Originally published on July 4th, 2025 by the San Mateo Daily Journal and written by Holly Rusch

President Donald Trump’s vast domestic policy agenda narrowly passed through the House on Thursday, in a frustrating conclusion for congressional Democrats and their futile opposition to sweeping tax cuts and gutting of social safety net programs within the bill. 

“Am I surprised by the outcome? No. There was a lot of theatrics,” U.S. Rep. Sam Liccardo, D-San Jose, said. “Many [were] blasting the impact of the bill on the budget deficit and debt. Every one of those who protested loudly caved.”  

The legislation would also increase the national debt by upwards of $3.3 trillion, per the Congressional Budget Office, largely to pay for tax cuts, immigration enforcement, deportation and detainment and increase national defense spending. 

Several House Republicans, previously known for stalwart opposition to increasing the debt ceiling, expressed serious concerns about this element of the bill but ultimately voted for it regardless. 

San Mateo County Republican Party Chair Anna Kramer said she was largely happy the bill was passed, noting that Californians would benefit from a raised deduction limit of $40,000 on state and local taxes.

Kramer wasn’t pleased with the debt increase, which she called a “negotiating point” within the bill, but suggested that the Federal Reserve could decrease interest rates to help mitigate the debt. In general, Democrats should be more amenable to working with their Republican colleagues to address the country’s problems, she said. 

“I think everyone has to work with the president, instead of fighting him, to make the country great and reduce debt for the future of the country,” she said. 

The legislation will also make deep cuts to Medicaid, the government-funded health care program that serves around 72 million Americans, and the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance to 40 million Americans. 

The cuts could leave nearly 12 million more Americans uninsured over the next 10 years and millions without SNAP benefits, the New York Times reported. In California, where nearly 15 million individuals are on Medicaid, known in the state as Medi-Cal, changes to the program — like new work reporting requirements and limitations on provider payments — more than 2 million individuals could be losing their health insurance. 

It’s particularly insulting to use cuts to the services that low-income, vulnerable communities rely on to fund tax cuts for the rich, U.S. Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, said. 

“This is a middle finger to the future … our kids and our grandkids are going to be paying off the new debt that’s been created through the tax cuts in this bill,” he said. “It’s deeply problematic that a portion of these tax cuts were financed through cuts to Medicaid, which is going to have a dramatic impact on poor people and working people.” 

In Mullin’s district, which encompasses most of San Mateo County, 172,367 people — 49,495 of whom are children under the age of 19 and 28,000 of whom are seniors over 65 — are on Medi-Cal.

It isn’t possible to know the exact numbers of San Mateo County residents who would be losing their health care insurance as a result of the bill, largely because potential backfill contributions by the state to make up the difference are unknown as of yet, said David Canepa, president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. 

“The big beautiful bill could potentially — if the state doesn’t backfill — cause irreparable damage to how we as a county deliver social safety net services,” he said. 

Per estimates from late April, $142 million in funding that the county receives from the federal government — largely for Medi-Cal reimbursements, SNAP, emergency housing vouchers and temporary cash assistance programs — was designated at high risk of loss. 

It won’t be possible for San Mateo County to backfill the costs of these programs by itself, Canepa said, but he emphasized the county would need to wait for state direction before proceeding with plans for independent program funding. 

“We have to wait to see what the state is going to do — are they going to help out counties solve funding issues?” he said. “If the state is not going to be of much help, [we’ll] try to figure out what we can do.” 

Though Democrats have expressed resounding opposition to the legislation, their position as the minority party in both the House and Senate have made them largely incapable of enacting any substantive revisions. That needs to change, Mullin said. 

“If we take the majority in 2026, the first order of business will be undoing the negative aspects of this bill and supporting community clinics and rural hospitals and working people across this country who rely on Medicaid,” he said. “I wish that could be done tomorrow. I wish there were an election held next week. That’s just not our reality.” 

Liccardo, who has also previously impressed the importance of taking back control of the House in the upcoming 2026 midterms, said he’ll be introducing legislation next week that will attempt to revoke a little-discussed element of the policy bill — taxes on remittances, the money that American residents send to families overseas. 

He also stressed that while Democrats, if they take back a majority in the House, can work to undo cuts to Medicaid and other social services, won’t be able to fix the country’s additional debts so easily. 

“We can come in two years with a democratic majority in the House and restore the cuts,” he said. “The nearly $4 trillion in debt will not get so easily resolved.”