The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building in Washington, D.C., in a file photo from November 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Friday it’ll soon release billions in Education Department funding that has been frozen for weeks, delaying disbursements to K-12 schools throughout the country.

The funding — which goes toward migrant education, English-language learning and other programs — was supposed to go out before July 1, but the administration informed schools just one day before that it was instead holding onto $6.8 billion while staff conducted a review. Members of both parties in Congress objected to the move.

The Education Department released $1.3 billion for before- and after-school programs as well as summer programs in mid-July, but the rest of the funding remained stalled.

Madi Biedermann, a Department of Education spokesperson, wrote in an email to States Newsroom that the White House budget office “has completed its review” of the remaining accounts and “has directed the Department to release all formula funds.”

The administration will begin sending that money to school districts next week, Biedermann wrote.

Appropriators cheer

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, wrote in a statement the “funds are essential to the operation of Maine’s public schools, supporting everything from classroom instruction to adult education.”

“I am pleased that following outreach from my colleagues and me, the Administration has agreed to release these highly-anticipated resources,” Collins wrote. “I will continue working to ensure that education funds are delivered without delay so that schools have adequate time to plan their finances for the upcoming school year, allowing students to arrive back to class this fall to properly-funded schools.”

Collins and nine other Republican senators wrote a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought earlier this month asking him to “faithfully implement” the spending law Congress approved in March.

“The decision to withhold this funding is contrary to President (Donald) Trump’s goal of returning K-12 education to the states,” the GOP senators wrote. “This funding goes directly to states and local school districts, where local leaders decide how this funding is spent, because as we know, local communities know how to best serve students and families.

“Withholding this funding denies states and communities the opportunity to pursue localized initiatives to support students and their families.”

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Education Department, wrote in a statement released Friday she was glad to see the funding unfrozen.

“The programs are ones that enjoy longstanding, bipartisan support like after-school and summer programs that provide learning and enrichment opportunities for school aged children, which also enables their parents to work and contribute to local economies, and programs to support adult learners working to gain employment skills, earn workforce certifications, or transition into postsecondary education,” Capito wrote. “That’s why it’s important we continue to protect and support these programs.”

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Sunday, June 29, 2025, as the reconciliation package was under debate. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans believe Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law will either hurt them or not make much of a difference, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

The survey shows 46% of people expect the new tax and spending cuts law will generally hurt them or their family, while 28% said it likely won’t make much difference and 26% said it will help them.

Those beliefs were skewed by political parties, with 54% of Republicans saying the law will help them or their family, compared to 19% of independents and 7% of Democrats.

People enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower income individuals and people with disabilities, have significant concerns about how changes to the program will impact them.

Sixty-five percent of Medicaid patients under the age of 65 said they expect the law to hurt them or their family. Another 17% said it won’t make much of a difference for them and 18% expect the policy changes to help.

The law makes more than a dozen changes to how Medicaid is run, resulting in a $1.058 trillion spending cut to the program during the next decade, according to an analysis released earlier this week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The report projects that 10 million people will lose access to health insurance before 2034.

The law made permanent the 2017 tax cuts from President Donald Trump’s first term and provided billions to carry out his plans of mass deportations, an immigration crackdown and increased defense spending.

Some know little about new law

KFF’s survey shows most Americans know at least something about the new law, though 9% of those polled said they know nothing at all and 23% said they know just a little.

Democrats had the highest percent of respondents who said they knew either a lot, 35%, or some, 45%, about the law. Twenty-two percent of Republicans said they knew a lot about their party’s top legislative achievement this year, with 44% saying they knew something, 27% saying they knew a little and 7% saying they knew nothing.

Social media

The vast majority of those polled, 78%, said they saw information about Republicans’ new law on social media during the last month.

Facebook and YouTube were the more popular social media platforms for people to see information about the tax and spending cuts law, followed by Instagram, TikTok, X and Reddit.

Forty-seven percent of those surveyed said the content they saw on social media opposed the policy changes included in the law, while 41% said it was mixed and 11% said it supported the GOP’s work.

Republicans said 26% of what they viewed on social media was in support of the law, with 53% mixed and 21% opposed. Democrats polled said 76% of what they saw was opposed, 21% mixed and 3% was supportive.

Most of those surveyed said the social media content helped them understand what the new law actually does. Sixteen percent said it was very helpful, 46% said it was somewhat helpful, 27% said it was not too helpful and 11% said it wasn’t helpful at all. 

Flood waters left debris including vehicles and equipment scattered in Louise Hays Park on July 5, 2025 in Kerrville, Texas.  (Photo by Eric Vryn/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration official running the Federal Emergency Management Agency testified Wednesday the response to flash flooding in Texas over the Fourth of July weekend served as an “outstanding” model for the rest of the country.

His conclusions about the catastrophic flooding, which had a death toll of 135 and included extensive search and rescue operations, were questioned by several members of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee holding the hearing.

David Richardson, the senior official performing the duties of FEMA administrator, told the panel that he “can’t see anything that we did wrong.”

“The response in Texas, which was community-led, state managed and federally supported, brought the maximum amount of capability to bear in Texas at the right time and the right place,” Richardson said. “We made that happen and that is a model of how response should be done.”

Richardson testified that in his view “emergency management is not a pile-on sport. It’s well coordinated, relies on personal relationships, it’s got to be exercised beforehand. And all those things came together on Texas’ worst day.”

‘Texas got what they needed’

Richardson told the panel that while he was on vacation when the Texas flooding began and for several days afterward, he “remained in my truck the whole time” making phone calls to state and federal officials.

“Texas got what they needed when they needed it,” he testified.

When asked by Texas Republican Rep. Brian Babin “what steps will FEMA take to ensure that something like this will never happen again,” Richardson said the agency works “as closely as we can with emergency managers in Texas and the local communities.”

“Through mitigation grants, resilience and those type of efforts, we work with them to build the best emergency management system we can have,” Richardson said. “And as you saw in Texas, under the secretary’s leadership and the president’s leadership, it worked very, very well.” 

Arizona Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton, ranking member on the subcommittee, rejected Richardson’s characterization that the Texas response and recovery efforts were handled appropriately.

“It haunts me that we could have had more urban search and rescue pre-positioned in place,” Stanton said. “We could have saved more of those people.”

Stanton alleged that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s requirement that any contract costing more than $100,000 get her approval hindered federal search and rescue operations.

“That bottleneck delayed urban search and rescue teams for more than 72 hours,” he said. “By the time many urban search and rescue teams reached Texas, no one had been found alive for days.”

Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Scott Perry, chairman of the subcommittee, appeared to defend FEMA’s approach to the Texas flooding, saying it’s not possible for FEMA to pre-position resources for all flood warnings.

“Flood warnings happen all across the country on a regular basis and FEMA doesn’t pre-position to every flood warning it gets because they would pre-position literally 365 days a year,” Perry said. “That having been said, with fast-moving disasters, like the one that occurred in Texas, it is not like a hurricane, which you can track, you can anticipate landfall or the location of the disaster to pre-position assets.”

Call-in center in Texas floods

Richardson defended staffing and wait times for FEMA’s call-in center during the two-hour hearing, rejecting reports that people were unable to get through to representatives following the Texas floods.

Stanton said that Noem’s sign-off policy on higher cost contracts caused issues here as well.

“On July 5, less than 24 hours after the tragedy, FEMA’s call center contract expired because of this $100,000 sign-off policy,” he said. “The result, the vast majority of calls from survivors went unanswered. Families desperate for shelter and aid were met with silence.

“Can you imagine losing a family member, losing your home and having your call go unanswered when you’re looking for a lifeline?”

Perry said that the subcommittee was told by another FEMA official that the call center prioritizes people in a disaster area when that disaster is ongoing, but emphasized the panel expected the correct information.

“So you might be getting calls into the call center from across the country, but the ones outside the disaster response area are put kind of behind the ones that are priority, which is the disaster that’s occurring now,” Perry said. “We don’t want to say that anybody is distorting the truth, but we got to make decisions on the correct information.”

Richardson testified that FEMA surged staff to the call center following the Texas flooding, but that Monday was an especially busy day for people contacting the agency.

“All calls were answered within three minutes … and no calls beyond 10 minutes. So it’s from three to 10 minutes,” Richardson said. “And the vast majority of phone calls were answered. The questions were addressed.”

Eliminate FEMA?

Richardson declined to say whether the Trump administration will try to completely eliminate FEMA, saying that the president “wants a better emergency management capability.”

President Donald Trump launched a FEMA review council earlier this year to assess how the agency, which is housed within the Department of Homeland Security, operates and where changes could be made.

Trump and Noem have repeatedly said they think the federal government could get rid of FEMA. Richardson said he expects the review council to issue its recommendations later this year. 

A Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City is pictured on Wednesday, July 31, 2024. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday, blocking a provision in Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law that would have barred Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year.

District Court Judge Indira Talwani wrote in a 36-page opinion that Planned Parenthood established “a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim” since the new law “burdens” the organization’s First Amendment rights. But she limited the protections to only certain Planned Parenthood clinics.

“A preliminary injunction maintains Planned Parenthood Members’ ability to seek Medicaid reimbursements—and maintain their status quo level of service to patients,” Talwani wrote. “And an injunction requiring Defendants to continue funding Medicaid reimbursements in accordance with the status quo imposes no additional Medicaid costs on Defendants, where there is no dispute that Medicaid funds will still be provided only for reimbursable healthcare services.”

Congress has barred federal taxpayer dollars from going to abortion services with limited exceptions for decades. But GOP lawmakers used their sweeping tax and spending cuts package to eliminate Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for other types of health care, like annual physicals and cancer screenings.

The original House version of the bill included a 10-year moratorium on Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, but that was changed to a one-year prohibition in the Senate.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging the new law just days after President Donald Trump signed it during a ceremony on the Fourth of July.

Talwani, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order the same day the case was filed, blocking that provision’s implementation.

The Trump administration argued against the court issuing a preliminary injunction, writing in a 58-page motion submitted last week that Planned Parenthood’s “constitutional claims are utterly meritless.”

“All three democratically elected components of the Federal Government collaborated to enact that provision consistent with their electoral mandates from the American people as to how they want their hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent,” the brief states. “But Plaintiffs—Planned Parenthood Federation of America (“PPFA”) and its members (together, “Planned Parenthood”)—now want this Court to reject that judgment and supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences.”

Talwani wrote in her ruling that it would apply to “Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and other Planned Parenthood Federation of America Members who will not provide abortion services as of October 1, 2025, or for which the total amount of Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act for medical assistance furnished in fiscal year 2023 made directly to them did not exceed $800,000.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah — the three organizations that filed the suit — issued a written statement after the ruling that they were “disappointed that not all members were granted the necessary relief today.”

“Patients across the country should be able to go to their trusted Planned Parenthood provider for birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment,” they wrote. “This is about patients and their right to get care — no matter their insurance. The court has not yet ruled on whether it will grant preliminary injunctive relief to other members. We remain hopeful that the court will grant this relief. There will be nothing short of a public health crisis if Planned Parenthood members are allowed to be ‘defunded.’”

The Department of Justice declined to comment whether it would appeal the preliminary injunction, though a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said it doesn’t agree with the ruling.

“We strongly disagree with the court’s decision,” HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon wrote in a statement. “States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care. This ruling undermines state flexibility and disregards longstanding concerns about accountability.”

The Trump administration filed a notice later Tuesday it intends to appeal the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. 

President Donald Trump holds up the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that was signed into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law will add $3.394 trillion to deficits during the next decade and lead 10 million people to lose access to health insurance, according to an analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The updated assessment of the sweeping tax and spending cuts law came weeks after nearly every GOP lawmaker voted to approve the legislation ahead of a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. The law made permanent the 2017 tax cuts from President Donald Trump’s first term and provided billions to carry out his plans of mass deportations, an immigration crackdown and increased defense spending.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, wrote in a statement that it is “still hard to believe that policymakers just added $4 trillion to” deficits after Republican lawmakers “have spent months or years appropriately fuming about our unsustainable fiscal situation.”

“This is a dangerous game we are playing,” MacGuineas wrote. “It has been going on for years, and it was brought to new levels with this bill. And it is time to stop.” 

CBO released numerous reports throughout the months-long process showing how various parts of the bill would affect federal spending and health care access, but the scorekeeper needed additional time to evaluate changes Republicans made during the last few days of debate.

The latest figures are similar to a preliminary report CBO released earlier this month projecting the final version of the package, which underwent considerable changes in the Senate, would likely lead to a $3.4 trillion increase in deficits between 2025 and 2034.

That total was significantly higher than the $2.4 trillion increase in deficits CBO expected the original House version of the bill would have had during the next decade.

Health spending to fall by more than $1 trillion

Republicans’ numerous changes to health programs, predominantly Medicaid, will reduce federal spending during the next decade by $1.058 trillion.

The law made more than a dozen changes to the state-federal health program for lower income individuals and certain people with disabilities, though some of those have larger budget impacts than others.

Language barring Medicaid spending from going to Planned Parenthood for one year would actually increase federal deficits during the 10-year window by $53 million.

The CBO score shows that policy change would decrease federal spending by $44 million this fiscal year and another $31 million during the next fiscal year, before increasing deficits by $91 million during fiscal year 2027 and continuing.

That section of the law is on hold for the moment after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month that required the Trump administration to continue paying Planned Parenthood for routine health care coverage for Medicaid enrollees.

Federal law for decades has barred the federal government from spending taxpayer dollars for abortion services with limited exceptions, so the one-year prohibition on Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood would have blocked patients enrolled in the program from going to their clinics for routine health appointments, like annual physicals and cancer screenings.

The CBO report didn’t include a state-by-state breakdown of the effects of the health care changes in the law, but the agency is expected to release more detailed analysis of the health impacts in the coming weeks.

Nutrition assistance cuts

Apart from Medicaid, two large projected deficit reductions in the law come in the agriculture title’s sections on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

A provision requiring states to pay for some portion of SNAP benefits starting in fiscal 2028 would save the federal government between $5.7 billion and $6 billion per year, totalling just less than $41 billion for the first seven years it will be in effect.

And new work requirements for SNAP would result in $68.6 billion less in federal spending over the 10 years starting in fiscal 2026, the CBO projected.

Federal student loan program

Republicans’ streamlining of the federal student loan program is projected to reduce federal spending in the next decade by $270.5 billion.

As part of a sweeping overhaul of higher education, the law limits repayment options for borrowers with any loans made on or after July 1, 2026, to either a standard repayment plan or an income-based repayment plan.

Extension and expansion of tax cuts

The extension of Trump’s 2017 tax law, plus new tax breaks, will cost $4.472 trillion over the next decade, according to the latest CBO score.

The United States collects the majority of its revenue from individual taxpayers, and the continuation of lowered income tax brackets, plus an increased standard deduction, will comprise the bulk of lost revenue over 10 years, adding up to $3.497 trillion.

Trump also campaigned on several other tax cut promises, including no tax on tips and overtime, as well as no tax on car loan interest. The temporary provisions come with stipulations and will end in 2029. Together they will cost $151.868 billion.

The child tax credit increases under the new law to $2,200, up from $2,000, though lawmakers did not increase the amount lower income families can receive as a tax refund. The CBO estimates the bumped-up tax credit will cost $626.345 billion over the next decade.

Lawmakers offset some costs of the bill by repealing clean energy tax credits, including ending tax credits for personal and commercial electric vehicles, nixing energy efficiency improvement credits for homeowners, and terminating clean electricity production credits. In all, Republicans saved $487.909 billion from axing the measures meant to address the effects of climate change.

Jacob Fischler, Shauneen Miranda and Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Jan. 15, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to once again publish details about the pace at which it plans to spend money approved by Congress.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in his ruling that Congress “has sweeping authority” to require the president to post a website detailing how it doles out taxpayer dollars throughout the year.

“As explained in this Memorandum Opinion, there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money,” he wrote. “Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!”

The ruling won’t take effect until Thursday at 10 a.m. Eastern, giving the Trump administration time to appeal and to seek the ruling be put on hold during the appeals process.

Sullivan was appointed to the federal district court by President Bill Clinton but was selected for two prior judicial appointments by President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush.

Website pulled down

More than two years ago, Congress began requiring the White House budget office to publicly post apportionment information and the Biden administration took that step, though Trump officials pulled down the website in March.

That decision led to two separate lawsuits, one from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and another from the Protect Democracy Project.

Apportionments are the first step the executive branch takes when spending money appropriated by Congress. The documents and their footnotes usually detail how quickly, or how slowly, departments and agencies plan to send money out the door throughout the fiscal year.

The documents and the public website would have been a window into whether the Trump administration was impounding, or refusing to spend, funding that lawmakers have said it should allocate on behalf of taxpayers.

Trump administration protested provision

An attorney for the Department of Justice argued during a May hearing the Trump administration believes the provision is unconstitutional and seeks to micromanage how the executive branch spends federal funds throughout the year.

The DOJ lawyer also said posting the information within two business days, as called for in the law, would require the White House budget office to divert staff from other work.

Lawyers for CREW and Protect Democracy Project told the judge the White House was in clear violation of the law and that the data is valuable information that helps the organizations monitor if a president were to cease spending on programs funded by Congress.

The watchdog organization attorneys noted during that hearing the Government Accountability Office is looking into dozens of instances where the administration held onto congressionally approved funding instead of spending it.

They said the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, wasn’t a helpful alternative to the website since it can take months or years for organizations to get a response to their request.

Public’s right to see decisions

Sullivan wrote in the 60-page ruling the Trump administration “complaining about the extra work” that goes along with posting the information on a public website represents “a management issue; not a constitutional one.”

“Here, Congress has determined that OMB’s apportionment decisions should be publicly available so that, among other things, it and the public can see whether they are consistent with congressional appropriations,” Sullivan wrote, adding the website aids Congress with “its undisputed oversight role.”

“The Acts do not dictate how OMB should apportion funds, nor do they establish a congressional management role in the administration of apportionments,” Sullivan wrote. “The Acts merely require that the final apportionment decisions be made publicly available to provide transparency to Congress and the public.”

Sullivan rejected an argument from the Trump administration that publicly sharing details about the pace at which it’s spending taxpayer dollars was unconstitutional because it required “the disclosure of privileged information.”

“There is no evidence in the record remotely supporting the notion that the apportionment documents are presidential communications or are in any way subject to the presidential communications privilege,” Sullivan wrote. “Accordingly, the Court rejects this constitutional claim.”

Advocates applaud ruling

Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy Project, wrote in a statement the judge’s ruling “makes clear that the executive branch cannot simply ignore appropriations laws they disagree with on policy grounds, no matter what President (Donald) Trump or OMB Director Russell Vought thinks.

“Congress passed a law making sure the American public could see how their taxpayer dollars are being spent, and we will continue to hold the administration accountable for making good on that promise.”

Nikhel Sus, deputy chief counsel at CREW, wrote in a separate statement that the organization applauds “the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision, which reaffirms Congress’s constitutional authority to require public disclosure of how taxpayer dollars are spent.

“Americans have a right to know how taxpayer money is being spent. Ensuring public access to this information serves as a critical check on the executive branch’s abuse and misuse of federal funds.”

Rachel Cauley, communications director for the White House Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a statement the administration strongly disagrees with the ruling.

“This leftist, anti-Trump judge undermines the President’s ability to effectively manage his agencies,” Cauley wrote. “Moreover, these progressive dark money groups have zero standing to claim injury for not having access to this privileged internal information.”

The Department of Justice did not return a request for comment about the ruling or whether the administration would appeal to the Circuit Court.

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement that “the law is clear as day: every president is required to show the public how they are spending taxpayer dollars, and it is past time President Trump and Russ Vought get the website they illegally ripped down back up.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, didn’t immediately return a request for comment. 

The U.S. Capitol on July 2, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House cleared legislation just after midnight Friday that will cancel $9 billion in previously approved spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid, marking only the second time in more than three decades Congress has approved a presidential rescissions request.

The 216-213 mostly party-line vote sends the bill to President Donald Trump for his signature and notches another legislative victory for the White House, following passage earlier in July of a giant tax and spending cut package. Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Mike Turner of Ohio voted against approval along with Democratic lawmakers.

The Senate voted to pass the bill earlier this week after removing the section that would have eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds also secured a handshake deal with the White House budget director to transfer $9.4 million from an undisclosed account within the Interior Department to Native American radio stations in rural areas.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will lose $1.1 billion in funding that Congress had previously approved for the fiscal year slated to begin Oct. 1 and for the year after that.

The corporation provides funding for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations throughout the country.

Another $8 billion of foreign aid will be eliminated once Trump signs the legislation.

The White House budget office’s original rescissions request included more than a dozen accounts for reduced spending, including those addressing global health and democracy programs.

The proposal called on lawmakers to cancel $500 million the U.S. Agency for International Development used for “activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/ AIDS, and infectious diseases.”

“This proposal would not reduce treatment but would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs,” the request states. “Enacting the rescission would reinstate focus on appropriate health and life spending. This best serves the American taxpayer.”

The final bill includes that spending cut but says the cancellation cannot affect HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, nutrition, or maternal and child health programs. It also says that “does not apply to family planning and reproductive health programs.”

The White House asked to eliminate $83 million from the State Department’s democracy fund, writing that “aligns with the Administration’s efforts to eliminate wasteful USAID foreign assistance programs and focus remaining funds on priorities that advance American interests. This best serves the American taxpayer.”

Lawmakers included that request in the bill, along with nearly all the others, without any caveats or additional guardrails.

Congress last approved a stand-alone rescissions bill in 1992 following a series of requests from President George H.W. Bush, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The first Trump administration sent Congress a rescission request in 2018 that passed the House, but didn’t receive Senate approval.

‘Wasteful spending’ or ‘stealing from the American people’?

House debate largely fell along party lines, with Republicans citing disagreements with how the Biden administration spent congressionally approved funding as the reason to claw back money that would have otherwise been doled out by the Trump administration.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx said the $9 billion, spread across accounts that have existed for decades, was a prime example of “wasteful spending (that) overtook Washington during the Biden-Harris administration.”

“The American people saw the fiscal ruin that was created by the previous administration,” Foxx said. “That’s why they overwhelmingly chose Republicans to lead the nation and restore fiscal sanity. That restoration is here.”

The federal government spends about $6.8 trillion per year, with $4.1 trillion going to mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Another $1.8 trillion is spent on discretionary accounts, including for the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation and State. Nearly $900 billion goes toward net interest payments on the country’s debt.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said during floor debate the bill represented the Trump administration “stealing from the American people.”

“This bill will shut down rural television and radio stations, cutting off coverage of local news; eliminating emergency information, like severe weather alerts; jeopardizing access to PBS Kids children’s programs, like Sesame Street,” DeLauro said.

The foreign aid spending reduction, she said, “rips life-saving support away from hungry, displaced and sick people in developing countries and conflict zones.”

DeLauro raised concerns that U.S. withdrawal as a source of support for people and nations that are struggling would leave space for non-democratic countries to increase their influence.

“When we retreat from the world, diplomatically and through our assistance to vulnerable people, America will be alone — without allies, in a less stable world, without the support of the international community,” DeLauro said. “And do you know who will come out ahead? China, Russia, Iran.”

The National Public Radio headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, May 27, 2025.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate agreed to legislation early Thursday that will cancel $9 billion in previously approved funding for public broadcasting and various foreign aid accounts, another victory for the Trump administration. 

The 51-48 mostly party-line vote at about 2:30 a.m. sends the bill back to the House, where GOP lawmakers in that chamber would have to clear the final version for President Donald Trump’s signature before a Friday deadline.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski were the only Republicans to vote against passing the measure, which was opposed by all Democrats present and voting.

Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota was absent, and her staff said on social media that after she began to feel unwell Wednesday and saw the Capitol physician, she went to George Washington University Hospital, where “out of an abundance of caution, they are keeping her overnight.”

Murkowski voiced concerns with the legislation during a floor speech, saying the White House’s request lacked detail and could have negative repercussions around the world.

“We’ve got big, broad categories, but I haven’t been given the comfort, if you will, that we’re not impacting maternal and child health; that we’re not impacting HIV/AIDS; that we’re not impacting nutrition programs and programs related to tuberculosis, malaria, polio, neglected tropical disease, pandemic prevention, family planning,” Murkwoski said.

“I think that we are entitled to have that level of detail when these funds that we have authorized, that we have appropriated to are now being clawed back. I don’t think that that is too much to ask,” she said.

Murkowski said the right approach to addressing some conservatives’ perception of left-leaning bias at National Public Radio shouldn’t be to completely eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds both public radio and television.

The impact on local communities in rural areas, she said, could be significant, given that many people rely on their stations for emergency alerts related to tsunamis and other forms of extreme weather as well as educational programs.

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt, who managed the bill, said the cancellations were intended to “restore some fiscal sanity” that’s needed after “bureaucrats have betrayed the trust of the American people” by spending foreign aid dollars on programs he described as “offensive.”

“What this bill is about is to test the will of this chamber — if we can actually move forward on what the American people sent us here to do, which is to find waste, to find fraud and find abuse,” Schmitt said. “And also to realign the taxpayer dollars that go out the door with actual American interests.”

The win in the Senate for the GOP and Trump followed approval on July 1 of a massive tax and spending cut package he had advocated.

Two years of federal funds taken back

The rescissions bill will claw back $1.1 billion in previously approved spending for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which contributes funding to NPR, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations throughout the country. That money was slated to cover the fiscal year set to begin Oct. 1 and the following year.

The legislation also cancels about $8 billion in foreign aid spending that Congress had appropriated for dozens of programs, including global health initiatives.

Senate Republicans opted to preserve full funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds secured a handshake deal with White House budget director Russ Vought to transfer $9.4 million from an undisclosed account within the Interior Department to Native American radio stations. But that wasn’t included in the actual bill.

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin all hold public broadcasting stations that will receive a piece of that funding, according to Rounds’ office.

Lack of details

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis used floor debate to caution the White House budget office against going too far with the rescissions included in the bill and scolded the administration for not giving Congress more detail about what it wants to cut.

“The only time that we’ve had a successful rescissions package in modern history was 1992,” Tillis said, adding that request was approved, in part, because it was sent to Congress with “very detailed lists of specific programs that were going to be cut.”

The request this year, Tillis said, doesn’t include nearly that level of information. But he said he’s willing to vote for it anyway, giving the president and the Office of Management and Budget “the benefit of the doubt that they’re going to be responsible cuts.”

Tillis said he was assured the rescissions wouldn’t affect a $200 million account that provides non-miliary aid to Ukraine or foreign aid accounts like the one funding maternal and child health programs at a Sudanese refugee camp he visited earlier this year.

“However, if we find out that some of these programs that we’ve communicated should be out of bounds, that advisers to the president decide that they’re going to cut anyway, then there will be a reckoning for that,” Tillis said.

‘It did not have to be this way’

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, warned Republicans that unilaterally cutting funding approved through bipartisan bills could upend the annual government funding process.

“It did not have to be this way and it still does not have to be this way,” Murray said. “In fact if Republicans come to their senses and vote this down, we can still go a different route. We can do what we have always done and consider bipartisan rescissions as part of our annual appropriations process.”

Congress must pass some sort of bipartisan funding bill before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, otherwise there will be a partial government shutdown.

Murray also said that “cutting these investments is just downright wrong.”

“We should not be voting to let children starve or die from preventable diseases. We should not be voting to go back on our word to the world,” Murray said. “Saving a couple pennies is not worth losing our credibility or causing millions of needless deaths across the globe. It is not even close.”

Democrats introduced a series of amendments to change portions of the bill related to public broadcasting funding and foreign aid, but did not succeed.

House Republicans up next

The reworked bill now goes back to the House, where GOP leaders in that chamber need nearly all their members to support the changes made in the Senate.

If the House cannot meet the Friday deadline, the White House budget office would be required to spend the funding it included in its original rescissions request, which it released in early June.

The House voted 214-212 earlier this year to send the original bill to the Senate, where GOP lawmakers raised concerns about various elements, including how reducing foreign aid spending would impact America’s leadership among adversarial countries like China and global health initiatives.

The Senate didn’t make many changes to the legislation, but did remove the proposed rescission for PEPFAR. The initiative, launched by former President George W. Bush, has saved more than 26 million lives.

The change decreased the total amount of funding that will be canceled from $9.4 billion to about $9 billion.

Both figures are miniscule compared to the $6.8 trillion the federal government spends each year, though this bill is meant to be the first of many the Trump administration hopes Republicans approve in the months and years ahead. 

National Public Radio headquarters on North Capitol Street in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Wednesday began debating changes to a bill that will cancel $9 billion in previously approved spending on public broadcasting and foreign aid — but with a deal for grants to some Native American radio stations that may help offset cuts to public media.

The vote-a-rama, which could extend overnight, represents a prime opportunity for Democrats to force GOP senators to vote on each of the proposed rescissions. And while it’s unlikely enough Republicans break with their party to substantially change the bill, key votes will serve as fodder for campaign ads heading into next year’s midterm elections.

The Trump administration sent Congress the rescissions request in early June, allowing the White House budget office to legally freeze funding on the programs in the proposal for 45 days.

The House voted mostly along party lines later that month to send the rescissions bill to the Senate, where Republican leaders have spent weeks addressing concerns raised by their own lawmakers.

At the center of the dispute is how cutting foreign aid for dozens of programs, including those addressing global health and democracy, would affect American influence around the globe.

GOP senators also raised qualms during a hearing about how eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would impact rural communities and emergency alert systems. 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides funding for National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations throughout the country. In North Dakota, for example, the president of Prairie Public said he anticipates elimination of federal funding would mean a loss of about $2 million for his PBS station over the next two years.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds announced Tuesday he’s secured an agreement with White House budget director Russ Vought to move $9.4 million from an account within the Interior Department to at least two dozen Native American radio stations in multiple states.

Those include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin, according to Rounds’ office.

Republican leaders also agreed to keep funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, whole by removing that rescission from the bill. PEPFAR is a global health program to combat HIV/AIDS launched by former President George W. Bush.

But those changes didn’t sway every Republican senator to support the bill. Maine’s Susan Collins, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski voted against moving forward with debate on Tuesday night.

Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote was the only reason the proposal advanced to the vote-a-rama, which began early Wednesday afternoon. 

International disaster relief

Amendment debate kicked off with a proposal from Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons to eliminate the $496 million rescission for international disaster relief funding, which he said “doesn’t just save lives around the world,” but strengthens American global leadership.

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt argued against preserving full funding for that program, saying “many foreign governments and U.N. agencies have become reliant on U.S. emergency funding, using it to avoid investing in their own disaster preparedness.”

The amendment was not adopted following a 49-50 vote with Collins, McConnell and Murkowski voting with Democrats to strike the funding cut.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto tried unsuccessfully to block any cancellation to Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding that would hinder public safety.

“For years public broadcasting has been essential to keeping Americans informed during severe weather and environment threats and broader public safety situations,” Cortez Masto said. “Let me give you an example from my home state.

“As the Davis wildfire raged in northern Nevada last summer the local CBS affiliate lost their transmitter in the fire. But thanks to public broadcasting services, CBS was able to air their local newscast and keep Nevadans informed about evacuations, the path of the fire and safety measures.”

Schmitt opposed the provision saying it isn’t necessary to ensure emergency alerts. The attempt to send the bill back to committee failed following a 48-51 vote, with Collins and Murkowski voting in support.

Congress and the Constitution

In a brief interview before voting began, New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker said the rescissions package undermined what was supposed to be a bipartisan budget and appropriations process.

He also objected to Congress giving away its constitutional authority for spending decisions. 

“The reason why this is an assault, in my opinion, on the Constitution right now is because the powers of the Article I branch of government really are the budget, and we should be doing things together,” he said. “To rescind money that was approved in a bipartisan way undermines that spirit and that work.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who said he planned to support the bill, also raised objections to the process.

“I’m trying to have a positive view about how this rescission is going to be implemented,” he told reporters outside the Senate chamber. “It’s not near as prescriptive as I would like for it to be, but if they misstep, it’ll definitely influence my posture for future recissions.”

Jacob Fischler and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

White House budget director Russ Vought speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol building on Tuesday, July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday night moved one step closer to canceling $9 billion in previously approved funding for several foreign aid programs and public broadcasting after GOP leaders addressed some objections.

Nearly all the chamber’s Republicans voted to begin debate on the bill, though Maine’s Susan Collins, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski opposed the procedural step along with every Democrat.

The 51-50 vote marked a significant moment for President Donald Trump’s rescissions request, which faced more headwinds in the Senate than in the House. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote.

Trump proposed doing away with $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that lawmakers had approved for the next two fiscal years as well as $8.3 billion from several foreign aid accounts.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides funding to National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and local media stations throughout the country.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said before the vote that some of the progress stemmed from removing a spending cut for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a global health program to combat HIV/AIDS launched by former President George W. Bush.

“There was a lot of interest among our members in doing something on the PEPFAR issue and that’s reflected in the substitute,” Thune said. “And we hope that if we can get this across the finish line in the Senate that the House would accept that one small modification.”

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, who had raised concerns about cutting funding for rural public broadcasting stations run by tribal communities, announced a few hours before the vote he’d reached an agreement with the White House.

“We wanted to make sure tribal broadcast services in South Dakota continued to operate which provide potentially lifesaving emergency alerts,” Rounds wrote in a social media post. “We worked with the Trump administration to find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.”

Rounds said during a brief interview that $9.4 million will be transferred from an account within the Interior Department directly to 28 Native American radio stations in nine states.

“I had concerns specifically about the impact on these radio stations that are in rural areas with people that have basically very few other resources, and to me, they got caught in the crossfire on public broadcasting,” Rounds said. “And so I just wanted to get it fixed and I was successful in getting it fixed.”

White House budget director Russ Vought told reporters after a closed-door lunch meeting with Republican senators that he didn’t want to get “too far ahead” of discussions, but that his office was working with GOP senators to ensure certain local broadcast stations “have the opportunity to continue to do their early warning system and local reporting.”

Maine’s Collins wants more details

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Collins, who voiced reservations about several of the rescissions during a June hearing, said preserving full funding for PEPFAR represented “progress.”

But Collins said a few hours before the vote she still wants more details from the White House budget office about the exact source of the other $9 billion in cuts to previously approved spending.

“One of the issues, which I raised at lunch, is the total is still $9 billion and it’s unclear to me how you get to $9 billion, because he’s listed a number of programs he wants to, quote, protect,” Collins said, referring to Vought. “So we still have the problem of not having detailed account information from OMB.”

Collins, R-Maine, then held up a printed version of the 1992 rescissions request that President George H.W. Bush sent Congress, which she said was “extremely detailed” and listed each account.

“I would contrast that to the message that we got for this rescission, which just has a paragraph and doesn’t tell you how it’s broken down in each program,” Collins said, adding she’s still “considering the options.”

The Senate’s procedural vote began a maximum of 10 hours of debate that will be followed by a marathon amendment voting session that could rework the bill. A final passage vote could take place as soon as Wednesday.

Trump expected to send more requests

The House approved the legislation in June, but the measure will have to go back across the Capitol for a final vote since the Senate is expected to make changes.

The effort to cancel funding that Congress previously approved in bipartisan government funding bills began last month when the Trump administration sent Congress this rescission request.

The initiative, led by White House budget director Vought, is part of Republicans’ ongoing efforts to reduce federal spending, which totaled $6.8 trillion during the last full fiscal year.

Vought expects to send lawmakers additional rescissions proposals in the months ahead, though he hasn’t said publicly when or what funding he’ll request Congress eliminate.

Once the White House submits a rescission request, it can legally freeze funding on those accounts for 45 days while Congress debates whether to approve, amend, or ignore the proposal.

Johnson slams funding for public media

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a press conference before the PEPFAR removal was announced that he hoped the Senate didn’t change the bill at all.

“I’ve urged them, as I always do, to please keep the product unamended because we have a narrow margin and we’ve got to pass it,” Johnson said. “But we’re going to process whatever they send us whenever they send (it to) us and I’m hopeful that it will be soon.”

Johnson said canceling the previously approved funding on some foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting represented “low-hanging fruit.”

Federal funding for public media, Johnson said, embodied a “misuse of taxpayer dollars” on organizations that produce “biased reporting.”

“While at its origination NPR and PBS might have made some sense, and maybe it does now,” Johnson said. “But it shouldn’t be subsidized by taxpayers.”

Trump has also sought to encourage Republican senators to pass the bill without making any significant changes.

“It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,” Trump wrote on social media last week. “Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 23, 2023.  (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s plan to relocate the Federal Bureau of Investigation headquarters to the Ronald Reagan building in the District of Columbia, and not a previously selected location in suburban Maryland, hit a roadblock Thursday.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to adopt an amendment from Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen that would bar any federal funding from being used to move the FBI from its current headquarters in the deteriorating J. Edgar Hoover Building to anywhere other than the Greenbelt location.

The amendment was added to the FBI’s annual government funding bill, though that legislation’s bipartisan support dried up after the change was made, leaving the committee searching for a solution.  The panel went into an indefinite recess.

A ‘snatch’ of monies

Van Hollen argued the Trump administration’s choice to abandon the site in his state was arbitrary and didn’t follow the decade-long process that ultimately resulted in the federal government selecting a more suburban location.

“If we allow the executive, whoever the president may be, to snatch monies that this committee and this Congress have set aside for purposes that we mandated, we are opening the door to taking a lot more money,” Van Hollen said.

The Trump administration, he added, failed to analyze whether the Ronald Reagan building would meet the FBI’s security and mission requirements. The building at 1300 Pennsylvania NW, down the street from the White House and coupled with the International Trade Center, now houses U.S. Customs and Border Protection offices, which Trump administration officials said would move elsewhere.

Murkowski sides with Democrats

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski voted with all of the committee’s Democrats to approve the amendment on a 15-14 vote.

Murkowski said that “in fairness” she was one of many who believed the new location for the FBI headquarters was long settled and “was a little bit surprised to see that this was now an issue in front of us.”

She said she wanted to understand how exactly the Trump administration decided the Ronald Reagan building was a secure enough location for the FBI headquarters and suggested that Van Hollen withdraw his amendment until the committee could be briefed.

“I, for one, would like to know that this analysis has actually been going on for more than just a couple months — that there’s actually been that effort to ensure that (if) we’re going to move forward, this is the right place and it’s the right place, not for a Trump administration, not for a Biden administration, not for a Jon Ossoff administration, but this is the right place for the FBI,” Murkowski said, referring to the Democratic senator from Georgia.

“Sorry, I didn’t mean to start any rumors,” she added to laughs.

Micromanagement of site planning criticized

Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, asked Van Hollen if he’d withdraw his amendment in exchange for a briefing from the FBI director, noting he could still offer the amendment if the bill is brought to the floor for debate. He declined.

“The best way forward would be for the committee to say that we will not allow funds to be spent on an alternative site,” Van Hollen said. “And then, if we are persuaded, which is what we’ve decided in the past, if we’re persuaded by the FBI that we could revisit that decision.”

Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin spoke against the amendment, saying the Trump administration should be allowed to use funding to move the FBI to whichever headquarters it wishes.

“For us to try to micromanage their site planning is ridiculous,” Mullin said. “They’re not going to put their men and women in harm. We need to allow them to make a decision.”

Amendment throws bill into disarray

Several hours after the amendment was adopted, it upended debate on the entire bill — which includes funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice as well as science programs, like NASA and the National Science Foundation.

Collins had given Van Hollen and subcommittee Chairman Jerry Moran, R-Kan., a few hours to broker some sort of deal, but after they were unable to do so, several GOP senators switched from voting for the bill to opposing it.

She then sent the committee into a recess that will likely last until at least next week to give everyone involved more time to find some sort of bipartisan agreement.

“I think it is sad that one issue is sinking a bill that was completely bipartisan and strongly supported on both sides of the aisle,” Collins said.

Moran said his “overriding goal has been to work with Sen. Van Hollen to draft a bill, to work with all of you to draft a bill that can pass not only this committee but pass the United States Senate.”

“And while we have worked to try to find an agreement that would take us in that direction, we are not there,” Moran added. “I don’t know whether we’re even close to being there.”

Murkowski said she hopes the pause will lead to “a more earnest conversation” between members of the committee and the Trump administration about the FBI headquarters.

“We’re in a place where we’re trying to scramble right now, and we haven’t been able to scramble fast enough,” Murkowski said. “And it has caused people who, in good faith, chose to vote in the affirmative at the beginning and now in the negative, and switch back both ways. So there is now total confusion.”

Van Hollen said he believed resolving the dispute about who gets to choose the new FBI headquarters location “is important, not just for this particular case, but for the larger precedent.”

The National Public Radio headquarters in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Tuesday, May 27, 2025.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Congress has just one week left to approve the Trump administration’s request to cancel $9.4 billion in previously approved funding for public media and foreign aid, setting up yet another tight deadline for lawmakers. 

The Senate must pass the bill before July 18, otherwise the White House budget office will be required to spend the funding and be barred from sending up the same proposal again for what are called rescissions.

But objections from several GOP senators could stop the legislation in its tracks, or change it substantially, requiring another House vote in a very short time frame. Rejecting the plan would represent a loss for the Trump administration after passage of the “big, beautiful” tax and spending cut law earlier this month.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., appears optimistic he can secure the votes needed to begin debate, though he hasn’t said publicly if he thinks the bill can actually pass. 

“We’ll have it up on the floor next week. Hopefully, we get on it and then we’ll have an amendment process,” Thune said during a Wednesday press conference. “And kind of like a budget reconciliation bill, it’s an open amendment process, a vote-a-rama type process, which I’m sure you’re very excited about.”

JD Vance needed again?

At least 50 Republicans must agree to proceed to the legislation amid unified opposition from Democrats. Thune can only lose three GOP senators and still begin debate with Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote. Rescissions bills are exempt from the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

After a maximum of 10 hours of debate, the Senate will begin a marathon amendment voting session that could substantially reshape the measure.

There may be enough Republican votes to completely remove the section rescinding $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio and hundreds of local public media stations.

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds all brought up misgivings during a June hearing about how canceling previously approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would impact rural communities and emergency alerts.

Collins, R-Maine, also raised concerns about the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back previously approved funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, and is likely to bring an amendment to the floor on that issue, according to her office. PEPFAR is a global initiative to combat HIV/AIDS that was led by President George W. Bush.

Democrats will get to offer as many amendments as they want during the vote-a-rama and could try to remove each section of the bill one by one, forcing Republicans to weigh in publicly on numerous foreign aid programs.

45 days for Trump request

President Donald Trump sent Congress the rescissions request in early June, starting a 45-day clock for lawmakers to consider his proposal.

The recommendation asked lawmakers to cancel $8.3 billion in foreign aid funding, including $500 million for certain global health programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“This proposal would not reduce treatment but would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs,” the request states. “This rescission proposal aligns with the Administration’s efforts to eliminate wasteful USAID foreign assistance programs.”

The House voted mostly along party lines in mid-June to approve the rescissions request, but the legislation sat around the Senate for weeks as Republicans struggled to pass their “big, beautiful” law.

The Senate can vote to approve the proposal as is, change it, or let it expire, forcing the White House budget office to spend the money, which it’s been able to legally freeze since sending Congress the rescissions request.

Relations with White House

Senators’ decision will impact how Republicans in that chamber, especially Thune and those on the Appropriations Committee, work with White House budget director Russ Vought in the coming months and years.

Congress and the Trump administration must broker some sort of funding agreement before the start of the next fiscal year on Oct. 1 to stave off a shutdown.

Vought has also said he plans to send lawmakers additional rescissions requests, though he hasn’t said exactly when or what programs he’ll include.

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Thursday as the panel debated three of the full-year government funding bills that the rescissions package is not acceptable and could impede the committee’s traditionally bipartisan work.

“We need to make sure decisions about what to fund and, yes, what to rescind are made here in Congress on a bipartisan basis and within our annual funding process,” Murray said. “We cannot allow bipartisan funding bills with partisan rescission packages. It will not work. And that is why I will repeat my commitment to all of my colleagues that on this side of the dais, we stand ready to discuss rescissions as part of these bipartisan spending bills.”

Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testifies during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s candidate to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advanced out of a Senate committee Wednesday following a party-line vote, moving her one step closer to confirmation.

Susan Monarez’s nomination now goes to the floor, where she will likely secure the backing needed to officially take on the role of CDC director after garnering support from Republicans across the political spectrum during the committee’s 12-11 vote.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., will be in charge of scheduling that vote, though if it isn’t held during the next few weeks, Monarez will have to wait until after the chamber’s August recess.

Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., said during the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s markup he believes Monarez is a strong candidate for CDC director and that he hopes she will help get the nation’s ongoing measles outbreak under control.

“The United States needs a CDC director who makes decisions rooted in science, a leader who will reform the agency and work to restore public trust in health institutions,” Cassidy said. “With decades of proven experience as a public health official, Dr. Monarez is ready to take on this challenge.”

Sanders criticizes Monarez on vaccine safety

Every Republican senator on the committee, including Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, voted to advance Monarez’s nomination.

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member on the panel, opposed Monarez’s advancement along with the Democrats on the committee.

Sanders argued that during Monarez’s time as acting director of the CDC, she didn’t do enough to counter Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., especially on the safety of vaccines. 

“Today, the United States is reporting the highest number of measles cases in 33 years,” Sanders said. “In my view, we need a CDC director who will defend science, protect public health and repudiate Secretary Kennedy’s dangerous conspiracy theories about safe and effective vaccines that have saved, over the years, millions of lives.”

Second CDC choice from Trump

Monarez testified before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in June, a standard part of the confirmation process.

Trump originally selected former Florida U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon to run the Atlanta-based CDC shortly after he secured election to the Oval Office in November. But the White House pulled Weldon’s nomination in March, after it appeared he couldn’t secure the votes needed for confirmation.

Later that month, Trump announced his plans to nominate Monarez in a social media post.

“Dr. Monarez brings decades of experience championing Innovation, Transparency, and strong Public Health Systems,” Trump wrote. “She has a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, and PostDoctoral training in Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine.

“As an incredible mother and dedicated public servant, Dr. Monarez understands the importance of protecting our children, our communities, and our future. Americans have lost confidence in the CDC due to political bias and disastrous mismanagement. Dr. Monarez will work closely with our GREAT Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr. Together, they will prioritize Accountability, High Standards, and Disease Prevention to finally address the Chronic Disease Epidemic and, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN!”

A Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City, Utah, is pictured on Wednesday, July 31, 2024. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

WASHINGTON — The federal government cannot withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood for at least the next two weeks, after a district court judge issued a temporary restraining order the same day the organization filed a lawsuit.

Republicans included language in their “big, beautiful bill” that would block Medicaid payments from going to Planned Parenthood for the next year, a move that would effectively prevent enrollees in the state-federal health program for lower income people from visiting any of its clinics for routine health care.

The ban began when President Donald Trump signed the bill into law on Friday.

Congress already bars federal funding from going to abortion services with limited exceptions.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit over the change in federal law Monday in U. S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and quickly requested the temporary restraining order, which was issued later that day.

The suit alleges Planned Parenthood was singled out “in order to punish them for lawful activity, namely advocating for and providing legal abortion access wholly outside the Medicaid program and without using any federal funds.”

The filing also says more than 1 million Medicaid enrollees go to Planned Parenthood in a given year and that the organization received more than one-third of its total aggregate revenue from Medicaid reimbursement during fiscal year 2023. 

District Court Judge Indira Talwani’s brief two-page temporary restraining order called on the Trump administration to file a status update later this week. And she set an in-person hearing later this month to hear from Planned Parenthood and the Trump administration.

Talwani was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama.

The Trump administration has yet to file any documents in the case and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment from States Newsroom about the judge’s temporary restraining order. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated during a Cabinet meeting Tuesday afternoon that the Department of Justice plans to challenge the temporary restraining order.

“Absolutely, yes. We’re on it,” Bondi said.  

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah — the three groups that filed the lawsuit — wrote in a statement they were “grateful that the court acted swiftly to block this unconstitutional law attacking Planned Parenthood providers and patients.

“Already, in states across the country, providers and health center staff have been forced to turn away patients who use Medicaid to get basic sexual and reproductive health care because President Trump and his backers in Congress passed a law to block them from going to Planned Parenthood. There are no other providers who can fill the gap if the ‘defunding’ of Planned Parenthood is allowed to stand. The fight is just beginning, and we look forward to our day in court.”

The U.S. Capitol as lawmakers worked into the night on the "big beautiful bill" on July 2, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans cleared the “big, beautiful bill” for President Donald Trump’s signature Thursday, marking an end to the painstaking months-long negotiations that began just after voters gave the GOP unified control of Washington during last year’s elections.

The final 218-214 vote on the expansive tax and spending cuts package marked a significant victory for Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who were able to unify centrist and far-right members of the party against long odds and narrow majorities.

But the legislation’s real-world impacts include millions of Americans expected to lose access to Medicaid through new requirements and slashed spending, and state governments taking on a share of costs for a key nutrition program for low-income families. If voters oppose Republicans at the ballot box in return, it could mean the GOP loses the House during next year’s midterm elections.

In the end just two Republicans in the House and three in the Senate opposed the measure, which the Senate approved earlier in the week with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

Trump posted on social media numerous times in the days leading up to the vote, thanking supportive Republicans who were praising the bill during interviews and threatening to back primary challenges against GOP lawmakers who stood in the way of passage.

“Largest Tax Cuts in History and a Booming Economy vs. Biggest Tax Increase in History, and a Failed Economy,” Trump posted just after midnight when it wasn’t yet clear the bill would pass. “What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT’S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!”

Trump told reporters while on his way to Iowa for an event that he would sign the bill at 5 p.m. Eastern on Friday, with military aircraft flying over the White House and Republican lawmakers in attendance.

Johnson said during a floor speech the legislation is a direct result of the November elections, when voters gave the GOP control of the House, Senate and the White House.

“That election was decisive. It was a bellwether. It was a time for choosing,” Johnson said. “And I tell you what — the American people chose, overwhelmingly, they chose the Republican Party.”

The package, he said, would make the country “stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before.”

“We’ve had spirited debates, we’ve had months of deliberation and now we are finally ready to fulfill our promise to the American people,” Johnson said.

Republicans were spurred to write the tax provisions in the legislation to avoid a cliff at the end of the year, created by the party’s 2017 tax law. But the legislation holds dozens of other provisions as well, spanning border security, defense, energy production, health care and higher education aid.

The bill raises the country’s debt limit by $5 trillion, a staggering figure that many fiscal hawks would have once balked at, but is enough to get Republicans past the midterm elections before they’ll have to negotiate another deal to raise the country’s borrowing limit.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s latest analysis of the measure projects it would add $3.4 trillion to deficits during the next decade compared to current law.

Jeffries: “It guts Medicaid’

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called the health care provisions “reckless” during a speech that lasted nearly nine hours, forcing the vote to take place in the afternoon rather than early morning, and said the “bill represents the largest cut to health care in American history.”

“Almost $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid,” Jeffries said. “This runs directly contrary to what President Trump indicated in January, which was that he was going to love and cherish Medicaid. Nothing about this bill loves and cherishes Medicaid. It guts Medicaid.”

The speech broke the eight-hour-and-32-minute record that then-Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., set in 2021 when he sought to delay Democrats from passing a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. House leaders are allowed to exceed normal speaking limits through a privilege called the “magic minute.”

The nonpartisan health research organization KFF’s analysis of the package shows it would reduce federal spending on Medicaid by nearly $1 trillion during the next decade and lead to 11.8 million people becoming uninsured.

Republicans made numerous changes to the state-federal health program for lower income people and some people with disabilities, including a requirement that some enrollees work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program for at least 80 hours a month.

Medicaid patients will no longer be able to have their care covered at Planned Parenthood for routine appointments, like annual physicals and cancer screenings, for one year. Congress has barred federal taxpayer dollars from going to abortions with limited exceptions for decades, but the new provision will block all Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood, likely leading some of its clinics to close.

Overnight drama

House passage followed several frenzied days on Capitol Hill as congressional leaders and Trump sought to sway holdouts to their side ahead of a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline.

The Senate, and then later the House, held overnight sessions followed by dramatic votes where several Republicans, who said publicly they didn’t actually like the bill, voted to approve it anyway. 

GOP leaders didn’t have much room for error amid a narrow 53-seat Senate majority and a 220-212 advantage in the House. That delicate balance hovered in the background during the last several months, as talks over dozens of policy changes and spending cuts in the bill appeared deadlocked.

Any modifications meant to bring on board far-right members of the party had to be weighed against the policy goals of centrist lawmakers, who are most at risk of losing their seats during next year’s elections.

The House passed its first version of the bill following a 215-214 vote in May, sending the legislation to the Senate, where Republicans in that chamber spent several weeks deciding which policies they could support and which they wanted to remove or rework.

The measure changed substantially to comply with the complex rules for moving a budget reconciliation bill through the upper chamber. GOP leaders chose to use that process, instead of moving the package through the regular legislative pathway, to avoid having to negotiate with Democrats to get past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

In the end nearly every one of the 273 Republicans in Congress approved the behemoth 870-page bill.

Maine’s Susan Collins, Kentucky’s Rand Paul and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis voted against it in the Senate and Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie opposed passage in the House.

Fitzpatrick wrote in a statement that while he voted to approve the House’s original version of the bill, he couldn’t support changes made in the Senate.

“I voted to strengthen Medicaid protections, to permanently extend middle class tax cuts, for enhanced small business tax relief, and for historic investments in our border security and our military.” Fitzpatrick wrote. “However, it was the Senate’s amendments to Medicaid, in addition to several other Senate provisions, that altered the analysis for our PA-1 community.”

Massie posted on social media that he couldn’t vote for the measure because it would exacerbate the country’s annual deficit.

“Although there were some conservative wins in the budget reconciliation bill (OBBBA), I voted No on final passage because it will significantly increase U.S. budget deficits in the near term, negatively impacting all Americans through sustained inflation and high interest rates,” Massie wrote. 

GOP holdouts delay passage

Floor debate on the bill in the House, which began around 3:30 a.m. Eastern Thursday and lasted 11 hours, was along party lines, with Democrats voicing strong opposition to changes in the package and GOP lawmakers arguing it puts the country on a better path.

GOP leaders didn’t originally plan to begin debate in the middle of the night while most of the country slept, but were forced to after holdouts refused to give their votes to a procedural step.

When the House did finally adopt the rule, Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick was the sole member of his party to vote against moving onto floor debate and a final passage vote.

Fitzpatrick had posted on social media earlier in the day that he wanted Trump “to address my serious concern regarding reports the United States is withholding critical defense material pledged to Ukraine.”

“Ukrainian forces are not only safeguarding their homeland—they are holding the front line of freedom itself,” he wrote. “There can be no half-measures in the defense of liberty. We must, as we always have, stand for peace through strength.”

Tax breaks and so much more

House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., made significant promises to middle-class Americans during floor debate about the tax provisions in the bill that many voters will be watching for in the months ahead. 

“Households making under $100,000 will see a 12% tax cut compared to what they pay today. The average family of four will see nearly 11,000 more in their pockets each year,” Smith said. “Real wages for workers will rise by as much as $7,200 a year. A waitress working for tips will keep an extra $1,300, a lineman working overtime after a storm will keep an extra $1,400.”

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Richard Neal, ranking member on the tax writing panel, said the legislation’s benefits skew largely toward the very wealthy.

“If you made a million dollars last year, you’re going to make a plus of $96,000 in the next tax filing season,” Neal said. “If you made under $50,000 last year, you’re going to get 68 cents a day in terms of your tax relief.”

The extension of the 2017 tax law would predominantly benefit high-income earners. The top 1% would receive a tax cut three times the size of those with incomes in the bottom 60% of after-tax income, according to analysis from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Some other tax incentives that critics say skew toward wealthier families include a $1,000 deposit from the federal government for babies born between 2024 and 2028, known as a “Trump account.” The program would track a stock index and gain interest accordingly and families with disposable income could contribute additional funding.

And while Republicans included an extension of the child tax credit to $2,200 per child, it requires the parents to have a Social Security number to claim the tax credit.

The bill will give the president more than $170 billion to carry out his campaign promise of mass deportations of people in the country without permanent legal status. The package would give the Department of Homeland Security $45 billion for the detention of immigrants and give its immigration enforcement arm another $30 billion to hire up to 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Food aid, higher education

The legislation will overhaul federal loans for higher education and how states pay for food assistance that roughly 42 million low-income people rely on, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The bill would cap federal graduate loans to $100,000 per borrower and $200,000 per borrower who is attending law school or medical school. It would also cap the ParentPLUS loans to $65,000.

Under the SNAP changes, the package would require states to shoulder more of the burden in food assistance. Currently, the federal government covers 100% of the cost. The legislation tightens eligibility for SNAP, requiring parents with children aged 6 and older to meet the work requirements when they were previously exempt.

Current estimates from CBO show that changes in  federal nutrition programs including SNAP would reduce federal spending by roughly $186 billion over 10 years.

The GOP megabill cuts clean energy tax credits and claws back some of the funding in former president Joe Biden’s signature climate bill, known as the Inflation Reduction Act.

Some of those cuts to clean energy tax credits include terminating at the end of September a nearly $8,000 rebate for the purchase of an electric vehicle, ending a tax credit by December for energy efficient home upgrades such as solar roof panels and heat pumps.

The package rescinds funds to help local governments and states adopt zero emission standards, and eliminates environmental justice block grants that communities used to address health impacts due to environmental pollution, among other things.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters before heading to the House chamber for a procedural vote on the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act" at the U.S. Capitol on July 2, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON —  U.S. House Republican efforts to pass the “big, beautiful bill” hit a roadblock Wednesday, when leaders left the chamber in a holding pattern for more than seven hours before calling a procedural vote that stalled amid opposition from hard-right members and others.

The House must adopt the rule in order to set up floor debate and a final passage vote for the tax break and spending cut package. But with four Republicans voting against it and nine withholding their votes, the House remained at a standstill around 11 p.m. Eastern.

GOP Reps. Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Keith Self of Texas and Victoria Spartz of Indiana had cast votes against approving the rule, though they could flip since leadership hadn’t closed the vote. Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris of Maryland was among the members withholding their votes in protest.

Far-right members of the House GOP objected strongly to the Senate version passed Tuesday, which reflected changes made during the past month compared to an earlier version passed in the House. Members of the House Freedom Caucus opposed provisions dealing with immigration and the repeal of clean energy tax credits, as well as the measure’s increase in the deficit.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released an analysis after the Senate voted, showing the bill would increase deficits by $3.4 trillion during the next decade compared to current law.

‘We can’t make everyone 100% happy’

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said earlier in the day he felt ​​”very positive about the progress” made during ongoing negotiations, but didn’t commit to having the necessary votes.

“The thing about it is, when you have a piece of legislation that is this comprehensive and with so many agenda items involved, you’re going to have lots of different priorities and preferences among people because they represent different districts and they have different interests,” Johnson said. “But we can’t make everyone 100% happy. It’s impossible.”

Johnson said he would never ask lawmakers to “compromise core principles, but preferences must be yielded for the greater good.”

South Dakota Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson told reporters before the delay that “the rule going down would be a very unfortunate development.”

But he expressed confidence in Speaker Johnson’s ability to bring holdouts on board eventually, potentially by making commitments tied to future bills.

“Speaker Johnson has not made any promises. He has been really good about talking about legislative vehicles that will exist in the months to come,” Dusty Johnson said. “Reconciliation is not the only tool in the Republican, or I should say in the congressional toolbox. Mike Johnson’s done a good job of making people understand there are other ways we can get things done.”

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy said a few hours before the rule vote began that holdouts were “exploring all of the options legislatively and through the executive.”

“We were not happy with what the Senate produced,” Roy said. “We thought there was a path forward as of late last week, even though I had concerns. I’ve been public about them. But then they jammed it through at the last minute in a way that we’re not overly excited about.”

Roy said that “everything is on the table at the moment,” when asked by States Newsroom if he hoped to get concessions from leaders on this package or deals struck for future bills.

Trump presses House GOP

Several House GOP lawmakers traveled to the White House earlier in the day to meet with President Donald Trump, who was also attempting to assuage concerns through several social media posts.

“It looks like the House is ready to vote tonight,’ Trump posted minutes before the rule vote began. “We had GREAT conversations all day, and the Republican House Majority is UNITED, for the Good of our Country, delivering the Biggest Tax Cuts in History and MASSIVE Growth. Let’s go Republicans, and everyone else – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

House Rules Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., urged support for approving the rule during floor debate, arguing it was essential for GOP lawmakers to deliver on campaign promises.

“This legislation is the embodiment of the America First agenda and we would all do well to remember that,” Foxx said. “Failure at this critical juncture is not an option. This clock is ticking, the president and the American people are waiting. ”

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern, ranking member on the panel, railed against the dozens of provisions Senate Republicans bundled together in the 870-page package, including some added just Tuesday.

“This process — an abomination, legislative malpractice,” McGovern said. “Final text of this bill came out less than 24 hours ago. We met in committee an hour after it was posted and now we’re here considering a rule that only allows for one hour of debate.

“This bill is within the jurisdiction of 12 different committees. One hour is ridiculous. And every minute we’re finding out new things that were snuck into the bill: a tax cut for whalers and now we’re learning about a gambling tax.”

Tax cuts favor higher incomes

The bill — which underwent weeks of revisions in the Senate after a prior version barely passed the House in May — will extend and expand the 2017 GOP tax law while overhauling several safety-net programs and slashing spending on Medicaid.

Those tax cuts skew toward wealthier income earners. The top 1% would receive a cut three times the size of those with incomes in the bottom 60% of after-tax income, according to analysis from the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It also makes permanent some tax breaks on business investments and research and development costs.

The package makes substantial changes to Medicaid, including requiring some people on the program to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program for at least 80 hours a month.

It will block any Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year, essentially requiring enrollees to find other health care options for routine appointments such as cancer screenings, birth control and sexually transmitted infections treatment and screening. Using federal taxpayer dollars for abortion coverage has been restricted for decades, with limited exceptions.

The legislation requires state governments to pay for a portion of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for the first time if they cannot get error payment rates under a certain percentage. SNAP is the primary federal nutrition program that feeds low-income people and roughly 42 million rely on it.

It bolsters spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, including line items for the “golden dome” missile defense system and additional barriers along the southern border.

The measure would provide a substantial funding increase to federal immigration enforcement for detention and removal of people without permanent legal status, aiding the president in carrying out his campaign promise of mass deportations.

The bill would raise the debt limit by $5 trillion, a figure designed to get Congress past next year’s midterm elections before the country would once again bump up against the borrowing limit.

Protesters milled about and held signs on street corners outside the U.S. Capitol as Republicans worked to pass the megabill. Several spoke out against cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, as well as rollbacks to clean energy tax credits contained in the budget reconciliation package.

Senate turmoil

The House voted 215-214 mostly along party lines to approve the first version of the package in late May.

Senate Republicans spent much of the last month reading through that, trying to determine what proposals their members supported and which elements would need to come out to comply with the strict rules that go along with writing a budget reconciliation bill.

The parliamentarian, that chamber’s referee, continued to issue rulings on whether various policies in the legislation were in bounds for days before the Senate officially began debating the measure and even after they launched into vote-a-rama Monday morning.

That “Byrd bath” process eventually wrapped up, allowing Senate GOP leaders to release updated text of the package shortly before the chamber took its final vote.

Even with near-constant negotiations among Senate Republicans, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was unable to get everyone on board.

3 Senate Republicans voted no

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis opposed the measure, which the Senate approved on Tuesday with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

Collins wrote in a statement that while she supported “extending the tax relief for families and small businesses,” her opposition to the legislation “stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes.”

Collins also cited “additional problems” with how the legislation addressed tax credits for certain forms of energy production, which she wrote “should have been gradually phased out so as not to waste the work that has already been put into these innovative new projects and prevent them from being completed.”

Tills spoke about his opposition to the bill’s changes to Medicaid during a floor speech before the Senate’s vote, arguing its cuts to spending to the state-federal health program for low-income people and some people with disabilities weren’t in the best interest of GOP voters.

“I’m telling the president that you have been misinformed,” Tillis said. “You supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are eligible and qualified for Medicaid.”

Tillis said he supports a policy change in the bill that would require people on Medicaid to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program. But he was critical of other changes implemented by his Senate colleagues, and announced he won’t seek reelection hours after voting against advancing the package.

“I love the work requirement. I love the other reforms in this bill. They are necessary and I appreciate the leadership of the House for putting it in there,” Tillis said. “In fact, I like the work of the House so much that I wouldn’t be having to do this speech if we simply started with the House mark.”

Paul said he decided to vote against the legislation because it will increase federal deficits during the next few years. 

“To me the most pertinent question is, how will the bill affect the deficit in the next year?” Paul said. “Currently our deficit is estimated to be a little under $2 trillion this year. What will happen to the (deficit) in 2026 if this bill passes? Well, using the math most favorable to the supporters of the bill, referred to as the policy baseline, the deficit in 2026 will still be $270 billion more than this year.”

Paul added “that’s just not good if you profess to be fiscally conservative.”

Republican Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming, John Thune of South Dakota, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Dakota speak to reporters after passage of their sweeping tax break and spending cut bill on Tuesday, July 1, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans approved their signature tax break and spending cuts package Tuesday with a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President JD Vance, following days of tense, closed-door negotiations that went until the few last minutes of a marathon amendment voting session.

The 51-50 mostly party-line vote sends the legislation back to the House, where GOP leaders hope to clear the bill for President Donald Trump’s signature this week. But frustrations throughout the conference over changes made in the Senate could delay or even block final approval. 

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted against approving the legislation over concerns it would not benefit the country’s finances or Republican voters.

Changes made in final negotiations were not immediately clear or publicly available.

Majority Leader John Thune said the passage marked “a historic day.”

“We’re very excited to be a part of something that is going to make America stronger, safer and more prosperous, and it really starts with the agenda that President Trump laid out when he was running last year.

“He talked about modernizing our military, securing our borders, restoring energy dominance in this country, bringing tax relief to working families and low income taxpayers in this country, and doing something about the runaway, spiraling spending and debt,” the South Dakota Republican said minutes after the vote.

“So this was an incredible victory for the American people, and we as a team are delighted to be a part of it.”

The bill now heads back to the House. The chamber’s Committee on Rules is expected to meet Tuesday afternoon, which will be the final stop for the bill before it reaches the House floor.

Thune said he believes Senate Republicans have given the House “a really strong product.”

“I think we took what they sent us and strengthened and improved upon it. And so I’m hopeful that now, when it gets sent over there, as they deliberate about how they want to handle it, we’ll find the votes that are necessary to pass it and want to put it on the president’s desk,” he said.

Trump praised the Senate’s passage on his Truth Social media platform, saying “Almost all of our Great Republicans in the United States Senate have passed our ‘ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.’”

He added: “We can have all of this right now, but only if the House GOP UNITES, ignores its occasional “GRANDSTANDERS” (You know who you are!), and does the right thing, which is sending this Bill to my desk. We are on schedule — Let’s keep it going, and be done before you and your family go on a July 4th vacation.”

Several House conservatives have railed against the Senate version, including Reps. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and others.

House Speaker Mike Johnson issued a joint statement with House Republican leaders saying the chamber “will work quickly to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill that enacts President Trump’s full America First agenda by the Fourth of July. The American people gave us a clear mandate, and after four years of Democrat failure, we intend to deliver without delay.”

“Republicans were elected to do exactly what this bill achieves: secure the border, make tax cuts permanent, unleash American energy dominance, restore peace through strength, cut wasteful spending, and return to a government that puts Americans first,” the Louisiana Republican said in the statement that included House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and conference chair Lisa McClain of Michigan.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski , whose support had been unclear until the vote, and Majority Whip John Barrasso, of Wyoming, left the chamber to catch an elevator together just after 9:30 a.m. Eastern.

Asked if the bill was in the hands of the parliamentarian, Murkowski quipped, “I think it’s in the hands of the people that operate the coffee machine.”

Barrasso said “Yes” when asked if it would pass this morning.

Murkowski: ‘difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period’

Flooded by reporters after the vote, Murkowski said “we do not have a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination.”

“My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we’re not there yet, and I would hope that we would be able to actually do what we used to do around here, which is work back and forth in the two bodies to get a measure that’s gonna be better for the people in this country and more particularly, for the people in Alaska,” she said.

“This is probably the most difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period that I have encountered, and I’ve been here quite a while, and you all know I’ve got a few battle scars underneath me,” Murkowski added. “But I think I held my head up and made sure that the people of Alaska are not forgotten in this, but I think that there is more that needs to be done, and I’m not done.”

“I am gonna take a nap, though,” she said.

When asked about Murkowski’s decision to vote for the bill, Thune said, “She, as you know, is a very independent thinker and somebody who studies the issues really, really hard and well. And I’m just grateful that at the end of the day, she included what the rest of us did, or at least most of the rest of us did, and that is that this was the right direction for the future of our country.”

Democrats react

Senate Democrats walking off the floor seemed somber, a sentiment that Senate Leader Chuck Schumer said also extended to Republicans after the bill’s passage.

“On the Republican side, when the bill passed, there was a bit of somberness that I don’t think was expected, and that’s because they knew deep in their hearts how bad this bill is for them, their states and the Republican Party,” Schumer said.

“When people start losing their Medicaid, when they start losing their jobs, when their electric bills go up, when their premiums go up, when kids and parents lose SNAP funding, the people of America will remember this vote,” the New York Democrat continued.

Criticism poured in from others as well, including the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which likened the Senate’s bill passage to jumping “off a budget cliff.”

“The level of blatant disregard we just witnessed for our nation’s fiscal condition and budget process is a failure of responsible governing. These are the very same lawmakers who for years have bemoaned the nation’s massive debt, voting to put another $4 trillion on the credit card,” the organization’s president Maya MacGuineas said in a statement.

CRFB estimates the Senate version of the bill would add $600 billion to the national deficit just in 2027.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a calculation Sunday showing the bill would add $3.25 trillion to deficits over 10 years.

Trump weighs in ahead of vote

Trump told reporters on Tuesday morning before leaving for a Florida visit to the “Alligator Alcatraz” immigrant detention site that “it’s very complicated stuff” when asked about Senate Republicans’ debate over spending cuts.

“We’re going to have to see the final version. I don’t want to go too crazy with cuts. I don’t like cuts. There are certain things that have been cut, which is good. I think we’re doing well,” Trump said. “We’re going to have to see, it’s some very complicated stuff. Great enthusiasm as you know. And I think in the end we’re going to have it.”

The heart of the nearly 1,000-page legislation extends and expands the 2017 tax law to keep individual income tax rates at the same level and makes permanent some tax breaks on business investments and research and development costs.

The bill would also put in motion some of Trump’s campaign promises, including no tax on qualifying tips, overtime or car loan interest, but only for a few years.

And it slashes spending on the Medicaid program for low-income people and some people with disabilities as well as shifting significant costs of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to states for the first time. It also overhauls federal education aid.

It would also bolster spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, including line items for the “golden dome” missile defense system and additional barriers along the southern border.

The measure would provide a substantial funding increase for federal immigration enforcement for detention and removal of people without permanent legal status, aiding the president in carrying out his campaign promise of mass deportations.

The Senate version of the bill also would revive the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act fund, a bipartisan measure championed by Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. The fund provides money to victims of certain types of cancer and surviving family members in several states affected by the United States atomic bomb testing program and radioactive waste left behind. 

Uranium miners would also be eligible under the measure. While reviving the fund has received wide bipartisan approval in the Senate, the House has not shown the same support.

The Senate bill would raise the debt limit by $5 trillion, a figure designed to get Congress past next year’s midterm elections before the country would once again bump up against the borrowing limit.

On to the House

House approval is far from guaranteed.

Johnson can only lose four Republicans if all lawmakers in that chamber attend the vote. Several GOP members have voiced frustration with how the Senate has reworked the legislation, signaling an uphill climb for the bill.

House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith said as he left the Senate cloakroom just after 9:20 a.m. Eastern that lawmakers are “getting closer to a bill signing on July Fourth.”

“If you followed this journey over the last six months, over and over, people said that we could not accomplish a budget (reconciliation bill). We did. They said we would never pass it out of the House. We did. The Senate is going to pass it. The House is going to pass it, and the president’s going to sign it into law,” the Missouri Republican said.

Three amendments succeed

The Senate had adopted three amendments to the bill following an all-night amendment voting session, known as a vote-a-rama.

Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn was able to remove language from the package that would have blocked state and local governments from regulating artificial intelligence for five years if they wanted access to a $500 million fund. That vote was 99-1 with only North Carolina’s Tillis voting to keep the language in the package.

Blackburn said the change was necessary because lawmakers in Congress have “proven that they cannot legislate on emerging technology.”

Senators approved an amendment from Iowa GOP Sen. Joni Ernst by voice vote that would disqualify “anyone making a million dollars or more from being eligible for unemployment income support.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy was able to get an amendment adopted by a voice vote that would move up the date when Medicaid administrators must begin checking the Social Security Administration’s death master file to determine if a new enrollee is alive before adding them to the health program. It was set to begin on Jan. 1, 2028, but will now begin one year earlier.

Senators rejected dozens of amendments offered by both Democrats and Republicans, some of which deadlocked on 50-50 votes. Maine’s Collins and Alaska’s Murkowski broke with their party several times to vote with Democrats.

National private school voucher program

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono tried to eliminate a sweeping private school voucher program that’s baked into the reconciliation package, but that vote failed 50-50. Collins, Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer and Murkowski voted in support.

The original proposal called for $4 billion a year in tax credits beginning in 2027 for people donating to organizations that provide private and religious school scholarships.

But the parliamentarian last week deemed the program to not comply with the “Byrd Bath,” a Senate process named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd, forcing senators to rework the program.

Details on the finalized version of the program remain unknown as the final bill text has not been released.   

Safety funding for Virginia airport across from D.C.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner tried to add language to the bill that would have increased safety funding for airports near Washington, D.C., and established a memorial for the victims who died in a crash this January. The vote failed on a tied 50-50 vote, with Collins, Kansas GOP Sen. Jerry Moran and Murkowski voting with Democrats in support.

“Colleagues, we all know that on January 29 of this year, 67 individuals lost their lives when a military helicopter and a passenger jet collided near Reagan National Airport. This tragedy underscores the need for more safety improvements at National Airport,” Warner said. “The reconciliation bill increases, actually doubles, the amount of rent that National and Dulles pay the government but doesn’t use any of that money to make those airports and the people who use them any safer.”

He argued there was “no good rationale for increasing those rents and not using them for aviation safety.”

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz spoke against Warner’s amendment, saying the rents for the two airports in Virginia near the nation’s capital haven’t been updated in decades.

“The federal government originally calculated the rent in 1987 at $7.5 million dollars, massively below market rates,” Cruz said. “This bill increases that to $15 million, still dramatically below market rates.”

Cruz — chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation — said the legislation includes $12.5 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration to “transform the air traffic control system” and said his panel is looking into the collision in order to prevent something similar from happening again. 

Trump budget director’s office targeted

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen also got within one vote of having an amendment adopted when he tried to remove a section from the bill that would increase funding for the White House budget office by $100 million.

“This is at a time when (Federal Emergency Management Agency) grants to many of our states have been canceled, grants for law enforcement have been frozen, grants for victims of crimes are on hold,” Van Hollen said. “That is not efficiency. That is creating chaos and uncertainty. And I ask my colleagues, why in the world would we want to send another $100 million to OMB?”

Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson opposed the efforts, saying “the Office of Management and Budget needs to identify budgeting and accounting efficiencies in the executive branch. They need the resources to do it.”

The amendment was not added to the bill following another tied 50-50 vote with Collins, Murkowski and Paul voting with Democrats in favor.

Had GOP leadership wanted either of those proposals added to the package, they could have had Vance break the tie, but they did not.

Collins loses vote on rural hospital fund

Maine’s Collins tried to get an amendment added to the legislation that would have increased “funding for the rural health care provider fund to $50 billion dollars and expand the list of eligible providers to include not only rural hospitals but also community health centers, nursing homes, ambulance services, skilled nursing facilities and others.”

Collins said the additional $25 billion in funding for the fund would be paid for by “a modest increase in the top marginal tax rate, equal to the pre-2017 rate for individuals with income above $25 million and married couples with income above $50 million.”

Collins’ amendment was subject to a Senate procedural limit known as a budget point of order. She was unable to get the votes needed to waive that on a 22-78 vote.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden spoke against Collins’ proposal, calling it “flawed,” and introduced the budget point of order against her amendment.

“The danger Senate Republicans are causing for rural hospitals is so great, Republicans have had to create a rural hospital relief fund so they can look like they are fixing the problem they are causing,” Wyden said. “It is a Band-Aid on an amputation. It provides just a tiny fraction of the nearly $1 trillion in cuts the bill makes to Medicaid. It would be much more logical to simply not cut $1 trillion from Medicaid in the first place.”

Collins received a mix of support from Republicans, including West Virginia Shelley Moore Capito, Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy, Utah’s John Curtis, Nebraska’s Fischer, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, Missouri’s Josh Hawley, Ohio’s Jon Husted and Bernie Moreno, Mississippi’s Cindy Hyde-Smith and Roger Wicker, Louisiana’s Kennedy, Kansans Roger Marshall and Moran, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, Alaskans Dan Sullivan and Murkowski and Indiana’s Todd Young.

Also voting to waive the point of order and move forward with the amendment were Georgia’s Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock and Virginia’s Warner, all Democrats, and independent Maine Sen. Angus King. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., walks back onto the Senate floor after speaking to reporters at the U.S. Capitol Building on June 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans were closing in Monday on passing their version of the “big beautiful” tax break and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump wants to make law by a self-imposed July Fourth deadline.

But the chamber’s Democrats first kicked off a marathon of amendment votes, forcing their GOP colleagues to go on the record on tough issues, including cuts to health and food safety net programs. As of early evening, Democrats had not prevailed on any votes.

The tactic is used by the opposition party during massive budget reconciliation fights to draw attention to specific issues even as their amendments are likely to fail.

Democrats decried numerous measures in the mega-bill, including new work reporting requirements for Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people and people with disabilities.

Loud opposition has also swelled as legislative proposals shift significant costs of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to states for the first time.

“I say to our colleagues, ‘Vote for families over billionaires,’” Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said on the Senate floor.

The heart of the nearly 1,000-page legislation extends and expands the 2017 tax law to keep individual income tax rates at the same level and makes permanent some tax breaks on business investments and research and development costs.

The bill would also put in motion some of Trump’s campaign promises, including no tax on qualifying tips, overtime or car loan interest, but only for a few years.

The tax cuts are estimated to cost nearly $4.5 trillion over 10 years, and a provision in the bill raises the nation’s borrowing limit to $5 trillion as the United States faces record levels of debt.

Overall, the Senate bill is projected to add $3.25 trillion to deficits during the next decade, according to the latest calculation from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Here are some key votes so far:

Planned Parenthood 

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray tried to remove language from the bill that would block Medicaid payments from going to Planned Parenthood for one year unless the organization stops performing abortions.

Federal law already bars funding from going toward abortions, with limited exceptions, but GOP lawmakers have proposed blocking any other funding from going to the organization, effectively blocking Medicaid patients from going to Planned Parenthood for other types of health care.

Murray said the proposal would have a detrimental impact on health care for lower-income women and called it a “long-sought goal of anti-choice extremists.”

“Republicans’ bill will cut millions of women off from birth control, cancer screenings, essential preventive health care — care that they will not be able to afford anywhere else,” Murray said. “And it will shutter some 200 health care clinics in our country.”

Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith opposed efforts to remove the policy change and raised a budget point of order, which was not waived following a 49-51 vote. Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski voted with Democrats.

“There was a time when protecting American tax dollars from supporting the abortion industry was an uncontroversial, nonpartisan effort that we could all get behind,” Hyde-Smith said.

Medicaid for undocumented immigrants

Senators from both political parties crossed the aisle over whether the federal government should reduce how much a state is given for its Medicaid program if that state uses its own taxpayer dollars to enroll immigrants living in the country without proper documentation.

The provision was included in an earlier version of the bill, but the Senate parliamentarian ruled it didn’t comply with the complex rules for moving a budget reconciliation bill.

The vote was 56-44, but since it was on waiving a budget point of order, at least 60 senators had to agree to set aside the rules and move forward with the amendment, so the vote failed.

Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia voted with GOP senators. Maine’s Collins voted with most of the chamber’s Democrats against moving forward.

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn asked for the vote, saying he believes the policy change would reduce undocumented immigration.

“Border patrol talks about push and pull factors,” Cornyn said. “One of the pull factors for illegal immigration is the knowledge that people will be able to receive various benefits once they make it into the country.”

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., opposed Cornyn’s attempt to get the language back in the bill, saying the policy change would financially harm states that expanded Medicaid under the 2010 health care law for simple mistakes.

“What this amendment says is that if one person, despite state law, through a bureaucratic mistake, is receiving funds, then the whole state pays the price and has their rate on expanded Medicaid changed from 90% to 80%,” Merkley said, referring to the percentage paid by the federal government.

Reduction in funding for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

An amendment to stop a nearly 50% reduction in funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was blocked by Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who chairs the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat who championed the CFPB after the 2008 financial collapse, attempted to bring the amendment to the floor saying the agency “is the financial watchdog to keep people from getting cheated on credit cards and mortgages and Venmo and payday loans and a zillion other transactions.”

“When this financial cop can’t do its job there is no one else in the federal government to pick up the slack,” Warren said.

Scott blocked her using a budget point of order, saying the reduction still provides “ample funding” for the agency. Democrats tried to waive that procedural tactic, but failed following a 47-53 vote.

An original provision to completely zero out the budget for the CFPB was not included because it did not meet the reconciliation process’ parameters.

Medicaid hospitals and maternal mortality

Senators voted 48-52 to reject Delaware Democratic Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester’s proposals to send the legislation back to committee to remove language cutting certain funding for Medicaid, which she said would negatively impact “vital hospital services, especially labor and delivery rooms.”

“Today, Medicaid is the single largest payer of maternity care in the United States, covering 40% of births nationwide and nearly half of the births in our rural communities,” Blunt Rochester said. “Obstetric units, particularly in rural hospitals, are closing at alarming rates, actually creating maternity deserts.”

No Republicans spoke in opposition to the proposal, though Maine’s Collins voted in support. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján offered a motion to commit the bill back to committee in order to remove all changes related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. It was rejected following a 49-51 vote, though Alaska Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan and Murkowski voted in favor.

“I’m offering my colleagues the opportunity to step away from these devastating cuts, to show our fellow Americans that in this country we care for our friends, family and neighbors who need support,” Luján said.

Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., opposed the proposals, saying that SNAP is “on an unsustainable path wrought with mismanagement and waste.”

“This program has devolved into viewing success as enrolling more individuals to be dependent on government assistance,” Boozman said. “SNAP is long overdue for change.”

Medicaid work requirements

Senators voted 48-52 to reject a proposal from Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons that would have sent the bill back to committee to remove language requiring Medicaid enrollees to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month. Alaska’s Murkowski was the only member of her party to vote in favor of the effort.

Democrats have expressed concern for weeks that some people would lose access to Medicaid if they forgot to complete paperwork proving that time commitment or didn’t understand how to show the government they met the new requirement.

“It is cruel and dishonest to bury patients, kids and seniors in paperwork and then blame them when they lose their health care, all to further rig our tax code for the very wealthiest,” Coons said.

Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall urged opposition to the proposal, saying that working helps people.

“My question is, don’t you think a job brings value, that it brings dignity?” Marshall said. “Do you not think it brings purpose and meaning to life?”

Rural hospitals and Medicaid

Maine’s Collins and Alaska’s Murkowski both voted for a proposal from Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey that would have removed parts of the bill changing Medicaid.

But even with some bipartisan support, the changes were rejected on a 49-51 vote that would have technically sent the bill back to committee for three days to implement the changes.

“My Republican colleagues’ so-called Medicaid cuts replacement fund is like giving aspirin to a cancer patient,” Markey said. “It is not enough. It is pathetically inadequate to deal with the health care crisis Republicans are creating here today on the Senate floor. No billionaire tax break or Donald Trump pat-on-the-back is worth the risk of people’s lives.”

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, spoke out against the proposal, saying that rural hospitals have long had financial challenges and that it was clearly “intended to derail this very bill.”

“Unfortunately for far too long some rural hospitals have struggled to achieve financial stability, even with a wide-range of targeted payment enhances,” Crapo said. “These issues pre-date the consideration of the reforms that we are including in the legislation today.” 

 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters as returns to his office from the Senate chamber at the U.S. Capitol Building on June 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate launched a marathon amendment voting session Monday during which lawmakers will debate dozens of proposals from Republicans and Democrats that could significantly reshape the “big, beautiful bill” even as a final vote nears.

The vote-a-rama is expected to last throughout Monday and potentially into Tuesday, challenging senators who aren’t accustomed to having to stay on the floor for all hours of the day and night. At the end, the Senate will vote on final passage and if the tax and spending cut bill is successful it will be taken up next in the House, possibly as soon as Wednesday morning.

The first big debate and vote Monday centered around Republicans’ decision to use current policy instead of current law to determine the bill’s fiscal impacts.

Congress has long used current law to determine how much legislation will add or subtract from annual deficits, especially when it comes to the budget reconciliation process that is being used for this bill.

But since Republicans’ 2017 tax law was set to expire at the end of the year, using the current law baseline showed significantly higher deficits than using current policy — which could prove to be a political problem.

The debate, wonky even for the Senate, could have ripple effects in the future, especially if Democrats ever get unified control of government and use the change in process that GOP lawmakers set this time around for their own policy goals.

Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said during brief debate before the vote that using current policy would allow the GOP to make many of the tax levels in the 2017 law permanent, instead of having to sunset them to comply with reconciliation rules.

“What I’m trying to do, and I’m very happy about it, is to make sure the tax cuts don’t expire 10 years from now,” Graham said.

Reconciliation bills cannot increase the deficit after the 10-year budget window ends.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York spoke out against using current policy over current law, rebuking his Republican colleagues, though his arguments were ultimately unsuccessful. 

“Republicans are doing something the Senate has never done before — deploying fake math, accounting gimmicks to hide the true cost of the bill,” Schumer said. “Look, Republicans can use whatever budgetary gimmicks they want to try to make the math work on paper but you can’t paper over the real-life economic consequences of adding tens of trillions to the debt.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its current law score of the bill on Sunday, showing the legislation would add $3.253 trillion to deficits during the next decade.

Senators voted 53-47 along party lines against overruling Graham’s decision to use current policy.

Narrow majority

Senators spent the next few hours debating Democratic changes to the bill that would have addressed Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But no Democratic proposals had been adopted as of Monday afternoon and Republicans had yet to start voting on their own amendments.

Once both sides exhaust themselves, the Senate will move on to a final passage vote. With a narrow 53-seat majority, GOP leaders can only afford to lose three members and still have the bill pass with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie.

Two Republican senators — Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky — already indicated they’ll oppose the bill when they voted against advancing it late Saturday night. Altering the bill could cause issues for other senators, making the entire process a headache for GOP leadership.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a floor speech that the core of the sweeping package is focused on avoiding a cliff created when Republicans approved lower tax rates during President Donald Trump’s first term.

“This is about extending that tax relief so the same people that benefited from it back in 2017 and for the last eight years don’t end up having a colossal, massive tax increase hitting them in the face come January 1,” Thune said.

Schumer sharply criticized the policy changes and spending cuts in the mega-bill, saying they would lead to fewer people being able to access safety-net programs, like Medicaid, which provides health insurance coverage for low-income people and some people with disabilities, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food assistance for low-income people.

“How can any senator go home and tell their constituents, ‘I’m sorry, I took away your health care because I wanted to give tax breaks to billionaires?’” Schumer said. “And yet Republicans are dead set on walking off a cliff by passing a bill they know will be ruinous to their own constituents.”

‘Wraparound amendment’

Depending on how popular an amendment is and exactly what aspects of the legislation it seeks to change, it could increase or decrease the number of GOP senators willing to vote for the final version of the bill.

Republican leaders will want to fend off all Democratic amendments, though if some do get added, Thune can use a procedural tactic called a “wraparound amendment” at the end to cut any problematic changes by wiping out Democratic amendments with a majority vote.

In addition to providing an opportunity for senators to debate nitty gritty policy details, the vote-a-rama serves a political purpose for Democrats, who will try to get at-risk senators to take votes that can then be used during the midterm elections to try to sway voters. 

Those amendments will mostly focus on Maine’s Susan Collins after North Carolina’s Tillis announced his retirement Sunday.

While Democrats have more incentive for so-called “gotcha amendments” since they’re trying to flip the Senate from red to blue, GOP leaders may also bring up amendments challenging vulnerable Democratic senators, like Georgia’s Jon Ossoff.

And since the opportunity to put up as many amendments as a senator pleases is rare, both Democrats and Republicans may have an eye on purple-state lawmakers up for reelection in 2028. 

The U.S. Capitol on Sunday, June 29, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate began floor debate on Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” Sunday afternoon, though there are several steps to go before the legislation can become law, and any one of those could lead to additional GOP opposition — potentially dooming the measure. 

Senators must wrap up an ongoing review of the bill with the parliamentarian to ensure it meets the strict rules for using the reconciliation process and then run the gauntlet during a marathon amendment voting session.

Additional changes to the sweeping tax and spending cuts package, some of which were being worked on as debate took place, need to garner the support of nearly every Republican in Congress. Otherwise, it will never become law.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune signaled during a brief hallway interview there may be enough votes for a new twist in the Medicaid changes in the bill — an amendment reducing in some way how much the federal government spends on Medicaid in states that expanded the program as a result of Democrats’ 2010 health care law. The federal government currently pays 90% of the costs for enrollees in the expansion.

“We’re going to do what we can to support the effort,” Thune said, referring to an amendment offered by Florida Sen. Rick Scott that was not yet public. “It’s great policy and something that there’s a high level of interest in our conference in getting made part of the bill, and obviously scores a substantial savings.”

But Thune, R-S.D., sidestepped a question about whether making that change would create vote-count issues if Republicans in the House with affected districts object, potentially preventing the bill from reaching President Donald Trump’s desk.

“We have had some of these conversations with (Speaker Mike Johnson) and others over there, and then also with our colleagues for some time,” Thune said. “But I think the way this is designed, and the way that Sen. Scott has written it; it should be something that I don’t know how Republicans couldn’t be in favor of what he’s trying to get done here.

“So, you know, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Obviously, we’ve still got to get into the debate over here and get through the amendment process and we’ll see what the fate of the amendment is on the floor.”

Currently 41 states, including the District of Columbia, have adopted the Medicaid expansion, according to the health care research organization KFF.

A Scott spokesperson told States Newsroom they would share his amendment once it was final.

Still fluid

Typically when a major piece of legislation comes to the Senate floor the text is set and amendment debate is closely controlled to ensure delicately negotiated deals don’t crumble in full public view.

That isn’t the case this time around and much could change before senators take a final passage vote later this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday.

GOP leaders using the complex reconciliation process to move their signature policy bill through Congress means every provision must have an impact on federal spending or revenue that is not “merely incidental.”

That involves Democrats and Republicans going before the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s official referee, to argue over dozens of provisions. She then decides if a given policy meets the strict and sometimes murky rules.

That process hadn’t yet wrapped up when debate on the megabill began and is expected to continue as the 20-hour clock ticks down toward a marathon amendment voting session.

Senate bill would add $3.2 trillion to deficits

There are also increasing concerns among Republicans, including those in the House Freedom Caucus, over how the bill will impact the federal government’s balance sheet during the next decade.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office announced Sunday morning the Senate’s revised tax and spending cuts package will add $3.253 trillion to deficits during the next decade compared to current law.

Trump appeared to try to assuage concerns through a social media post.

“For all cost cutting Republicans, of which I am one, REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected,” Trump wrote. “Don’t go too crazy! We will make it all up, times 10, with GROWTH, more than ever before.”

The latest score came just hours before senators officially began floor debate on the sweeping package that will extend the 2017 GOP tax law, rework how much state governments have to contribute to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, overhaul several aspects of Medicaid and cut its spending, restructure higher education aid programs and much more.

Senators voted mostly along party lines late Saturday to proceed with the legislation, though leaders had to hold the vote open for more than three hours as they worked to get the votes needed.

Even after taking that crucial procedural step, the bill continued to evolve.

The parliamentarian ruled Sunday morning that another six provisions must be revised to comply with the rules or be removed from the 940-page package. 

One Alaska sweetener knocked out

GOP senators cannot include, or might need to restructure, language meant to bring Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski on board by enhancing the federal matching rate for Medicaid in two states with high poverty guideline levels: Alaska and Hawaii. The program for low-income people and some people with disabilities is run as a state-federal partnership.

Since Hawaii is represented in Congress by a Democratic delegation, the Republican benefit would largely have applied to Alaska’s two GOP senators.

Senate Republicans did receive some good news from the parliamentarian in her latest ruling, which cleared language that will steadily lower the maximum percent states can set for Medicaid provider tax rates from the current 6% to 3.5% in 2032.

The in-the-weeds policy has caused considerable frustration among GOP senators across the political spectrum, who argued a prior version would likely cause financial strain for rural hospitals by beginning the process one year sooner.

Planned Parenthood

The parliamentarian is still reviewing several other policy changes in the bill, including whether Republicans can prevent Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year, effectively blocking beneficiaries from receiving care there at all.

Federal law already bars federal taxpayer dollars from going toward abortions with limited exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. So this change would prevent Medicaid patients, who may have few other options, from using Planned Parenthood for other types of health care, like annual physicals, contraception and cancer screenings.

A prior version of the bill blocked federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood for the next decade.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, did not immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom about how the rulings might impact the bill going forward.

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote in a statement the latest rulings show “that Republican attempts to give away goodies that benefit certain states will not pass muster under Senate rules.”

“Senate Democrats have also successfully challenged a giveaway to Big Pharma, as well as policies that make it harder for seniors and kids to get affordable health care through Medicaid,” Wyden wrote. “Republicans wanted to bring back the health care tactics of yesteryear, like waiting periods, lock-outs and annual limits on care, but Democrats have wrestled these out of the bill. I am disappointed that the Republican rewrite of the provider tax changes will remain in the bill: this policy will force states into devastating cuts to health care that seniors, kids and Americans with disabilities depend on. We will continue to fight any attempt to sneak through harmful health care policies in this morally bankrupt legislation.”

Amendment fights ahead

Republicans hope to pass the entire package before the Fourth of July, though they have several hurdles to jump over before they can meet that goal.

Senate floor debate can last up to 20 hours. After that, senators will begin a marathon amendment voting session where members of each political party can propose changing or removing certain pieces of the legislation.

GOP leaders generally like to avoid public disputes within the party but the rules of reconciliation don’t really allow that and several Republican senators are expected to offer amendments.

There is no time limit or cap on the number of amendments that can be offered during vote-a-rama, so that can last hours or even days in theory.

Whenever Democrats and Republicans decide they’ve debated their last amendment, they’ll move on to voting to approve the Senate’s version of the “big, beautiful bill.”

At least 50 Republicans need to vote to approve the measure, with Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote. More than four GOP senators objecting to the overall bill means it cannot pass as it’s written.

Thom Tillis, Rand Paul

Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against moving forward with debate so it’s likely they will vote against final passage as well. Two more senators deciding not to back the bill would halt its momentum, at least until GOP leaders could make changes to get their votes.

Tillis on Sunday announced he would not run for reelection, after being attacked by Trump for voting against advancing the legislation.

Senate approval of the bill would send it back to the House for a final vote, though centrist and far-right members of the Republican Conference in that chamber have voiced concerns about changes made in the upper chamber.

Johnson, R-La., will need to keep nearly every one of the 220 House GOP lawmakers supportive if that chamber is to send the legislation to  Trump for his signature before Friday.