2025: Begich Voted To Block The Release Of The Epstein Files. In July 2025, Begich 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 of 211 to 210. [House Vote 194, [7/15/25]{.underline}; Congressional Quarterly, [7/15/25]{.underline}; Congressional Actions, [H. Res. 580]{.underline}]
2025: Begich Effectively Voted Against Releasing The Epstein Files. In September 2025, Begich 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]{.underline}; Congressional Quarterly, [9/3/25]{.underline}; Congressional Actions, [H.Res. 672]{.underline}]
2025: Begich Cast The Deciding Vote For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump's Tariffs Through September 2025. In March 2025, Begich voted for, "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]{.underline}; Congressional Quarterly, [4/9/25]{.underline}; Congressional Actions, [H.Res. 313]{.underline};Congressional Actions, [H.Con. Res. 14]{.underline}]
Speaker Johnson Backed The Move, Claiming Trump Has "Executive Authority" And That The Tariffs Are "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]{.underline}]
The Vote Was The Second Use Of The Procedural Tactic To Block Votes On The Tariffs, The First Use Of It Being In March. 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]{.underline}]
2025: Begich Voted For] A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump's Tariffs. In March 2025, Begich 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]{.underline}; Congressional Quarterly, [3/11/25]{.underline}; Congressional Actions, [H.J. Res. 25]{.underline}]
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]{.underline}]
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]{.underline}]
Democrats Previously Planned To Force Votes On The Tariffs Under The National Emergencies Act. According to the New York Times, "House Democrats had planned to force a vote on resolutions to end the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, a move allowed under the National Emergencies Act, which provides a mechanism for Congress to terminate an emergency like the one Mr. Trump declared when he imposed the tariffs on Feb. 1. That would have forced Republicans --- many of whom are opposed to tariffs as a matter of principle --- to go on the record on the issue at a time when Mr. Trump's commitment to tariffs has spooked the financial markets and spiked concerns of reigniting inflation." [New York Times, [3/11/25]{.underline}]
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]{.underline}]
2025: Begich Effectively Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump's Tariffs Through September 2025. In March 2025, Begich 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]{.underline}; Congressional Quarterly, [4/9/25]{.underline}; Congressional Actions, [H.Res. 313]{.underline}]
2025: Begich Effectively Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump's Tariffs Through March 2026. In September 2025, Begich 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]{.underline}; Congressional Quarterly, [9/16/25]{.underline}; Congressional Actions, [H.Res. 707]{.underline};Congressional Actions, [H.Con. Res. 14]{.underline}]
2025: Begich Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Million 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, Begich 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. [House Vote 190, [7/3/25]{.underline}; Congressional Quarterly, [7/3/25]{.underline}; Congressional Actions, [H.R. 1]{.underline}]
The Bill Would Reduce Medicaid And Children's Health Insurance Program Funding By $1 Trillion And Remove 10.5 Million People From The Programs By 2034. According to the Center For American Progress, "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the OBBBA will cut federal spending on Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) benefits by $1.02 trillion, due in part to eliminating at least 10.5 million people from the programs by 2034." [Center For American Progress, [7/3/25]{.underline}]
The Bill Would Decrease Access To Home And Community Based Services, Only Including Enough Funding To Cover Care For 27 People In Each State. According to the Center For American Progress, "The OBBBA creates a new category in 1915(c) HCBS waivers that will cover people who do not meet the existing requirement of needing an institutional level of care to receive HCBS. States would be allowed to apply to access this funding as long as their proposed program does not increase the average HCBS wait times for people who meet the need for institutional care. In order to implement this additional category, the federal government will provide $50 million in fiscal year 2026 and $100 million in fiscal year 2027. In 2020, average Medicaid per capita spending on HCBS was $36,275. Yet in the first year of the bill's new HCBS waiver, funds from the bill would only be able to cover HCBS costs for about 27 people per state---without accounting for overhead spending or inflation. Moreover, states will be contending with massive federal funding losses due to the bill's Medicaid cuts, which will likely lengthen wait times for HCBS, making them ineligible to establish the new category at all." [Center For American Progress, [7/3/25]{.underline}]
The Bill Established A Medicaid Work Requirement That Would Effectively Cause Eligible People To Lose Coverage Due To Burdensome Paperwork. According to the Center For American Progress, "Indeed, only 8 percent of recipients between the ages of 19 and 64 who weren't on SSI or SSDI in 2023 '[weren't] working due to retirement, inability to find work, or other reason[s].' Those who were not working were statistically more likely to be older women who left the workforce to care for aging parents or children. The OBBBA requires individuals to prove that they are working, engaging in community service, or receiving work training for at least 80 hours per month---or that they are enrolled in school part time---unless they qualify for an exemption. Medicaid enrollees who are trying to find a job, are having difficulty finding employment, or who lack reliable transportation to work would be penalized under this requirement. That includes at least more than 2.6 million adults with disabilities who don't have SSI or SSDI and have difficulty working due to disability or illness. Research indicates that paperwork requirements such as those in the bill---particularly for Medicaid---don't increase employment rates and often increase overhead costs. A group of researchers evaluated the first year of paperwork reporting requirements in Arkansas and found that there was a significant loss of Medicaid coverage in the initial six months among eligible people and no significant change in employment." [Center For American Progress, [7/3/25]{.underline}]
The Bill's $50 Billion In Rural Hospital Relief Funding Would Not Come Close To The Gap Created By Medicaid Cuts, With 300 Rural Hospital At "Immediate Risk" Of Closure. According to the Center For American Progress, "The OBBBA includes $50 billion in relief funding for rural hospitals over a five-year period to help reduce the disastrous impacts of the bill's roughly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. As of May 2025, there were approximately 2,086 rural hospitals receiving $12.2 billion a year in net revenue from Medicaid. At the median, rural hospitals' revenue from Medicaid is $3.9 million a year. Rural hospitals have some of the lowest operating margins in the nation, especially compared with urban hospitals, meaning that any reductions in revenue could lead to closures. The average operating margin for rural hospitals was 3.1 percent in 2023, with 44 percent of rural hospitals operating with negative margins. As a result, more than 300 rural hospitals are currently at 'immediate risk' of closure, especially now that the OBBBA is projected to cut Medicaid spending by $1.02 trillion. The relief fund designed to blunt the negative impacts caused by the bill would not come close to filling that gap. If every rural hospital in the country received an even share of the $50 billion in relief support, it would amount to only $4.5 million every year for five years. At the close of those five years, that funding would disappear altogether." [Center For American Progress, [7/3/25]{.underline}]
The Bill Prohibited Final Rules That Would Have Increased Access To Medicare Savings Programs For Very Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries, Eliminated Medicare Eligibility For People With Lawful Immigration Status, And Cut Medicare Funding By $490 Billion Between 2027 and 2034. "The OBBBA prohibits the implementation of two finalized rules until October 1, 2034. The rules would have made it easier for very low-income Medicare enrollees to access Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs), which help cover premiums and cost-sharing for their Medicare benefits. This will disproportionately affect disabled people, as they are more likely to have lower incomes than nondisabled people. Second, the bill eliminates Medicare eligibility for people with lawful immigration status who have already paid into the program. Lastly, according to the CBO, absent future congressional action, the bill will trigger $490 billion in cuts to Medicare from 2027 to 2034 due to the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010." [Center For American Progress, [7/3/25]{.underline}]
The Bill Could Leave Up To 16 Million People Uninsured, With The Disabled And Other Vulnerable Populations Facing The Brunt Of The Impact. According to the Center For American Progress, "Approximately 16 million people could end up uninsured due to the OBBBA, causing massive disruptions in health care. Congress is making historic cuts to essential services to give tax cuts to the wealthy. And disabled people and other vulnerable communities will likely bear the greatest burden." [Center For American Progress, [7/3/25]{.underline}]
22.3 Million Families Would Lose Some Or All Of Their SNAP Benefits, With 5.3 Million Families Losing Over $25 In Benefits A 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]{.underline}]
States That Cannot 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]{.underline}]
Every SNAP Dollar Spent Generates $1.54 In Revenue For Local Economies. According to CNBC, "Every dollar spent on SNAP generates $1.54 in benefit for local economies, according to 2019 research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service." [CNBC, [7/10/25]{.underline}]
Research Suggested The SNAP Cuts Would Result In 93,000 Premature Deaths. According to the Leonard Davis Institute Of Health Economics, "Peer-reviewed research from other investigators has quantified the mortality rate of individuals under age 65 with SNAP as compared to a similar group without SNAP over a fourteen-year period.4 Assuming a similar risk profile as prior SNAP participants, if we apply that estimate to the 3.2 million Americans projected to lose SNAP benefits under the bill, that would result in 93,000 premature deaths due to the loss of SNAP between now and 2039." [Leonard Davis Institute Of Health Economics, [7/3/25]{.underline}]
118,400 People In Begich's District Rely On Medicaid Or CHIP. [Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, accessed [5/06/25]{.underline}]