Budget negotiations:  funding health insurance, or protecting democracy, science, and universities?

Congress needs to pass a funding bill by the end of September to avoid a government shut down.  In theory, the Democrats should have some leverage in these negotiations due to the need for 60 votes in the Senate.  Unfortunately, as Jonathan Bernstein details here, the Democrats have few good options negotiating with Republicans and Trump.  Bernstein:

More important, however, is that Donald Trump and his administration have bragged repeatedly that they won’t abide by any deal that they make with Democrats. Trump may push new “rescission” bills to cancel any spending Democrats win in negotiations – and those only require a simple majority in the Senate. At least that’s perfectly legal. The administration also claims the (bogus) right to “impound” funds – that is, to refuse to spend money despite laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Impoundment is illegal and unconstitutional…but we don’t know whether the Supreme Court will stop it, or whether Trump would comply.

Option 1:  compromise with moderate Republicans on ACA subsidies

So what can the Democrats do?  One possibility is to look for spending opportunities that have some Republican support.  Affordable Care Act premium subsidies expire at the end of this year, and millions of people will soon get notified that their health insurance premiums are rising substantially next year.  Some Republicans are worried about this.  Trump’s pollster has warned Republicans that they will pay a price in the mid-terms if the subsidies are not extended.  It seems plausible that if Democrats agree to extend the subsidies at their current levels, Trump would spend the funds and Republicans would not have the votes to pass a recission.

Still, this seems like a bad move for Democrats.  They desperately need to win the House in the 2026 mid-terms, but their prospects for doing so are uncertain.  This uncertainty is partly due to gerrymandering, partly due to other factors that will affect support for Trump and the Republicans, especially economic policy choices and the state of the economy, and partly due to Trump’s efforts to ratfuck the coming election.  The Republicans were smart about delaying most spending cuts in the “beautiful bill” until after the mid-terms, which means that low-information voters may not realize what the Republicans have done until it is too late to punish them at the polls.  Democrats understandably want to protect health care coverage for low-income people, but if they never let Republicans hurt the vulnerable then many voters – including voters who rely on public insurance – will never understand what is at stake in elections.

Option 2:  protect elections and the rule of law

So what other options do Democrats have?  One option is to insist on reforms that are not strictly focused on funding levels, such as limits on the power of the President to deploy federal troops or the National Guard for domestic purposes.  Congress could also insist that ICE officers stay at least (say) half a mile from polling places and make it illegal for ICE to stop, question, or arrest anyone within a week of election day without specific evidence that they have committed a felony (mere suspicion won’t cut the legal mustard).  ICE officers could also be prohibited from covering up their faces within a week of election day.  Since these activities all involve the expenditure of federal funds, they may be acceptable under established rules for germaneness (I am not at all versed in these rules, but, i.e., Congress declaring that it does not want to spend money on federal troops in Los Angeles or Chicago seems appropriate enough in a funding bill).  In any event, in the Trump era what matters is leverage, not norms.  Democrats should push hard to rein in Trump’s dangerous executive powers, especially around law enforcement and elections.

Option 3:  fund science and universities without executive branch discretion

Another option would be to try to protect our scientific research community and universities from Trump’s attacks.  In my view this can only be done by funneling research money directly to universities, by-passing all executive branch input and discretion.  For example, Congress could calculate the federal funds given to each university in 2024, increase this amount by 10%, and stipulate that each university be given this amount immediately, with no strings attached, except that the funds be used for research and training, and that ordinary reporting requirements would remain in effect.  I would go further and give universities funds for the next four years, paid up front. 

It would be trickier to pull off, but Congress could also try to strip the executive branch of its power to penalize universities for various infractions, limit the penalties that can be imposed, and make clear that no action can be taken against a university until a final legal determination of guilt has been reached (universities would be entitled to immediate injunctive relief in all cases of executive action against them).  This could be coupled with procedural rules that make litigation very time consuming, so that any university targeted by the Trump administration could successfully employ a rope-a-dope legal strategy to thwart Trump.

The Trump administration has proposed steep funding cuts for science in fiscal year 2026.  Many Democrats will be tempted to try to maintain traditional funding levels for NIH/NSF/etc., an idea which has some support among congressional Republicans.  Although this seems like an attractive option, it is unlikely to be effective, because the Trump administration would inevitably retain too much discretion to withhold funds and to freeze out disfavored universities.  If, for example, Trump’s appointees decide they want to defund all vaccine-related research, funneling money for vaccines through NIH/NSF will not stop them.  Money needs to be sent from Congress directly to researchers.

To be continued . . .