Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) came under fire Tuesday in a scathing column accusing her of having “sold (Alaskans) out” for her support for President Donald Trump’s budget reconciliation package that includes the single-largest cut to Medicaid in history, all in exchange for some Alaska-specific carveouts.
Originally critical of the budget reconciliation package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Murkowski vowed to vote against the bill, but later changed her mind, voting for it in the Senate, while at the same time, claiming she didn’t support it as it passed out of the upper chamber. She was roasted by critics for voting for a bill she apparently didn’t support, and in a column published in Slate, author Jill Filipovic called Murkowski’s decision a “particular betrayal.”
“Murkowski was skeptical of the legislation, but Republicans packed the bill with a bunch of Alaska-specific incentives in a move so cynical and transparent that Freedom Caucus Republicans characterized it as ‘loaded with pork to buy key Senate votes,’” Filipovic wrote.
“These are things like tax write-offs for whaling boat captains and various carve-outs so that poor Alaskans don’t see quite the devastation that other poor Americans will, at least not right away. The pork-for-votes strategy worked: Murkowski signed on.”
The analysis chided so-called "Maverick" Republicans like Murkowski, who are seen as willing to break ranks.
"Except, of course, they don’t. Over and over again, they’ve revealed themselves as unprincipled hacks, gutless cowards, or both—people who will allow tremendous damage to be wrought on their constituents because they’re too scared of big donors or, more often, the wannabe strongman in the Oval Office," the piece said.
Murkowski has shown defiance to Trump in the past, being the only Republican senator to vote against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2018. It’s this appearance of independent thought, Filipovic wrote, that made her support of the megabill feel “like so much more of a violation than those cast by her Republican colleagues.”
As to why Murkowski would bend to Trump’s whims, apparently against her own judgment, Filipovic suggested it was a matter of self-interest.
“With Trump winning Alaska by 13 points in 2024 – up from 10 in 2020 – and the incumbent Democrat in the House losing to a pro-Trump Republican, Murkowski may well feel that her own political future requires a little less independence and a little more of what the president demands: submission,” she wrote.
“It is easier, it turns out, to advertise oneself as a principled conservative who is willing to assert their independence even at the most difficult moments than it is to actually be someone willing to risk their own power, even to protect millions of their far less fortunate fellow citizens.”
Close to 40% of Alaskans are enrolled in Medicaid, many of whom are likely to lose coverage in the coming years as close to $1 trillion is cut from the low-income health care program over the next decade. In exchange for her allegiance to Trump, however, Murkowski received a number of Alaska-specific carve-outs, including a boost to federal rural health care funding, exemptions for stricter means testing for federal food assistance, and expanded oil and gas lease offerings in the state.
“Murkowski is capable of being brave; I don’t like many of her politics, but I do trust that she is a principled and decent person,” Filipovic wrote.
“She writes in her book: ‘Legislating, for me, is not transactional. I need to believe in the decisions I make;’ Murkowski caved to the exact kind of transactional legislating she decries and voted for a bill she does not have faith in and cannot actually stand behind.”