— At a closed-door briefing at a private Republican club across from the Capitol, senior advisers from former President Trump’s 2024 campaign urged House Republicans to stop using the phrase “One Big Beautiful Bill” and instead present the recently passed domestic package as a “Working Families” tax plan to blunt its widespread unpopularity.
Key Takeaways
- Campaign aides recommended renaming the package the “Working Families Tax Cut Bill” or “Working Families Tax Plan.”
- The briefing, titled “Love at First Vote,” acknowledged the law is polling poorly: more than 64% of voters view it unfavorably.
- Attendees heard the presentation from Karoline Leavitt, Tony Fabrizio and James Blair, who framed the issue as a branding problem rather than a policy one.
- The law, signed in July 2025, includes sizable reductions to Medicaid (nearly $1 trillion) and cuts to some food assistance and other safety-net programs.
- Some Republican officials embraced the new label publicly after the meeting; others skipped the briefing despite organizers saying attendance would be tracked.
- Democrats say the policy effects, not the name, will determine voter reaction, pointing to analyses showing the poorest workers could lose ground under the law.
Verified Facts
On Sept. 3, 2025, campaign and White House officials held a mandatory-appearance briefing for House Republicans at a private club near the Capitol. The session was led by Karoline Leavitt (White House press secretary and 2024 campaign staffer), Tony Fabrizio (2024 campaign chief pollster) and James Blair (former campaign political director and current deputy White House chief of staff).
The advisers acknowledged that public polling shows the law is broadly unpopular; reporting cited that over 64% of voters view the package unfavorably. They urged lawmakers to emphasize tax relief for working households when describing the measure.
The measure was signed into law two months earlier, in July 2025, and includes major changes to federal programs. Analysts and official summaries indicate nearly $1 trillion in reductions to Medicaid funding, alongside cuts to some food assistance and other safety-net provisions, and modifications to components of the Affordable Care Act.
Some lawmakers left the briefing repeating the new framing. Representative Tom Emmer described the package as a “working families tax cut” in public remarks after the session. Other House Republicans, including some in leadership, either did not attend or remained publicly skeptical about the rename strategy.
Context & Impact
Republican strategists view a relabeling effort as a common political response when a policy struggles in the polls. They argued the negative ratings reflect messaging failures and early implementation timing rather than outright voter rejection of the policy details.
Opponents counter that the substance of the law—large Medicaid reductions and changes that analysts say disproportionately benefit higher-income households—will be difficult to obscure with a new label, especially for voters who may be affected by cuts to benefits.
Possible short-term effects:
- Messaging shift could reduce immediate political fallout if constituents see direct, tangible benefits tied to the relabelled tax plan.
- Conversely, detailed reporting and outreach by opponents may reinforce the law’s unpopularity as implementation unfolds and budget impacts become clearer.
Official Statements
“Once people find out what’s actually in it, they’ll be very supportive.”
Representative Nicole Malliotakis
Unconfirmed
- Whether Team Trump’s internal polling fully supports the claim that voters would favor the law once they “experience” it; underlying poll data have not been released publicly.
- How many House members actually changed constituent messaging as a direct result of the briefing, beyond a few immediate public statements.
- Whether the reported attendance-tracking note signaled formal enforcement or was chiefly rhetorical; sources described it as an edict but enforcement details were not shown.
Bottom Line
Campaign advisers are banking on a naming and messaging pivot to shore up political support for a law that is currently unpopular in polls. The strategy may blunt short-term criticism if constituents perceive direct benefits, but substantial program cuts and independent analyses that show uneven distribution of gains could limit the effectiveness of a rebrand over the longer term.