What did the Schumer Shutdown give Democrats? Absolutely nothing. Not only did they have to cave without gaining a single concession, it turns out that they didn't use their time to prepare the battleground on their main issue. Democrats instead demanded an ambiguous, open-ended extension of emergency ObamaCare subsidies, but never put together a coherent proposal or legislation.
Donald Trump and his team spent their time preparing their response, however. Axios reports that the White House will get their specific proposals out this week, with just enough of a compromise to annoy both sides:
What we're hearing: Trump plans to propose a framework that would address spiking premiums by extending for two years the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are due to expire at the end of the year, according to sources familiar, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the talks.
- It would put an income limit on who's eligible for the tax credits and require recipients to make a minimum premium payment, eliminating $0 premium plans that Republicans say fuel fraud.
- The plan also would encourage people to buy lower-premium options on the ACA exchange.
- For individuals who downgrade their coverage, the difference in costs would be distributed to an health savings account provided with taxpayer dollars.
Get ready for some grumbling, especially among House Republicans. There is some support for extending the "emergency" subsidies, but a two-year extension likely goes further than the comfort zone for many, especially in the House Freedom Caucus. No one wants to go into a midterm election after hiking costs on middle-class voters – the households likely to feel the end of subsidies the most – but a two-year extension puts the next expiration date ahead of the 2028 election cycle. One year or three years might have been more palatable.
The sweetener for those skeptic might be the last bullet point, plus the new eligibility restrictions, for which Axios does not provide any details. Trump has hit insurance companies hard in this debate for benefiting the most from these pandemic-emergency subsidies. Redirecting the benefit to HSA accounts for taxpayers to control may not eliminate that benefit in the long run; most will still opt to use those for insurance payments. However, it would give taxpayers more control over how to direct those funds, and some might opt for cheaper plans and use the subsidies for co-pays instead, benefiting providers more directly than insurers.
Mike Johnson would have a difficult time getting any extension through the House on a party-line vote, especially with Marjorie Taylor Greene going rogue now. Even with the HSA approach integrated into this plan, Johnson might need a little help from the few moderate Democrats, especially those who crossed over to end the shutdown. Would Trump get enough Democrat support to pass such a plan if his own caucuses balk?
Senator Maggie Hassan (D-VT) offered a cautiously positive response to the Axios report:
Sen. Hassan, a key Democrat on the shutdown talks, on Trump's forthcoming health care proposal
— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) November 24, 2025
"President Trump and Congressional Republicans are now coming to the table ... while I have significant concerns about some of the ideas reportedly in the President’s proposal, it…
... it nonetheless represents a starting point for serious negotiations.
The "serious negotiations" remark sounds like a sotto voce slap at Chuck Schumer, and maybe Hakeem Jeffries as well. After demanding a one-year, as-is extension to the subsidies during the shutdown (among other demands), neither man seemed prepared with a "serious" proposal afterward. That led to Jeffries getting depantsed on CNBC by Rebecca Quick, who very quickly exposed both Democrat leaders' manipulations, pun intended:
Incredible exchange here as Hakeem Jeffries gets IRATE with CNBC’s Becky Quick for daring to press him on his robotic ACA talking points:
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 21, 2025
Quick: *Cuts Jeffries off to try to make him actually answer a question*
Jeffries: “You can ask the question, I’ll provide the answer!"… pic.twitter.com/gegocDMQja
QUICK: Answer the question instead of going back.
JEFFRIES: I’m providing an answer in order to provide context. Republicans have repeatedly refused to take yes for an answer. It was a very reasonable multi-year extension that was offered. It was one year straight extension, plus a multi- year process through a bipartisan commission to more permanently resolve the Affordable Care Act issue. So having that context is absolutely important, regardless of what you may think.
QUICK: It’s important context to make me realize that I don’t think you want to get a deal done. I think this is something where you’d like to see the rates go higher and allow the Republicans to hang themselves with that. Is that the answer? Is this politics?
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries ever had a solid proposal to deal with this issue, let alone a "serious" one. If Trump gets his on the table first, then Democrats will have sprung their trap on themselves ... again.
All of this leads to the most pertinent question: Do Democrats ever get tired of losing?
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Hot Air, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. Sometimes, however, we just point and laugh, and let the radical Left embarrass itself. This is one of those times.
Help us continue to point, laugh, and expose the idiocy of progressive elites. Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership!
