Conservatives are not at the center of the government shutdown that looks set to begin at midnight.
But they are poised to make it more difficult to end if it begins.
Democrats are demanding that Republicans address health care priorities as they reject the GOP-crafted, “clean” seven-week stopgap.
In particular, they want to extend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) enhanced subsidies that expire at the end of the year.
The clearest way out of the shutdown is a solid GOP vow to discuss extending the subsidies. Plenty of Democrats might agree to keep the government open temporarily if the GOP agrees to discuss the issue.
But Republican leaders, for now, are rejecting the idea of negotiating on anything as they aim to jam Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). They hope he will fold and extend funding without extracting any concessions, as he did in March.
If a shutdown does begin on Wednesday morning, however, pressure could quickly grow on Republican leaders to engage in talks over the ObamaCare tax credits.
If that happens, fiscal hawks and free-market conservatives both inside and outside Congress could make it very politically difficult for GOP leaders to negotiate on the tax credits — complicating the path out of the shutdown’s political thicket.
I broke the news last week that 35 conservative and free-market leaders signed a letter to President Trump telling him to let the tax credits expire — and to not extend them in wake of the Democrats’ shutdown demands. It argued the pandemic-era enhancements were “always supposed to be temporary,” that they raise premiums and that they are “bankrupting our country.”
Signatories include some heavyweights in the space, such as Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform; David McIntosh, president of Club For Growth; and Brent Gardner, chief government affairs officer at Americans for Prosperity. These are figures and organizations who have been key to boosting the GOP agenda.
Advancing American Freedom, the group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, added its voice to the chorus on Tuesday, circulating a memo warning against extending the tax credits. “The American People did not send Republicans to Washington to ‘save Obamacare’ by continuing to promulgate the Democrats’ failure that is the Affordable Care Act,” it says.
There is reason to think there could be room for negotiation on extending or reforming the credits.
Multiple Trump pollsters have warned in recent months that failing to preserve the tax credits — which could result in major cost increases for consumers — could threaten Republicans’ hopes of keeping the House majority.
John McLaughlin wrote in Townhall in August that failing to preserve the credits would “risk significant political consequences.” A July poll from Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward commissioned by Plymouth Union Public Advocacy, which supports extending the credits, found doing so could give Republicans in swing districts an edge.
Some Republicans in Congress are supportive of extending the tax credits, with Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) leading a bill to extend the subsidies for one year, until the end of 2026, to give lawmakers time to find a “reasonable approach.”
And there are signs Republican leaders could be willing to strike a deal.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures“ that he is “not in favor” of the tax credits, but he has not closed the door on negotiating over them at a later date. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he is “certainly open” to negotiating the tax credits separately from government funding.
But opposition to ObamaCare is ingrained in the Republican Party’s DNA.
And opposition to extending the tax credits in the House GOP, which I cover closely, goes way beyond the typical hard-line conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus who are typically the main drivers of pressure on GOP leaders.
Yes, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) is warning GOP leaders to not cut a deal to extend the tax credits: “Do. Not. Blink.” he posted over the weekend. But Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, also tells me he is opposed to extending the tax credits.
One GOP leadership source told me there is less concern than some might expect over the link between the subsidies and next year’s midterms.
If caving to vote for a clean funding stopgap puts Schumer at risk with the left wing of the Democratic Party, agreeing to any ACA tax credit extensions could put GOP leaders at risk with the right of their party.
The bottom line: Lawmakers are expecting a shutdown, and unless Democrats cave or Trump puts his thumb on the scale in favor of negotiating on some of Democrats’ asks, it’s hard to see a way out of it just yet.
Welcome to The Movement, a weekly newsletter looking at the influences and debates on the right in Washington. I’m Emily Brooks, House leadership reporter at The Hill.
Send me your predictions on how a shutdown ends: ebrooks@thehill.com.
Not already on the list? Subscribe here
OP-ED CALLING FOR VIOLENCE CAUSES STIR
The prevailing narrative on the right in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination is that it is the political left, not conservatives, who are more violent.
So it was bound to cause a stir when Daily Caller Editor-at-Large Geoffrey Ingersoll published an op-ed on Friday titled “Enough Is Enough … I Choose VIOLENCE!”
“Is this a call for violence? Yes. Explicitly it is,” Ingersoll said. “The law is not enough. Or, it’s non-existent. Somewhere deep down inside we’ve always known no one is coming to help us. We need to help ourselves.”
He specifically mentioned a case being dropped against a woman who punched an anti-abortion activist in the face — in an incident that was caught on camera. Fox News reported the case was dropped because Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office missed a key filing deadline.
Ingersoll argued that if the government won’t protect conservatives from violence, “we need to reinstitute the cost.”
“So some activist takes the sign next to your table at a public debate, like what happened here? She gets instantly clotheslined. I don’t care if police are present. Do it anyway. In fact, be wildly disproportionate,” he wrote. “A fat black lady assaults your on-camera talent? Book the kind of security that has no qualms hospitalizing her and people like her.”
“Force corrupt police to intervene. I want blood in the streets.”
The piece was quickly condemned, mostly by ideological adversaries of Ingersoll. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) told Ingersoll to “come at me”; former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) questioned Ingersoll’s physical prowess. The New York Times covered the op-ed.
An editor’s note added to the top of Ingersoll’s piece later clarified that The Daily Caller “does not condone violence in any form, especially political violence,” saying that Ingersoll was talking about “hypothetical instances of self-defense, not political violence or extrajudicial mob action.”
Ingersoll defended his piece in a follow-up op-ed, saying it was “predictably maligned as a generic call for violence,” and that he called for “vigorous self-defense.”
He also wrote about the behind-the-scenes grief the piece caused The Daily Caller brand, recalling a conversation with Daily Caller majority owner Neil Patel.
“I got your back, man,” Ingersoll recalled Patel saying, “but while I agree with the sentiment, you’re a good writer, and that was probably the most inartful way possible to put it.”
IDEOLOGICAL WARS AND CARLSON’S ‘HUMMUS’ COMMENT
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s tribute at Charlie Kirk’s memorial sparked accusations of antisemitism and may have inflamed an ideological war on the right.
Carlson at the memorial said he considered Kirk to be a “Christian evangelist,” and that the killing reminded him of the death of Jesus Christ, as told through the Bible. Carlson talked about people in power trying to stop Jesus from telling the truth, picturing “a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus” plotting how to do so, before someone suggests killing Jesus.
That not only prompted a round of condemnations from some on the right, but it may have served as a wake-up call to those opposed to Carlson and the kind of ideology he represents.
Mediaite editor Isaac Schorr put it this way: “Tucker Carlson’s Demonic Dogwhistle at Charlie Kirk’s Service Lit the Match on the Post-Trump GOP Civil War.” The piece earned praise from radio and Fox News host Mark Levin.
“Carlson’s Republican Party would be more bitter and less conservative than Reagan’s GOP, as well as more conspiratorial and vindictive than Trump’s,” Schorr wrote.
“In 2028, this party will no doubt be represented in the primary contest by Vice President JD Vance …. On the other side, there is tenuous, but potentially powerful coalition waiting to be formed. The Trump years fractured the Reaganite wing of the GOP, some of which claims Trump as the Gipper’s natural successor, and the rest of which views Trump as a violent departure from him.”
Are battle lines being drawn?
Getting back to Carlson’s actual comments: Alex Berenson, the former New York Times reporter whose COVID vaccine skepticism once got him frequent appearances on Carlson’s old prime-time show, texted Carlson about his comment and what he saw as an “increasingly dark turn in your rhetoric” — and he published Carlson’s response.
“I’m really sorry about all this,” Carlson responded. “All I can say is that it wasn’t my intention to say anything about Jews and certainly not to imply they killed Charlie, which I don’t think. I thought I was giving the most unifying, non controversial speech ever.”
Carlson’s lengthy message ended: “A lot of people online seem to think everything is about Jews, and as far as I’m concerned that’s the darkness we should be worried about. Hate and narcissism are twins.”
ON MY CALENDAR
THREE MORE THINGS
- Live Action, an anti-abortion group, almost had its annual awards gala over the weekend canceled because the Ritz-Carlton, Marina Del Rey was “refusing to allow our security on campus,” according to founder Lila Rose. In a statement, she said the hotel “tried to shut us down by blocking our security team and making last minute demands that would have endangered our guests.” Security has been a major issue on the right in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. The issue was later resolved, and Rose thanked those who reached out to help: “Putting pressure on people to do the right thing is important,” Rose said. A Ritz-Carlton spokesperson didn’t respond to my inquiry for more information.
- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took a swipe at Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in response to her post that she is “not suicidal” as she reiterated her support for a discharge petition to force a vote on an Epstein files disclosure bill. “Why do crazy people keep thinking ‘the Jews’ are trying to kill them?” Cruz posted. Greene amplified a post from Elijah Schaffer: “She never mentioned Jews, but you just told on yourself here.”
- Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the site soon after its 2001 founding and has been critical of it since, on Monday released “Nine Theses” on how to reform the site — pitching reforms like ending “decision-making by ‘consensus,’” reviving a neutrality policy, allowing the public to rate articles, and enabling competing articles.
WHAT I’M READING