrats for what she called “an educational crisis” in her home state.
Meanwhile, the committee’s portion of the GOP reconciliation bill—titled the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan—eliminates interest subsidies for low- and middle-income borrowers, reduces federal student aid, limits access to Public Service Loan Forgiveness and could push more borrowers into the private loan market.
President Trump’s FY2026 budget would also cut 15 percent from the Education Department, resulting in a $4.5 billion reduction to K–12 programs and significant cuts to TRIO, GEAR UP, adult education, English-language services, and federal student aid. The budget allocates $60 million for new charter schools, representing an 8.3 percent increase.
House Democrats argue the GOP agenda reflects a broader effort to undermine public education. “The Trump budget is dead on arrival,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told me last week. “Their attack on public schools is just one more reason to oppose it—and House Democrats absolutely will.”
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ●
Jeffries slams GOP for blocking Jan. 6 plaque honoring officers
During National Police Week, Hakeem Jeffries called out Republicans for refusing to allow a unanimous consent vote on installing a plaque honoring the law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol during the January 6 attack.
“There was a law that was passed in 2022 requiring a plaque to be placed in a position of honor on the western front of the Capitol by March 15 of 2023,” Jeffries told reporters this afternoon. “The reason why the law hasn’t been complied with is because Republicans—directed by their puppet master Donald Trump—have been told to try to erase January 6, as if it never happened.”
Jeffries noted the plaque is complete but has not been installed because the Architect of the Capitol hasn’t received direction from Speaker Johnson.
“This is where there’s a clear difference between Democrats and Republicans,” he added. “We’re going to respect and honor those officers. Republicans would rather pardon violent felons who attacked them.”
The House passed three law-enforcement-related bills this week. The Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act would require federal agencies to collect and report better data on officer suicides, injuries, and deaths in the line of duty. The Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act would allow retiring federal officers to buy back their service weapons. And the LEOSA Reform Act would expand concealed carry rights for qualified retired and off-duty officers under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.
National Police Week, first established in 1962, honors the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers nationwide.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○
Thanedar impeachment push fizzles as leadership steers clear of a floor vote
Rep. Shri Thanedar’s (D-Mich.) controversial impeachment resolution against President Trump didn’t go anywhere this week—and that was by design.
Thanedar missed the procedural window to force a House vote, after Democratic leaders privately urged him to skip the vote series altogether. The strategy worked. No vote was held, and the resolution quietly expired before most members had to go on the record.
“The decision by Congressman Thanedar not to proceed with his resolution speaks for itself,” Jeffries told reporters this afternoon.
Thanedar had introduced seven articles of impeachment accusing Trump of obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and bribery. But Democratic leadership and rank-and-file members were quick to distance themselves from the effort, describing it as premature and counterproductive. Multiple Democrats told me the move was a “distraction,” “performative,” and “selfish”—and risked undercutting the party’s coordinated effort to hold Republicans accountable for their own agenda.
Thanedar, who is facing a primary challenge in his Detroit-based district, has indicated he may revise the articles and try again later.