Trump Hails ‘Very Big Victory’

Sipa USA
By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey

Good evening and a happy Veterans Day to those who served. Our thanks go out to you. Tomorrow, on Day 43 of the government shutdown, the House will be back in session to take its first vote since September as it considers the Senate-passed bill to end the federal funding lapse. Here's what you should know.

Trump Hails 'Very Big Victory' as House Returns to End Shutdown

The Senate last night voted 60-40 to pass the bipartisan deal to end the record-long government shutdown, with eight Democrats again joining with Republicans to get the bill past the finish line. Now it's the House's turn. Members are returning to the Capitol for their own vote on the bill tomorrow - the first vote in the House since September 19, more than seven weeks ago.

Speaker Mike Johnson has said he thinks he has the votes to pass the measure, which includes full-year funding for several agencies and keeps the rest of the federal government open through January. House Democratic leaders oppose the bill and are working to keep Democratic defections to a minimum.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday praised Republican congressional leaders and congratulated them for what he called "a very big victory" in the shutdown fight. "We're opening up our country. Should've never been closed."

Lingering questions: Left unresolved is the fate of the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies and whether lawmakers will eventually do something to keep insurance premiums from soaring for millions of families. The Senate on Monday night rejected a simple one-year extension of the ACA tax credits, proposed by Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, in a 53-47 vote. All 53 Senate Republicans opposed the amendment. While the deal to reopen the government sets up a vote next month on a Democratic healthcare bill, Johnson has refused to commit to any House vote on the Affordable Care Act subsidies.

The agreement by eight moderate Democrats to agree to end the shutdown without securing concrete concessions regarding the subsidies has infuriated progressives and reignited calls for Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to be replaced.

Republicans feel vindicated today for refusing to negotiate with Democrats and instead waiting them out, allowing the effects of the shutdown to grow increasingly painful - and, in some cases, dialing up that pain themselves. While the Trump administration took extraordinary steps to pay military servicemembers and law enforcement officers, it also went to court to fight paying SNAP food benefits and required flight cancellations that left travelers frustrated and angry.

Still, it's not clear if Republicans may face voter anger down the line for their role in the shutdown and their refusal to extend the more generous Affordable Care Act subsidies.

Another Obamacare fight: As the economy and the issue of affordability move to the political forefront, Democrats succeeded in using the shutdown to once again put healthcare costs on the national agenda. Voters favor Democrats on the issue, and Republicans, including Trump, have only begun to float their own plans to address it.

Johnson has repeatedly insisted in recent days that Republicans have long lists of ideas on healthcare, notebooks full of plans. Those claims are reminiscent of Trump's own 2024 presidential debate comment that he has "concepts of a plan" on healthcare - and a reminder that Republicans have struggled for 15 years to coalesce around a healthcare fix. Trump has thus far only proposed a vague plan to replace the ACA subsidies with direct payments to help Americans pay for healthcare costs.

"We want a health care system where we pay the money to the people instead of the insurance companies and I tell you, we're going to be working on that very hard over the next short period of time," Trump told reporters Monday.

Looking to 2026: Democrats can hope that their shutdown gambit will pay off over the coming year by making clear to voters that they tried to keep healthcare costs down and that the blame for higher premium payments and unaffordable insurance coverage should fall on Republicans. That clash over staggering healthcare costs also ties into the broader battle over the state of the economy, as Trump defensively insists that conditions are much better than Americans perceive them to be. "We have the greatest economy we've ever had," Trump insisted in an interview with Fox News on Monday. Americans seem to feel differently.

The final political outcome of the shutdown has yet to be determined. The two parties have a year to try to enact policies that address the cost-of-living concerns that now dominate the political conversation, or at least to convince voters that they, and not the other side, are the party of affordability. Democrats will have to see if they can avoid getting bogged down by infighting. Trump and Republicans will have to demonstrate that they have a plan. Election Day is November 3, 2026.

What's next: The House is slated to convene tomorrow, and Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona will be sworn in seven weeks after her special election win. The House will vote on the shutdown-ending deal - and then will leave town again until next week.

Number of the Day: $500,000

The government funding package approved by the Senate includes a provision enabling senators to sue the government if their phone records are collected by federal investigators without their being notified. The text of the measure, part of a bill to fund the legislative branch, reportedly came directly from Senate Majority Leader John Thune. It appears to allow eight Republican senators to immediately take legal action over having their phone records seized as part of former Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. Senators who prevail in such lawsuits stand to receive up to $500,000 (or the amount of actual damages, plus fees and other money) for each violation by the government.

Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee overseeing the legislative branch reportedly were left in the dark on the provision. "I am furious that the Senate Minority and Majority Leaders chose to airdrop this provision into this bill at the eleventh hour - with zero consultation or negotiation with the subcommittee that actually oversees this work," Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the subcommittee, said in a statement cited by Politico. "This is precisely what's wrong with the Senate.

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said the provision was another reason the bill should not pass. "This is outrageous," he wrote on social media. "It creates a new offense, tailored perfectly to allow Trump to write a government check of millions of dollars to 8 Republican Senators. GOP Leader Thune just made 8 of his colleagues rich. Off taxpayer money."

But an aide to Senate Democratic leadership defended the measure to Politico: "This protects the institution and senators from an out-of-control Pam Bondi-run Department of Justice."

Trump Says Ending Tariffs Would Be 'Devastating' for the US

As the Supreme Court weighs challenges to some of the tariffs recently imposed by the U.S. on imports from dozens of countries, President Trump is ramping up his campaign to keep things just the way they are.

The new tariffs - some of which were imposed after Trump declared national emergencies relating to drug trafficking and trade imbalances, leading to lawsuits that are now before the Supreme Court - have generated about $120 billion in additional revenue in fees collected from U.S. importers so far, but the president on Tuesday argued that overturning the tariffs would actually cost trillions of dollars in lost revenues.

"The 'unwind' in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars," Trump wrote Tuesday on his social media platform. "It would not be possible to ever make up for that kind of a 'drubbing.' That would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country - Possibly non-sustainable!"

Although Trump did not provide any explanatory details, it appears that he was referring to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office in August that found that the tariffs would generate about $3.3 trillion in revenues over 10 years, reducing the cumulative budget deficit by that amount. The revenues would reduce federal borrowing, saving an additional $700 billion in interest payments.

In addition, Trump seems to be referring to potential investments made by companies in production facilities in the U.S. in response to his tariffs. More broadly, Trump is repeating his basic idea behind the tariffs: that they make the country rich, and without them, the country would be poor.

Still, most of the "trillions" that Trump likes to cite as being at stake are projections into the future, sometimes enhanced with heavy doses of exaggeration. The amount that could be affected by a Supreme Court decision is the amount paid so far by importers, about $120 billion, though that number moves higher with each passing day, increasing by about $20 billion to $30 billion per month.

Messy refunds? If the Supreme Court decides that some of Trump's tariffs are illegal, there are questions about how the federal government might go about refunding the revenues that have already been collected.

In discussions last week, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that reimbursing U.S. firms for the tariffs they have paid would likely be "a mess." Neal Katyal, the lawyer who represented businesses suing to overturn the tariffs, said reimbursement would be "a very complicated thing" requiring formal administrative procedures.

Some U.S. companies, though, say reimbursement could be relatively straightforward. Rick Muskat, CEO of the shoe manufacturer Deer Stags, told CNBC that official U.S. customs forms clearly document the cost of the tariffs. "On every customs entry, we detail specific line items that indicate the duty/tariff rates we are paying," he said.

The forms even show separate entries for which tariffs are being applied. Muskat, who signed an amicus brief for the Supreme Court that calls for eliminating the new tariffs, said his forms break the import fees into three categories: the standard tariff that has been in place for years (6% in his case); a "fentanyl tariff" (20%) that Trump imposed to combat drug trafficking; and a "reciprocal" tariff (10%) that Trump imposed under his emergency declarations.

"So it should be simple for importers to apply for refunds based on this tariff itemization," Muskat said. "The IRS has no problem issuing refunds for overpayment of taxes. This is no different."

Paperwork, though, could slow things down, and any reimbursement process would likely require companies or already overburdened customs brokers to wade through months of historical data as they compile their refund requests.

Although importers may recoup some of the fees they paid should the Supreme Court overturn Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs, there's one group that paid some of the cost that probably won't receive any refunds: American consumers. While companies may get some portion of their tariff fees back, end consumers who paid higher retail prices put in place as a result of the tariffs will likely be out of luck.

Shutdown News

Other News

Views and Analysis