While the bill, which includes major cuts in , must now go back to the House of Representatives for another vote, passing the upper house is highly significant. Trump lost the support of just three , and with the help of a tie-breaking vote from Vice-President J.D. Vance managed to forward.
Democrats, the minority in both the House and Senate, have been unable to do anything but sit by and watch as Trump claims victory after victory. These include progress in his attempt to end , the claimed destruction of significant Iranian nuclear sites (yet to be independently verified) and the convincing of Nato member states to increase defence spending to 5% of their GDP. Trump may even be to a peace deal between Israel and Hamas.
And now the Democrats have failed in their desperate attempts to stop this bill. In the Senate, it was felt that there could be enough concerned about cuts to Medicaid (the US system that provides essential healthcare to those on low incomes), the closure or reduction of services at rural hospitals, and the increase in national debt to potentially hinder the bill’s progress. However, Democrats were unable to do anything apart from delaying the voting process, and the bill is progressing with some changes but not enough to be severely weakened.
It had seemed likely that the Democrats could work with the Maga-focused Freedom Caucus group of representatives, whose members include Marjorie Taylor Greene, in the early stages in the House to stop its initial passage. But Speaker Mike Johnson managed to calm most of their fears about the rise in the deficit to get the bill the House.
The lack of effective opposition from the Democrats reflects their congressional standing. The Republicans control the Senate 53-47, and they also have a majority of 220-212 in the House, with three vacancies.
While Democrat numbers in Congress is the primary issue in opposing this bill, their future congressional power will rely on strong leadership within the party and, more importantly, a clear set of policies with appeal that can attract more support at the ballot boxes. Failure to address this will probably allow Republicans to dominate Congress and shape American domestic and foreign policy any way they wish for longer.
What could Democrats do differently?
While Democrat Hakeem Jeffries has been a minority leader in the House, he has attempted to operate as an obstacle to Republican policies with little success, rather than reaching across the political divide to create a consensus with dissenting Republicans.
Outside of Congress, California governor Gavin Newsom, widely touted as a potential candidate for the next presidential election, has offered some resistance to the Trump administration, particularly over Trump’s assumption of national command over the state-controlled to deal with in California against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. However, Newsom’s reputation is still relatively regional, although it is on the rise.
There will be jostling over the next couple of years for the Democratic presidential nomination, and this will have an impact on the platform that the party runs on. Party members and those voting for the next presidential nominee will need to decide whether to continue with the mainly centrist position that the party has adopted since the 1990s or adopt something more left-wing.
A more radical candidate, such as New York representative , might offer a substantially different proposal that could seem attractive to Democratic voters and those Trump supporters who may feel dissatisfied with the current Republican administration.
However, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, recently selected as the Democratic nominee for the New York mayoral election, has already been by some in the Republican party.
Concerns about such a supposedly “radical” candidate may concern many voters in red states in middle America. However, getting elected is one thing but implementing progressive, left-leaning policies is another thing entirely. They also need to deliver solutions to , such as crime, at all levels, to show their abilities to solve problems.
It is not just the policies that matter for the Democrats, but who they want to represent. Last year’s election suggested that the Democrats had been as the representatives of the working class. Some significant labour unions, a foundation of Democratic support for the majority of the 20th century, failed to Kamala Harris.
Ѳ岹Ծ’s in New York stemmed from the mobilisation of a that used social media effectively. It targeted young working-class voters disenchanted with the Democratic party. He also that had seen an increase in Republican voters in the 2024 election.
All this may offer to the Democrats. They need to reassess their policies, their image and their tactics, and show Americans that they can solve the problems that the public sees as , including the high cost of living. While they can expect to gain seats in the House in next year’s midterms, they need to look for a leader and policies that will capture the public’s hearts.
, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security,
This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .