Weekly Wonk: When the Elephants Are Fighting…
Why intra-GOP infighting inflected policy volatility matters for your priorities
From the Founder’s Desk
The factors that most shape what’s possible in child and family policy are often seemingly unrelated to it; political dynamics, media cycles, relationships, and more.
Political conflict is a great example. It drives what’s possible, opening and closing windows in which policy can move. Tracking and understanding it is essential.
A risk appears when that read gets sharpest. Seeing that conflict clearly makes it seem like there are ways to redirect it more favorably to move a policy priority.
Back when I was an advocate, I had a great mentor and boss whose uncanny read on the politics and psychology of power made him adept at avoiding that risk.
I’m reminded this week of his go-to refrain when discussing the possibility of entanglement in a conflict between rival policymakers:
“When the elephants are fighting, you don’t want to be the grass.”
It’s a trite truism that Republicans and Democrats can barely agree the sky is blue. The emerging dynamic that requires a fresh look is growing fissures within the GOP.
We’ve previously covered how intra-party policy differences created complications as far back as last summer’s reconciliation legislation. This is different.
Our Deep Dive this week unpacks where differences previously percolating in private are now driving open confrontation, flagging what to watch as you assess the risk of policy uncertainty and volatility for your priorities, and emerging openings for impact.
Our most recent premium brief looks at another key area of policy; the role of philanthropic investment in financing the infrastructure that makes advocacy possible.
For our latest WonkCast, I got to talk with Here Now Health founder Michelle Turner about Medicaid, child welfare, and what she’s seen firsthand of“custody for care”.
Let’s get into it.
Weekly Wonk Deep Dive
Why Congress Won’t Do Much Before November
The core driver for Congress for the next four months is the election.
By Douglas Steiger, Senior Contributor
Every election year, Congress slows down. This year it may stop altogether.
The difference isn’t the election, but the diverging incentives it creates for Senate Republicans and President Trump, compounded by pressure on Democratic leadership to take a firm line.
Senate Republicans want November to be a referendum on the One Big Beautiful Bill’s tax cuts and on Democrats’ ascendant left flank.
President Trump wants tighter voting rules before Election Day, even if it means jettisoning the filibuster.
Those are not compatible asks, yet every must-pass bill this fall has to route around both of them.
Democrats, by contrast, have clear and significant internal divisions on strategy, but aligned incentives to not be a barrier to routine must-pass funding if it doesn’t contain extraneous policies.
That makes them a more predictable negotiating partner.
Republicans and the President are not predictable partners with each other, which is the core factor that should be driving your risk assessment this fall.
Why Can’t Congress Do Its Job?
The back half of an election year is always hard for legislating: partisan tension spikes and members would rather be back home campaigning than on the Hill.
Anything not finished by the August recess usually waits for the lame duck session…or dies.
The would-be third reconciliation bill is the first casualty, and it’s dying for familiar reasons. It was supposed to focus on defense spending, but Republicans can’t agree on what’s in it.
Key Senate Republicans are withholding support because it would fund defense items outside of the traditional appropriations process, while moderates are concerned by cuts conservatives would demand in exchange.
Different Theories for Winning the November Elections
This leaves the appropriations bills – or at least a CR – as the last major “must do” item before the election.
But the President has a different “must do” priority.
His strategy for winning in November centers on tightening voting rules, particularly through the SAVE America Act. He wants Senate Republicans to end the filibuster to pass it.
The Senate Republican strategy for November is to remind voters of the tax cuts in H.R. 1 and paint Democrats as too far left. They want to keep the filibuster for when they are back in the minority.
House Republicans, notably, don’t have a comparable unified strategy of their own,which is part of why they’re more of a follower in this negotiation thana party to it.
Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats want the election to be about the economy and the perceived corruption of the Trump Administration.
The Democratic base, still furious at the party leadership for failing to check Trump, has already cost incumbents their seats.
Primary losses in New York and Colorado this cycle are the clearest signal of discontent.
That anger points towards Democrats being tough negotiators this fall, which means a lower likelihood of providing crossover votes to pass a CR if Republicans insist on adding things to it without sufficient votes to move it on their own.
To Appropriate or Shutdown?
The appropriations process is already behind schedule.
Last year it was immigration enforcement funds that were the flashpoint in appropriations brinksmanship; this year it appears it will be defense spending
President Trump has requested a 42 percent increase in regular defense appropriations, plus a separate supplemental that includes $67 billion to cover the costs of the war with Iran— a war that nearly three in five Americans express opposing in aggregated polling
Democrats oppose both asks.
As of yet, Senate negotiators have not even agreed on an overall spending topline, largely because Republicans are proposing a much larger increase for defense than for non-defense programs, mirroring the Administration’s request.
The possibility of moving some military spending into a third reconciliation bill has complicated things further.
If that bill does not happen, it puts more pressure on Republicans to secure a large defense increase through appropriations instead.
Also slowing the process is that Congressional Democrats want to kill certain Trump priorities once and for all, like the “weaponization fund,” and the White House ballroom.
Many Republicans privately express a desire to block these projects, but fear the President’s wrath if they do so openly.
An October Surprise?
Usually, election years produce simple CRs that punt issues until November so members can go campaign.
This year’s tangle of defense spending, reconciliation uncertainty, and a President at odds with his own party’s strategy may produce something worse: a shutdown in October.
Democrats’ willingness to force last year’s shutdown over immigration policy, plus the anger inside their own base, suggests they will take a hard line again, further increasing chances of a repeat shutdown.
The President Trump-Senate Republican misalignment compounds the chances of a shutdown further; would the President refuse to sign a CR if it doesn’t include his election rules demands?
His abrupt refusal to sign the bipartisan housing bill unless the SAVE America Act passed first suggests he might.
Beyond October, expect a post-election negotiation on spending, with its own shutdown risk.
If Democrats do well in November, they will be emboldened to insist on changes that Trump will fight. If they don’t do well, their base will be furious and push them to fight him harder anyway.
Getting the President’s support for a post-election deal will likely mean putting his personal priorities ike the ballroom on the table, which Democrats will resist.
And his active buy-in will likely be necessary to get House Republicans to support any deal. Some open questions worth tracking for your own work:
Will retiring or defeated Senators, especially Republicans, act as free agents and form one of the Senate’s bipartisan dealmaking blocs to close things out?
Will 2028 Democratic presidential hopefuls stake out positions against compromise before the primary race even formally starts?
None of this resolves cleanly; expect persistent volatility.
What Decision Makers Need to Know
Even if a shutdown is looming, what gets into the current appropriations bills this summer and fall matters for the prospect of your priorities.
Whenever the window opens for a deal, that will be the raw material to build it; nothing substantial gets added from scratch later.
If your priority is not an appropriations item, it may still be in play as an add-on to a year-end deal.
Making that happen means lining up champions now, whether your goal is to get something attached or to keep something else off.
The Farm Bill is a live example of this mechanism: if it becomes part of a year-end negotiation, it’s a vehicle for changes to the H.R. 1 SNAP cuts— for those pushing to restore them and those defending them alike.
The vehicle matters regardless of which side is using it.
This is also a good moment for an advanced assessment of your exposure to extended shutdown risk this fall.
If a shutdown would hit key programs you care about, it helps to have a clear way of communicating those stakes in advance and as it happens.
House and Senate Democrats are already planning for a possible majority next year.
If you want a place in those conversations, that window is open now; those who help shape an agenda before power is certain have a far different standing than those who arrive after the election.
Republicans may very well hold one or both chambers. Have a plan for that, too
Smart advocates aren’t waiting to find out which playbook wins. They’re assessing risk and honing strategy now, while the politicians stay focused on November.
From the Wonk Briefing Room
If you work in philanthropy, you’re probably tired of receiving pitches for things that seem to clearly or nearly cross the lobbying line.
If you work in advocacy, you’re probably tired of seeing critical policy work sit seemingly just out of reach, and wondering how you can fund it.
Those are two sides of the same coin that point to a deeper inefficiency in our field.
In our latest premium brief, seasoned chief fundraiser Christine Bork digs into that deeper inefficiency and offers new ways for our field to think about and act on it.
She sees three constraints reinforcing each other to starve the specific infrastructure that makes later legislative wins possible, like policy research timed to live issues, coalitions built before a bill exists, relationships with Hill staff formed years in advance.
Then she maps out what’s actually fundable inside those constraints today, and specific moves you can make that sustain and expand that infrastructure.
To read the full brief and access all our premium resources, join the Wonk Briefing Room. Individuals can sign up here, or get the team membership rate here.
Organizations interested in going even deeper can reach out to learn more about our partnerships that help you leverage and apply our intel in your strategy.
To read the full brief and access all our premium resources, join the Wonk Briefing Room. Individuals can sign up here, or get the team membership rate here.
Organizations interested in going even deeper can reach out to learn more about our partnerships that help you leverage and apply our intel in your strategy.
Wonkatizer
50 for 50: A Home for Every Child Goes Nationwide
What Happened
Last week, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) announced that all 50 states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico have joined the A Home for Every Child initiative.
Participating states receive streamlined alternate data reporting and oversight in exchange for tracking key data related to the ratio of licensed foster homes to children in care, currently 57 per 100 nationally.
ACF is backing the push with a $7 million Innovation Challenge and a to-be-released monthly public data dashboard tracking each state’s ratio.
Technical instructions released June 17 show the pilot isn’t just the ratio: states must also report four monthly “chaser measures” related to kinship placement rates, use of congregate care, repeat maltreatment, and placement disruption.
Why it Matters
No state has ever hit full CFSR conformity in 25 years of reviews — every state, every cycle, has landed on a PIP.
Universal participation speaks to states’ desire to reduce reporting requirements.
It’s also central to ACF Assistant Secretary Alex Adams’ big bet on buy-in making policy reform more durable than formal regulatory change.
What to Watch
The chaser measures matter are ACF’s answer to the “mirage” problem Laura Radel’s series on A Home For Every Child flagged — that a rising ratio alone can’t tell you whether new homes are stable, well-matched, or just a raw supply number moving in the right direction.
With every state now in, it’s a great opportunity to revisit our four-part series on HFEC by Senior Contributor Laura Radel:
Part 1 (open-access) maps where every state stood on the ratio goal
Part 2 (premium-only) tracks how those ratios moved from 2020 to 2025
Part 3 (premium-only) breaks down what actually drove each state’s change, and
Part 4 (premium-only) models how far each state still has to go to hit 1:1.
That’s it for this week.
Stay sharp, Wonks.
~ Z
Partners Making Your Weekly Wonk Possible
