One quick announcement: Do you live in the San Diego or Boston areas? Well, then I’m coming to your city soon and I’d love to see you if you’re able to join!
I’ll be speaking at the San Diego Jewish Community Center tomorrow night at 7pm PT, discussing political polarization, the shifting media climate, and more. And I’ll be speaking at the Harvard Political Analytics Conference on Friday, September 26, as part of a panel of young political analysts. Here are the links for tickets for the San Diego JCC and Harvard events. Would love to meet members of the WUTP community in-person if you can make it!
OK, on to this morning’s newsletter…
Actually, on that note, I was just putting together my presentation for San Diego, where — among other things — I’ll be talking a bit about my work to shine a spotlight on bipartisan legislation working its way through Congress.
Which made me think: It’s been a little bit since I gave everyone an update on bipartisan legislation working its way through Congress. In my defense, there’s been a lot of news coming from the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue recently, and Congress hasn’t exactly been pushing itself to the forefront of the political arena.
But I never like too much time to go on without looking at across-the-aisle efforts to advance consequential policy proposals. So, this morning, I want to take a moment to look at four legislative efforts with significant bipartisan support, all of which have at least a fair shot at becoming law in the near future:
#1: Russia sanctions. The Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025 is currently the most popular bill in the Senate by number of formal backers: 85 senators have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors, the type of broad-based support usually only reserved for things like resolutions declaring a National Small Business Week. Of the bill’s supporters, 43 are members of the Democratic caucus and 42 are Republicans — an extraordinary across-the-aisle coalition for an issue this contentious.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the bill’s sponsor, has described the measure as greenlighting “bone crushing new sanctions” against Russia, and he isn’t wrong. The package would authorize the president to impose 500% tariffs on Russia, and on any country that buys Russian energy, until he determines that Russia is engaged in “good faith negotiations for a lasting peace with Ukraine,” in a bid to choke off foreign dollars that ultimately subsidize Moscow’s war effort.
As written, the bill would target China, Russia’s largest oil buyer — but also effectively freeze U.S. trade with allies like India, Japan, South Korea, and the European Union. Graham has indicated plans to amend the bill to exempt countries if they are sending aid to Ukraine, which would carve out the EU.
I first wrote about this bill back in May, but the measure has continued to wait in limbo despite the fact that it has well more than filibuster-proof support, largely because Republican leaders were waiting to see if President Trump would bless the effort.
But signs have been growing in recent days that GOP senators are done waiting. With diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine floundering, Republicans have begun pushing for the bill to receive a vote; even Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) acknowledged “intensified interest” in moving forward with the bill. “There’s a lot of, I would say, discussion around, ‘we need to move,’” Thune told reporters last week. (Trump, meanwhile, wrote on Truth Social this weekend that he is “ready to do major Sanctions on Russia” once “all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA,” sort of embracing the underlying message of the bill without endorsing it directly.)
At the same time, there’s also been movement on two separate, related measures. Last night, Thune began the process of bringing to the floor a bipartisan bill that would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. And over in the House, a discharge petition for a Ukraine aid bill received its first Republican signatory, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), last week. The petition now has 213 signatures, five short of the 218 it needs to force the measure onto the House floor.
#2: Obamacare subsidies. The Affordable Care Act of 2010, better known as Obamacare, created tax credits to help subsidize the cost of monthly health insurance premiums for coverage purchased through the Obamacare exchanges. In the original law, the benefit was available only to those whose incomes were between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. (Currently, for a single individual, that would be anyone whose income is between $15,650 and $62,200. For a family of four, that would be a household income between $32,150 and $128,600.)
But that created something known as the “subsidy cliff,” in which premiums would shoot up right after someone exceeded the 400%-of-the-poverty-line threshold. To address that, in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Democrats temporarily removed the upper income cap, changing it so that anyone was eligible for the tax credit as long as their income was above the federal poverty level and their premium cost them at least 8.5% of their household income. The tax credit itself was also made larger.
In the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Democrats then extended those changes through December 31, 2025. Now, with the expanded subsidies about to expire — which would send premium costs skyrocketing for millions of Americans — Republicans are considering what was once unthinkable: extending a benefit connected to Obamacare, a law the party has long reviled.
The main proposal here is the Bipartisan Premium Tax Credit Extension Act, a bill introduced earlier this month to extend the enhanced tax credit through the end of 2026. The measure has attracted 19 supporters — 12 Republicans, seven Democrats — including some of the most vulnerable lawmakers in either party.
Politico reported yesterday that there are also early-stage bipartisan conversations starting in the Senate about extending the enhanced tax credit as well. “I think the ACA subsidies will be an issue that will be addressed,” Thune said this morning, his most definitive comment to date suggesting that congressional Republicans will take up the issue.
#3: Member security. Charlie Kirk’s assassination has, once again, ignited fears on Capitol Hill about the safety of members of Congress, only a small number of whom receive full-time security details from the Capitol Police.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told lawmakers this morning that a forthcoming proposed continuing resolution (CR) to extend government funding through November will include a $32 million boost to a program allowing members to request security details through partnerships between Capitol Police and local law enforcement while they’re in their districts.
Although Russia sanctions and Obamacare subsidies have also been discussed as potential add-ons for a CR, this is the only proposal on this list that is expected to be included in the government funding bill. Democrats are not expected to support the measure, which is why I’m calling this a “bipartisan effort,” not a “bipartisan bill”: even if the CR itself doesn’t end up receiving Democratic votes, the underlying idea of boosting protection for lawmakers is one with bipartisan support. Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) have been coordinating on the issue, including about the specifics of this most recent proposal after Kirk’s killing.
(Side note: Any of these issues could end up becoming sweeteners to induce Democrats to support a CR as part of an eventual deal to avert, or end, a government shutdown. It would also be interesting to see Republicans place a bill on the floor to fund the government + sanction Russia + extend the Obamacare subsidies + protect lawmakers and dare Democrats to vote against it, although it’s unlikely that Johnson and Thune would have sufficient support within the GOP for such a gambit.)
#4: AUMFs. Last week, the House passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual bill setting Pentagon policy and funding priorities. The measure was approved, 231-196, with all but four Republicans in support and all but 17 Democrats in opposition.
Doesn’t exactly sound like a bipartisan blowout, right? That’s true, although that’s mostly because the measure was loaded up with various culture war proposals that typically end up getting stripped out by the Senate, continuing a years-long pattern.
But I actually want to call attention to a specific part of the House-passed NDAA. First, some backstory: Congress hasn’t formally declared war since World War II. But not every military engagement since then was done without legislative backing. Instead, in the modern era, Congress will often greenlight combat missions through measures known as authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs).
The thing is, though, these AUMFs often remain on the books long after the conflicts in question are done, and presidents will then use them as legal justification for future missions not contemplated by the authors of the AUMF. I wrote a bit about this last week, in the context of President Trump striking a drug boat in the Caribbean.
For years, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have been trying to repeal some of the extant AUMFs, clawing back a bit of the war powers that Congress had delegated to the president. Last week, Democrats on the House Rules Committee moved to add an amendment to the NDAA repealing AUMFs from 1991 (for the Persian Gulf War) and 2002 (for the Iraq War). Against the wishes of Republican leadership, three GOP members of the Rules panel voted to add the amendment to the AUMF, which means the provision was included in the defense package that was passed by the House last week.
The package would not touch perhaps the most versatile of recent AUMFs, the one passed in 2001 ahead of the war in Afghanistan, which has since been used by recent presidents to justify counterterrorism operations in no less than 22 countries.
A measure to repeal the 2001 AUMF passed a House committee in 2018. A bill to repeal the 2002 AUMF passed the House in 2021. A bill to repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs passed the Senate in 2023. All three proposals received bipartisan support, but none made it to the finish line: it remains to be seen whether this year’s push will ultimately become law or join those earlier efforts in the legislative graveyard.
More news to know
Speaking on the podcast once hosted by Charlie Kirk, Vice President JD Vance said that the Trump administration would “go after” a network of liberal groups that he said “foments, facilitates and engages in violence.”
Tyler Robinson, the suspect accused of killing Kirk, is set to make his first court appearance today in Utah.
Israel has launched its ground offensive to occupy Gaza City.
As the Federal Reserve’s policy committee prepares to convene tomorrow, an appeals court said that Lisa Cook can remain on the Fed board temporarily, while the Senate rushed to confirm Trump nominee Stephen Miran to the body.
President Trump announced that the U.S. military had targeted another boat allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela.
I found your attacking Heather Cox Richardson inappropriate and unnecessary. Perhaps she jumped the gun as we still don't know much about Tyler Robinson. It frankly surprised me to see you attack her in this way.
I love this bipartisan stuff, thank you.