¶ David Schweikert – Key Votes
¶ David Schweikert Allowed ACA Tax Credits To Expire, Jacking Up Premium Costs For Arizonans By Nearly 30 Percent
¶ Schweikert Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits For Three Years, Even Though 22 Million Americans Relied On ACA Premium Tax Credits To Afford Health Insurance
¶ January 2026: Schweikert Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits For Three Years
January 2026: Schweikert Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits For Three Years. In January 2026, Schweikert voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill, as amended, that would extend for three years, through the end of calendar year 2028, the enhanced tax credits to subsidize premiums for health insurance purchased on the Affordable Health Care Act health insurance markets. It would allow taxpayers whose household income exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty line to receive tax credits for three more years. The measure would retroactively take effect Jan. 1, 2026.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230 to 196. [House Vote 11, 1/8/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/26; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
- The Bill Extended The Enhanced COVID-Era ACA Tax Credits That Republicans Let Expire At The End Of 2025, Resulting In Greater Health Costs For A Third Of All Those Insured Through The ACA Marketplace. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Congress temporarily expanded the tax credits created through the ACA (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The enhanced credits expired Dec. 31, meaning roughly one-third of individuals who get coverage through the ACA marketplace are facing significantly higher costs for 2026. The open enrollment period for these plans closes Jan. 15.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/26]
- Seventeen Republicans Voted For Passage Of The “Clean” Extension Of ACA Subsidies, Following A Procedural Vote The Day Before That Had Support From Nine Republicans. According to Politico, “Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in passing legislation Thursday that would revive enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years, rebuffing opposition from GOP leadership. The 230-196 vote follows a procedural vote Wednesday to advance the bill, where nine Republicans joined Democrats in favor of moving forward.” [Politico, 1/8/26]
- The Bill Would Fail In The Senate But Helped Lay The Groundwork For A Bipartisan Agreement. According to Politico, “While the measure is destined to die in the Senate, Democrats and some Republicans hope it will lay the groundwork for a bipartisan agreement to tame skyrocketing health insurance premiums — the result of Congress allowing the tax credits to lapse Dec. 31. ‘The Senate could put together a product that could ultimately get sent back over to the House that we can then conference on and hopefully move across the finish line,’ said Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), who supported the Democratic-led bill.” [Politico, 1/8/26]
- The Vote Increased The Likelihood That The Senate Would Consider The Extension And Pass A Bill With Some Reforms. According to Politico, “Earlier Thursday, members of the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus met with senators to discuss a potential solution. Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.) said that the meeting — and senators’ plea to show a strong force on this vote in the House — influenced his decision to vote for the measure after initially being inclined to vote against it. ‘There was a sentiment conveyed that if we could get a bill out of the House that had a meaningful amount of bipartisan support, that that would increase the likelihood that the Senate would take this up, pass a bill that has some reforms in it, and send it back,’ Hurd said in an interview about the message communicated during the bicameral meeting.” [Politico, 1/8/26]
¶ Approximately 22 Million Americans Relied On ACA Premium Tax Credits To Afford Health Insurance
Approximately 22 Million Americans Relied On ACA Premium Tax Credits To Afford Health Insurance. According to CNBC, "About 22 million Americans received premium subsidies, also known as premium tax credits, in 2025. Households can opt to receive the tax credit in one of two ways: As a lump sum during tax season or as an advanced payment. Under the latter option, by far the most popular, the federal government issues the tax credit directly to a consumer’s insurer, which then lowers the consumer’s out-of-pocket premium. Consumers receive those advanced ACA subsidies based on an estimated annual income they provide when signing up for insurance. They must reconcile those subsidies during tax season and repay any excess tax credits to the IRS." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
¶ ValuePenguin By LendingTree Analysis: Arizona Health Insurance Premiums For The Most Popular Health Plans In The State Increased Nearly 30% In 2026
2026 ACA Open Enrollment: Approximately 70,000 Fewer Arizonans Signed Up For Affordable Care Act Plans After Republicans Allowed ACA Tax Credits To Expire And Insurance Premiums Increased Nearly 30% In Arizona’s Marketplace. According to Arizona Mirror, “About 70,000 fewer Arizonans have signed up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act after Republicans in Congress refused to extend tax credits and premiums soared. One analysis found that insurance premiums on the ACA marketplace for Arizona jumped nearly 30% on average. Data released this week by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show that 353,000 Arizonans have signed up for 2026 ACA insurance plans, nearly 17% fewer than purchased plans for 2025.” [Arizona Mirror, 1/14/26]
ValuePenguin By LendingTree Analysis: Arizona Health Insurance Premiums For The Most Popular Health Plans In The State Were Rising By 29% In 2026. According to AZ Big Media, “ValuePenguin by LendingTree’s comprehensive review of all health insurance plans on the marketplace in 2026 reveals a troubling trend for Arizona: Arizona health insurance premiums for the most popular health plans in the state are rising 29% in 2026, the 12th largest rate increase in the U.S.” [AZ Big Media, 1/15/26]
¶ Schweikert voted For A Bill Which would weaken protections for people with pre-existing conditions and failed to address premium spikes
¶ December 2025: Schweikert Voted For Republican Legislation That Would Allow ACA Tax Credits To Expire
December 2025: Schweikert Voted For Republican Legislation That Prohibited Abortion-Related Care Under ACA Plans And Allowed The ACA Tax Credits To Expire. In December 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would expand the ability of small businesses to establish association health plans and bars states from preventing small businesses from obtaining stop-loss insurance for self-funded health insurance plans. It would codify and expand rules governing employer-funded health reimbursement arrangements and would allow employees in such arrangements to pay Affordable Care Act health insurance premiums through salary reductions. It would provide funding for ACA policy cost sharing reduction payments that reduce deductibles and copayments. It would prohibit plans from providing abortion-related care. It also would require pharmacy benefit managers to provide transparency regarding prescription drug costs and the drug rebates they receive.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216 to 211. [House Vote 349, 12/17/25; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6703]
- HEADLINE: “House Passes GOP Health Bill Without ACA Credit Extension” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25]
- The Bill Would Result In 100,000 People Losing Coverage Under The ACA As Gains In Enrollments From Association Plans Would Be Offset By The Loss Created By Cost Sharing Payments. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Overall, the CBO said, the new House bill headed to the floor Wednesday would result in about 100,000 people losing coverage, as ending silver loading offsets the gain in coverage from expanded association health plans.” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25]
- The Bill Would Exempt Certain Insurance Policies Offered By Small Employers From Expansive ACA Coverage Requirements. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Provisions in the bill (HR 6703) offered by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa — one of her party's most vulnerable incumbents — include legislation that would expand access to association health plans and exempt certain insurance policies offered by smaller employees from expansive ACA coverage requirements.” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25]
- The Bill Included Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments For Insurers. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Another key feature of Miller-Meeks' bill would fund payments to insurers to offset the ACA's required reductions in cost-sharing expenses, like deductibles and co-pays, for lower-income beneficiaries. While support for this funding has crossed party lines in the past — it was initially an Obama administration policy, opposed by Republicans and eliminated in President Donald Trump's first term — traditional partisan roles have reversed. Democrats now oppose ‘cost-sharing reduction’ payments or CSRs, making this funding a long shot for passage in the closely divided Senate.” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25]
- The Bill Would Allow Association Health Care Plans To Evade Consumer Protections Under The ACA, Including “Essential Coverage” Requirements, With Critics Arguing The Bill Would Result In “Adverse Selection,” Hurting Older And Sicker Individuals. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Critics say the bill could allow association health plans to evade consumer protections enshrined in the ACA, including requirements to provide a minimum level of ‘essential’ health care benefits. The legislation would allow such plans to be self-funded or be treated as large employer plans, each of which are exempt from the essential coverage requirements. By allowing these plans to operate under different rules in order to offer lower-cost policies, it could lead to ‘adverse selection’ in health insurance markets that makes it harder for older, sicker individuals to find affordable coverage, according to the American Academy of Actuaries.” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25]
- Association Health Plans Would Be Able To Set Higher Premiums Based On Factors Such As Age, Gender, And Occupation. According to Congressional Quarterly, “While the bill prohibits discrimination due to pre-existing conditions or any health-related status, association health plans could still set premiums based on other factors, including age, gender, occupation and geographic location. ‘As a result, this bill would all but invite AHPs to charge workers with more expensive health needs far higher premiums — if those workers could even afford to participate in the associations at all,’ House Education and Workforce Democrats wrote in a committee report accompanying the version of the bill that panel approved in the 118th Congress.” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25]
- Democrats Opposed Stop-Loss Provisions As They Would Put Enrollees At Risk Of Losing Insurance If Medical Costs For The Group Rise. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The AFL-CIO, which opposed both bills, wrote that the stop-loss measure would leave many enrollees at risk because their insurers ‘often retain the right to drop the insurance if medical costs for the group begin to climb.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25]
- Cost Sharing Payments Would End Silver Loading Offsets, Resulting In 300,000 People Losing Coverage. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The CBO estimated the provisions would cut spending by $31 billion over nine years — since updated to $37 billion in the latest GOP bill. It would result in some 300,000 enrollees dropping their coverage because the reduced subsidies would outweigh the lower premiums resulting from the end of silver loading, the CBO said.” [Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25]
¶ Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Failed To Prevent Imminent Premium Spikes And Undermined Protections For Pre-Existing Conditions
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Failed To Prevent Imminent Premium Spikes For More Than 20 Million People Who Relied On ACA Marketplace Plans. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The health bill House Republicans are preparing to bring to the floor this week not only fails to prevent imminent premium spikes for more than 20 million people in marketplace plans, but would raise costs even higher for many marketplace enrollees and weaken pre-existing condition protections for individuals and small businesses." [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Would Expand Association Health Plans, Which Would Result In Higher Underlying Premiums For Individuals And Small Businesses That Remained In ACA-Regulated Markets. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "It would expand association health plans (AHPs), a type of health plan that trade associations, professional groups, and other organizations may offer their members, to cover self-employed individuals and small businesses as if they were large employers. By allowing more people to enroll in coverage not subject to ACA standards and consumer protections, this would segment insurance risk pools: individuals who are younger and healthier, or small businesses with younger or healthier employees, could get plans with lower premiums because they would be priced separately from ACA-compliant coverage and wouldn’t have to meet ACA standards such as having to cover a set of essential health benefits. As a result, individuals and small businesses remaining in ACA-regulated markets would see higher underlying premiums." [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]
Center On Budget And Policy Priorities: The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Would Likely Lead To Higher Premiums For Older And Sicker Small Groups And Self-Employed People, Thereby Undermining Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "In addition, the bill would undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions. While it would bar AHPs from rejecting individuals or charging them more based on certain health factors, it would give them greater ability to base a small group’s or self-employed person’s costs on their health risk compared to individual or small-group coverage. This would likely lead to higher premiums for older and sicker small groups and self-employed individuals, making such arrangements more attractive to healthier individuals and groups." [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]
¶ Congressional Budget Office Estimated The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Would Result In 100,000 Americans Losing Their Health Insurance
Congressional Budget Office Estimated The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Would Take Health Coverage From 100,000 Americans. According to Axios, "By the numbers: The GOP bill would increase the uninsured population by 100,000 and save the government $35.6 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office." [Axios, 12/17/25]
¶ Schweikert Did Not Sign Discharge Petitions Aimed At Extending Premium ACA Tax Credits
Schweikert Was Not One Of The Republican Signers On A Discharge Petition For H.R. 1834 Led By House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
[Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Discharge Petition No. 10, 11/12/25]
- House Minority Leader Jeffries’ Discharge Petition Sought To Extend ACA Premium Tax Credits For Three Years. According to Politico Pulse, "House Democrats could move as soon as tomorrow to force a vote on extending the expired Obamacare subsidies for three years, Meredith Lee Hill reports. This measure follows last month’s major setback for Speaker Mike Johnson, when four House Republicans broke from the party to support a discharge petition backed by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to hold a vote." [Politico Pulse, 1/6/26]
Schweikert Was Not One Of The Republican Signers On A Discharge Petition For H.R. 3001 Led By Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick.
[Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Discharge Petition No. 12, 12/10/25]
- December 2025: Fitzpatrick Filed A Discharge Petition Aimed At Extending ACA Premium Tax Credits For Two Years. According to a press release from Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, "Today, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1) released the following statement after filing a discharge petition to bring his Bipartisan Health Insurance Affordability Act directly to the House floor for a vote, ensuring Congress takes action to prevent devastating health insurance premium increases when current protections expire at the end of the year: ‘Congress cannot sit idle while American families face a preventable crisis. Our job is to protect the people we serve, and that responsibility demands immediate action. […] Key Provisions of the Bipartisan Health Insurance Affordability Act The legislation advances five reforms designed to protect affordability, strengthen accountability, and ensure taxpayer value: Prevents premium spikes: Extends enhanced premium tax credits through 2027, to protect families from abrupt monthly cost increases. Restores Consumer Control: Stops unauthorized plan and subsidy changes by requiring consent and prompt notification before any modifications take effect. Shines Light on Middlemen: Ends hidden spread pricing, severs PBM profits from drug prices, and requires full rebate pass-through to ensure savings reach patients. Gives Families New Tools to Manage Costs: Expands access to Health Savings Accounts and simplifies premium payments to reduce disruptions in coverage. Smart Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars: Modernizes eligibility and introduces a reasonable minimum contribution to protect long-term affordability and responsible stewardship of federal dollars." [Press Release – Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, 12/10/25]
Schweikert Was Not One Of The Republican Signers On A Discharge Petition For H.R. 185 Led By Rep. Josh Gottheimer.
[Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Discharge Petition No. 13, 12/10/25]
- December 2025: Gottheimer Filed A Discharge Petition Aimed At Extending ACA Premium Tax Credits For Two Years. According to a press release from Rep. Josh Gottheimer, "Today, December 11, 2025, U.S. Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) released the following statement: ‘In less than three weeks, unless Congress acts now, Affordable Care Act tax credits will expire, and health insurance premiums will shoot up 175% — or $20,000 a year — for families in Jersey. This week, Congresswoman Jen Kiggans and I, with 36 of our Democratic and Republican colleagues, introduced new bipartisan legislation that includes a two-year extension of health insurance premium tax cuts for American families. It’s a commonsense proposal that will keep costs down and prevent families’ premiums from skyrocketing in January. But, the Speaker of the House is refusing to bring our legislation to the floor for a vote. So, our bipartisan group just launched a discharge petition to force an immediate vote in the House. We must get this done now. We must find common ground and lower health insurance premiums. Time is running out for families.’" [Press Release – Rep. Josh Gottheimer, 12/11/25]
¶ Schweikert Voted To Threaten The Health Care Of More Than 342,000 Arizonans
¶ Under The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” 342,481 Were Expected To Lose Their Health Care By 2034
Under The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” 342,481 Arizonans Were Expected To Lose Their Health Care By 2034, Including 148,500 ACA Enrollees And 193,981 Medicaid Recipients. [Joint Economic Committee Minority, 6/25]
¶ Schweikert Voted For The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Which Included Devastating Health Care Cuts To Fund Tax Cuts For The Wealthy
¶ July 2025: Schweikert Voted For The Final Version Of The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Which Would Cause 17 Million Americans To Lose Their Health Care And Trigger Medicare Cuts
July 2025: Schweikert Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill, The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Which Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Billion In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, Increased The SALT Deduction To $40,000, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. The bill was ultimately signed into law. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: “At Least 17 Million Americans Would Lose Insurance Under Trump Plan” [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
- HEADLINE: “By The Numbers: Harmful Republican Megabill Favors The Wealthy And Leaves Millions Of Working Families Behind” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 8/1/25]
- The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That 11.8 Million People Would Become Uninsured As A Result Of The Medicaid Cuts In Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill. According to the Washington Post, “The bill, which narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday and now heads back to the House, would effectively accomplish what Republicans have long failed to do: unwind many of the key components of the ACA, President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, which dramatically increased the number of Americans with access to health insurance. To start, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate version of the bill would result in 11.8 million more uninsured in 2034, mostly because of Medicaid cuts, compared with 10.9 million if the House version became law.” [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
- The “One Big Beautiful Bill” Sped Up The Timeline For When The Medicare Trust Fund Will Become Insolvent, And Without Additional Action, The Bill Would Trigger A $500 Billion Cut In Medicare Funding Between 2026 And 2034. According to Medicare Advocacy, “On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law H.R. 1 – the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB). This sweeping legislation narrowly passed Congress through a special budget process (‘reconciliation’), which allowed it to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote rather than the usual 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. The law extends tax cuts that were first enacted in 2017 and funds other administration priorities. To help pay for these policies, it makes unprecedented cuts to critical safety-net programs that provide health care and other assistance. […] Even with these significant cuts, the Act is still projected to add at least $3.4 trillion to the national debt.[2] It also speeds up the timeline for when Medicare’s trust fund (which pays for hospital care) will become insolvent. If Congress takes no additional action, automatic spending cuts will be triggered, reducing Medicare funding by approximately $500 billion between 2026 and 2034.” [Medicare Advocacy, 7/24/25]
¶ May 2025: Schweikert Missed The Vote For The House FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill, Which Was Estimated To Increase The Uninsured Population By 8.6 Million By 2034, But Said He Would Have Voted For It
May 2025: Schweikert Missed The Vote For The House FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill, Which Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Schweikert was absent for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution. It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Was Estimated To Increase The Uninsured Population By 8.6 Million By 2034. According to CNN, “The Medicaid and Affordable Care Act provisions in the package could result in 8.6 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to an early CBO estimate released by Democratic lawmakers. That number is expected to grow with the latest changes.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Codified A Trump Administration Proposal That Restricted Access To The Affordable Care Act. According to CNN, “The bill also calls for codifying a Trump administration proposal that would make changes to the Affordable Care Act enrollment process, including shortening the open enrollment period and eliminating the ability of low-income Americans to sign up year-round.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
May 2025: Schweikert Admitted To Falling Asleep Before Congress Voted On The Republican Reconciliation Bill. According to KTAR News, “Arizona U.S. Rep. David Schweikert confirmed that he missed this week’s House vote on a massive bill central to President Donald Trump’s agenda because he fell asleep. ‘It’s embarrassing,’ the northeast Valley Republican told KTAR News 92.3 FM’s The Mike Broomhead Show on Friday. Schweikert, chair of the Joint Economic Committee, said he’d been negotiating the One Big Beautiful Bill Act for ‘36 straight hours’ before going down the hall to change his shirt early Thursday. ‘Next thing I know, I’m holding a cup of coffee and my phone is ringing saying the vote is on. I’d fallen asleep,’ he said. He raced back to the House floor, but it was too late.” [KTAR News, 5/23/25]
- HEADLINE: “'It's Embarrassing': Arizona Congressman Sleeps Through Key Spending Bill Vote” [12 News (NBC), 5/23/25]
¶ Schweikert Said He Would Have Voted “Yes” On The Bill Had He Been Awake
Schweikert Said He Would Have Voted To Support The Republican Budget Bill, But He Fell Asleep. According to KJZZ, “ Republican Rep. David Schweikert says it will likely be months before Congress passes President Donald Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill. Last week, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the bill, which would renew Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. […] Schweikert was the only member of Arizona’s Republican delegation not to vote for the bill, though he says he supported it. Schweikert said he missed the vote because he fell asleep in his office.” [KJZZ, 5/27/25]
- Speaker Mike Johnson Claimed Schweikert Intended On Voting In Favor Of The Budget Bill Despite Not Voting. According to Politico, “Johnson said Schweikert, who was one of only a handful of Republicans to submit floor amendments to the bill, also intended to vote in favor.” [Politico, 5/22/25]
¶ February 2025: Schweikert Voted For A Budget Resolution That Set Up Future Medicaid Cuts
February 2025: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Framework That Included $2 Trillion In Cuts, Raised The Statutory Debt Limit By $4 Trillion, And Required House Committees To Recommend Legislation That Would Implement Trump’s Agenda. In February 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the concurrent resolution that would recommend a budget for fiscal 2025 and budget levels through fiscal 2034. The resolution would assume minimum savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years and 2.6 percent economic growth over the same period. It also would require the statutory debt limit to be raised by $4 trillion. It also would authorize the House Ways and Means Committee to increase deficits by $4.5 trillion over 10 years to extend the 2017 tax cuts and implement new tax cuts proposed by the White House. It also would provide instructions for the budget reconciliation process through which separate legislation could be considered and passed in the Senate via a simple majority vote. The measure would deliver instructions to 11 House committees to report legislation that would implement President Donald Trump’s agenda, such as expanding tax cuts and bolstering border security and immigration enforcement. The committees would be required to report their legislative recommendations to the House Budget Committee by March 27, 2025. It also would set a $2 trillion target for the spending cuts to be submitted to the House Budget Committee. The resolution also would stipulate that if the committees don't reach that target, the Ways and Means’ reconciliation instructions to increase the deficit by a maximum of $4.5 trillion would be decreased by the amount the other committees come in below the target. Similarly, it would stipulate that Ways and Means could increase the deficit above the $4.5 trillion level by the amount of savings the committees achieve above the $2 trillion target.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 217 to 215. [House Vote 50, 2/25/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/25; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 14]
- HEADLINE: “House Republican Budget Takes Away Health Care, Food Aid To Pay For Expanded Tax Cuts For Wealthy” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
- New York Times Reported The $880 Billion In Cuts Required By The Republican Budget Proposal Would Have To Come From Medicaid, Medicare, Or CHIP. According to the New York Times, “The budget resolution itself is silent on whether Congress cuts Medicaid, which provides health coverage to 72 million poor and disabled Americans. But it instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the program, to cut spending by $880 billion over the next decade. If the committee can’t save at least that much, the entire effort could be imperiled because of the special process Congress is using to avoid a Senate filibuster. Ten other committees have their own instructions to follow, though none have been assigned with cutting nearly as much. It’s not so simple as finding the cuts elsewhere. The special process, known as budget reconciliation, means Republicans will have to find all $880 billion from within the Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction. That leaves them with fewer options than one might think. […] If Republicans want to avoid major cuts to Medicaid, the largest pot of available money is in the other big government health insurance program: Medicare. […] Even if the committee cuts everything that’s not health care to $0, it will still be more than $600 billion short. The committee could also save around $200 billion by eliminating the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but that option has not been raised by the budget committee or anyone in House leadership. […] Even if all of these cuts, revenues and rule cancellations from outside health care can pass muster, the committee will still be left with hundreds of billions of dollars to cut to hit its goal. Mathematically, the budget committee’s instructions mean the committee would need to make major cuts to either Medicare, Medicaid or both.” [New York Times, 2/25/25]
¶ Schweikert Repeatedly Voted In Favor Of Trump's Tariffs And Was The Deciding Vote To Protect Trump's Tariffs
¶ February 2026: Schweikert Voted To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
¶ David Schweikert Voted Against Terminating The February 2025 35 Percent Tariffs Imposed On Canada
February 2026: David Schweikert Voted Against Terminating The February 2025 Tariffs Imposed On Canada. In February 2026, Schweikert voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the joint resolution that would terminate the Feb. 1, 2025, national emergency that imposed tariffs on goods from Canada.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the joint resolution by a vote of 219 to 211. [House Vote 65, 2/11/26; Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/26; Congressional Actions. H.J. Res. 72]
- The Resolution Would End Trump’s 35 Percent Tariff On Canadian Imports After Rejecting A Rule Earlier In The Week That Would Have Blocked The Legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The House passed a joint resolution Wednesday that would end President Donald Trump’s 35 percent tariff on Canadian goods imports as six Republicans joined the Democrats one day after three Republicans helped scuttle a rule that would have blocked such legislation.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/26]
- Republicans Blocked Votes On Terminating Tariffs For Almost A Year. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Republican leaders had put a block on legislation terminating tariffs for almost a year, using the House Rules Committee to report floor rules on other bills that included the provision blocking votes on tariff measures. Leadership placed the block first in March 2025 and then in April. But opposition began to mount among Republicans by September. Johnson, R-La., was able to placate those concerns in September by shortening the ban period, ending it on Dec. 31, 2025, instead of March 31, 2026. But he was unable to sway Massie, Kiley and Bacon to back another ban Tuesday affecting four tariff announcements — on Feb.1, April 2, July 30 and Aug. 6 of last year.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/26]
- The Resolution Would End Trump’s February 2025 National Emergency That Allowed The Imposition Of Tariffs On Canada. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The resolution would end the national emergency Trump declared on Feb. 1, 2025, that allowed him to levy a tariff using a 1977 law giving him emergency powers. Trump signed orders on Feb. 1, 2025, to apply emergency tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, but the resolution only would end the emergency with Canada, the U.S.’s second biggest trading partner.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/26]
- Trump Initially Declared A 25 Percent Tariff On Canada And Later Raised It To 35 Percent, Claiming It Would Address Fentanyl Trafficking Despite Only 77 Pounds Of All 12,000 Pounds Of Fentanyl Were Seized At the Northern Border In 2025. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Trump identified Canada as a tariff target early in his second term, declaring a 25 percent tariff initially and raising it another 10 percent later. There’s an exemption for goods compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade. Trump said at the time he declared the national emergency that it would address fentanyl trafficking at the northern border. […] Customs and Border Protection seized a total 12,027 pounds of fentanyl in 2025, of which 77 pounds were seized at the northern border, according to agency data.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/26]
¶ David Schweikert Effectively Voted To Block Votes On Legislation Terminating Trump’s Tariffs, Even Though Trump’s Tariffs Resulted In A $1,300 Dollar Tax Increase On American Households In 2026
February 2026: David Schweikert Effectively Voted To Block Floor Votes On Terminating Tariffs Enacted Through Trump’s 2025 Executive Orders. In February 2026, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the rule (H Res 1042) providing for floor consideration of the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act (HR 2189), the Undersea Cable Protection Act (HR 261), and the Securing America’s Critical Minerals Supply Act (HR 3617). […] It also would block the expedited consideration of joint resolutions terminating President Donald Trump's 2025 tariff actions under the Feb. 1, April 2, July 30, and Aug. 6 executive orders by providing that each day during the period from Feb. 10, 2026 through July 31, 2026, will not constitute a calendar day under the federal law pertaining to terminating national emergencies.” The vote was on the rule. The House rejected the rule by a vote of 214 to 217. [House Vote 60, 2/10/26; Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/26; Congressional Actions. H.Res. 1042]
- The Tax Foundation Analysis: Trump’s Tariffs Resulted In A $1,300 Dollar Tax Increase On American Households In 2026, Making It The Largest Tax Increase Since 1993. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Tax Foundation reported in February that the administration’s tariffs amount to an average tax increase per household of $1,000 in 2025 and $1,300 in 2026 — calling it the largest tax increase since 1993. Trump levied emergency tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, including China, Mexico and the European Union.” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/26]
- Johnson Delayed The Vote From 1:30 PM To 8:30 PM In An Attempt To Flip Votes. According to the Hill, “Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was unable to win over the holdouts, despite delaying the vote from 1:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.” [The Hill, 2/10/26]
- The Provision Was Added To A Rule Opening Debate On Three Unrelated Bills. According to Reuters, “Lawmakers voted 217-214 to derail the plan to bar tariff challenges through July 31, with three Republicans joining 214 Democrats in opposition. The prohibition was included in a measure intended to open debate on three unrelated bills.” [Reuters, 2/11/26]
- The House Adopted A Rule In March 2025 Barring Tariff Challenges That Expired In January, Resulting In Speaker Johnson Calling Another Extension, Through This Rule, “Necessary.” According to Reuters, “Earlier in the day, Johnson told reporters that he expected the measure to pass the House, calling it necessary in view of an expected Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the tariffs. House Republicans first adopted a rule barring tariff challenges last March and later extended it through January.” [Reuters, 2/11/26]
- The Rule That Barred Tariffs Challenges Did Not Consider Days As “Calendar Days,” Blocking Democrats From Repealing Trump’s Declared National Emergency That Allowed For His Broad Tariffs. According to The Hill, “Trump declared national emergencies as a basis for implementing his broad-based global tariffs, as well as specific tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada. The National Emergencies Act dictates that Congress can use joint resolutions to repeal a national emergency, and outlines procedures to expedite that action after a certain number of calendar days. Multiple times last year, GOP leaders inserted language into procedural rule legislation to not count a ‘calendar day’ for the purposes of the National Emergencies Act until a specific date, blocking members from forcing action to repeal the tariffs. That prohibition expired at the end of January as GOP leaders faced resistance from Republicans. The latest attempt would have reinstated that prohibition until July 31, 2026.” [The Hill, 2/10/26]
¶ September 2025: Schweikert Voted To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2025: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Terminating The National Emergency That Allowed Trump To Impose A 40 Percent Tariff On Brazil. In September 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, a “motion to table the Meeks, D-N.Y., motion to discharge from the House Foreign Affairs Committee the joint resolution that would terminate the national emergency declared by President Donald Trump on July 30, 2025, which imposed an additional 40 percent tariff on certain goods imported from Brazil.” The vote was on a motion to table. The House tabled the bill by a vote of 200 to 198. [House Vote 265, 9/15/25; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/25; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res. 117]
2025: Schweikert Effectively Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump’s Tariffs Through March 2026. In September 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the resolution [that] would allow for the tolling (the pausing of counting) of days for resolutions of inquiry from Sept. 30, 2025 through March 31, 2026. It also would provide that each day during the period from April 9, 2025, through March 31, 2026. would not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution to terminate President Donald Trump's April 2, 2025 executive order declaring a national emergency regarding tariffs on imported goods. The resolution also would provide that during the period for March 11, 2025 through March 31, 2026, would not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency executive order declared by President Trump on Feb. 1, 2025. Such an executive order concerned tariffs on many Canadian and Mexican imports and Chinese goods. The resolution also would provide that the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act would not apply through March 31, 2026 to a joint resolution terminating the national emergency.” The vote was on the rule. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 213 to 211. [House Vote 268, 9/16/25; Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 707; Congressional Actions, H.Con. Res. 14]
- Support Was Won From GOP Holdouts Through A Promise Of A Vote Later In The Week To Shorten The Block To End In January Rather Than March. According to Politico, “GOP leaders flipped several of the Republican holdouts with a promise to add language shortening the block on tariff disapproval votes to a forthcoming measure set for approval later in the week, per two Republicans with direct knowledge of the agreement. The expiration date on the block will be reset from March 31 to the end of January, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Tuesday. It’s likely the Supreme Court will have ruled on a challenge to Trump’s tariff-declaring powers by then.” [Politico, 9/16/25]
¶ April 2025: Schweikert Cast The Deciding Vote To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2025: Schweikert Cast The Deciding Vote For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump’s Tariffs Through September 2025. In March 2025, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the “adoption of the rule (H Res 313) that would provide for floor consideration of the Senate amendment to the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). The rule would provide up to one hour of debate on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the measure. It also would block the expedited consideration of joint resolutions terminating President Donald Trump’s tariff actions under the April 2 executive order by providing that each day during the period from April 9, 2025 through Sept. 30, 2025, will not constitute a calendar day under the federal law pertaining to terminating national emergencies.” The vote was on the rule. The underlying legislation was the FY 2025 budget resolution. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 216 to 215. [House Vote 94, 4/9/25; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 313; Congressional Actions, H.Con. Res. 14]
- Speaker Johnson Backed The Move, Claiming Trump Had “Executive Authority” And That The Tariffs Were “In The Interest Of The American People.” According to ABC News, “House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., defended the move, telling reporters, ‘I've made it very clear I think the president has executive authority. It's an appropriate level of authority to deal with the unfair trade practices. That's part of the role of the president is to negotiate with other countries.’ Johnson said Trump told him Tuesday night that ‘there are almost 70 countries that are [in] some stage in negotiation of more fair-trade agreement agreements with the United States. I think that is in the interest of the American people. I think that is an ‘America First’ policy that will be effective, and so we have to give them the space to do it.’” [ABC News, 4/9/25]
- The Vote Was The Second Use Of The Procedural Tactic To Block Votes On The Tariffs, The First Use Of It Being In March 2025. According to ABC News, “House Democrats, led by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., moved to force a vote on Tuesday on terminating the national emergency authority and blocking Trump's sweeping tariffs. Now, that vote is unlikely to occur. This is the second time Johnson has moved to stop the legislative calendar to prevent votes on Trump's authority on tariffs. Under House rules, these votes would typically come up within 15 calendar days but now will not if the ‘rule’ passes during the vote series Wednesday afternoon.” [ABC News, 4/9/25]
¶ If One “Aye” Vote Had Switched To A “No” On House Vote 94, The Measure Would Have Failed Instead Of Passing
The Measure Considered In House Vote 94 Passed By A Vote Of 216 “Ayes” To 215 “Nos,” Which Meant If One Aye Vote Had Switched To A No Vote, The Measure Would Have Failed.
[House Vote 94, 4/9/25; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 313; Congressional Actions, H.Con. Res. 14]
¶ April 2025: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2025: Schweikert Effectively Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump’s Tariffs Through September 2025. In March 2025, Schweikert voted for, “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 313) that would providing for floor consideration of the Senate amendment to the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). The rule would provide up to one hour of debate on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the measure. It also would block the expedited consideration of joint resolutions terminating President Donald Trump’s tariff actions under the April 2 executive order by providing that each day during the period from April 9, 2025 through Sept. 30, 2025, will not constitute a calendar day under the federal law pertaining to terminating national emergencies.” The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 217 to 212. [House Vote 93, 4/9/25; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 313]
¶ March 2025: Schweikert Voted To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2025: Schweikert Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump’s Tariffs. In March 2025, Schweikert voted for, “the bill that would provide for Congressional disapproval of, and nullify, a December 2024 IRS rule related to gross proceeds reporting by brokers involved in digital asset sales. The rule imposed reporting requirements, beginning in 2027, on non-custodial barkers who participate in the decentralized digital asset market. It also required brokers to file information returns and provide payee statements reporting gross proceeds from certain digital asset sales and transactions.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 292 to 132. [House Vote 71, 3/11/25; Congressional Quarterly, 3/11/25; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 25]
- The Bill Effectively Blocked The House From Voting To Reverse Trump’s Tariffs On Mexico, Canada, And China For The Next Year. According to the New York Times, “Republican leaders on Tuesday slipped language into a procedural measure that would prevent any resolution to end the tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China from receiving a vote this year. It passed on party lines as part of a resolution that cleared the way for a vote later Tuesday on a government spending bill needed to prevent a shutdown at the end of the week.” [New York Times, 3/11/25]
- The Bill Nullified A Law That Would Allow The House And Senate To End A Disaster Declared By The President. According to the New York Times, “In this case, Republican leaders did so using a particularly unusual contortion: They essentially declared the rest of the year one long day, nullifying a law that allows the House and Senate to jointly put an end to a disaster declared by the president.” [New York Times, 3/11/25]
- The National Emergencies Act Required Consideration Of Resolutions Ending A Presidentially Declared Emergency Within Fifteen Calendar Days But Republican Leadership Included A Measure In The Bill Declaring The Rest Of The Year Did Not Constitute A Calendar Day. According to the New York Times, “The national emergency law lays out a fast-track process for Congress to consider a resolution ending a presidential emergency, requiring committee consideration within 15 calendar days after one is introduced and a floor vote within three days after that. But the language House Republicans inserted in their measure on Tuesday declared that, ‘Each day for the remainder of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day’ for the purposes of the emergency that Mr. Trump declared on Feb. 1.” [New York Times, 3/11/25]
¶ Schweikert Voted For The House Republican Reconciliation Bill That Cut SNAP Benefits For Millions
¶ Schweikert Voted For The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Which Cut Snap Benefits For Millions
¶ July 2025: Schweikert Voted For The Final Version Of The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Which Contained The Largest SNAP Cut In History
July 2025: Schweikert Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill, The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Which Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Billion In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, Increased The SALT Deduction To $40,000, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. The bill was ultimately signed into law. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: “Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Cuts Food Stamps For Millions — The Average Family May Lose $146 Per Month, Report Finds” [CNBC, 7/10/25]
- The GOP Reconciliation Bill Would Cut SNAP Funding By $186 Billion, Which CBPP Said Constituted The “Largest Cut To SNAP In History.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Senate Republican leadership’s reconciliation bill would dramatically raise costs and reduce food assistance for millions of people by cutting federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $186 billion through 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), about 20 percent — the largest cut to SNAP in history. These cuts would increase poverty, food insecurity, and hunger, including among children. The so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is anything but beautiful; it would cause widespread harm by making massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, which would raise costs on families and make it much harder for them to afford the high cost of health care and groceries.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 6/30/25]
- 22.3 Million Families Would Lose Some Or All Of Their SNAP Benefits, With 5.3 Million Families Losing More Than $25 In Benefits Per Month, And Of Those Families, The Average Loss In Benefits Would Be $146. According to the Urban Institute, “Our preliminary estimates of the SNAP policies in the Senate bill show the following: 22.3 million US families would be affected, losing some or all of their SNAP benefits. Of the total affected families, 5.3 million would lose at least $25 in SNAP benefits per month. Among these families, 3.3 million are families with children, 3.5 million are working families, and 1.7 million are families with a full-time full-year worker. Families losing at least $25 per month would lose $146 per month on average ($1,752 for a full-year recipient). At the state level, average monthly benefit losses for families losing at least $25 per month would range from $72 in Kansas ($864 annually) to $231 in the District of Columbia ($2,772 annually).” [Urban Institute, 7/2/25]
- States That Could Not Afford To Pay The New Mandated SNAP Cost Shares May Cut The Program Entirely. According to CNBC, “Additionally, the legislation requires states to pay for a portion of benefit costs, ranging from 5% to 15%, if their payment error rate is at or over 6%. The error rates measure the accuracy of states’ eligibility and benefit payments. In fiscal year 2024, states had a 10.9% average payment error rate, with many states over 6%, according to the Department of Agriculture. States that can’t pay those shares may have to cut SNAP benefits or opt out of the program entirely, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.” [CNBC, 7/10/25]
¶ May 2025: Schweikert Voted For The House Version Of The Republican Reconciliation Bill, Which Included A $300 Billion Cut To SNAP
2025: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The House Republican Reconciliation Bill Included Nearly $300 Billion In Cuts To The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The House-passed Republican reconciliation plan would cut nearly $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through 2034, based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates — by far the largest cut to SNAP in history.[1] As a result of these cuts and other policies in the legislation — which are being used to pay partly for trillions in tax cuts skewed to the wealthy — millions of people would lose some or all of the food assistance they need to afford groceries, when many low-income households are struggling to afford the high cost of food and other basic needs.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 5/28/25]
¶ February 2025: Schweikert Voted For House Republicans’ Budget Framework, Which Set Up Future Cuts To SNAP
2025: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Framework That Included $2 Trillion In Cuts, Raised The Statutory Debt Limit By $4 Trillion, And Required House Committees To Recommend Legislation That Would Implement Trump’s Agenda. In February 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the concurrent resolution that would recommend a budget for fiscal 2025 and budget levels through fiscal 2034. The resolution would assume minimum savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years and 2.6 percent economic growth over the same period. It also would require the statutory debt limit to be raised by $4 trillion. It also would authorize the House Ways and Means Committee to increase deficits by $4.5 trillion over 10 years to extend the 2017 tax cuts and implement new tax cuts proposed by the White House. It also would provide instructions for the budget reconciliation process through which separate legislation could be considered and passed in the Senate via a simple majority vote. The measure would deliver instructions to 11 House committees to report legislation that would implement President Donald Trump’s agenda, such as expanding tax cuts and bolstering border security and immigration enforcement. The committees would be required to report their legislative recommendations to the House Budget Committee by March 27, 2025. It also would set a $2 trillion target for the spending cuts to be submitted to the House Budget Committee. The resolution also would stipulate that if the committees don't reach that target, the Ways and Means’ reconciliation instructions to increase the deficit by a maximum of $4.5 trillion would be decreased by the amount the other committees come in below the target. Similarly, it would stipulate that Ways and Means could increase the deficit above the $4.5 trillion level by the amount of savings the committees achieve above the $2 trillion target.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 217 to 215. [House Vote 50, 2/25/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/25; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 14]
- HEADLINE: “House Republican Budget Takes Away Health Care, Food Aid To Pay For Expanded Tax Cuts For Wealthy” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
- CBPP Said The Republican Budget Resolution Outlined $230 Billion In Cuts, Primary From SNAP Benefits. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The House Republicans’ budget plan would give major tax cuts to high-income, wealthy households. Extending the expiring individual income and estate tax provisions for households with incomes in the top 5 percent of the income distribution (households with incomes over $321,000) costs around $1.8 trillion through 2034, accounting for 49 percent of the total $3.6 trillion cost of extension through 2034. That $1.8 trillion for wealthy and high-income households is close to the amount of the spending cuts House Republicans have outlined — including at least $880 billion primarily from Medicaid, $230 billion primarily from SNAP benefits, and $330 billion primarily from making student loans more expensive. Of the tax cuts for wealthy households, nearly $200 billion is for an estate tax giveaway that showers some $6 million per estate on the 1 in 1,000 wealthiest estates. In contrast, the average SNAP benefit is $6.20 per person per day, which helps struggling families put food on the table.” [Center On Budget And Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
¶ Schweikert’s Votes Threatened Clean Energy Jobs In Arizona
¶ Schweikert Voted To Cut Clean Energy Tax Credits That Supported Arizona Jobs And Wanted To Fully Repeal The Inflation Reduction act
¶ Schweikert Voted For The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Which Cut Inflation Reduction Act Clean Energy Tax Credits And Made It Harder For Projects To Qualify For Clean Energy Tax Credits
July 2025: Schweikert Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Billion In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, Increased The SALT Deduction To $40,000, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. The bill was ultimately signed into law. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The Republican Reconciliation Bill Restricted The Ability Of Projects To Qualify For Certain Clean Energy Tax Credits And Repealed Electric Vehicle Tax Credits. According to Utility Drive, “The bill restricts the ability of projects to qualify for the tech-neutral clean electricity 45Y production tax credit and 48E investment tax credit, shortens the timeline for those credits, and ends the 25D residential solar credit after this year. The 25E, 30D, 30C and 45W electric vehicle credits will terminate after Sept. 30. While clean energy advocates and congressional Democrats maintain that the final version of the bill goes too far in slashing IRA credits, some Republicans wanted to see more significant cuts.” [Utility Drive, 7/3/25]
- The Final Republican Reconciliation Bill Allowed Projects To Avoid A Requirement That They Be In Service By 2027 To Qualify For Certain Credits If They Began Construction Within A Year Of The Bill Being Signed. According to Utility Drive, “Before the House Freedom Caucus reached an agreement with House leadership to vote in favor of the bill, the caucus circulated a memo that criticized the Senate’s version of the bill for offering an exemption from the House’s onerous requirement that clean energy projects be placed in service by 2027 to qualify for the 45Y and 48E credits. The Senate version allows projects to avoid this requirement if they begin construction within a year after the bill is signed into law.” [Utility Drive, 7/3/25]
¶ May 2025: Schweikert Voted For The House Republican Budget Bill, Which Cut Clean Energy Tax Credits Provided By The Inflation Reduction Act
2025: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The House Republican Budget Bill Included Cuts To Federal Tax Credits For Wind, Solar, Storage, And Other Clean Energy Projects. According to Utility Dive, “House Republicans on Thursday morning narrowly passed a sweeping budget bill that guts federal support for wind, solar, storage and other clean energy industries. The bill terminates most technology-neutral clean energy tax credits for projects placed in service after 2028 and those that begin construction more than 60 days after the bill’s passage. It also tightens restrictions on foreign entities’ involvement in projects, creating a ‘truly untenable’ situation for developers, Jefferies analysts said Thursday. Nuclear projects have more time to qualify for the credit.” [Utility Dive, 6/3/25]
- One Trade Association CEO Said The Bill Would Weaken Power Systems, Send Shockwaves Through The U.S. Economy, And Kill Tens Of Thousands Of Jobs. According to Utility Dive, “The House bill ‘abruptly dismantles bipartisan, long-standing tax policy that has catalyzed billions in private investment for affordable, reliable energy while sparking a rebirth of manufacturing across America,’ AEU President and CEO Heather O’Neill said. ‘If enacted as written, this bill will weaken our power system and send shockwaves throughout the U.S. economy by raising electricity prices, killing tens of thousands of jobs and ceding energy dominance to China.’” [Utility Dive, 5/22/25]
¶ Schweikert Repeatedly Voted Against Abortion Protections
¶ Schweikert Voted Against Codifying Abortion Protections And The Right To Access Contraceptives
¶ Schweikert Voted Against Codifying Roe V. Wade
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Codifying The Right To Receive Abortion Services And The Right For Medical Providers To Provide Abortion Services And Against Prohibiting Abortion Restrictions. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022, which would “statutorily establish that health care providers have a right to provide and patients have a right to receive abortion services, and it would prohibit certain restrictions related to abortion services. The bill would specify that rights established by the bill may not be restricted by certain requirements or limitations related to abortion services, including prohibitions on abortion prior to fetal viability, or after fetal viability if a provider determines that continuation of a pregnancy would pose a risk to a patient's life or health; requirements that patients disclose reasons for seeking an abortion or make medically unnecessary in-person appointments; requirements that providers provide medically inaccurate information or perform specific medical tests or procedures in connection with the provision of abortion services; limitations on providers' ability to prescribe drugs based on good-faith medical judgment, provide services via telemedicine or provide immediate services when a delay would pose a risk to a patient's health; and requirements for facilities and personnel that would not apply to facilities providing medically comparable procedures. It would also prohibit requirements or limitations that are similar to those established by the bill or that impede access to abortion services and expressly or implicitly single out abortion services, providers or facilities.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 219-210, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 360, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8296]
¶ Schweikert Voted Against Protecting Out-Of-State Abortion Services And Against Protecting Interstate Movement Of FDA-Approved Abortion Drugs
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Protecting An Individual’s Access To Out-Of-State Abortion Services And Against Prohibiting The Restriction Of Interstate Movement Against Any FDA-Approved Abortion Drug. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act, which would “prohibit individuals from interfering with patients' ability to access to abortion services in another state where the services are legal. Specifically, it would prohibit any person acting under color of state law from preventing, restricting or retaliating against health care providers' ability to provide abortion services that are legal in the provider's state to patients who do not reside in that state; a person's ability to assist in providing such services; or a person's ability to travel or assist another person traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion. It would also prohibit individuals from preventing, restricting or retaliating against the interstate movement of any drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the termination of a pregnancy.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 223-205, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 362, 7/15/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8297]
¶ Schweikert Voted Against Codifying The Right To Access Contraceptives
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Codifying The Right To Access Contraceptives And The Right For Health Care Providers To Provide Contraceptives To Their Patients. In July 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which would “protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote 228-195, thus the bill was sent to Senate. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 385, 7/21/22; Congressional Quarterly, 7/21/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8373]
¶ Schweikert Voted To Release The Epstein Files After 11 Months And Previously Was The Deciding Vote To Protect Accused Pedophiles In The Files
¶ November 17, 2025: Schweikert Voted With Nearly Every Other Member Of The U.S. House To Release The Epstein Files
November 17, 2025: Schweikert Voted To Release The Epstein Files. In November 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would require the attorney general, within 30 days of the bill's enactment, to make publicly available all Justice Department records, documents, communications and investigation material related to the department’s investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and other individuals or entities associated with Epstein. It would require the DOJ to disclose any immunity deals or plea bargains involving Epstein or his associates. It would allow the Justice Department to withhold or redact certain materials to protect victims' privacy, among other limited exceptions. It also would require the attorney general, within 15 days of making such records public, to submit a report to Congress that includes information on the materials it has released and withheld, a list of any redactions made and the legal justification for doing so, and a list of any government officials and politically exposed persons named in the investigation.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 472 to 1 and it was ultimately signed into law by President Trump. [House Vote 289, 11/18/25; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4405]
- HEADLINE: “In A Shift, Trump Says House Republicans Should Vote To Release Epstein Files” [NPR, 11/16/25]
- HEADLINE: “Congress Passes Bill To Force The Release Of The Epstein Files” [NBC News, 11/17/25]
- The Justice Department Had 30 Days After Trump Signed The Bill To Release All Unclassified Documents About Jeffrey Epstein. According to the Washington Post, “President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has signed a bill directing the Justice Department to release the Epstein files, documents related to the sprawling sex-trafficking investigation into the onetime powerful financier that are fervently sought by Trump’s political opponents and members of his political base. After Trump’s announcement, made in a social media post, the Justice Department will have 30 days to release all unclassified documents about Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in 2019 and died in an apparent suicide while in federal custody.” [Washington Post, 11/19/25]
- Speaker Johnson Sent The House Home A Day Early In July To Avoid A Vote On The Release Of The Files. According to ABC News, “House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to avoid holding a vote in the lower chamber on the Epstein matter. In late July, Johnson sent the House home a day early for August recess because the House was paralyzed in a stalemate over the Epstein issue.” [ABC News, 11/18/25]
- Speaker Johnson Expressed Opposition To The Process, Saying He Was “Deeply Disappointed” In The Outcome. According to NBC News, “Even after having voted for the bill, Johnson was still fuming over the process hours later. Returning to the Capitol from a White House dinner honoring Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Johnson said, ‘I'm deeply disappointed in this outcome,’ and he lamented that ‘Chuck Schumer rushed it to the floor.’ Senate Majority John Thune, R-S.D., didn't object, despite being aware of Johnson's concerns. Johnson said he was continuing to have conversations with Trump about those issues. ‘I'm frustrated with the process,’ he said, ‘but I trust Leader Thune.’” [NBC News, 11/17/25]
- Republican Rep. Clay Higgins Was The Only Member Of Congress Who Voted Against A Discharge Petition That Called To Release The Epstein Files. According to NBC News, “Congress voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to pass legislation to compel the Justice Department to release its records related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — a major victory for lawmakers in both parties who've been leading the push for months. As the final vote tally in the House, 427-1, was read, several Epstein survivors who were sitting in the gallery embraced one another and loud cheers went up through the chamber. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., was the only lawmaker to vote no.” [NBC News, 11/17/25]
¶ Schweikert Never Signed The Discharge Petition To Release The Epstein Files That Eventually Made Its Way To The House Floor
Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, And Marjorie Taylor Greene Were The Only Other Republicans To Sign Thomas Massie’s Discharge Petition To Get A House Floor Vote On Releasing The Epstein Files.
[Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Discharge Petition No. 9, 9/2/25]
¶ Schweikert Never Co-Sponsored Legislation That Called For The Epstein Files To Be Released
As Of November 26, 2025, Schweikert Was Not Listed As A Co-Sponsor On Rep. Thomas Massie’s Legislation That Called To Release The Epstein Files.
[Congressional Research Service, H.Res.581, Introduced 7/15/25]
- H.Res.581 Called On The Justice Department To Release All Unclassified Documents That Related To Jeffrey Epstein Or Ghislaine Maxwell. According to the Congressional Research Service, H.Res.581 would, “This resolution provides a special rule for consideration of H.R. 185 and amends that bill to direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make publicly available certain records related to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. Under H.R. 185, as amended by the resolution, DOJ must publicly disclose all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or Maxwell. The records include unclassified records referring or relating to Epstein's detention and death; flight logs of aircraft owned or used by Epstein; individuals named in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, or immunity or plea agreements; immunity deals, sealed settlements, or plea bargains of Epstein or his associates; entities with ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks; and internal Department of Justice communications concerning decisions to investigate or charge Epstein or his associates. However, under the amended bill, DOJ may withhold or redact portions of records with written justification that such portions contain (1) victims' personally identifiable information; (2) child sexual abuse materials; (3) images of death, physical abuse, or injury; (4) information which would jeopardize an active federal investigation or prosecution; or (5) classified information. DOJ may not withhold or redact records on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. Further, within 15 days of completing the required disclosures, DOJ must provide Congress with a report listing all categories of records released and withheld, all redactions made and their legal basis, and all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the released materials.” [Congressional Research Service, H.Res.581, Introduced 7/15/25]
¶ Schweikert Previously Voted To Protect The Accused Pedophiles Named Within The Epstein Files
¶ September 2025: Schweikert Defended His Vote Against Releasing The Epstein Files
2025: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Releasing The Epstein Files. In September 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “adoption of the rule [that] […] would consider as adopted a resolution (H Res 668) that would direct the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to continue its ongoing inquiry into the possible mismanagement of the federal government's investigation of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death in federal custody, sex trafficking rings and potential ethics violations by elected officials. […] It also would table a rule (H Res 598) that would provide for the adoption of a resolution (H Res 589) concerning the release of certain documents related to the Epstein case.” The vote was on the rule. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 212 to 208. [House Vote 222, 9/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 9/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 672]
- Representatives Massie And Khanna Introduced A Discharge Petition To Force A Vote On The Release Of The Files With Four Republicans Signed On To It As Of Mid-September. According to NBC News, “In the House, the ‘discharge petition’ to force a vote on the Massie-Khanna legislation is on track to succeed. It has 216 signatures — including all Democrats and four Republicans — and needs just two more. Those two are expected to arrive this month in the form of a newly elected Democrat in a Virginia special election and another safe blue seat in [state] that will get a special election in late September. Massie told NBC News on Tuesday that the four Republicans who have signed on are solidly behind the effort and won’t bow to pressure to remove their names. He said other GOP lawmakers have signaled to him they are open to signing the petition but prefer not to get crosswise with Trump or party leaders publicly if their votes aren't needed to pass it. [NBC News, 9/10/25]
¶ July 2025: Schweikert Cast The Deciding Vote Against Releasing The Epstein Files
HEADLINE: “House GOP Blocks Second Dem Attempt To Release Epstein Files” [Axios, 7/15/25]
2025: Schweikert Voted To Block The Release Of The Epstein Files. In July 2025, Schweikert voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to order the previous question on the rule (H Res 580) providing for floor consideration of the fiscal 2026 Defense appropriations bill (HR 4016), the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act (HR 1919), the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (HR 3633) and the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act (S 1582).” The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote on of 211 to 210. [House Vote 194, 7/15/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/25; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 580]
- The Vote Served As A Referendum With Its Passage Blocking Consideration Of Representative Khanna’s Amendment To Require Release Of The Epstein Files. According to Politico, “Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) had slightly more success mounting an effort to amend cryptocurrency-related legislation scheduled to hit the House floor later this week to compel the release of Epstein-related files. Democrats forced a Rules Committee vote on whether to allow a floor vote on Khanna’s amendment; Republicans voted it down, though one Rules member in their ranks, Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, crossed party lines. On the floor Tuesday afternoon, House Democrats attempted to cast a procedural vote as a referendum on releasing the so-called Epstein files. Had their effort to vote down the motion succeeded, they said, they would have moved forward with Khanna’s amendment. But the ‘previous question’ vote, which hasn’t been won by the House minority since 1988, prevailed 211-210 on party lines.” [Politico, 7/15/25]
- If Rep. Ro Khanna’s Maneuver Had Been Successful It Would Have Set Aside The House Republican Majority’s Agenda For The Day In Favor Of Considering Khanna’s Legislation. According to Axios, “What happened: The House voted 211-210 against allowing a House vote on Rep. Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) measure to force the DOJ to publish the Epstein files online within 30 days. Democrats' procedural motion would have scuttled the GOP's legislative agenda for the day in favor of the Khanna bill, making it difficult for Republicans to vote for it. The vote fell along party lines, with all Democrats who were present voting for their party's maneuver and all Republicans voting against it. It came after Republicans on the House Rules Committee voted Monday night against attaching the Epstein language to a broader cryptocurrency and defense funding vote.” [Axios, 7/15/25]
¶ If One “Aye” Vote Had Switched To A “No” Vote In House Vote 194, The Measure Being Considered Would Have Failed Instead Of Passing
The Measure Considered In House Vote 194 Passed With 211 “Ayes” And 210 “Nos,” Which Meant If One Aye Vote Had Switched To A No Vote The Measure Would Have Instead Failed.
[House Vote 194, 7/15/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/25; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 580]