To protect millions from devastating cuts, we must make our voices impossible to ignore.

House Republicans just passed a “big, beautiful” budget bill that would devastate basic needs programs for the most vulnerable Americans in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich. It now heads to the Senate, where Republicans aim to pass a final version by July 4.

They continue to claim their proposed Medicaid and SNAP cuts are necessary to “fix” broken systems. They argue that these cuts won’t affect vulnerable families—that the people who rely on these programs won’t be harmed. But that claim is dangerously misleading. 

In reality, these cuts will devastate the lives of millions of Americans who rely on Medicaid and SNAP for basic survival. These programs provide vital care, food and service to disabled adults, seniors, children, working families and rural communities. The cuts proposed by Republicans in Congress would slash life-saving benefits and rip away basic services from the people who rely on them most. 

During a recent committee markup on the Hill, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) read aloud from the letter of Taylor Johnson, a Michigan mother whose 6-year-old son has Down syndrome and relies on Medicaid for speech and physical therapy. As Johnson and her son stood in the committee room, their presence brought powerful emotional weight to the hearing.

In response, Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas dismissed concerns that families like hers would be impacted by the proposed Medicaid cuts. The moment generated national media attention, exposing the deep disconnect between lawmakers and the families their decisions affect. 

But Crenshaw’s claims simply aren’t true.

Medicaid cuts would force states to eliminate services like those Taylor Johnson’s son relies on, leading to over 10 million people losing coverage—including 3.5 million children, 1.6 million seniors and 2.3 million adults with disabilities. These cuts would result in more than 34,000 avoidable deaths per year, with disproportionate impacts in rural and low-income communities across the country.

Meanwhile, cuts to the largest federal food assistance program, SNAP, would jeopardize the health of over 42 million Americans who rely on it.  

The real power in Johnson’s story and stories like hers is that they humanize the impact of these policies. Thanks to voices like hers, we can understand that these aren’t just numbers being debated on Capitol Hill—these politicians’ decisions could upend the lives of millions of families, children and seniors. In this way, strategic storytelling can show lawmakers what their decisions truly mean for the Americans they’re paid to represent. 

As everyday Americans concerned about how these drastic cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP will impact our families, we should be elevating more stories like Taylor Johnson’s—stories from the communities who stand to lose the most if these budget cuts are rammed through Congress. 

For example, single mothers who rely on SNAP to keep food on the table are at grave risk. Angelica Garcia is a single mom from Tucson, Ariz., raising three kids on her own. Her family relies on both Medicaid and food stamps to get by. Because the cost of basic living—rent, food, gas—is so steep, she said if she loses access to these programs, she doesn’t know if her kids would survive.

Disabled adults who rely on home- and community-based services also have much to lose from these budget cuts.

When a horrific swimming accident left him quadriplegic during his freshman year in college, Alex Watters from Sioux City, Iowa, said his life changed permanently. Right now, Medicaid pays for his home care and therapy. If these cuts are passed, his only alternative will be to move into a nursing home at 38 years old. 

The American Stories We Need to Tell

To make an impact, we must find effective, unique ways to share stories like Taylor Johnson’s, Alex Watters’ and Angelica Garcia’s.

Presenting stories in government hearing rooms is one powerful way to break through political noise. Whether it’s Rep. Dingell reading Johnson’s letter aloud while she and her son stood in the room, or Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) phoning a constituent and letting them share their story live during that same committee hearing, these moments can grab lawmakers’ attention, invite responses and generate media coverage well beyond D.C. First-person narratives instill emotional depth and authenticity into otherwise stuffy meetings, moving politicians and the public alike.

Participating in interviews with local media is another powerful storytelling tool in legislative fights like these, enabling everyday Americans to publicly name their members of Congress—creating impactful clips that amplify pressure from local constituents.

Writing letters to the editor and op-eds offer another effective way to call out representatives by name and shape public discourse.

Digital content, such as interviews with creators or selfie videos, helps inform wider audiences across the country—an especially crucial tactic as this fight gains momentum both locally and nationally.

Additionally, repurposing tweets as screenshot graphics performs particularly well on social media, offering a persuasive and highly shareable format to spread key messages. 

We have around two months to stop this bill from becoming law. As it moves to the Senate, we must continue building and amplifying platforms that let constituent voices permeate government decision-making—whether that takes place in the halls of Congress, via news feeds or in the inboxes of their representatives. Stories alone won’t stop bad policy. But they can challenge indifference, mobilize public pressure and drive home the real cost of cutting life-saving programs for American families.

Editor’s note: Have a story to tell about how cuts to healthcare or food aid would affect you or your community? We want to hear from you. Pitch your story to Ms. as an op-ed; learn more at msmagazine.com/submissions.

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.

Welcome back to World Brief, where we’re looking at the threat of famine in Gaza, minimal progress for Russia-Ukraine peace efforts, and a car ramming in the United Kingdom.

Widespread Hunger

Chaos erupted at an aid distribution site in the southern Gaza city of Rafah on Tuesday, when thousands of Palestinians stormed a facility where the U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was handing out food.

Welcome back to World Brief, where we’re looking at the threat of famine in Gaza, minimal progress for Russia-Ukraine peace efforts, and a car ramming in the United Kingdom.

Widespread Hunger

Chaos erupted at an aid distribution site in the southern Gaza city of Rafah on Tuesday, when thousands of Palestinians stormed a facility where the U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was handing out food.

According to locals, the volume of people seeking aid became so great that the Israel Defense Forces opened fire from a helicopter to dispel the crowds. The Israeli military denied doing so, though it did admit to firing warning shots outside of the compound. And the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation said that its team had to pull back to allow people to “take aid safely and dissipate” to avoid casualties.

At the same time—and without evidence—Israel and the GHF accused Hamas of trying to block civilians from reaching the aid distribution site. Hamas has denied the allegations.

“The real cause of the delay and collapse in the aid distribution process is the tragic chaos caused by the mismanagement of the same company operating under the Israeli occupation’s administration in those buffer zones,” said Ismail al-Thawabta, the director of the Hamas-run Gaza government media office, in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday. “This has led to thousands of starving people, under the pressure of siege and hunger, storming distribution centres and seizing food, during which Israeli forces opened fire.”

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is a controversial new Israel- and U.S.-backed group—composed of American private security contractors, former military officials, and humanitarian aid officials—that has been tasked with distributing food since Israel lifted its almost three-month blockade on aid entering the territory. By late afternoon on Tuesday, the GHF said it had provided around 462,000 meals to Palestinians.

However, the United Nations and international aid agencies have boycotted the foundation for its apparent close ties to the Israeli government and reported plans to use facial recognition technology to track who accesses its aid. Israeli officials maintain that such measures are necessary to prevent anyone connected to Hamas from receiving the assistance. However, many Palestinians and rights activists fear that such information could allow the Israeli government to track and potentially target Gaza residents.

“Humanitarian assistance must not be politicized or militarized,” said International Committee of the Red Cross spokesperson Christian Cardon, with Norwegian Refugee Council chief Jan Egeland adding that “[w]e cannot have a party to the conflict decide where, how, and who will get the aid.”

The foundation received further criticism from its own head, Jake Wood, after he unexpectedly resigned on Sunday, shortly before the group was set to begin operating, saying it was unable to operate independently. “It is clear that it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence, which I will not abandon,” Wood said in a statement distributed by the GHF.

Widespread hunger remains a major concern in Gaza, where the 19-month war and weekslong aid blockade have caused significant food shortages and skyrocketing prices. Since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lifted the blockade this month, Israeli officials said they have allowed at least 665 truckloads of aid, including food and medical supplies, into Gaza. However, the U.N. World Food Program warned on Sunday that this assistance is but a “drop in the bucket” for what is needed to reverse the threat of famine in the territory.

Today’s Most Read

What We’re Following

Stalled peace efforts. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan in Moscow on Tuesday to discuss ongoing efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Fidan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and lead Moscow negotiator Vladimir Medinsky the day before. Following largely failed direct talks in Istanbul earlier this month, though, peace efforts in the conflict have stalled, and many foreign powers are losing their patience.

Putin has gone “absolutely CRAZY!” U.S. President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday, adding that the Russian leader is “needlessly killing a lot of people.” On Tuesday, Trump reiterated this concern by posting that Putin is “playing with fire!” The Trump administration has previously championed its close relationship with Moscow and even parroted Kremlin talking points, such as the false claim that Ukraine started the war.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced on Monday that Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States would lift its restrictions on the range of weapons being sent to Ukraine for use against Russian forces. And on Tuesday, media reported that Trump is considering imposing additional sanctions on Moscow in the coming days in the aftermath of another deadly Russian drone and missile attack, which Ukrainian officials have called the largest such assault yet.

Car ramming in Liverpool. Four people remained in critical condition on Tuesday after a car plowed into a crowd of Liverpool soccer fans in the United Kingdom on Monday, injuring more than 50 attendees. British police believe that the incident was isolated and not an act of terrorism. It is unclear how the car gained access to the street where the Premier League was holding its 10-mile parade, of which around 1 million people attended.

The suspect is a 53-year-old white British man from the city of Liverpool. He has since been taken into custody.

The Liverpool area has been the site of several deadly incidents in recent years. Most notably, 97 Liverpool fans were killed during a crowd crush at Hillsborough Stadium in 1989. In 2021, a man detonated an explosive device outside of Liverpool Women’s Hospital. And last July, three young girls were stabbed at a dance studio just north of the city.

A Maduro victory. Venezuela’s ruling party claimed late Sunday to have won nearly 83 percent of the vote in this weekend’s legislative and regional elections. Among the biggest wins for President Nicolás Maduro’s United Socialist Party was securing control of the governor’s seat of Zulia; Zulia is the country’s most populous state, the center of its oil wealth, and one of the last opposition strongholds.

Maduro called the results a “victory of peace and stability,” as the opposition maintained control of the governorship of only one state, Cojedes. However, rights activists were quick to denounce the election, saying that it lacked the minimum requirements needed to be considered democratic.

Many opposition leaders—including exiled figure María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, the winner of last July’s disputed presidential election—urged their supporters to boycott the vote as a way to signify their distrust in the system. Evidence of voter fraud marred Venezuela’s presidential election last year, during which Maduro claimed victory to secure greater control of the country and crack down on political dissidents.

Odds and Ends

French President Emmanuel Macron kicked off his weeklong tour of Southeast Asia on Sunday with a bang—er, slap. Moments before disembarking from his plane in Vietnam, video footage caught Macron’s wife, Brigitte, pushing her husband in the face. While the French president has tried to laugh it off as the couple “joking around,” the look of annoyance on Macron’s face post-shove says it all.

Elon Musk’s political play didn’t go as planned. Rep. Ro Khanna joins Sam Stein to talk about what Musk got wrong, why grades matter, and how Democrats should push back on both extremes.

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to audio.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

RAHM EMANUEL FAMOUSLY said that one should “never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Now his party is facing a crisis—and Democratic consultants are keen on not letting it be wasted.

Over the past few months, the party’s consultant class has been pitching new ideas to help Democrats repair their damaged brand. They’re rubbing elbows with deep-pocketed donors at five-star hotels and pitching them on eight-figure strategies to reverse the party’s steady loss of support with working-class voters and to deal with a base increasingly made up of wealthy college-educated elites.

The efforts have caused a mini-uproar among professional Democrats, some of whom worry that the party will actually worsen the problem it’s trying to solve: looking painfully robotic as they outsource their efforts to come across as authentic.

“The people who are pitching clients on their solution to talk to working-class voters or young men—they’re looking at them like it’s a zoo and they’re just like, ‘Can you believe these people exist?,’” said Ammar Moussa, the director of rapid response for the Biden-turned-Harris campaign.

The dominance and ubiquity of the consultant class has been a longstanding problem for Democrats. In his 2006 book Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You’re Stupid, longtime Time magazine columnist Joe Klein argued that the political consultants had run amuck, sucking the life out of politicians with their message-tested speeches and leading to the decline of relatability in American politics.

Klein gave the example of a Jimmy Carter aide who one month after the 1976 election delivered the president-elect a 10,000-word memorandum on political strategies for incumbents, arguing that he needed a continuous polling operation and offering detailed suggestions, including that wearing cardigan sweaters would somehow help him remain popular. During the Clinton era, the consultant Dick Morris commissioned a 259-question survey to help inform Clinton on how to approach a State of the Union address.

“Democrats have always been this way, but it’s become even more so,” said James Carville, the lead strategist on Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign, in an interview with The Bulwark.

“People lose sight of the fact that politics is by and large a candidate-driven enterprise. But it is a Democratic article of faith that enough expertise and enough dollars can solve any problem, up to and including authenticity,” Carville added. Reflecting on the new projects that Democrats are now cooking up to combat Trump, he said: “They are just so reflective of the way that the institutional Democratic mind thinks.”

One of those new projects, as the New York Times reported, is code-named SAM—an acronym for “Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan.” The proposal is geared toward reversing Democrats’ declining appeal with young men, especially online, by studying “the syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.”

But that’s far from the only consultant-driven initiative that has some Democrats wondering just how much money the party intends to light on fire before the next election.

AND Media—another acronymized project that stands for Achieve Narrative Dominance—is hoping to raise $45 million to fund influencer content that moves away from “the current didactic, hall monitor style of Democratic politics that turns off younger audiences.” As the party continues its myopic search for the Joe Rogan of the left, Project Bullhorn, another new initiative aimed at boosting influencers, is asking for $35 million to fund left-leaning creators on YouTube.

The vast array of white papers and astroturfed podcast ideas betray the fact that Democrats still have little idea of how to talk to or connect with a significant segment of the country. And it suggests that the party is not grappling with the fundamental reason it’s not resonating with voters—not the methods by which its positions are communicated, but that the positions themselves are unpopular.

Share

NOT EVERY DEMOCRAT was willing to disregard the wave of consultant proposals as money sucks. Some even held out hope that they would prompt new, creative thinking; that the party needed to try out different ways of reaching people. However mockable their acronymized names might be, some strategists said that the projects being proposed are actually quite nuanced.

“Many, if not most, of the people who pitch this stuff are very smart and thoughtful and have identified real shit that needs doing,” said Pat Dennis, the president of the Democratic-led opposition research group American Bridge 21st Century, which has been involved in some of the ideas being pitched to donors. “Just like how Democrats in government always regulate every dollar we spend until we can’t do anything. . . . We do the same thing with campaign spending. We scrutinize every dime for if the Twitter cool kids like it.”

But others in the party, and those who recently left it, couldn’t help but contrast the consultant-driven approach to the one adopted by Donald Trump. Although some political consulting firms have emerged out of the Trump era, the president has largely relied on a tight-knit group of advisers and his own gut instincts. It has certainly been unconventional, a sewer of scandal, and driven our politics to a dangerous place. But the results have been two successful elections and a realignment of national politics.

“The Democrats don’t have a messaging problem so much as a leadership problem. Who speaks for the Democratic party? No one knows. They can’t resolve that, so they do what they know how to do—spend money on consultants,” said Andrew Yang, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for the 2020 Democratic primary nomination, before becoming an independent. “The longer the party resembles a corporate bureaucracy, the longer it will remain in the wilderness.”

Leave a comment

— Sen. Cory Booker has a new book deal following his record-setting Senate floor speech last month. Stand will be published November 11, perfect timing for the New Jersey senator to make some book-tour stops in Philadelphia and Atlanta and other cities that happen to be important for 2028 presidential hopefuls (just taking a guess here).

— House Democrats are planning on a June 24 caucus election to fill the party’s top job on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee following the death of Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Politico’s Nick Wu reports. A caucus election might sound like a total snoozer. But as Nick writes, the contest is “shaping up to be a competitive four-way race that could test Democrats’ adherence to their seniority system for committee leadership and appetite to elevate younger members.”

Just a few months ago New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lost her bid for the position against Connolly, which frustrated some members of the party who felt like it was time to pass the torch to a younger leadership (and given Connolly’s death, they had a good point). Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, and Robert Garcia of California are all expected to run for the position this time around.

— Adam Friedland Could Be the Millennial Jon Stewart. But Does He Want That?

— Fame and Frustration on the New Media Circuit

— They’re 15. Wait Until You Read Their Newspaper.

Leave a comment

Share The Bulwark

Tim Miller joins Katie Couric to discuss possible 2028 candidates, Trump-era corruption, media accountability int he changing tone of American politics, and Donald and Melania Trump’s boring wedding.

Watch Live with Katie Couric on Substack

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to audio.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Jonathan Cohn and Andrew Egger break down how Republicans are quietly gutting Obamacare through a sweeping new bill. From Medicaid cuts to sabotage of ACA marketplaces, they explain what’s at stake and who stands to lose coverage.

You can read more from Andrew here

And check out Jonathan’s post here

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to audio.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.