🛡️ Not Only a Tax Bill That Harms Everyday Americans—It’s a Blueprint to Reshape American Democracy

A Bill That Cuts Health Care and Food Assistance—While Quietly Rewriting the Constitution’s Balance of Powers. Now Headed to the Senate.

Today’s News and Action | Curated by Engage for Democracy | Monday, May 26, 2025

🇺🇸 This Memorial Day, we honor those who gave their lives in service to our country—and to the ideals enshrined in our Constitution. One way we uphold their legacy is by remaining vigilant when foundational principles—like checks and balances, judicial independence, and public accountability—are at risk. This edition is offered in that spirit.

🗽 Editor’s Note

Why This Edition Matters More Than Ever

In the early hours of May 22, while most Americans were asleep, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1—the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill”—by a single vote (215–214).¹ Two Republicans voted no, a third voted “present,” and another missed the vote entirely.² With a razor-thin margin, House leadership rushed the 1,149-page bill through under extraordinary constraints: no floor amendments, only two hours of debate, and a Rules Committee “public hearing” held at 1:00 AM.³

That hearing, technically open to the public, was announced on May 18 but held in the pre-dawn hours of May 21.⁴ The timing met procedural requirements—but not democratic ones. A process intended to facilitate transparency instead concealed deliberation from the very public it’s meant to serve.

The bill is now in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53–47 majority. If just four Republican Senators break ranks, the bill can be stopped.

H.R. 1 is not just a tax bill. It is a Trojan horse: one that combines sweeping tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans with deep cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and environmental protections—while embedding structural changes that weaken judicial oversight, override regulatory independence, and vastly expand executive power.⁵

And it does so quietly. As Reuters reported, the legislation “enact[s] much of President Donald Trump’s policy agenda” and “would add $3.8 trillion to the U.S. debt,” all while reshaping immigration, environmental, and civil service policy in ways that threaten the guardrails of our democracy.⁶

This edition breaks down what’s in the bill, how it passed, what it violates, and what you can do now—because democracy depends on daylight, not midnight maneuvers.

📎 Jump to the Editor’s Note (EN) - Footnotes.

---

🧾 What Happened — and Why It’s Not Just a Tax Bill

At 12:50 PM on May 22, 2025, Reuters reported that the U.S. House of Representatives had passed H.R. 1 by a razor-thin 215–214 vote.¹ This vote came after two sleepless nights of closed-door negotiations and party-line maneuvering. While the bill is being marketed as a “historic tax cut,” its implications stretch far beyond fiscal policy.

The bill passed without public testimony, without floor amendments, and with only two hours of House debate.² The so-called “public hearing” of the House Rules Committee was held at 1:00 AM on May 21—technically compliant, but functionally inaccessible to the American public.³

H.R. 1 is now headed to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53–47 majority. Just four Republican Senators could stop it. But unless amended or rejected outright, the bill will radically redistribute wealth upward, deepen economic inequality, and embed executive power grabs under the banner of fiscal reform.

---

🔍 Expert Insight Highlights

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) called the bill “heavily skewed to the wealthy,” noting that “the top 0.6% of Americans would receive more total tax cuts than the 127 million people earning under $100,000.”⁴

The bill would add $3.8 trillion to the federal debt—$500 billion more than simply extending the 2017 Trump tax law.⁵

CBPP warns the bill “fails to extend premium tax credit enhancements that help 22 million low- and middle-income people afford marketplace health coverage... Letting these enhancements expire... would increase the number of people without health insurance by 4 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”⁶

It “includes expanded tax-sheltering opportunities through health savings accounts... [which] mostly benefit people with high incomes,”⁶ while also cutting $698 billion from Medicaid and $267 billion from SNAP, per CBO estimates.

The bill adds bureaucratic hurdles for low-income Earned Income Tax Credit filers, while weakening IRS oversight of complex high-income returns.⁷

And it introduces immigration-based tax restrictions—stripping an estimated 4.5 million U.S. citizen children of full Child Tax Credit eligibility if even one parent lacks a Social Security number.⁸

📎 Jump to the What Happened (WH) - Footnotes.

---

⚖️ Why It Matters

Structural Changes to Our System of Checks and Balances

This bill doesn’t just affect policies—it alters how power itself is distributed in the federal government. Embedded within its dense legislative language are provisions that weaken legislative oversight, concentrate authority in the executive branch, and reduce judicial and public accountability. These structural shifts disrupt the system of checks and balances that has safeguarded American democracy for more than two centuries.

The framers of the Constitution designed a government in which no single branch could operate without constraint. That balance is not ornamental—it is essential. It ensures that no president can govern alone, that Congress retains the power of the purse and lawmaking authority, and that courts can enforce the rule of law without political interference.

When that balance is overridden—even subtly—it opens the door to authoritarian governance. This bill’s structural changes move our system closer to one in which executive power is exercised with fewer checks, less transparency, and diminished public recourse.

---

🧱 Six Structural Shifts Embedded in the Bill

1. Judicial Review Weakened
   Section 80121(h) bars courts from reviewing the legality of certain executive leasing decisions, retroactively nullifying ongoing litigation. This undermines the judiciary’s constitutional role in checking unlawful executive action.

2. Regulatory Authority Centralized in the Executive Office
   Section 70200 gives political appointees in the Executive Office of the President authority to define which federal rules are “major,” subjecting them to expedited repeal or legislative override. Already-enacted rules can be retroactively invalidated—weakening regulatory independence and rulemaking predictability.

3. Education Safeguards Repealed, with Rulemaking Barred
   Section 30051 repeals protections such as the 90/10 rule, borrower defense, and gainful employment standards—and explicitly bars the Department of Education from reinstating them (or similar rules) without a new act of Congress. This curtails executive power to respond swiftly to institutional fraud.

4. Discretionary Executive Power Expanded in Tax and National Security Provisions
   Subtitle C (Sections 112001–112018, 112209–112211) transfers key powers—such as revoking tax-exempt status and defining regulatory violations—from Congress to agency heads appointed by the president, with limited disclosure requirements or judicial review.

5. Credential Gatekeeping Authority Transferred to the Treasury
   Sections 110111–110113 empower the Treasury Department (in consultation with Labor) to define what counts as a “recognized credentialing program” for 529 education savings plans—even outside existing accreditation or state/federal approval systems. This shifts educational legitimacy decisions to executive agencies.

6. DOJ Granted Self-Funding Authority over Immigration Adjudication
   Section 70016 allows the Department of Justice to collect and spend new immigration court fees “without further appropriation.” This bypasses congressional budget oversight, expanding presidential control over adjudication processes—including staffing, volume, and resource allocation.

---

Each of these provisions raises constitutional questions on its own. Taken together, they represent a coordinated reconfiguration of how laws are made, enforced, and reviewed—a shift away from coequal governance toward executive primacy.

We break down each of these six structural shifts below, with citations to specific bill sections and analysis of why they matter.

📌 Short on time? Feel free to jump straight to the Take Action section—your voice matters. If you’re able, we also invite you to spend a few extra moments with the analysis below. These changes aren’t just about policy—they reshape how government power is distributed and exercised.

---

🧱 Structural Change #1: Education Safeguards Rolled Back

What the Bill Does
Section 30051 of the bill repeals longstanding federal rules that were designed to protect students from fraud and low-value programs, including:

• The 90/10 Rule, which required for-profit colleges to receive at least 10% of their revenue from non-federal sources;

• Gainful Employment standards, which assessed whether educational programs led to employment with adequate earnings;

• Borrower Defense to Repayment, which allowed students to seek loan forgiveness when misled or defrauded by institutions.

More consequentially, it bars the Department of Education from reinstating these rules—or issuing substantially similar ones—unless Congress explicitly authorizes it by law. This is not just a repeal; it is a structural restriction on future executive enforcement authority.

📜 Relevant Bill Language:

“The Secretary of Education may not implement any rule, regulation, policy, or executive action specified in this section (or a substantially similar rule, regulation, policy, or executive action) unless authority for such implementation is explicitly provided in an Act of Congress.” (Sec. 30051(e))【WI1.1†House Bill Text】

---

Why This Matters

This provision rewires the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch in higher education oversight. By requiring new legislation before the Department of Education can reinstate any version of these protections, Section 30051 effectively strips the executive of its longstanding ability to act quickly in response to institutional misconduct.

This structural change does not merely remove past safeguards—it delays any future response, even when urgent. In effect, it locks the regulatory door and requires Congress to reopen it each time, regardless of the urgency or public harm.

And education is not the only sector affected. In another section of the bill (Sec. 50002), the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)—established under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to protect investors—is dismantled, and its oversight powers are transferred to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Critics warn this may similarly reduce regulatory independence and delay enforcement【WI1.2†NYSSCPA】.

---

📉 Bottom Line
Section 30051 represents more than a policy shift—it’s a legal redesign of how federal education protections are maintained. By transferring rulemaking authority from the executive to Congress, it introduces barriers to timely oversight and weakens the federal government’s ability to prevent fraud and protect students.

---

📌 Footnotes
[WI1.1] H.R.1, Sec. 30051 repeals the 90/10 rule, gainful employment standards, and borrower defense to repayment, and explicitly prohibits the Department of Education from reinstating them or issuing substantially similar rules unless Congress passes new legislation. See also: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “House Republican Tax Bill Is Skewed to Wealthy,” May 22, 2025. https://cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/house-republican-tax-bill-is-skewed-to-wealthy-costs-more-than-extending-2017

[WI1.2] Section 50002 of H.R.1 abolishes the PCAOB, transferring enforcement functions to the SEC. See: Emma Slack-Jorgensen, “House Tax Bill Proposes Dismantling of PCAOB, Shifting Oversight to SEC,” New York State Society of CPAs, May 23, 2025. https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/article/house-tax-bill-proposes-dismantling-of-pcaob-shifting-oversight-to-sec-052125

___

🧱 Structural Change #2: Regulatory Power Centralized in the Executive Office

What the Bill Does
Section 70200 of the bill creates a new, sweeping regulatory framework that:

• Grants the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)—a unit within the Executive Office of the President—authority to classify all federal rules as “major” or “nonmajor”;

• Requires Congress to affirmatively approve many major rules before they can take effect;

• Allows the next Congress to retroactively nullify rules issued in the final year of a previous presidency;

• Mandates agencies to submit 20% of all existing rules each year for review, under threat of automatic expiration.

📜 Relevant Bill Language:

Creates 5 U.S.C. §§ 809–812:

• § 810: “Major” rules that increase revenue require a joint resolution of approval by Congress;

• § 811: Rules from the final year of a presidency are subject to expedited disapproval by the new Congress;

• § 812: At least 20% of existing rules must be submitted annually or automatically sunset【WI2.1†House Bill Text, Sec. 70200】

---

Why This Matters

This section gives political appointees in the White House final gatekeeping power over nearly every major regulation—across public health, labor, climate, finance, and consumer protection. It bypasses expert agency analysis and shifts authority to actors who are explicitly partisan and not subject to Senate confirmation.

Even when agencies issue rules based on statutory mandates and expert review, those rules must now survive two layers of political scrutiny:

1. Classification by the Executive Office;

2. Approval by a divided and often gridlocked Congress.

The retroactive provision adds further instability by allowing a new Congress to cancel rules finalized by the prior administration—introducing legal uncertainty and threatening regulatory continuity. Agencies could be deterred from finalizing rules near the end of a term, knowing they may be undone purely for political reasons.

---

📉 Bottom Line
Section 70200 does not reform regulation—it rewrites the structure of how regulation happens. It centralizes power in the White House, diminishes agency independence, and exposes science-based rulemaking to congressional inaction and political reversal. In doing so, it shifts the balance of power away from neutral implementation and toward ideological control.

---

📌 Footnote
[WI2.1] H.R.1, Sec. 70200 (pp. 1111–1129) establishes a new regulatory review regime through amendments to 5 U.S.C., creating §§ 809–812. These provisions require classification of rules by OIRA, subject “major” rules to congressional approval (§ 810), reopen rules from a prior president’s final year for revocation (§ 811), and mandate sunset of unapproved existing rules (§ 812). See also: New York State Society of CPAs, “House Tax Bill Proposes Dismantling of PCAOB,” May 23, 2025. https://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/article/house-tax-bill-proposes-dismantling-of-pcaob-shifting-oversight-to-sec-052125

---

🧱 Structural Change #3: Judicial Review Stripped from Environmental Leasing Decisions

📜 What the Bill Does. Section 80121(h) of the bill eliminates judicial review for a set of controversial oil and gas leases in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It mandates the reinstatement of previously invalidated leasing approvals and retroactively bars courts from reviewing these executive decisions.

---

📝 What the Bill Says

“No court shall have jurisdiction to review any action taken… to issue or reissue a lease or permit… including any lawsuit… pending in a court as of the date of enactment.”
— Section 80121(h), H.R.1

This language applies to all relevant executive actions—even those previously challenged in court or struck down due to legal violations.

---

⚖️ Why It Matters

• Curtails the Judiciary’s Constitutional Role
  Section 80121(h) strips courts of the power to evaluate whether leases issued by the Department of the Interior and related agencies violated environmental laws or procedural requirements.

• Retroactively Voids Active Litigation
  This includes pending lawsuits, such as Gwich’in Steering Committee v. Burgum, in which tribal and environmental plaintiffs challenged the legality of the 2020 Leasing Program. The bill would effectively cancel those proceedings midstream.

• Restricts Public Access to Legal Remedies
  Only leaseholders and the State of Alaska would retain standing to sue. Impacted tribal communities, conservation groups, and citizens are denied any legal path to challenge agency action—undermining public accountability.

---

📉 Bottom Line

This provision overrides a core function of the judiciary: ensuring executive actions comply with the law. By retroactively nullifying court jurisdiction and reinstating leases previously vacated for legal error, Section 80121(h) removes a vital constitutional check. If enacted, it would set a dangerous precedent—allowing Congress to shield specific executive actions from judicial scrutiny, no matter how unlawful or harmful.

---

📌 Footnote

【WI3.1†House Bill Text, Sec. 80121(h); Gwich’in Steering Committee v. Burgum】
Section 80121(h) removes federal court jurisdiction to review any executive action to issue or reissue a lease or permit in the Coastal Plain, including pending litigation. This directly impacts Gwich’in Steering Committee v. Burgum, No. 3:20-cv-00204-SLG (D. Alaska), in which plaintiffs challenge the reinstatement of leases tied to a flawed 2020 Record of Decision and EIS under NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and ANILCA. The bill reinstates those documents and precludes judicial redress, except for suits filed by the leaseholder or the State of Alaska. See also: Pls.’ Response to Status Report and Opposition to Extension Request, ECF No. 120 (May 9, 2025).

---

🧱 Structural Change #4: Discretionary Rulemaking Power in Health, Tax, and Security Designations

📜 What the Bill Does
Subtitle C (Sections 112001–112018, 112209–112211) repeals a range of tax credits and expands discretionary executive authority across key policy areas, including tax status, penalties, and definitions related to national security and financial oversight.

It authorizes politically appointed officials—primarily within the Department of the Treasury—to:

• Revoke tax-exempt status from any group it designates as a “terrorist supporting organization,” based on largely undisclosed and potentially classified information (§ 112209).

• Submit classified evidence in court ex parte and in camera, while limiting an organization’s access to that evidence (§ 112209(F)).

• Raise penalties dramatically for unauthorized IRS disclosures—from $5,000 to $250,000, and from 5 years to 10 years in prison (§ 112210).

• Prohibit federal regulation of contingency fees in tax filings, shielding potentially predatory preparer arrangements from oversight (§ 112211).

• Interpret and implement broad tax and eligibility provisions under newly defined terms—with limited judicial review or congressional input (§§ 112001–112018).

🧠 Why It Matters
This cluster of provisions alters core constitutional balances in several ways:

• Shifts definitional authority from Congress to executive agencies. Political appointees may now determine what qualifies as “material support,” what constitutes disqualification, and when tax-exempt status is revoked—without a trial or fully transparent evidentiary process.

• Enables selective enforcement. Designations may be based on national security criteria that remain undisclosed, raising the risk of politically motivated enforcement.

• Limits judicial oversight. Courts are restricted from reviewing classified decisions under normal evidentiary rules. Ex parte filings limit the ability of affected organizations to challenge the basis of their designation.

• Reduces external accountability. The ban on regulating contingency fees weakens Treasury’s authority to police questionable practices in tax preparation and representation.

These changes reflect more than policy preferences—they reassign interpretive and enforcement power from the legislative and judicial branches to the executive, with few constraints.

📉 Bottom Line
Subtitle C reconfigures the balance of power by giving the executive branch significant authority over legal definitions, enforcement mechanisms, and eligibility for public benefits. It does so through opaque, security-based exemptions and unilateral designations—limiting both congressional oversight and judicial recourse.

The structure mirrors principles of the unitary executive theory—a legal doctrine asserting that all executive power is vested in the president, who may direct all administrative functions without interference from Congress or independent agencies.

---

📌 Footnotes
[WI4.1] Democracy Docket, What Is Unitary Executive Theory? How Is Trump Using It to Push His Agenda?, Feb. 20, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-is-unitary-executive-theory-how-is-trump-using-it-to-push-his-agenda/
Provides legal background on the unitary executive theory, including how recent interpretations expand presidential authority over regulatory and adjudicatory functions.

[WI4.2] H.R.1, Subtitle C, §§ 112001–112018, 112209–112211.
— § 112209: “Termination of Tax-Exempt Status of Terrorist Supporting Organizations”
— § 112210: “Increase in Penalties for Unauthorized Disclosures of Taxpayer Information”
— § 112211: “Restriction on Regulation of Contingency Fees”
— §§ 112001–112018: Repeal of energy, vehicle, and housing-related tax credits and executive discretion in defining eligibility.

---

🧱 Structural Change #5: Credential Gatekeeping in Education Funding

📜 What the Bill Does
Sections 110111–110113 (Subtitle C, pp. 801–805) amend 26 U.S.C. § 529 to expand the definition of “qualified higher education expenses” to include a new category: “qualified postsecondary credentialing expenses.” While this appears to broaden access, the law quietly transfers gatekeeping authority over which programs qualify for federal 529 education savings funds from public accreditation bodies to political appointees.

Specifically, the bill:

• Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, to designate programs as “recognized postsecondary credential programs” and to define “recognized postsecondary credentials”—even if these are not listed by any state agency or the Department of Veterans Affairs (§ 529(f)(2)(D), § 529(f)(3)(A)(iii)).

• Allows these designations without requiring independent accreditation or adherence to previously established educational quality standards.

• Establishes a parallel path to credential legitimacy without the procedural transparency typically afforded by state or federal listing processes.

🧠 Why It Matters
At a structural level, this provision:

• Transfers authority over educational legitimacy from professional and state accrediting bodies to the executive branch. Federal political appointees now have discretion to determine which programs are worthy of indirect federal subsidy via 529 funds.

• Introduces the risk of ideological favoritism. Programs aligned with the administration’s policy preferences could be fast-tracked for recognition, while those out of step ideologically might be excluded.

• Reduces public accountability and oversight. There are no formal transparency or review requirements for how these credentialing decisions are made—nor avenues for public challenge or academic input.

This restructuring echoes the unitary executive theory approach: centralizing authority in politically controlled agencies to bypass longstanding professional, state-based, or independent determinations of value and eligibility.

📉 Bottom Line
This provision does more than expand what families can use 529 funds for—it quietly shifts power over what counts as valid postsecondary education from educators and public institutions to executive appointees. By allowing direct designation of new credentialing programs without public standards or review, this section opens the door to politicized control over career training and educational legitimacy.

---

📌 Footnote
[WI5.1] Section 110111 of H.R.1 amends 26 U.S.C. § 529(e)(3) to include “qualified postsecondary credentialing expenses,” further defined in § 529(f). Under § 529(f)(2)(D), the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, may designate additional “reputable” programs regardless of state or VA listings. Similarly, § 529(f)(3)(A)(iii) empowers the same agencies to define new “industry recognized” credentials. These provisions confer discretionary, politically controlled gatekeeping power over credential eligibility.
See also: Democracy Docket, What Is Unitary Executive Theory?, Feb. 20, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-is-unitary-executive-theory-how-is-trump-using-it-to-push-his-agenda/

---

🧱 Structural Change #6: Executive Immigration Courts Gain Self-Funding Authority

📜 What the Bill Does
Section 70016 (Subtitle G, pp. 501–518) imposes new, mandatory filing fees on a wide range of immigration court applications—including for adjustment of status, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), cancellation of removal, motions to reopen, and appeals. These fees begin as high as $1,500 and are indexed to increase annually with inflation (§ 70016(a)(2), (j)(2)).

What makes this provision structurally significant is not the fees alone, but the authority it grants the Department of Justice (DOJ) to retain and spend a portion of these revenues without congressional appropriation:

• Up to 50% of fees for adjustment of status applications may be retained by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)—the DOJ component that runs immigration courts (§ 70016(a)(3)).

• 25% of fees for all other covered applications may also be retained and spent by EOIR without further appropriation (§ 70016(b)–(j)).

• Fee waivers are explicitly prohibited—even for those who cannot afford them (§ 70016(k)).

• The bill bars use of these funds for the Legal Orientation Program, which offers basic legal information to individuals facing removal (§ 70016(l)).

🧠 Why It Matters
On its face, Section 70016 appears to be a cost-recovery provision. In practice, it constitutes a redistribution of constitutional authority, with wide-reaching implications:

• Bypasses congressional control over funding. The phrase “retain and spend without further appropriation” allows EOIR to directly allocate fee revenues without approval from Congress—undermining Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which vests the power of the purse in the legislative branch.

• Expands executive control over adjudication. EOIR’s leadership answers to the Attorney General, a political appointee of the president. This means the executive branch can unilaterally steer funding priorities, staffing, and caseload management for the nation’s immigration courts.

• Enables revenue-driven justice. By linking agency funding to the volume of fees collected from applicants seeking legal relief, the provision introduces a troubling incentive structure—and a potential perception of bias in adjudication.

• Curtails due process. With no waiver allowed and no support for legal orientation, the provision may leave indigent or unrepresented immigrants at a significant disadvantage, limiting their ability to navigate complex proceedings.

📉 Bottom Line
This section is more than a bureaucratic fee adjustment—it alters the constitutional balance between the branches of government. By granting EOIR self-funding authority, it gives the executive branch discretionary control over core adjudicatory functions that traditionally fall under congressional budget authority. It reduces transparency, removes external checks, and concentrates power over immigration justice within the presidency.

---

📌 Footnote
[WI6.1] Section 70016 of H.R.1 imposes substantial fees on a wide array of immigration court filings. Under § 70016(a)(3) and (b)–(j), the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) may retain and spend up to 25–50% of fee revenues without further appropriation. Subsection (k) prohibits any waiver of these fees, while subsection (l) prohibits use of funds for the Legal Orientation Program. These provisions collectively bypass congressional appropriations and grant the Department of Justice self-funding authority over immigration adjudication.

---

✍️ Today’s Action

H.R.1 doesn’t just shift tax policy—it reshapes the foundational balance of our constitutional system. The Senate is under intense pressure from the administration to pass this bill. That’s why now is the time to act. Whether you call, email, use Resistbot, or simply share this edition with others, your voice matters.

1) 📩 Email your Senators and Representative all at once in 3 easy steps:

1. Copy the message below

2. Click here to Go to Democracy.io

3. Paste the message (personalize if you’d like), fill in your info, and click Submit

📝 Message to your Senators

Subject: Vote No on H.R.1—It Harms Working Families and Undermines Our Democracy

Dear Senator [Last Name],

As your constituent, I urge you to vote no on H.R.1.

While framed as a tax and budget bill, this legislation would impose sweeping economic harm on working families—and if passed, would undermine aspects of our constitutional system of government, permanently weakening the system of checks and balances that protects our democracy.

🔍 What’s at Stake for Families Like Mine:

• Regressive tax cuts heavily favor the ultra-wealthy: The top 0.6% would receive more total tax cuts than the 127 million Americans earning under $100,000.¹

• Deep cuts to essential programs: $698 billion is cut from Medicaid and $267 billion from SNAP—endangering health and food security for low-income families.²

• Millions of children left behind: Roughly 4.5 million U.S. citizen children could lose full Child Tax Credit eligibility if even one parent lacks a Social Security number.³

• Health coverage rolled back: Letting ACA premium tax credits expire would leave 4 million more people uninsured.⁴

These provisions alone are alarming. But what makes this bill uniquely dangerous is that it doesn’t just change spending. It changes how power works in our government.

⚖️ What’s at Stake for the Checks and Balances of Our Constitutional Republic

As you know, the Constitution was designed to prevent any one branch from consolidating power. But embedded deep in H.R.1 are provisions that would:

• Strip courts of jurisdiction to review executive leasing decisions—even retroactively (Sec. 80121(h));

• Centralize regulatory power in the Executive Office of the President and allow retroactive invalidation of agency rules (Sec. 70200);

• Bar the Department of Education from reinstating essential student protections, even after institutional fraud (Sec. 30051(e));

• Expand executive discretion to revoke tax-exempt status and define national security risks—based on opaque or classified information, with minimal judicial review (Secs. 112209–112211);

• Transfer educational gatekeeping for 529 accounts to Treasury appointees, bypassing state and accreditation standards (Secs. 110111–110113);

• Give the DOJ self-funding authority over immigration courts, allowing fee-based funding without congressional appropriation—undermining Article I, Section 9 (Sec. 70016).

Each of these provisions shifts critical powers—such as rulemaking, adjudication, and enforcement—from Congress and the courts to executive branch agencies. Together, they constitute a quiet reengineering of American governance, carried out through reconciliation rather than constitutional amendment or transparent debate.

This is not just a budget proposal. It is a fundamental reordering of who decides the rules, who enforces them, and who can challenge unlawful action.

🛡️ Please defend our constitutional system. Vote no on H.R.1. Our nation needs tax fairness, social investment, and transparency—not a concentration of power that undermines both economic justice and democratic governance.

Thank you for your service—and for standing up for the constitutional balance that keeps our republic accountable to the people.

---

2) 📲 Text RESIST to 50409 or message via facebook.com/resistbot (where you can send an email, text, or fax!)

1. Copy the message below (and personalize if you’d like)

2. Text RESIST to 50409 or Message Via facebook.com/resistbot

📝 Message (Shorter format for Text Messages to Senators)

Dear Senator [Last Name],
I urge you to vote NO on H.R.1.
This isn’t just a tax bill—it’s a structural rewrite of our government and a threat to working families.
It gives the DOJ self-funding power over immigration courts, strips judicial review from executive actions, and shifts major regulatory authority to political appointees in the White House.
Meanwhile, it delivers huge tax breaks to the wealthy, cuts Medicaid and SNAP by nearly $1 trillion, and threatens health coverage for 4 million people.
This bill undermines both our economy and our Constitution. Please vote NO on H.R.1.

3) ☎️ Contact your Senator’s Office by Phone

1. Look up your Senator’s Number Here

2. Use or modify the phone script below.

☎️ Phone Script for Calling Senate Offices

Hi, my name is [Your Name], and I’m a constituent from [City, State]. I’m calling to urge Senator [Last Name] to vote NO on H.R.1.

This bill doesn’t just cut vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP or favor the wealthiest households—it also undermines our constitutional system of checks and balances.

It gives the DOJ power to spend immigration court fees without congressional oversight, bars courts from reviewing some executive actions, and moves key rulemaking authority to political appointees in the Executive Office.

These are structural changes that weaken congressional oversight and judicial accountability.

Please tell the Senator to protect our democracy—and vote NO on H.R.1. Thank you.

---

🔖 Footnotes

📎 Editor’s Note – Footnotes

EN1. Reuters, US House narrowly passes Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill, May 22, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-republicans-set-pre-dawn-votes-get-trump-tax-bill-over-finish-line-2025-05-22
EN2. Ibid.
EN3. Congressional Record, H.R. 1 Floor Debate Summary, May 22, 2025; House Rules Committee meeting notice.
EN4. House Committee on Rules, Meeting Announcement for May 21, 2025, posted May 18. https://rules.house.gov/media/announcements
EN5. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Distributional Effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, May 20, 2025. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf
EN6. Reuters, US House narrowly passes Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill, May 22, 2025.

---

📎 What Happened – Footnotes

WH1. Reuters, US House narrowly passes Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill, May 22, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-republicans-set-pre-dawn-votes-get-trump-tax-bill-over-finish-line-2025-05-22
WH2. House Resolution 436, 119th Congress, May 22, 2025 (legislative day, May 21). The resolution waived points of order, deemed a substitute amendment as adopted, allowed no floor amendments, and restricted debate to two hours. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/436/text
WH3. House Committee on Rules, Meeting Announcement for May 21, 2025. https://rules.house.gov/media/announcement/meeting-announcement-may-21-2025
WH4. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), House Republican Tax Bill Is Skewed to Wealthy, May 22, 2025. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/house-republican-tax-bill-is-skewed-to-wealthy-costs-more-than-extending-2017
WH5. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Adding Up the House Reconciliation Bill, May 14, 2025. The CRFB estimates the reconciliation bill would increase the federal debt by $3.8 trillion—$500 billion more than extending the 2017 tax law through 2034. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/adding-house-reconciliation-bill
WH6. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, House Republican Tax Bill Is Skewed to Wealthy, Costs More Than Extending 2017 Tax Law, and Fails to Deliver for Families, May 22, 2025. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/house-republican-tax-bill-is-skewed-to-wealthy-costs-more-than-extending-2017. Congressional Budget Office, Preliminary Analysis of the Distributional Effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, May 20, 2025. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf
WH7. Tax Law Center, Ways and Means Bill Would Cut Earned Income Tax Credit by Increasing Bureaucratic Burdens, May 14, 2025.
WH8. Center for Migration Studies, New Estimates on CTC Ineligibility, April 2025.

---

Engage For Democracy editions are curated through close analysis of primary legislative documents and expert sources, with research and editorial support from OpenAI’s ChatGPT. All findings are independently reviewed and documented with verifiable citations. Engage For Democracy is a nonpartisan civic education project committed to constitutional accountability, the rule of law, and democratic norms. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, any inadvertent errors are mine alone.

---

📣 That’s today’s edition. We’ll be back with our next update soon.

Until then:

📢 Share widely—because concentrated power grows quietly when no one is watching.

⚖️ When a budget bill rewrites checks and balances, the danger isn’t just economic—it’s constitutional.

🛡️ Every call, letter, and shared fact helps safeguard the system that protects all other rights.

💪 With vigilance, integrity, and resolve,
Engage For Democracy