Rep. Gabriel Vasquez, a vulnerable battleground Democrat facing a tough re-election fight in New Mexico, is campaigning on a permanent no-tax-on-tips policy just weeks after voting against the law that created one.
Vasquez voted with every other House Democrat against the Big Beautiful Bill, which President Trump signed into law on July 4. That law included the no-tax-on-tips provision Trump had championed throughout his campaign. Now, with a November 3 general election looming against Republican Greg Cunningham, a veteran and former DEA narcotics officer, Vasquez wants voters to believe he's the real champion of tip earners.
In August, Vasquez told local outlets that "tipped workers deserve to take home more of their hard-earned pay." He called for making the policy permanent and expanding it beyond what the Republican bill provides. But the congressman had his chance to vote yes on the only no-tax-on-tips bill that actually reached the president's desk. He voted no.
Earlier this year, Vasquez introduced H.R. 1314, the TIPS Act, which would make the no-tax-on-tips policy permanent and eliminate subminimum wages, the base hourly rate employers can pay tipped workers before tips are factored in. In New Mexico, that subminimum wage sits at $2.13 per hour.
The Big Beautiful Bill's no-tax-on-tips provision carries a four-year lifespan, set to expire in 2028. Vasquez has seized on that sunset clause to frame the Republican version as inadequate. In a statement reported by Fox News Digital, the congressman said the law falls short:
"The current sham version of 'no tax on tips' isn't going to cut it. The reality is, under the law Republicans just passed, every worker will still pay taxes on tips and overtime."
That framing lets Vasquez claim he supports the policy in principle while attacking the version that actually became law. It's a familiar maneuver for Democrats in competitive districts: oppose the bill, then campaign on a purer version that has no chance of passing.
His campaign spokesperson, Patricia Socarras Santiago, offered a defense built around the bill's Medicaid provisions rather than the tax policy itself:
"Vasquez would have happily voted for a permanent no tax on tips policy that didn't kick millions of hardworking families off Medicaid and food assistance and push our rural hospitals to the brink of closure."
The Medicaid provision she referenced requires non-disabled adults between the ages of 19 and 64 to work 80 hours per month to maintain eligibility, beginning in 2027. Vasquez's team treats that work requirement as a dealbreaker, even though it does not take effect for two years and applies only to able-bodied adults of working age.
The National Republican Congressional Committee wasted no time framing Vasquez's repositioning as election-year opportunism. NRCC spokesperson Reilly Richardson issued a pointed statement:
"Defund the police Gabe Vasquez wants to raise taxes, rip away benefits from workers, and make families' lives harder. New Mexicans want none of Vasquez's radical agenda."
Vasquez won his last re-election with 52.1% of the vote against Republican Yvette Herrell, who took 47.9%. That narrow margin places him squarely on the list of Democrats most likely to lose their seats. He ran unopposed in the Democratic primary, but the general election against Cunningham will test whether his repositioning on tips and taxes holds up under scrutiny.
Vasquez is not the only Democrat trying to navigate the distance between party-line votes and district-level politics. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania has repeatedly broken with his caucus on high-profile issues, from reversing his position on the filibuster to casting votes that put him at odds with progressive leadership.
But where Fetterman has at least been willing to absorb the political cost of public disagreement with his party, Vasquez is attempting something different: voting with the party on the floor, then running against the vote back home.
Vasquez's August pivot did not come out of nowhere. Back in April, he issued a Tax Day press release that previewed the argument he would carry into the fall campaign. He warned New Mexico voters that the Republican tax provisions might not deliver what they expected:
"Tax Day is no one's favorite time of year, but I worry this filing season is going to be especially frustrating for a lot of folks. Many hardworking New Mexicans may be surprised when they file and realize they don't qualify for the tax relief they were promised."
He followed that with a broader pitch: "New Mexicans deserve honesty. Instead of confusing, temporary policies, I'm focused on real solutions that help workers and seniors actually keep more of their hard-earned pay and benefits in their pockets, not with the IRS."
The Vasquez campaign also pointed to federal jobs data, claiming that "tipped workers in fields like hospitality are losing their jobs, and inflation is outpacing any gain made by a temporary no tax on tips policy." The specific report the campaign referenced was not identified by name or date.
The broader pattern among fracturing Democratic coalitions is worth watching. In competitive districts and primaries across the country, Democrats are struggling to reconcile progressive policy commitments with the economic priorities their voters actually care about. Vasquez's contortion on tips is a case study in that tension.
Vasquez's record before Congress adds another layer. In 2018, he criticized then-President Trump's border policies, calling the idea of "sending the military to quell a non-existent threat", his words, "beyond stupid." That kind of rhetoric plays well in progressive circles but sits awkwardly in a border-state district where immigration enforcement is not an abstraction.
The congressman now faces a general election opponent in Cunningham who can point to a straightforward contrast: one candidate's party passed no tax on tips into law; the other candidate voted against it and then claimed the credit. Fetterman's experience shows that breaking with party leadership carries real consequences, but at least earns a measure of credibility for independence.
The Big Beautiful Bill, whatever its imperfections, delivered a concrete benefit to tipped workers. It also delivered benefits to over 45 million seniors and 127 million families, according to Rep. Claudia Tenney. Vasquez's alternative, H.R. 1314, a bill with no clear path to passage, offers a talking point. The law he voted against offers a tax break.
Democrats who cast lonely votes against their own party at least demonstrate they are willing to put policy above politics. Vasquez did the opposite: he cast the safe party-line vote, then tried to outflank the policy he rejected. New Mexico voters will decide in November whether that kind of maneuvering passes for leadership, or whether they prefer the candidate whose party actually delivered the result.
Voters can smell the difference between a conviction and a campaign ad. Vasquez is betting they can't.
