The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House early Thursday approved the “big, beautiful bill” that Republican leaders spent months negotiating with centrists and far-right members of the party — two distinct factions that hold vastly different policy goals — over intense opposition from Democrats.

The 215-214 vote ships the package to the Senate, where GOP lawmakers are expected to rewrite much of it, before sending it back across the Capitol for final approval, a process likely to stretch through the summer.

President Donald Trump, who said he backed the House version, would then need to sign the legislation, which under the complicated process being used by Republicans can pass with just a majority vote in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Trump called on the Senate to pass the legislation as quickly as possible, writing in a social media post that “(t)here is no time to waste” and that the bill is “arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!”

Speaker Mike Johnson said minutes before the vote that he expects lawmakers to give the measure final approval before the Fourth of July.

“Now, look, we’re accomplishing a big thing here today, but we know this isn’t the end of the road just yet,” Johnson, R-La., said. “We’ve been working closely with Leader (John) Thune and our Senate colleagues, the Senate Republicans, to get this done and delivered to the president’s desk by our Independence Day. That’s July 4. Today proves that we can do that, and we will do that.”

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., argued against the legislation, saying it “undermines reproductive freedom, undermines the progress that we have made in combating the climate crisis, undermines gun safety, undermines the rule of law and the independence of the federal judiciary. It even undermines the ability of hard-working and law-abiding immigrant families to provide remittances to their loved ones, who may just happen to live abroad.”

Jeffries raised concerns with how the proposals in the bill would impact the economy and the federal government’s financial stability.

“Costs aren’t going down. They’re going up. Inflation is out of control. Insurance rates remain stubbornly high,” Jeffries said. “Our Moody’s rating, our credit rating, has been downgraded, and you’ve got people losing confidence in this economy. Republicans are crashing this economy in real time and driving us toward a recession.”

Ohio’s Warren Davidson and Kentucky’s Thomas Massie were the only Republicans to vote against passing the bill, which members debated throughout the night prior to the vote just after daylight in the nation’s capital. All Democrats, who dubbed it “one big ugly bill,” were opposed. Maryland GOP Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, voted “present.”

Massie spoke against the bill overnight, calling it “a debt bomb ticking.”

“I’d love to stand here and tell the American people: We can cut your taxes and we can increase spending, and everything’s going to be just fine. But I can’t do that because I’m here to deliver a dose of reality,” Massie said. “This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near term, but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before? How do you bind a future Congress to these promises?”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing later in the day that Trump wants Davidson and Massie to face primary challenges next year during the midterm elections.

“I believe he does,” Leavitt said. “And I don’t think he likes to see grandstanders in Congress.” 

In the works for weeks

The 1,116-page package combines 11 bills that GOP lawmakers debated and reported out of committee during the last several weeks.

The legislation would:

• Extend the 2017 tax law, including tax cuts for businesses and individuals;
• Bolster spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars;
• Rework energy permitting;
• Restructure higher education aid such as student loans and Pell Grants;
• Shift some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program food aid program for low-income Americans to state governments; and
• Overhaul Medicaid, the nation’s program for health care for low-income people and some people with disabilities.

The bill would make deep cuts to Medicaid spending, reducing the program by $625 billion over 10 years under the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

The budget measure would also raise the debt limit by $4 trillion.

A new Congressional Budget Office analysis released late Tuesday showed the package tilted toward the wealthy, projecting it would decrease resources for low-income families over the next decade while increasing resources for top earners.

Republicans hold especially thin majorities in the House and Senate, meaning that nearly every GOP lawmaker — ranging from centrists who barely won their general elections to far-right members who are more at risk of losing a primary challenge — needed to support the bill.

Balancing the demands of hundreds of lawmakers led to nearly constant talks during the last few days as Johnson struggled to secure the votes to pass the bill before his Memorial Day deadline.

Any deal Johnson made with far-right members of the party risked alienating centrist GOP lawmakers and vice versa.

An agreement finally came together Wednesday evening when GOP leaders released a 42-page amendment that made changes to various sections of the package, including the state and local tax deduction, or SALT, and Medicaid work requirements and nixed the potential sale of some public lands.

Tax cuts

House debate on the package fell largely along party lines, with Democrats contending it would benefit the wealthy at the expense of lower-income Americans, including millions who would lose access to Medicaid.

Republicans argued the legislation is necessary to avoid a tax hike at the end of the year, when the 2017 GOP law expires, and to curb government spending in the years ahead.

Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., said the tax section of the package would halt a tax increase for many that would have taken place after the vast majority of the provisions in that law expire at the end of this year.

“Working families, farmers and small businesses win with this bill,” Smith said. “We expand and make permanent the small business deduction and increase the child tax credit, the standard deduction and the death tax exemption.”

The legislation would increase the tax rate for colleges and universities with substantial endowments, which would match the corporate tax rate, he said.

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Richard Neal, ranking member on that tax-writing committee, said the legislation would lead the United States to “borrow $4 trillion and with interest payments over the next 10 years, $5 trillion, to justify a tax cut for the billionaire class.”

Neal said that the wealthy would see a greater benefit from the GOP tax provisions than working-class Americans.

“If you made a million dollars last year, you’re going to get $81,000 of tax relief. If you made less than $50,000 Guess what? Not quite so lucky,” Neal said. “But you know what? $1 a day goes a long way, because that’s where the numbers land.”

Neal said Democrats would have worked with Republicans to extend the 2017 tax cuts if the GOP had capped them for those making less than $400,000 a year, with people making more than that going back to the higher rate. 

Child tax credit

The child tax credit will increase to $2,500, up from the $2,000 enacted under the 2017 tax law. The refundability portion of the credit, or the amount parents could receive in a refund check after paying their tax liability, will remain capped but will increase with inflation by $100 annually. As of now, the amount a parent could receive back per child stands at $1,700.

While Republicans hailed the increase as a win for families, critics say it continues to leave out the poorest families as the refund amount is dependent on how much a parent earns. The credit phases in at 15 cents per income dollar, one child at a time.

“The Republican bill will leave out 17 million American children who are in families that don’t earn enough to receive the full child tax credit,” Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington said Wednesday in the House Committee on Rules. Her amendment to make the tax credit fully refundable was rejected.

On the House floor Thursday morning, DelBene criticized the bill as a “big, broken promise.”

SALT

Republicans from high-tax blue states declared victory on the increase in the SALT cap, or the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted from federal taxable income. After long, drawn-out disagreement, Republicans representing districts in California, New Jersey and New York secured a bump to $40,000, up from the $10,000 cap enacted under Trump’s 2017 tax law.

However, the cap comes with an income limit of $500,000, after which it phases down. Both the $40,000 cap and the $500,000 income threshold will increase annually at 1% until hitting a ceiling of $44,000 and $552,000.

Rep. Mike Lawler of New York said during debate that he “would never support a tax bill that did not adequately lift the cap on SALT.”

“This bill does that. It increases the cap on SALT by 300%,” Lawler said. “And I would remind my Democratic colleagues, when they had full control in Washington, they lifted the cap on SALT by exactly $0, zilch, zip, nada.”

Medicaid work requirements 

Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said his panel’s bill would ensure Medicaid coverage continued for low-income families, individuals who are disabled and seniors through new work requirements and other changes.

“This bill protects coverage for those individuals by ensuring ineligible recipients do not cut the line in front of our most vulnerable Americans,” Guthrie said. “The decision by left-leaning state governments to spend taxpayer dollars on people who are ineligible for the program is indefensible. Medicaid should not cover illegal immigrants, deceased or duplicative beneficiaries, or able-bodied adults without dependents who choose not to work.”

The policy change would require those who rely on the state-federal health program, and who are between the ages of 19 and 65, to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month.

The language has numerous exceptions, including for pregnant people, parents of dependent children, people who have complex medical conditions, tribal community members, those in the foster care system, people who were in foster care who are below the age of 26 and individuals released from incarceration in the last 90 days, among others.

New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone, ranking member on the committee that oversees major health care programs, said the Republican bill would not only cut funding for Medicaid, but also for Medicare, the program relied on by seniors and some younger people with disabilities.

“Republicans are stripping health care away from people by putting all sorts of burdensome and time-consuming road blocks in the way of people just trying to get by,” Pallone said. “The vast majority of people on Medicaid are already working. This is not about work. It’s about burying people in so much paperwork that they fall behind and lose their health coverage, and if someone loses their health coverage through Medicaid, this GOP tax scam also bans them from getting coverage through the ACA marketplace.”

While the GOP bill doesn’t directly address Medicare, he said, a federal budget law, known as the Pay-As-You-Go Act, would force spending cuts called sequestration to that health program.

“The Medicare cuts will lead to reduced access to care for seniors, longer wait times for appointments, and increased costs,” Pallone said.

States to share in food aid costs

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., pressed for support for his piece of the legislation, saying changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, are needed.

“SNAP is the only state-administered welfare program that does not have a cost-share component, and while the federal government funds 100% of the benefit, states are tasked with operating it,” Thompson said. “The only problem: They aren’t operating it well.”

He also cheered several of the package’s tax provisions, saying they would benefit farmers.

“The one big, beautiful bill makes permanent and expands the Trump tax cuts. It also prevents the death tax from hitting over 2 million family farms,” Thompson said. “It locks in the small business deduction, helping 98% of American farms stay afloat.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Angie Craig, ranking member on the panel, wrote in a statement that the proposed changes would “make America hungrier, poorer and sicker.”

“At a time when grocery prices are going up and retirement accounts are going down, we must protect the basic needs programs that help people afford food and health care,” Craig wrote. “As a mother and someone who needed food assistance at periods in my own childhood, I condemn this attempt to snatch food off our children’s plates to fund tax breaks for large corporations.”

Border security, air traffic control, EV fees

House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Sam Graves, R-Mo., said his piece of the package would combine “critical investments in border security, national defense and modernization of America’s air traffic control system, while eliminating wasteful spending and other deficit reduction measures.”

“Specifically, this bill addresses long overdue needs in the United States Coast Guard, which for over two decades has received less than half of the capital investment necessary to effectively carry out its critical missions,” Graves said.

The transportation section of the package, he said, includes $21 billion for the Coast Guard and $12.5 billion to modernize the air traffic control systems while establishing a $250 annual fee for electric vehicles and a $100 annual fee for hybrid vehicles that would go toward the Highway Trust Fund. That account has traditionally been funded through a gas tax. 

Washington Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen, ranking member on the transportation panel, said he wanted “to continue historic funding for transportation, infrastructure, and stronger and healthier communities.”

“Unfortunately, this reconciliation package leaves very little room for those investments,”  Larsen said.

“This bill causes immediate harm by yanking money from locally selected projects that our constituents in Republican and Democratic districts alike are counting on,” he added. “And for what? To help pay for the tax cuts for the richest Americans and largest and largest corporations.”

Student loan overhaul, medical research

House Education and Workforce Committee ranking member Bobby Scott, D-Va., urged opposition to what he called the “big, bad billionaires bill,” saying it would lead to a massive reshaping of higher education aid.

“The bill not only can increase the deficit, it has 4 million students who will lose their Pell Grants, 18 million children could potentially lose their free school lunch, 13.7 million people are set to lose their health care and everybody loses when the National Institutes of Health research is cut,” Scott said.

Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., said his portion of the legislation would “generate over $20 billion in savings and new revenue for the federal government, primarily by direct royalty and lease fees from the sale of oil, gas, timber and mine resources, while curbing wasteful spending.”

“Our title reinstates onshore and offshore oil and gas lease sales, holds annual geothermal lease sales and ensures a fair process for critical mineral development nationwide,” Westerman said. “We’ve also directed the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to utilize long-term timber sale contracts.”

The Trump administration released a Statement of Administration Policy on Wednesday urging GOP lawmakers to approve the legislation, when it still appeared several members of the party might delay or even block the bill in the House. 

“The One Big Beautiful Bill Act reflects the shared priorities of both Congress and the Administration,” the SAP states. “Therefore, the House of Representatives should immediately pass this bill to show the American people that they are serious about ‘promises made, promises kept.’

“President Trump is committed to keeping his promises, and failure to pass this bill would be the ultimate betrayal.”

U.S. House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, R-Md., center, speaks to reporters on Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at the U.S. Capitol. From left are Republicans Keith Self of Texas, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Chip Roy of Texas. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republican leaders released changes to their “one big beautiful bill” late Wednesday after marathon negotiations with conservatives demanding deeper cuts to safety net programs, teeing up debate and a final vote likely sometime Thursday.

The alterations, which will have to be adopted later, moved up implementation of work requirements for Medicaid by at least a couple of years and tossed out plans to sell some public lands. The new language also tightened the timeline for clean energy tax breaks and raised the ceiling for taxpayers who deduct state and local taxes.

The package of adjustments — the manager’s amendment — was incorporated into the larger reconciliation bill, which was approved by the House Rules Committee just before 11 p.m. Eastern on an 8-4 party-line vote. Far-right holdout Rep. Chip Roy of Texas was absent.

Next, the package must pass a procedural vote on the House floor before lawmakers can debate and take a final vote.

With a razor-thin margin, House Speaker Mike Johnson can only lose a handful of members on each vote. Democrats are expected to uniformly vote “no” in the procedural and final votes.

Medicaid

Republicans moved up implementation of work requirements for Medicaid enrollees from taking effect after January 1, 2029 to no later than December 31, 2026. That could mean some states will make the changes before next year’s midterm elections.

The provision would require those who rely on the state-federal health program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities, who are between the ages of 19 and 65, to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month.

The language has numerous exceptions, including for pregnant people, parents of dependent children, people who have complex medical conditions, tribal community members, people in the foster system, people who were in the foster system who are below the age of 26 and people released from incarceration in the last 90 days, among others.

The GOP changes also would bar Medicaid from covering gender transition procedures for anyone in the program. The bill previously barred that type of treatment for anyone below the age of 18.

Clean energy tax credits

Republicans also tightened the timeline on the termination of clean energy tax credits enacted under President Joe Biden. Hardliners focused on reducing the deficit had demanded a quicker phase-out for the credits.

The new language would accelerate phase-outs for clean energy investment tax credits to 2028, up from 2031, with special carve-outs for nuclear facilities. Companies that break ground on new facilities 60 days after the bill is enacted, if passed, will not qualify for the tax credits. The same applies to any facility placed into service after 2028.

State and local taxes

A separate contingent of Republican holdouts reached a deal with Johnson to raise the SALT cap to $40,000, up from the $10,000 lid enacted under the 2017 tax law. The SALT cap  — the amount of state and local taxes constituents can deduct from federal taxable income — is a top issue for Republicans who represent districts in high-tax blue states, including California, New Jersey and New York.

The amount of SALT taxpayers can deduct decreases for those making more than $500,000 annually. The SALT cap and the income cut-off will increase by 1% each year from 2027 until 2033.

Public lands sale

The amendment removed language that would have allowed the sale of public lands in Nevada and Utah.

The National Wildlife Federation credited Montana Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke with removing the provision.

“Thank you to Rep. Ryan Zinke and his colleagues who listened to their constituents and worked with House leaders to eliminate the provision from the budget reconciliation bill,” NWF Associate Vice President for Public Lands David Wilms said in a statement. “We urge all members of Congress to refrain from similar attacks on America’s public lands.”

Jessica Turner, president of the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, wrote in a statement that “Congress avoided setting a dangerous precedent that lands can be sold anytime the U.S. Treasury needs a budget ‘pay-for’ and threatening outdoor recreation businesses and rural communities alike that need certainty, access, and long-term infrastructure.”

The Center for Biological Diversity’s Great Basin Director Patrick Donnelly wrote in a separate statement that it was “appalling that GOP leaders tried to get away with auctioning off some of our country’s most beautiful landscapes to fund tax cuts for billionaires and make developers richer. This is Gilded Age-level stuff, and I hope people remember it the next time Republicans try to pretend they care about public lands.”

A separate provision in the amendment appeared to narrow the federal authorizations energy projects could bypass by paying a $10 million fee. The section had been attacked by environmental groups as a “pay-to-play” for energy companies.

White House meeting

The changes come after Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, and far-right holdouts huddled with President Donald Trump at the White House Wednesday afternoon.

Johnson, speaking to reporters at the Capitol following the meeting, said that lawmakers had “a good discussion” and that he believes the GOP is “in a very good place.”

“I think that all of our colleagues here will really like this final product, and I think we’re going to move forward,” Johnson said.

Johnson said members of the Freedom Caucus, who previously argued the legislation doesn’t go far enough to restructure Medicaid and reduce federal spending, may end up supporting the bill, in part because Trump plans to address their other concerns through unilateral actions.

“You will see how all this is resolved. But I think we can resolve their concerns and it’ll be probably some combination of work by the president in these areas as well as here in Congress,” Johnson said. “So there may be executive orders related to some of these issues in the near future.

“And, you know, this is a commitment the president has made. He wants to go after fraud, waste and abuse.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt released a written statement saying the “meeting was productive and moved the ball in the right direction.

“The President reiterated how critical it is for the country to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill as quickly as possible.”

Complex process

Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship.

Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.

Republicans are using the package to extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending on Medicaid.

A new Congressional Budget Office analysis released late Tuesday projected the massive reconciliation package would decrease resources for low-income families over the next decade while increasing resources for top earners.

Freedom Caucus

Earlier Wednesday, members of the Freedom Caucus told reporters following a different meeting with Johnson that they believed negotiations were moving in the right direction, but were skeptical of trying to approve the entire package this week.

Maryland Republican Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the group, said they wanted the legislation to go further in terms of addressing “waste, fraud and abuse” within Medicaid, though he declined to elaborate.

The Medicaid proposals in the version of the bill prior to the negotiated changes would cut $625 billion in federal spending during the next decade, under a CBO analysis. Democrats have warned the result would be millions of vulnerable people losing access to the health program for lower income people and some people with disabilities.

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy said during that same impromptu press conference that leadership and members of the Freedom Caucus had made “significant progress” toward a final agreement.

“We’re trying to deliver so that the people who are actually out there working hard can actually get the health care that they want to get, that they can get, and get it the best way possible,” Roy said. “That’s what this is all about; changing a broken system, making sure we’re saving taxpayer dollars and being able to provide a better environment for people to be able to thrive.”

Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Scott Perry, who used to chair the Freedom Caucus, said that holding a House vote before Memorial Day was a made-up timeline and that if negotiations needed to last longer, they should.

“This is a completely arbitrary deadline set by people here to force people into a corner to make bad decisions,” Perry said. “It’s more important to get this right, to get it correct, than to get it fast. We are sitting at the table to do that.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump arrives with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., for a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Republicans who have yet to rally behind the party’s “big, beautiful bill” huddled in the speaker’s office Tuesday as different factions tried to hash out agreement on taxes, Medicaid and a few other outstanding issues.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters before those meetings began there were “a number of loose ends to tie up” with deficit hawks and members from high-tax states, who are pressing to raise the state and local tax deduction, also known as SALT.

“We got some hours ahead of us to work this out, and I’m very confident we will,” Johnson said. “I’m going to have a series of meetings that will begin right now in my office to try to tie up the final loose ends. This is a 1,100-page piece of legislation. We’re down to a few provisions so we are very confident, very optimistic we can get this done and stay on our timetable.”

Johnson hopes to pass the legislation this week, though he didn’t appear to have the votes as of Tuesday afternoon.

Trump pays a House call

The smaller meetings followed a closed-door huddle between all the chamber’s GOP lawmakers and President Donald Trump earlier in the day that didn’t quite have the intended effect of immediately convincing holdouts to vote for the bill.

Trump, however, appeared to declare victory before leaving the Capitol.

“I think we have unbelievable unity. I think we’re going to get everything we want,” Trump said after the morning meeting. “And I think we’re going to have a great victory.”

House Republicans have an extremely thin 220-213 majority, requiring nearly every GOP lawmaker to support the 1,116-page package in order for it to reach the Senate.

Getting SALT-y

The reconciliation bill currently proposes lifting the SALT cap from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples filing jointly, with a phase-down for those earning $400,000 or more, but that’s not enough for Republicans from states most impacted by the aspect of tax law.

New York Republican Rep. Nick LaLota told reporters in the early afternoon that he would likely lose reelection if he can’t secure a better SALT agreement than what was on the table.

“If I do a bad deal, I would expect my constituents to throw me out,” LaLota said. “If I did a deal at $30,000, my own mother wouldn’t vote for me.”

LaLota said Republicans leaders should prioritize a deal that benefits swing voters to avoid the party losing centrist members and possibly the House majority in the 2026 midterms.

“If we win that one issue, they’ll have a much easier November of 2026. And thus we’ll be able to keep the House and do other fiscally responsible things for the next couple of cycles here, if we get this one issue right,” LaLota said. “Conversely, you get this issue wrong — you vote for a bad bill and you keep the cap low — those folks are getting thrown out of office, we lose the majority, and then we have an open border, then we have an impeached president, and then we have all the other things that America voted against.”

LaLota said later Tuesday, after GOP leaders proposed different SALT cap numbers, that there was still “no accepted deal, yet the parties are talking a little more with an understanding of each other’s position.”

“Leadership understands better what our pain threshold is,” LaLota said. “We clearly rejected the $30,000 number that’s in the Ways and Means bill.” 

He declined to say if the SALT Caucus was prepping a counteroffer for leadership, but said that staff were conducting “some research on some of the mixes of income caps and what SALT cap there would be and how much that would be valued at relative to the entire $4 trillion package.”

‘Bad faith negotiation’

Rep. Mike Lawler, a staunch supporter of raising the SALT cap for his constituents north of New York City, would not comment to reporters outside the speaker’s office about a specific dollar amount but said there’s an “improved offer” on the table.

“We’re waiting on more details. We’ll have more to say later,” Lawler said.

Speaking to Fox News in the hallway, he said, “I’m not going to sacrifice my constituents and throw them under the bus in a bad faith negotiation, which is what this has been by leadership and Jason Smith,” he said referring to the chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

“We need to come to an agreement. We need to provide real and lasting tax relief, and that’s what I’m fighting for, for my constituents. I respect the president … but I’ll respectfully disagree,” Lawler said.

Trump urged House Republicans Tuesday morning that raising the SALT cap benefits Democratic governors.

Conservatives still unhappy

Complicating negotiations, some far-right House Republicans remain opposed to the bill, saying it does not go far enough.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who did not support the bill during a committee vote Sunday night, told States Newsroom Tuesday afternoon that his “concerns and problems still exist.”

Roy argues the massive reconciliation deal does not reduce deficit spending enough, particularly with respect to Medicaid and clean energy tax credits.

When asked whether lawmakers were approaching an agreement, Roy said “Not sure. We’re still talking. We’ve had literally like five meetings today already.”

Thune predictions

The House passing the package this week would only be one of many steps in the long, winding process.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a press conference Tuesday afternoon, just after Johnson spoke during a closed-door lunch, that changes to the package are expected in the upper chamber.

Thune said one of the major questions for GOP senators is whether the legislation holds “sufficient spending reforms to get us on a more sustainable fiscal path.”

“I think most of our members are in favor of a lot of the tax policy and particularly those portions of the tax policy that are stimulative, that are pro-growth, that will create greater growth in the economy,” Thune said. “But when it comes to the spending side of the equation: This is a unique moment in time and in history where we have the House and the Senate and the White House, and an opportunity to do something meaningful about government spending.”

Thune said that GOP senators would likely make “tweaks” to the tax provisions once the House sends over a package, especially around how long certain tax policy lasts.

“They have cliffs and some shorter-term timeframes when it comes to some of the tax policies,” Thune said. “We believe that permanence is the way to create economic certainty and thereby attract and incentive capital investment in this country that creates those good-paying jobs, and gets our economy growing and expanding, and generates more government revenue.”

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before Congress on Tuesday that a major report due out later this week from his agency will not disparage farmers or a commonly used pesticide.

Kennedy, who has long been critical of certain aspects of modern agriculture and processed food, at a U.S. Senate hearing urged lawmakers to read the widely anticipated “Make America Healthy Again” report once it’s published Thursday, but didn’t go into details about any possible recommendations.

“Everybody will see the report,” Kennedy said. “And there’s nobody that has a greater commitment to the American farmer than we do. The MAHA movement collapses if we can’t partner with the American farmer in producing a safe, robust and abundant food supply.”

His comments followed stern questioning from Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who said she had read news reports from “reliable sources” that the MAHA Commission’s initial assessment “may unfairly target American agriculture, modern farming practices and the crop protection tools that roughly 2% of our population relies on to help feed the remaining 98%.”

“If Americans lose confidence in the safety and integrity of our food supply due to the unfounded claims that mislead consumers, public health will be at risk,” Hyde-Smith said. “I’ve said this before, and it’s worth saying again, countries have gone to war over many things — politics, religion, race, trade, natural resources, oil, pride, you name it — but threaten a nation’s food supply and allow people to go hungry. Let’s see what happens then.”

Hyde-Smith, who was her home state’s commissioner of agriculture and commerce from 2012 to 2018, probed Kennedy about his past work in environmental law and whether he might be inserting “confirmation bias” into the forthcoming report.

She asked Kennedy if he would try to change the current approval for glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide, that she referred to as “one of the most thoroughly studied products of its kind.”

“We’re talking about more than 1,500 studies and 50-plus years of review by the EPA and other leading global health authorities that have affirmed its safety when used as directed,” Hyde-Smith said. “Have you been able to review thousands of studies and decades of scientific review in a matter of months?”

Kennedy responded that her “information about the report is just simply wrong.”

“The drafts that I’ve seen, there is not a single word in them that should worry the American farmer,” Kennedy said.

Hyde-Smith continued her questioning and told Kennedy that it would be “a shame if the MAHA commission issues reports suggesting, without substantial facts and evidence, that our government got things terribly wrong when it reviewed a number of crop protection tools and deemed them to be safe.”

Home energy program in Maine

Several other Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee raised concerns during the two-hour hearing about how Kennedy has run HHS since they confirmed him in February.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the full Appropriations Committee, brought up the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, which the Trump administration has called on Congress to eliminate.

“The LIHEAP program, which we’ve talked about, is absolutely vital for thousands of older Mainers and low-income families,” Collins said. “It helps them avoid the constant worry of having to choose between keeping warm, buying essential foods and medications and other basic necessities.”

Kennedy sought to distance himself from the president’s budget request, saying that he understands “the critical, historical importance of this program.”

“President (Donald) Trump’s rationale and (the Office of Management and Budget’s) rationale is that President Trump’s energy policies are going to lower the cost of energy … so that everybody will get lower cost heating oil,” Kennedy said.

NIH indirect costs

Subcommittee Chairwoman Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., brought up several issues with Kennedy, including efforts to change how much the National Institutes of Health provides to medical schools and research universities for Facilities and Administrative fees, often called indirect costs.

NIH sought to set that amount at 15% across the board for any institution that receives a research grant from the agency, a significantly lower amount than many of the organizations had negotiated over the years, bringing about strong objections from institutions of higher education.

That NIH policy has not taken effect as several lawsuits work their way through the federal court system.

Kennedy indicated NIH has figured out a way to help medical schools and research universities pay for items like gloves, test tubes and mass spectrometers, particularly at state schools.

“In the public universities, we are very much aware that those universities are using the money well, that it is absolutely necessary for them. And we’re looking at a series of different ways that we can fund those costs through them,” Kennedy said. “But not through the independent, indirect cost structure, which loses all control, which deprives us of all control of how that money is spent.”

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, a Republican, brought up the measles outbreak and pressed Kennedy on whether HHS needed additional resources to help his home state and others get the virus under control.

Kennedy testified the “best way to prevent the spread of measles is through vaccination” and that HHS has been urging “people to get their MMR vaccines.”

South Dakota grant on mine safety

South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds called on Kennedy to continue fixing issues created earlier this year when HHS fired people working on mine safety issues at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

“My office has learned that staff at NIOSH’s Spokane mining research division have been laid off. This office focuses on the unique challenges of Western mining operations that are often more geologically complex and exposed to harsher conditions,” Rounds said. “This division provides critical technical support for institutions like the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, which recently received a $1.25 million grant to improve underground mining safety. However, the grant has now been canceled due to loss of oversight from the Spokane office.

“This is not just a missed opportunity, it undermines our ability to meet national security goals tied to mineral independence and supply chain resilience.”

Kennedy testified that he’s been able to bring back 238 workers at the agency and said he would work with Rounds to address ongoing issues.

Pledge to fund Head Start, but no dollar amount

Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, a Republican, asked Kennedy about news reports earlier this year that HHS would ask Congress to zero out funding for Head Start, one of numerous programs left out of the administration’s skinny budget request. Head Start provides early learning, health, family and development programs for free for children from low-income families.

Kennedy testified that eliminating Head Start would likely not be in the full budget request, which is set to be released later this year, though the White House budget office has not said when. He said it would ask Congress to fully fund the program, but didn’t share a dollar amount.

“There’s 800,000 of the poorest kids in this country who are served by this program. It not only teaches the kids preschool skills — reading, writing and arithmetic — before they get to prepare them for school. But it also teaches the parents and teaches them how to be good parents.”

Kennedy said there are challenges faced by the Head Start program that he hopes to change during the next four years, including the quality of the food.

“The food they’re serving at Head Start is terrible. You need to change that,” Kennedy said. “We’re poisoning the poorest kids from their youngest years, and we’re going to change that.”

The U.S. House Budget Committee votes on Friday, May 16, 2025 on a massive reconciliation package. The vote failed, 16-21. (Screenshot from House webcast)

WASHINGTON — Republicans suffered a major setback to their “big, beautiful bill” on Friday, when amid conservative objections the U.S. House Budget Committee failed to approve the measure, a crucial step in the process.

In a 16-21 vote, Reps. Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Chip Roy of Texas and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania broke from their GOP colleagues to block the bill from moving toward the floor, demanding changes to several provisions.

The breakdown over the 1,116-page bill marks an escalation in the long-running feud between centrist Republicans, who have been cautious about hundreds of billions in spending cuts to safety net programs, and far-right members of the party, who argue the changes are not enough.

The committee is scheduled to reconvene Sunday at 10 p.m. Eastern. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana has said he wants the package on the floor prior to the Memorial Day recess.

Speedier work requirements

Norman said he remains a “hard no” until new work requirements for Medicaid recipients phase in more quickly. As the bill is written, the requirements won’t begin until 2029.

“To phase this in for four years — We’re telling a healthy-bodied, a healthy American that you got four years to get a job. No, your payment stops now,” Norman said.

Brecheen criticized the bill for not going far enough to repeal wind and solar energy tax credits, which he contends are “undermining natural gas jobs.”

“We have to fix this,” he said.

Clyde denounced the measure for not adhering to President Donald Trump’s promise of “right-sizing government,” as Clyde described it. The Georgia Republican also pleaded for lower taxes on firearms and stronger cuts that would put Medicaid on a “sustainable path.”

“Unfortunately, the current version falls short of these goals and fails to deliver the transformative change that Americans were promised,” Clyde said.

Smucker initially voted ‘yes,’ but then joined his four colleagues to oppose the measure.

Trump wrote on his social media platform shortly before the committee voted that “Republicans MUST UNITE behind, ‘THE ONE, BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL!’”

“We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE! It is time to fix the MESS that Biden and the Democrats gave us. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

‘A wrecking ball to Medicaid’

Democrats, who as expected unified in voting no against the bill, slammed it as “ugly,” “cruel” and a “betrayal.”

“This bill takes a wrecking ball to Medicaid, on which 1 in 5 Americans and 3 million Ohioans depend for medical care — children, seniors in nursing homes,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur, who represents northern Ohio. “Please come with me to visit the nursing homes. … Perhaps too many on the other side of the aisle have not had to endure a life that has major challenges.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said the proposed cuts to safety net programs would be “devastating.”

“Their changes will kick millions of Americans off their health care and nutrition assistance. That means more untreated illnesses, more hungry children, more preventable deaths,” she said.

Republican-only bill

Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship. 

Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.

Republicans are using the package to extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.

The 11 House committees tasked with drafting pieces of the legislation have all debated and approved their measures along party lines.

The Agriculture Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and Ways and Means Committee all completed their work earlier this week, amid strong objections from Democrats.

Proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, could shift considerable cost-sharing onto states for the first time, presenting challenges for red-state lawmakers who need to explain the bill back home.

More than $600 billion in federal spending cuts to Medicaid during the next decade could also cause some difficulties for moderate Republicans, some of whose constituents are likely to be among the millions of Americans expected to lose their health insurance.

Republicans also have yet to reach an agreement on the state and local tax deduction or SALT, a priority for GOP lawmakers from blue states like California, New Jersey and New York.

The Budget Committee’s role in the process was to package together all of the bills and then send the one massive bill to the Rules Committee, the last stop before floor debate for major legislation.

That won’t be able to happen until after GOP leaders get nearly all the Republican lawmakers on the panel to support the package. 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., left, and ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., right, speak during a markup with the committee on Capitol Hill on May 13, 2025 in Washington, DC. . (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House panel in charge of overhauling Medicaid by cutting hundreds of billions in federal spending wrapped up debate on its bill Wednesday, following a 25-hour session.

The Energy and Commerce Committee voted 30-24 along party lines to sign off on the legislation, sending it to the Budget panel, which is expected to bundle it together with the other 10 measures Friday to create Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill.”

The full House is set to vote on that package next week, though GOP leaders need to make sure nearly all of the chamber’s 220 Republicans support the overall bill in order for it to pass.

The legislation, should it gain that backing, will then head to the Senate, where GOP lawmakers are expected to rewrite or eliminate numerous sections of the bill. 

Analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shared with States Newsroom by Republican staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee, shows the Medicaid changes would cut $625 billion in federal spending during the next decade.

About 10.3 million people would lose access to Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with 7.6 million people becoming uninsured during the 10-year budget window, according to the CBO analysis, which has yet to be released publicly.

House committee debate on the bill, which began Tuesday and continued overnight, largely centered around Democrats saying the legislation would lead millions of vulnerable people to lose access to Medicaid, while Republicans contended their overhaul would protect “the integrity” of the health care program for lower income Americans and some people with disabilities.

Democrats proposed dozens of amendments trying to change the bill’s various sections, including the Medicaid provisions, but Republicans on the committee blocked their adoption.

‘They’re going to lose coverage’

Just after the sun rose over Capitol Hill on Wednesday morning, Ohio Democratic Rep. Greg Landsman said Republican claims about people not being kicked off Medicaid due to federal spending cuts were going “off the rails.”

“They’re going to lose coverage in part because of the red tape and the paperwork. We know that because we’ve seen it in other states,” Landsman said. “And these are people who are eligible or deserving — people who need it.”

Washington Democratic Sen. Kim Schrier later in the day raised concerns that people who lose access to Medicaid would put off getting routine care from primary care doctors, only to end up in emergency departments.

“Those kicked off Medicaid will still get care, of course, but they will be sicker, they’ll be treated in the emergency room, the care will be more complicated, more expensive,” Schrier said. “And since they can’t pay for it, all of us will make up that difference. So our insurance rates will go up.”

Florida Rep. Laurel Lee argued the GOP changes to Medicaid are common sense improvements, like “restoring work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, modernizing systems to prevent fraud and abuse, and ending misdirected payments to those who are deceased or who are not eligible for the program.”

“These reforms are not about taking something away; they are about protecting the integrity of the program so that the people we represent — those who truly need this support — can count on it to be there, now and in the future,” Lee said. “Our reforms are about restoring integrity to the system and ensuring that it works for the long haul.”

Attempts to ax work requirement

Democrats proposed numerous amendments during debate on the health care section of the bill, including some that would have eliminated the work requirements.

New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone, ranking member on the committee, said those requirements often cause people to lose access to Medicaid due to “red tape” and paperwork.

Pallone said when Georgia implemented work requirements, fewer than 7,000 of the 400,000 people eligible for Medicaid were able to prove to the government they met the standards.

“It’s not that they weren’t eligible, it’s that the state of Georgia put too many barriers in the way of them being able to qualify,” Pallone said. “And that’s what I think is happening here today with this bill.”

He further criticized the GOP for including a provision in the bill saying that if people are not eligible for Medicaid then “they’re not eligible for any kind of subsidy under the Affordable Care Act.”

“So they don’t have that option as well, which is, of course, also the basis for the CBO saying so many people get kicked off Medicaid,” Pallone said. “They assumed that if you didn’t have Medicaid, you would go to the ACA, and that would have probably eliminated most of your savings. But instead, now you say they can’t go to the ACA because they still haven’t filled out the paperwork for Medicaid, so we’re not going to let them go to the ACA and get any kind of subsidized care. And it goes on and on.”

‘We don’t want to repeat the Arkansas law’

Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said the GOP proposals for work requirements sought to avoid the issues experienced in Arkansas and Georgia, when those states implemented their work requirements for Medicaid.

“We don’t want to repeat the Arkansas law,” Guthrie said. “We agree that was the wrong way to do it.”

Arkansas’ experiment with work requirements and monthly checks was “overly cumbersome,” but Guthrie said this legislation would “only require a beneficiary to have to verify work at the time of enrollment or during a redetermined position of their eligibility. This allows states and beneficiaries to take advantage of existing processing and paperwork that they already go through.”

The GOP bill includes several exceptions to the requirement that people enrolled in Medicaid between the ages of 19 and 65 work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month.

Those exclusions include pregnant people, parents of dependent children, people who have complex medical conditions, tribal community members, people in the foster system, people who were in the foster system who are below the age of 26 and people released from incarceration in the last 90 days, among others.

CBO estimates the work requirements would save the federal government $300 billion during the next decade. That savings wouldn’t begin until after the provision takes effect on Jan. 1, 2029.

GOP lawmakers not on the committee have expressed frustration with the delayed implementation, including South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman.

“Delaying work requirements for able-bodied adults on Medicaid to 2029 isn’t ‘progress,’” Norman wrote in a social media post. “It’s fiscally irresponsible and another sad excuse for the swamp!!”

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, wrote in a four-page letter, that Congress must “significantly amend” several of the bill’s Medicaid provisions, including immediately implementing the work requirements.

“Republicans are in control now and should not let out-of-year savings be compromised by a future Democratic trifecta,” Roy wrote.

Planned Parenthood debate

Texas Democratic Rep. Lizzie Fletcher sought to remove the provision that would block Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood, though GOP lawmakers ultimately voted to keep the language in the measure. 

Federal law for decades has prevented taxpayer dollars from going to abortion services with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. But the provision in the GOP bill would block all Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, including for preventive care and regular health check-ups.

Medicaid enrollees who go to Planned Parenthood for wellness checks, birth control, lab work, cancer screenings and other services would have to find a different provider, or go without care.

“To make up the gap, federally qualified health centers would need to increase their capacity by an additional 1 million clients,” Fletcher said. “This is just another way people will lose access to health care. Defunding Planned Parenthood is an assault on the health, dignity and freedom of women across this country.”

Fletcher later pointed out that Planned Parenthood clinics and their affiliates in states with abortion bans would be cut off from federal funding, even though they don’t provide abortions.

She listed the Houston, Texas, Planned Parenthood as one example of a facility that doesn’t perform abortions but would lose federal funding.

The Planned Parenthood language would increase federal deficits by about $300 million during the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is the only provision in the health care section of the bill that would not reduce federal spending.

Other organizations said to be affected

Virginia Republican Rep. Morgan Griffith said he was told by CBO that other health organizations in addition to Planned Parenthood would be impacted by the provision, but he was unable to name those health care organizations.

The provision would apply to “providers that are nonprofit organizations, that are essential community providers that are primarily engaged in family planning services or reproductive services, provide for abortions other than for Hyde Amendment exceptions, and which received $1,000,000 or more (to either the provider or the provider’s affiliates) in payments from Medicaid payments in 2024,” according to a summary of the GOP bill. It would take effect as soon as the bill becomes law and last for a decade.

Republican staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee did not immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom for the list that Griffith referenced.

Legal staff said the secretary of Health and Human Services would determine what organizations meet that definition and would therefore lose federal Medicaid funding.

Tennessee Republican Rep. Diana Harshbarger opposed the amendment, saying that it was well past time for Congress to cut off all federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

“This bill does not change the availability of funds for women’s health. It simply establishes a safeguard so that the nation’s largest abortion providers are not the one providing services through Medicaid,” Harshbarger said. “Should these entities stop participating in abortion services, they would again be eligible to receive funding.”

Republicans also blocked an amendment from Illinois Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly that would have required Medicaid to cover a full year of postpartum coverage for enrollees.

The vast majority of states already cover postpartum care for a year under an expansion Democrats approved in the American Rescue Plan, the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill they enacted in 2021. That was later made permanent in a 2022 appropriations law.  

But Kelly said she was worried that would change if states had to make tough budget choices due to a drop-off in federal funding for the program.

“Medicaid covers almost half of all births in this country and covers more than half of all births in rural communities,” Kelly said. “When we talk about cutting funding, you are cutting into the care that supports moms and babies during the most vulnerable time of their lives.”

Harshbarger spoke against the amendment, saying it was unnecessary. 

A person uses a garden hose in an effort to save a neighboring home from catching fire during the Eaton Fire on Jan. 8, 2025 in Altadena, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress from both political parties are calling on the Trump administration to unfreeze funding for a grant program that helps local communities better prepare for natural disasters.

The letter from more than 80 lawmakers urges the Federal Emergency Management Agency to begin spending money already approved by Congress for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program.

“The BRIC program was established by Congress in the 2018 Disaster Recovery Reform Act and signed into law by President (Donald) Trump with bipartisan support,” the two-page letter states. “In the years since, this program has catalyzed community investments in resilient infrastructure, saving federal funds by investing in community preparedness before a disaster strikes.”

The lawmakers wrote that BRIC grant funds go to a variety of projects and that the program has played “an essential role in helping Tribal Nations and rural communities strengthen their defenses against natural disasters and safeguard critical infrastructure.”

“Through BRIC, Tribes and rural communities can access dedicated funding to strengthen community resilience by investing in hazard mitigation projects—such as flood protection, fire prevention, and infrastructure hardening—that are otherwise difficult to finance in rural or remote settings,” the lawmakers wrote.

While the program “has room for improvement,” the lawmakers wrote that FEMA and Congress should work together “to improve the application review and funding distribution process to more effectively reduce the costs disasters pose to our communities, economies, and livelihoods.”

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski led drafting the letter in their chamber.

Reps. Chuck Edwards, R-N.C.; Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas; Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; and Ed Case, D-Hawaii, spearheaded efforts in the House. 

‘Beyond reckless’

FEMA announced in early April that it would unilaterally cancel all BRIC funding approved from fiscal years 2020 through 2023, calling the program “wasteful and ineffective” in a statement.

“Approximately $882 million of funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will be returned to the U.S. Treasury or reapportioned by Congress in the next fiscal year,” a FEMA spokesperson wrote in the statement. “The 2021 law made $1 billion available for BRIC over five years, $133 million to date has been provided for about 450 applications. FEMA estimates more than $3.6 billion will remain in the Disaster Relief Fund to assist with disaster response and recovery for communities and survivors.”

The National Association of Counties wrote in a post about the cancellation that community leaders may “need to halt work or seek new funding sources” and “delay or scale back infrastructure investments.”

“Without access to BRIC’s federal match, counties may find it more difficult to pursue large-scale mitigation projects,” the NaCo post stated.

Association of State Floodplain Managers Executive Director Chad Berginnis wrote that dismantling the country’s “largest pre-disaster mitigation program is beyond reckless.”

“Cutting funding from projects already underway will leave states and communities scrambling, increasing disaster risk to families and businesses instead of reducing it,” Berginnis wrote. “The impact of this decision will be felt for decades to come.”

Capitol Police remove a protester in a wheelchair from the House Energy And Commerce Committee hearing room during the committee markup of part of the budget reconciliation package on May 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Our Care)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House committee tasked with overhauling energy policy and Medicaid to achieve $880 billion in spending cuts on Tuesday began what was expected to be a long, grueling session with debate on dozens of amendments.

Republicans on the panel argued during opening statements the proposed changes are necessary to realign several programs with President Donald Trump’s campaign promises and some long-standing GOP policy goals, primarily an extension of the 2017 tax cuts.

Democrats contend the legislation, one of 11 measures that will make up the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill,” would kick millions of people out of Medicaid, the state-federal program for lower income Americans, some people with disabilities and a considerable number of nursing home patients.

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said the GOP bill is aimed at reducing waste, fraud and abuse within Medicaid “by beginning to rein in the loopholes, by ensuring states have the flexibility to remove ineligible recipients from their rolls and removing beneficiaries who enrolled in multiple states.”

“We make no apologies for prioritizing Americans in need over illegal immigrants and those who are capable but choose not to work,” Guthrie said. “Our priority remains the same: strengthen and sustain Medicaid for those whom the program was intended to serve — expectant mothers, children, people with disabilities and the elderly.”

Democratic New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, ranking member on the panel, rejected comments that the GOP bill was “moderate” and said it clearly was not aimed at addressing waste, fraud and abuse.

“Medicaid is a life-saving program that 80 million Americans count on every day,” Pallone said. “It provides health care to 1 in 3 Americans and nearly half of all children in the United States. It covers close to half of all births. And it’s the largest source of funding for long-term care for seniors and people living with disabilities. With this bill, Republicans are essentially telling millions of Americans, ‘Gotcha, no more health care for you.’”

Pallone added that Republican lawmakers were “intentionally taking health care away from millions of Americans, so they can give giant tax breaks to the ultra-rich, who frankly don’t need them.”

Just before Pallone spoke, several protesters in the room, including at least three people in wheelchairs, began chanting “No cuts to Medicaid” and were led out by U.S. Capitol Police, who charged 25 people with illegally demonstrating in the Rayburn House Office Building.

Photos of constituents

Democrats gave numerous opening statements at the start of the markup, each holding up a large photograph of one of their constituents on Medicaid and sharing stories of how the program helped them get or keep access to health care after complex diagnoses, like congestive heart failure, leukemia and cerebral palsy.

Democratic lawmakers expressed concern those people would lose access to the health care program if the GOP bill becomes law.

“You don’t just gut the largest insurer of low income Americans without real harm,” said Illinois Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly. “Call it what it is — abandonment, disinvestment and pure disregard for human life.”

Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack rebuked some of the Democrats’ comments, which she said sought to fearmonger and lie to people about what was in the GOP bill.

“The posters that our colleagues on the left have held up are touching. The stories, they’re very emotional. And I agree that we want to protect those most vulnerable,” Cammack said. “As a pregnant woman, I want to make sure that pregnant women, expectant mothers have access to resources around the country.”

Cammack added that “not a single person in those posters is going to be impacted by this legislation.”

Floor action as soon as next week

Republicans have already approved eight of the reconciliation bills in committee and are scheduled to wrap up work on the remaining three measures this week. The Ways and Means Committee began debating the tax bill shortly after Energy and Commerce began its markup, and the Agriculture panel was scheduled to begin its debate Tuesday evening.

Later this week, the House Budget Committee plans to bundle all 11 bills together and send the full package to the floor. The entire House is set to vote on the legislation before Memorial Day.

GOP leaders cannot afford much disagreement over the entire package, given their paper-thin majority in the House. If all of the current members are present at the vote, just three Republicans can oppose the package and still have it pass.

The same margin exists in the Senate, which is expected to make substantial changes to the package should the House approve the measure and send it across the Capitol.

$880 billion cut

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s bill up for debate Tuesday met the panel’s goal of cutting at least $880 billion in federal spending during the next decade, according to a letter from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Congress’ official scorekeepers, however, hadn’t released their full analysis of the panel’s bill before the start of the debate and amendment process, known in Congress as a markup.

Once those details are made public, lawmakers and the voters who elected them will have a much more detailed look at how each of the proposed changes will affect federal revenue, spending and the number of people who could lose access to Medicaid.

Democrats released a CBO analysis last week showing the impact of various proposals, though Energy and Commerce GOP staff cautioned Monday during a background briefing that what they proposed in the actual bill didn’t completely align with those scenarios.

The bill would make considerable changes to Medicaid if the House and Senate approve the legislation as written, which seems highly unlikely, given objections from several GOP senators, including Missouri’s Josh Hawley.

The House legislation would require able-bodied people between the ages of 19 and 65 to work, participate in community service, or attend an education program for at least 80 hours a month. There would be exceptions for pregnant people, Medicaid enrollees with dependent children and people with complex medical issues, among other exclusions.

That provision would take effect on Jan. 1, 2029, according to an explainer on the bill from nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

States would be required to check eligibility for all Medicaid patients every six months, lowering the threshold from one year for people eligible for the program under the expansion in the 2010 Affordable Care Act. That would need to begin by Oct. 1, 2027.

Republicans are seeking to get the 12 states that allow immigrants without legal status into their Medicaid programs to change course by lowering the percent the federal government pays for those states’ expansion population enrollees from 90% to 80%. That would take effect Oct. 1, 2027.

The legislation seeks to block Medicaid funding for a narrow subset of health care providers who offer abortion services, which appeared to target Planned Parenthood.

The prohibition would apply to “providers that are nonprofit organizations, that are essential community providers that are primarily engaged in family planning services or reproductive services, provide for abortions other than for Hyde Amendment exceptions, and which received $1,000,000 or more (to either the provider or the provider’s affiliates) in payments from Medicaid payments in 2024,” according to a summary of the GOP bill. It would take effect as soon as the bill becomes law and last for a decade.

The Hyde Amendment allows federal funding for abortions that are the result of rape, or incest, or that endanger the life of the pregnant patient.

Planned Parenthood, SBA Pro-Life react

Planned Parenthood Action Fund President and CEO Alexis McGill wrote in a statement that defunding the organization and overhauling Medicaid would mean that “cancers will go undetected; it will be harder than ever to get birth control; the nation’s (sexually transmitted infection) crisis will worsen; Planned Parenthood health centers will close, making it significantly harder to get abortion care; and people across the country will suffer — all so the supremely wealthy can become even richer.”

SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser applauded the potential change to federal funding.

“It’s time to stop forcing taxpayers to fund the Big Abortion industry. Thanks to Speaker (Mike) Johnson and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, this year’s budget reconciliation bill contains the commonsense language to make that happen,” Dannenfelser wrote. “Taxpayers should never be mandated to prop up an industry that profits from ending lives and harming women and girls.”

More than 80 organizations, including the National Women’s Law Center and the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that cutting off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood “would be catastrophic, shutting down health centers and stripping millions of patients across the country of access to essential and affordable health care.”

“In many communities, Planned Parenthood health centers are the only affordable provider with expertise in sexual and reproductive health,” the organizations wrote. “For those communities, the gap left by Planned Parenthood health centers would mean that many patients would have nowhere to turn for care.”

President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Stella Dantas wrote in a statement the GOP’s changes to Medicaid might create challenges for pregnant patients seeking to access care and that some states may roll back their expansion of postpartum coverage from a full year.

“Pregnant patients who keep their coverage under Medicaid will still face challenges accessing care as labor and delivery unit closures escalate as a result of Medicaid cuts, leaving patients to travel longer distances to give birth,” Dantas wrote. “Ob-gyns are also concerned that the cuts will threaten the 12 months of postpartum coverage that we have fought so hard to achieve, and which will leave so many without access to medical care during the year after delivery when two-thirds of maternal deaths occur.

“Backsliding on our recent progress in increasing access to postpartum coverage puts lives at risk.”

American Public Health Association Executive Director Georges Benjamin wrote in a statement that House Republicans’ planned overhaul of Medicaid “does nothing to improve public health.”

“Instead, it would undermine much of the progress we have made to expand access to affordable, quality health insurance and implement other evidence-based measures to protect the public’s health,” Benjamin wrote. “We urge the House to reject this bill and instead work in a bipartisan manner on legislation to improve public health and expand access to health care for all Americans.”

 

The U.S. House will begin debate in committee this week on a bill that would cut Medicaid spending. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans plan to debate and approve the three final pieces of their “big, beautiful bill” in committee this week, including the tax measure, major spending cuts to Medicaid that will change how states run the program and an agriculture bill.

At least $880 billion over the next 10 years would be slashed under the piece of the bill that covers energy and health care, including from Medicaid. Republicans would add new Medicaid work requirements for some able-bodied adults; seek to penalize the dozen states that allow immigrants living in the U.S. without legal status in the program; and require states to more frequently check Medicaid enrollees’ eligibility, among other changes.

An estimate was not yet available for exactly how much that would save in Medicaid spending or how many people enrolled might lose coverage. Earlier projections of various other scenarios by the Congressional Budget Office had placed the numbers of displaced enrollees in the millions, and Democrats predicted the same effect from the newest plan.

House panels have already signed off on eight of the 11 bills that will make up the sweeping reconciliation legislation. And if all goes according to plan, that chamber should approve the entire package before the end of the month.

Debate is expected to begin Tuesday in each of the panels and last hours, possibly into Wednesday. Democrats will offer dozens of amendments seeking to change the bills and highlighting their disagreement with GOP policy goals.

Internal Republican disputes between centrists and far-right lawmakers over numerous tax proposals and funding changes to Medicaid will also likely lead to debate on GOP amendments.

With paper-thin majorities in the House and Senate, nearly every Republican needs to support the overall package for it to move through both chambers and to President Donald Trump.

If Republicans fail to reach agreement during the next couple months, it would put nearly every aspect of their agenda in jeopardy. GOP leaders would also need to negotiate a bipartisan debt limit agreement before the August recess, should the reconciliation package fall apart, since they plan to include debt limit language as well.

GOP divided over Medicaid cuts

Kentucky Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie, chairman of the committee that oversees energy and Medicaid, wrote in a statement last week announcing the markup that his panel’s measure would “end wasteful government spending, unleash American energy and innovation, and strengthen Medicaid for mothers, children, individuals with disabilities, and the elderly.”

But the bill released this weekend might not have support from far-right members in the House and seems to be running into opposition from some GOP senators as well. 

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, of the hard right, wrote on social media that he hoped “House & Senate leadership are coming up with a backup plan…. ….. because I’m not here to rack up an additional $20 trillion in debt over 10 years or to subsidize healthy, able-bodied adults, corrupt blue states, and monopoly hospital ceos…”

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, who has voiced concern for months about potential cuts to Medicaid, wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times on Monday highly critical of a “contingent of corporatist Republicans” who support lower federal spending on the program.”

“This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor,” Hawley wrote. “But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal.”

The entire House package will be open to amendment if the legislation makes it to the Senate, where several GOP lawmakers are expected to rework or even eliminate entire sections.

Work requirements

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s bill is the one that would cut federal spending by at least $880 billion during the next decade including on Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower income people.

The legislation would institute work requirements nationwide for able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 65, with several exceptions, including for pregnant people, enrollees with certain disabilities or serious medical conditions, and parents of dependent children.

People not exempted from the requirements would need to work, engage in community service, or enroll in an education program for at least 80 hours a month.

A staffer on the panel told reporters during a background briefing Monday that Republicans tried to learn from challenges certain states had in the past when they implemented work requirements.

After discussions with current and former state Medicaid directors, the staffer said the committee wrote a bill that they are confident “states will be able to implement effectively.”

The work requirements take into account various unexpected circumstances, like if someone were to be hit by a bus and unable to complete the 80-hours-per-month requirement on time because they were hospitalized, the staffer said.

“We did try to be very thoughtful about any kind of circumstance that could happen,” they said.

Immigrant coverage, eligibility checks

The Medicaid legislation also seeks to encourage states who include undocumented immigrants in their program to stop doing so or lose some federal funding.

The federal government currently pays 90% of the cost of covering enrollees who are eligible for Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act expansion. That would decrease to 80% for the expanded population if states choose to keep covering undocumented immigrants.

The committee staffer said this would impact California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington states if they don’t change their policies regarding undocumented immigrants.

Additionally, states would need to check eligibility for all of their Medicaid enrollees every six months, instead of once a year for the expanded population. This likely would lead to some people being kicked out of the program.

Committee staff members were unable to share exactly how each of the Medicaid provisions would affect the federal budget or how many people could lose access to the program if Congress were to implement the legislation as written.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office wrote in a letter Monday that it estimates the Energy and Commerce Committee met its target of cutting at least $880 billion in spending “over the 2025-2034 period and would not increase on-budget deficits in any year after 2034.”

Staff on the committee said they don’t expect to have the full CBO score before the markup begins Tuesday and didn’t have an estimate for when that information will be out.

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., wrote in a statement the GOP bill would lead to millions of people losing access to Medicaid.

“This is not trimming fat from around the edges, it’s cutting to the bone,” Pallone wrote. “The overwhelming majority of the savings in this bill will come from taking health care away from millions of Americans. No where in the bill are they cutting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’—they’re cutting people’s health care and using that money to give tax breaks to billionaires.”

Repealing clean-energy funds

The Republican proposal would repeal more than a dozen sections of Democrats’ 2022 reconciliation law related to energy and environment programs.

The law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, included hundreds of billions in tax credits for renewable energy and energy-efficiency measures. It was considered the largest investment by the United States in tackling climate change.

The House bill would repeal sections including the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which helps finance clean-energy projects, and a $40 billion Department of Energy loan program meant to stimulate production of clean-energy infrastructure.

Sections targeting carbon emissions, air pollution, offshore wind transmission, and other programs would also rescind any unspent funds for those purposes appropriated in the Biden-era law.

The measure would allow pipeline builders to pay fees to bypass environmental review. Natural gas pipelines could pay $10 million to access an expedited approval process and liquified natural gas exports could pay $1 million for the Energy Department to deem them “in the public interest.”

Rep. Kathy Castor, the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Energy Subcommittee, said the proposal would sabotage efforts to drive down prices for consumers.

“Cleaner, cheaper energy for consumers gets left behind,” the Florida Democrat wrote in a statement. “Dismantling our landmark Inflation Reduction Act will kill jobs, hurt businesses, and drive-up Americans’ energy costs.”

Tax cuts

The Ways and Means Committee released its 28-page starter bill late last week and the full 389-page version Monday afternoon, but Republicans on the panel could add to it during the Tuesday markup.

House GOP tax writers propose making permanent the underlying 2017 tax law provisions while temporarily expanding several of them, including the child tax credit and standard deduction.

The child tax credit would increase to $2,500, up from $2,000, until 2028. The refundable amount of the tax credit per child — meaning how much taxpayers could get back — would now reach up to $1,400. Taxpayers claiming the credit would now have to provide a Social Security number, as well as the SSN of a spouse.

The standard deduction for single and married joint filers would temporarily increase until 2029 up to $2,000, depending on filing status.

Trump’s campaign promises, including no tax on tips, also made it into the proposal, though only until 2028. Those claiming the tax break on tips will also need to provide a Social Security number as well as the SSN of their spouse, if married.

Trump’s promise to eliminate taxes on car loan interest, also set to expire in 2028, would not apply to any vehicle that was not finally assembled in the U.S.

Tax writers increased but ultimately left a cap on the amount of state and local taxes, commonly referred to as SALT, that households can deduct, an incredibly contentious issue for lawmakers with constituents in high tax areas like New York and California. GOP lawmakers increased the SALT cap to $30,000, up from $10,000.

That level, however, might not have the support needed among Republicans’ extremely thin majorities and will likely lead to heated debate during markup, or on the floor.

Republicans from higher-tax states have repeatedly said they will not vote for the entire package unless they feel their constituents will benefit from raising the SALT cap.

The dispute has spilled over several times already, including in a statement last week from four New York Republicans, who wrote, “The Speaker and the House Ways and Means Committee unilaterally proposed a flat $30,000 SALT cap — an amount they already knew would fall short of earning our support.”

“It’s not just insulting—it risks derailing President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill,” they wrote. “New Yorkers already send far more to Washington than we get back—unlike many so-called ‘low-tax’ states that depend heavily on federal largesse.

“A higher SALT cap isn’t a luxury. It’s a matter of fairness.”

New York Republican Rep. Nick LaLota wrote on social media Monday afternoon: “Still a hell no.”

How much the tax proposal will cost has not yet been released, but government deficit watchdogs estimated a wholesale extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, without the enhancements, would cost north of $4 trillion over the next decade.

Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, said the proposal provides some certainty to individual taxpayers but it also adds complexity in many areas.

“You can clearly see the thinking here was probably just a straight-up extension (of the 2017 law), people wouldn’t feel like they got a tax cut because it’s just continuing. So they had to do something to make it feel like there’s a larger tax cut,” York said.

Ag cuts remain a mystery

The House Agriculture Committee, led by Pennsylvania Republican Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson, hadn’t released its bill as of Monday afternoon but was scheduled to begin the markup on Tuesday evening.

That panel is supposed to cut at least $230 billion in federal spending during the next decade, some of which will likely come from reworking elements of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Committee leaders are also planning to include elements of the much overdue farm bill, though those provisions could run into issues in the Senate if they don’t have a significant impact on federal revenue or spending.

Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship. 

Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.

Jacob Fischler and Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent prepares to testify before the Senate Finance Committee during his confirmation hearing  in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Jan. 16, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department announced Friday that Congress must address the debt limit before August, setting a firm deadline for Republicans to wrap up work on the “big, beautiful bill” that will raise the nation’s borrowing limit by up to $5 trillion.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that “there is a reasonable probability that the federal government’s cash and extraordinary measures will be exhausted in August while Congress is scheduled to be in recess.

“Therefore, I respectfully urge Congress to increase or suspend the debt limit by mid-July, before its scheduled break, to protect the full faith and credit of the United States.”

The projection marks the first time the Trump administration has weighed in publicly on when the government will likely reach default since the last suspension expired in January. 

In the months since then, the Treasury Department has used accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures to pay all of the country’s bills in full and on time.

Treasury’s projection is similar to a report the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released in March predicting the country would reach default in August or September unless Congress acted before then.

Reconciliation package

Republicans are hoping to lift the debt limit without having to negotiate a bipartisan agreement with Democrats, which is typically how lawmakers have addressed the debt limit during the past couple decades.

GOP leaders plan to raise the debt limit by between $4 trillion and $5 trillion in the 11-bill reconciliation package they’re using to address tax law, overhaul higher education aid and cut federal spending.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., expects his chamber will vote on that legislation before the end of May, though Senate leaders haven’t put a timeline on when they’d bring the bill to the floor in that chamber.

GOP senators are likely to propose several amendments to the package, and any changes by the Senate would require the bill to get a final sign-off in the House before it could head to President Donald Trump’s desk.

The Treasury Department’s projection that a debt limit default will likely take place if no action is taken before August puts a firm deadline on when Republicans will need to reach final agreement.

Caution against waiting

Bessent also cautioned lawmakers against waiting until the last minute to get their work done.

“Prior episodes have shown that waiting until the last minute to suspend or increase the debt limit can have serious adverse consequences for financial markets, businesses, and the federal government, harm businesses and consumer confidence, and raise short-term borrowing costs for taxpayers,” he wrote. “A failure to suspend or increase the debt limit would wreak havoc on our financial system and diminish America’s security and global leadership position.”

A default on the country’s debt would limit the federal government to spending only the money it has on hand, likely leading to delayed, incomplete, or nonexistent payments on thousands of programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, troop pay, veterans benefits and nutrition programs, among many others.

It would also lead to a downturn in the global economy with a recession being among the better scenarios.

A default is vastly different from a partial government shutdown and would lead to more significant consequences for federal spending and the economy. 

A protester holds a sign in support of funding for public media during a May 1, 2025, rally at the Kansas Statehouse in Topeka as part of a 50501 national day of action. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump urged Congress to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting during his first term, but was largely unsuccessful.

Now, in his second go-around, Trump is once again asking lawmakers to scrap federal spending on the private, nonprofit corporation that Congress established in the 1960s.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting allocates funding to National Public Radio, or NPR, and the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, as well as more than 1,500 local radio and television stations throughout the country.

Trump’s renewed focus on public media — in his budget proposal, an executive order and an expected rescissions request — has led the organizations that benefit from the CPB to start talking more than they have in recent years about their funding and their journalism.

Katherine Maher, president and CEO of NPR, rejected the idea that ending funding for the CPB would have a significant impact on the federal ledger, since the “appropriation for public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, represents less than 0.0001% of the federal budget.”

Maher also opposed what she viewed as the Trump administration seeking to influence journalists and news organizations.

“The President’s order is an affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR and locally owned and operated stations throughout America to produce and air programming that meets the needs of their communities,” Maher wrote in a statement. “It is also an affront to the First Amendment rights of station listeners and donors who support independent news and information.”

Paula Kerger, CEO and president at PBS, also defended the CBP as well as the news programs that receive its funding.

“There’s nothing more American than PBS, and our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress,” Kerger said. “This public-private partnership allows us to help prepare millions of children for success in school and in life and also supports enriching and inspiring programs of the highest quality.”

NPR receives about 1% of its direct funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, while PBS receives about 15%. Those numbers fluctuate for the local stations, which tend to get more, but not all, of their operating budgets from CPB funding.

Senate likely to balk

House Republicans, who have sought to zero out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in recent appropriations bills, are likely to get on board. But senators, who write broadly bipartisan bills, haven’t taken that step and appear unlikely to do so this year — possibly helping public media resist Trump’s cutback attempts, as it did during his first term.

The differences between the House and Senate will lead to heated debate for months to come about future spending on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as well as the dozens of other programs Trump told lawmakers to stop funding in his budget request.

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member on the panel that funds CPB, told States Newsroom during a brief interview she hopes lawmakers “can effectively fight back against that proposed budget.”

“I find that some of my Republican colleagues, especially those from rural states, hear from their constituents that they are reliant on public broadcasting, especially radio for local information, news, etcetera,” Baldwin said. “And there’s not a lot of other radio resources out there. But I think the same can be said about the public television offerings.”

Opinions among Republicans vary, though.

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy, who sits on the spending panel, said funding for CPB “may have made sense at one time, but the American taxpayer has no business spending half a billion dollars a year subsidizing media.”

Kennedy said he doesn’t expect rural residents will lose access to local television and radio programming should Congress eliminate the funding.

“Rural communities have the same access as everybody else to cable, to streaming, to getting their news off of this thing,” Kennedy said, pointing to his cell phone. “It’s just an argument by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to hold on to a government subsidy.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, pushed back against defunding.

She wrote in an op-ed published in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that while she shares “the desire to reduce government spending, defunding the CPB, and particularly the essential reporting it allows locally owned radio and television stations to provide in Alaska, is not the place to start.”

Alaska’s local stations received $12 million last year from CPB, which made up between 30% and 70% of their total budget, in addition to individual donation and state funding, according to the op-ed.

“Not only would a large portion of Alaska communities lose their local programming, but warning systems for natural disasters, power outages, boil water advisories, and other alerts would be severely hampered,” Murkowski wrote. “What may seem like a frivolous expense to some has proven to be an invaluable resource that saves lives in Alaska.”

CPB has a state-by-state breakdown on its website detailing how much it provided during each of the past six years. The individual profiles show what portion of each state’s funding went to different programs, like the Next Generation Warning System, radio programming, Ready to Learn and Television Community Service Grants.

Public media among multiple Trump targets

Trump’s skinny budget request, released last week, calls on Congress to cease funding the CPB as well as dozens of other organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.

The section on CPB says the request is “consistent with the President’s efforts to decrease the size of the Federal Government to enhance accountability, reduce waste, and reduce unnecessary governmental entities.”

Trump has also signed an executive order directing the CPB Board of Directors as well as executive departments and agencies to halt funding NPR and PBS.

The order stated that the “viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, wrote in a statement responding to the executive order that Trump didn’t have the authority he was trying to wield.

“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority,” Harrison wrote. “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.

“In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors…’ 47 U.S.C. § 398(c).”

There are also several news reports that the Trump administration will send a rescissions request to Capitol Hill, asking lawmakers to pull back funding already approved for CPB. But the Office of Management and Budget hasn’t yet taken that step.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting received steady funding from Congress starting at its founding, before the last Trump administration asked lawmakers to phase out its appropriation.

The last Trump administration’s first budget request called on lawmakers to “conduct an orderly closeout” by providing $30 million for CPB that would have gone toward salaries, rent and other costs.

The proposal argued that “private fundraising has proven durable, negating the need for continued Federal subsidies.”

“Services such as PBS and NPR, which receive funding from the CPB, could make up the shortfall by increasing revenues from corporate sponsors, foundations, and members. In addition, alternatives to PBS and NPR programming have grown substantially since CPB was first established in 1967, greatly reducing the need for publicly funded programming options.”

Funding increased despite Trump

Congress didn’t go along with the fiscal 2018 budget request for the CPB, and it wouldn’t for the rest of Trump’s first term.

In March 2018, lawmakers approved $445 million, followed by the same amount in the next year’s bill. Congress then lifted spending to $465 million in December 2019 and then again just before Trump left office for a total funding level of $475 million.

Those allocations continued rising during the Biden administration, reaching a $535 million appropriation in March 2024, the last full-year spending law enacted before Trump returned to the Oval Office. 

House Republicans did, however, try to phase out funding for CPB during the second half of President Joe Biden’s term. The House GOP provided a two-year advanced appropriation until 2023, when Republicans announced they wanted “the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to compete with other programs in the bill for annual funding.”

Those efforts didn’t work and the final spending bill, which became law in March 2024, included funding for CPB.

Senate Democrats wrote after negotiating the bipartisan agreement that it “protects funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to support more than 1,500 locally owned TV and radio stations nationwide—rejecting House Republicans’ proposal to zero out funding and weaken Americans’ access to local reporting.

“The bill maintains a critical investment of $60 million for digital interconnection and $535 million as a two-year advance appropriation, of which roughly 70% is provided directly to local public TV and radio stations.”

Final resolution far off

Congress is expected to begin work on its dozen annual appropriations bills sometime this summer, which collectively total about $1.8 trillion and make up about one-third of all federal spending. 

The House Appropriations Committee will likely propose phasing out CPB funding, or at least its advanced appropriation, in its bill.

The Senate Appropriations Committee tends to write more bipartisan bills, so as long as several of the panel’s members advocate for CPB in its funding measure, the program will likely receive its advanced funding in that bill.

Final agreement between the House and Senate is supposed to come before the start of the next fiscal year on Oct. 1. But that rarely happens and lawmakers often use a stopgap spending bill to push off final negotiations until mid-December.

That’s likely the earliest this year the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and those who rely on it will learn if Congress will reduce or eliminate its funding. That is, unless lawmakers fail to reach agreement on that particular funding bill.

Congress would then have to use a stopgap spending bill, which mostly keeps funding levels on autopilot, until it can enact a full-year bill. 

FBI director Kash Patel testifies before a U.S. Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Thursday, May 8, 2025. (Photo from U.S. Senate webcast)

WASHINGTON — The case of the missing Federal Bureau of Investigation budget request was on full display Thursday, when senators repeatedly asked the law enforcement agency’s director what resources he needed Congress to provide in the upcoming fiscal year.

FBI Director Kash Patel did not disclose a dollar amount, an unusual development at a hearing at which an agency head traditionally discusses a budget request in detail with lawmakers who hold the purse strings.

The Senate Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science Subcommittee hearing came one day after Patel testified before a House panel that he needs more money from Congress than was asked for in the Trump administration’s budget request.

Patel’s written statement to the House subcommittee said the FBI’s total request was $10.1 billion, but during that hearing he told appropriators the agency needed at least $11.2 billion.

Patel rejecting the Trump administration’s official budget request in support of his own proposal to Congress was significant in that Cabinet secretaries almost always stick to the official request, at least during public hearings.

“The skinny budget is a proposal, and I’m working through the appropriations process to explain why we need more than what has been proposed,” Patel said during the House hearing Wednesday.

Never mind

Less than 24 hours later, he reversed course during the Senate hearing, saying his comments were misconstrued.

“President Trump has set new priorities and a focus on federal law enforcement. I’m here today in full support of the president’s budget, which reprioritizes and enhances our mission of law enforcement and national security,” Patel said in his opening statement. “We’re fighting for a fully funded FBI because we want a fully effective FBI.”

What that dollar amount might be was unclear, though.

During an exchange with Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the full Appropriations Committee, about what exactly the FBI needs in terms of funding, Patel said: “I’m not asking you for anything at this time.”

Murray responded by asking if he believed the FBI could “operate without a budget.” Patel responded that he “never said that.”

Republicans and Democrats on the Senate panel repeatedly brought up that the Trump administration’s “skinny” budget proposal, released last week, doesn’t actually include a total funding level for the FBI. It only has one paragraph calling for lawmakers to cut funding by $545 million.

Patel testified during the two-hour Senate hearing that he had identified most of the accounts that could lose funding, though he wasn’t prepared to share that information with the committee or give a timeline when he would.

Patel also declined to tell lawmakers when the FBI would send Congress its spending plan for the current fiscal year, which is required by law and past due.

“I don’t have a timeline on that,” Patel said.

Kansas senator pleads with Patel for details

Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, the subcommittee’s chairman, said he was holding the hearing to get the ball rolling on the upcoming appropriations process and encouraged Patel to get the committee more details.

“We wanted to get every piece of information we could as early as we could, even though the budgetary process and now the appropriations process is disjointed and things are lacking,” Moran said.

Moran said that he was “concerned by the scale of the cut, especially as I know full well it comes on the heels of two years where the FBI’s budget was essentially held flat, forcing it to absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in unavoidable inflationary increases.”

Patel declined to say if he would testify before the committee again after the Trump administration releases its full budget request, which should include considerably more detail and is expected to come out sometime later this year, though the White House hasn’t said when.

The House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees that fund the FBI will write the bill over the summer and will likely negotiate final bipartisan, bicameral bills this fall.

That bill is one of a dozen that provide funding for many of the departments and agencies that make up the federal government, including Agriculture, Energy, Defense, Health and Human Services. Homeland Security, Interior, State, and many more. 

Cam Hamilton, at the time senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA, testifies before a House Appropriations subcommittee on May 7, 2025. (Screenshot from House webcast)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has ousted the leader of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and replaced him with another official, States Newsroom has confirmed.

Cam Hamilton, senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA, was let go just one day after he testified before Congress about the size and scope of the federal agency.

President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have both indicated they could support getting rid of FEMA and Trump has established a FEMA reform council to assess the agency’s role.

But during his testimony Wednesday before the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, Hamilton said he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

“Having said that, I’m not in a position to make decisions and impact outcomes on whether or not a determination such as consequential as that should be made,” Hamilton said. “That is a conversation that should be had between the president of the United States and this governing body on identifying the exact ways and methodologies, in which, what is prudent for federal investment, and what is not.”

Hamilton, a former Navy Seal and combat medic, said earlier in the hearing that he had served in five different administrations, but that the “highest honor of my career is serving right now in the Trump administration. Keeping the American people first.”

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed to States Newsroom on Thursday that Hamilton was no longer in the lead role at FEMA, but opted not to detail why exactly the personnel change happened.

“Mr. David Richardson will be the senior official performing the duties of the Administrator,” the DHS spokesperson wrote in an email.

A FEMA spokesperson confirmed the firing as well, writing that “(e)ffective today, David Richardson is now serving as the Senior Official Performing the duties of the FEMA Administrator. Cameron Hamilton is no longer serving in this capacity.”

DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin released a statement Friday saying the administration had named Hamilton as the senior adviser for school safety in the Office of Elementary & Secondary Education at the Department of Education.

Richardson was appointed the assistant secretary of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office at the Department of Homeland Security in January, according to his biography. 

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., released a statement saying the “Trump administration must explain why he has been removed from this position.

“Integrity and morality should not cost you your job, and if it does, it says more about your employer than it does you.”

Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, wrote in a statement that firing “FEMA’s chief just three weeks before hurricane season begins shows how little President Trump cares about Floridians’ and Americans’ safety.

“The added cruelty of his timing — a day after acting Administrator Hamilton publicly opposed dismantling the agency during a Congressional budget hearing — sends a chilling message from Trump that every American is on their own and that Trump Administration officials cannot be trusted to offer their candid, expert opinion to Congress or anyone, without consequences.”

Anna Schlobohm de Cruder stands in the remains of her home, which was destroyed in the Eaton Fire on March 20, 2025 in Altadena, California.  (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House lawmakers on Wednesday began debating when the Federal Emergency Management Agency should provide state and local communities with help addressing natural disasters and when aid should be handled by others.

The Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee’s hearing on FEMA’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year came just days after the Trump administration sent its spending proposal to Capitol Hill.

That “skinny” request, however, didn’t include an actual spending level for FEMA, only suggesting that Congress cut $646 million for various non-disaster grant programs, including Targeting Violence and Terrorism Prevention, and the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium.

Chairman Mark Amodei, R-Nevada, urged the FEMA official at the hearing to get the full budget request to the committee sooner rather than later.

“If we don’t have the information, it’s going to be a problem,” he said. “And I’m not threatening. You don’t need threatening. We don’t work that way.”

Amodei also told Cam Hamilton, senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA, that the agency needs to communicate with lawmakers better, especially those on the panel that provides its funding.

“I’m not trying to horn in on your guys’ discretion of running your program,” Amodei said. “But what I am definitely trying to horn in on is, not being faced with a situation where the bell’s already been rung. Now I’ve got to un-ring the bell.”

Amodei was referencing FEMA halting funding for Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities, or BRIC, grants, including for three projects within a few miles of his front porch that he didn’t know existed until recently.

Hamilton said that Trump administration officials “found a lot of inefficiencies with the design of the program itself, which caused us to have serious concern over whether it was the appropriate use of taxpayer funds for many projects that were funded that we believe were very wasteful.”

“But there are also projects that were fully funded that we intend to move forward to completion,” Hamilton added. “We’re unpacking and analyzing that. Every grant recipient, under BRIC, should receive some form of notification” soon from FEMA regional offices. 

No budget numbers

The 90-minute hearing, which would typically have centered around the numbers in FEMA’s budget request, was instead a bit of a referendum on the size and scope of the agency, as well as expectations the Trump administration will seek to significantly reduce its mission.

Hamilton, asked point-blank if FEMA should continue to exist, testified that he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

“Having said that, I’m not in a position to make decisions and impact outcomes on whether or not a determination, such as consequential as that should be made,” he said. “That is a conversation that should be had between the president of the United States and this governing body on identifying the exact ways and methodologies, in which, what is prudent for federal investment, and what is not.”

Illinois Democratic Rep. Lauren Underwood, ranking member on the panel, said she would not support efforts to completely shift FEMA responsibilities onto state and local governments.

State emergency management leaders, she said, “are not equipped to handle the roles FEMA currently plays—- marshaling emergency resources for multiple federal agencies, providing flood insurance, conducting damage assessments and distributing billions of dollars in recovery funds.”

“Pushing disaster response and recovery fully back to the states is dangerous and unrealistic,” Underwood said.

Hamilton said the Trump administration is looking at ways to institute “top-down reform” and “overhaul the grant process entirely” as well as other possible recommendations from the FEMA review council.

“FEMA was established to provide focused support in truly catastrophic disasters,” Hamilton said. “Yet at times, we have strayed far from that core mission and evolved into an over-extended federal bureaucracy; attempting to manage every type of emergency, no matter how minor.

“Instead of being a last resort, FEMA is all too often used by states and public officials as a financial backstop for routine issues that, frankly, should be handled locally. This misalignment has fostered a culture of dependency, waste, inefficiency, while also delaying crucial aid to Americans who are in genuine need.”

Disaster relief deficit

One of the more immediate budgetary issues facing FEMA is that its disaster relief fund is slated to run at least a $9 billion deficit before the end of the year, which several lawmakers raised concerns about during the hearing.

The Trump administration, however, does not plan to send Congress a supplemental spending request, asking lawmakers for more money for that account.

The disaster relief fund is able to run deficits, unlike the vast majority of federal programs. When the DRF runs out of funding, FEMA uses something called immediate needs funding to keep providing response and recovery to communities with declared disasters.

Hamilton said, even with the expected use of immediate needs funding again this year, FEMA was prepared to respond to hurricane season and ongoing wildfires.

“There are always challenges that we have to work through,” Hamilton said. “So we are focusing on ways to make us operationally more capable, and also finding ways to be more fiscally practical with our means, so that we don’t buttress us up against those kinds of thresholds nearly as quickly as before.”

 

U.S. House Republicans are debating cutbacks to Medicaid, the health care program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities. (Photo by Thomas Barwick/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that potential major cuts and changes to Medicaid under consideration by Republicans could mean states would have to spend more of their own money on the program, reduce payments to health care providers, limit optional benefits and reduce enrollment.

The end result, under some scenarios, could be millions of Americans would be kicked off Medicaid and possibly left without health insurance, said the nonpartisan agency relied on by Congress for budget estimates.

The letter from CBO stemmed from a request by Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

Both oppose GOP attempts to slash federal funding for the health care program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities. Republicans, who have not settled on an approach, say they are interested in ending waste, fraud and abuse in the program.

CBO Director Phillip Swagel wrote that possible Medicaid changes would likely lead to several outcomes in the states. The impact on states would occur because the federal government covers at least 50% of the cost of the program, with that share increasing in states with lower per capita incomes and those that expanded eligibility under the Affordable Care Act.

Wyden wrote in a statement the CBO letter showed “the Republican plan for health care means benefit cuts and terminated health insurance for millions of Americans who count on Medicaid.”

Pallone wrote in a statement of his own that reducing federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars would lead to “millions of people losing their health care.”

“(President Donald) Trump has repeatedly claimed Republicans are not cutting health care, but CBO’s independent analysis confirms the proposals under consideration will result in catastrophic benefit cuts and people losing their health care,” Pallone wrote. “It’s time for Republicans to stop lying to the American people about what they’re plotting behind closed doors in order to give giant tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations.”

The Medicaid changes would come as Republicans use the complex budget reconciliation process to move a sweeping legislative package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship. 

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is tasked with cutting at least $880 billion from the programs it oversees — including Medicaid — during the next decade, has yet to release its bill that if approved by the committee will become part of that package.

The panel, led by Kentucky Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie, is expected to debut its proposed changes next week before debating the legislation during a yet-to-be-scheduled markup.

Republicans plan to use the reconciliation package to permanently extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.

Five scenarios

CBO’s analysis looked at five specific Medicaid scenarios including:

• Congress reducing the federal match rate for the 40 states that expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
• Lawmakers eliminating a 6% threshold that exists for states that collect higher taxes from health care providers and then return that additional money in the form of higher Medicaid payments. CBO writes those “higher Medicaid payments increase the contributions from the federal government to states’ Medicaid programs.”
• Republicans creating a per-enrollee cap on federal spending.
• Congress establishing a cap on federal spending for Medicaid enrollees who became eligible for the program after their state expanded eligibility under the ACA.
• Lawmakers repealing two Biden-era rules that addressed the Medicare Savings Programs and standardized how states approached enrollment and renewals.

The analysis said states could raise taxes or cut spending on other programs to replace the lost federal revenue that would coincide with the first four scenarios, though CBO “expects that such steps would prove challenging for many states.”

“In CBO’s view, different states would make different choices regarding how much of the reduced Medicaid funds to replace,” the analysis states. “Instead of modeling separate responses for each state, the agency estimated state responses in the aggregate, accounting for a range of possible outcomes.”

Overall, CBO expects state governments would be able to replace about half of the lost federal revenue and that they would “reduce provider payment rates, reduce the scope or amount of optional services, and reduce Medicaid enrollment” to address the other half.

Alternatives studied

The first scenario, where lawmakers reduce the federal matching rate for expanded Medicaid populations, would save the government $710 billion during the next decade.

But in 2034, CBO expects that “2.4 million of the 5.5 million people who would no longer be enrolled in Medicaid under this option would be without health insurance.”

CBO wrote that in the second, third and fourth scenarios, “Medicaid enrollment would decrease and the number of people without health insurance would increase.”

The second scenario of limiting state taxes on health care providers would save the federal government $668 billion during the 10-year budget window. It would lead to 8.6 million people losing access to Medicaid with a 3.9 million increase in the uninsured population by 2034.

The third projection that looked at a federal cap on spending per enrollee would reduce federal spending by $682 billion during the next decade. A total of 5.8 million people would lose Medicaid coverage and 2.9 million would become uninsured under that proposal. 

And the fourth scenario, where Congress caps federal spending per enrollee in the expansion population, would cut the deficit by $225 billion during the next 10 years. More than 3 million people would lose Medicaid coverage and 1.5 million would become uninsured under this scenario.

Under the fifth scenario, where GOP lawmakers would change two Biden-era rules, CBO expects that the federal government would spend $162 billion less over the 2025–2034 window.

“CBO estimates that, in 2034, 2.3 million people would no longer be enrolled in Medicaid under this option,” the letter states. “Roughly 60 percent of the people who would lose Medicaid coverage would be dual-benefit enrollees who would retain their Medicare coverage.” 

Frank Bisignano, Social Security commissioner nominee, at his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on March 25, 2025. (Senate webcast)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday confirmed Frank Bisignano as Social Security commissioner, putting him in charge of a $1.5 trillion entitlement program that’s relied on by tens of millions of Americans.

The 53-47 party-line vote drops a considerable amount of responsibility onto Bisignano, who will not only be tasked with fixing the Social Security Administration’s customer services issues, but ensuring plans to cut its staff by at least 7,000 workers doesn’t hinder the safety net program that helps to keep seniors out of poverty.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said during a floor speech just before the vote that Bisignano should have been disqualified from consideration after he “lied multiple times” during the confirmation process.

Wyden also argued that Bisignano would institute substantial changes at the Social Security Administration, which could negatively affect people who rely on the program.

“Every single member of this body that votes to confirm this nominee is going to own the consequences,” Wyden said. “Mr. Bisignano is unfit to be the steward of Americans’ hard-earned Social Security benefits.”

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said during a floor speech last week that he was “confident” Bisignano held the “experience needed to lead this important agency.”

“The Social Security Administration needs steady, Senate-confirmed leadership,” Crapo said. “Mr. Bisignano would bring his decades-long focus on customer service and operational excellence to the Social Security Administration.”

Wait times, error rate

Bisignano said during his nearly three-hour confirmation hearing in March that he would make sure beneficiaries could visit an office, use the website, or speak to a real person after calling the 1-800 number.

“On the phone, I’m committed to reducing wait times and providing beneficiaries with a better experience; waiting 20 minutes-plus to get an answer will be of yesteryear,” Bisignano said at the time. “I also believe we can significantly improve the length of the disability claim process.”

Bisignano told lawmakers during the hearing he would reduce the 1% error rate in payments, which he said was “five decimal places too high.”

Whistleblower allegations

The Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines in April to send Bisignano’s nomination to the floor, though Chairman Crapo said at the time the panel would look into a whistleblower’s allegations.

“Even though the timing of the anonymous letter suggests a political effort to delay the committee vote on this nominee, my staff have told Sen. Wyden’s staff — and we have discussed this just now — we are open to meeting with the author of the letter and keeping the individual anonymous,” Crapo said. “However, any information provided by the individual must be thoroughly vetted, including allowing the nominee the opportunity to respond.”

Wyden, ranking member on the panel, urged Republicans to delay that committee vote until after the investigation concluded.

“This nominee lied multiple times to every member of this committee, including the bipartisan Finance staff and the nominee’s actions and communications with DOGE remain very much at the heart of my objection here,” Wyden said. “My office received an account from a whistleblower about the ways the nominee was deeply involved in and aware of DOGE’s activities at the agency.”

Crapo said during his floor speech last week that the whistleblower “allegations focused on the frequency and details of communications between the nominee and Social Security Administration officials.”

“Mr. Bisignano addressed these allegations during the hearing and responded in writing as part of the questions for the record,” Crapo added. “He has stated clearly that he does not currently have a role at the Social Security Administration and was not part of the decision-making process led by the Acting Commissioner, Lee Dudek, about Social Security operations, personnel, or management.”

Bisignano, of New Jersey, most recently worked as chairman of the board and chief executive officer at Fiserv, Inc., which “enables money movement for thousands of financial institutions and millions of people and businesses,” according to its website. The company is based in Wisconsin.

He previously worked as co-chief operating officer and chief executive officer of Mortgage Banking at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies during his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Jan. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Less than half of Americans have confidence in federal public health agencies’ ability to regulate prescriptions, approve vaccines and respond to outbreaks, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

The survey shows that just 46% of the people questioned have at least some confidence in federal agencies ensuring the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs.

Even fewer, 45%, have confidence in the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and only 42% said they have confidence federal health agencies to respond to infectious disease outbreaks, like bird flu and measles.

An especially low percentage of those polled, 32%, had either some confidence or a lot of confidence in federal health agencies acting independently without interference from outside interests.

“There are remarkably low levels of trust in the nation’s scientific agencies, shaped by partisan perspectives, and that presents a real danger for the country if and when another pandemic hits,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman wrote in a statement accompanying the poll.

Confidence in agencies sags or rises by party affiliation

The percentage of people overall who hold confidence in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide reliable information about vaccines has dropped since a similar survey in September 2023, though party affiliation shows differing trends.

Democrats with a fair amount or great deal of trust in the FDA’s vaccine information has decreased from 86% to 67%, while trust among Republicans has increased from 42% to 52%.

When combined with independents, overall trust in the FDA’s information about vaccines has decreased, from 61% to 57%.

Confidence in the CDC providing reliable information about vaccines has also shifted based on party affiliation.

During the Biden administration, 88% of Democrats had a fair amount or great deal of trust in the CDC, though that has since dropped to 70%. Republicans have started to come back around to the CDC’s vaccine information, with their level of trust increasing from 40% to 51%.

Altogether, trust in CDC has dropped from 63% to 59%, according to the survey.

“The overall level of trust in each case is similar to where it stood in September 2023, though the poll reveals significant partisan shifts as the second Trump administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have started to change vaccine policies and messaging,” the poll states.

Local sources trusted

Health care providers and local public health departments are overwhelmingly looked to as trusted sources for reliable information on vaccines, according to the survey.

Eighty-two percent of respondents said they either have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in doctors and health care providers to give them reliable information about vaccines.

Eighty-one percent said they trust their child’s pediatrician, 66% responded they have confidence in their local public health department, 59% believe in the CDC, 57% trust the FDA and 51% have confidence in pharmaceutical companies to provide factual information about vaccines.

Those polled held less trust in politicians, with 41% believing Kennedy’s comments about vaccines and 37% trusting President Donald Trump “to provide reliable information about vaccines,” according to the poll.

A majority of those surveyed, however, are somewhat or very confident in the safety of several vaccines, including 83% for measles, mumps and rubella, or the MMR vaccine; 82% for pneumonia; 79% for shingles; 74% for the flu; and 56% for COVID-19.

The poll included 1,380 U.S. adults contacted online or via telephone from April 8-15, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. 

Idaho, Kansas and Missouri want a federal judge to let them intervene in a case that’s already been to the U.S. Supreme Court, so they can argue the FDA erred when it updated prescribing guidelines for abortion medication, shown in photo, in 2016.  (Photo by Peter Dazeley/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice wrote in a legal filing released Monday that three GOP-led states attempting to overturn federal prescribing guidelines for medication abortion have sought to keep a case going in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The filing is significant since it appears to indicate the Trump administration will defend the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s decision nine years ago to broaden access to mifepristone. The Biden administration also sought to keep the newer prescribing guidelines intact.

Idaho, Kansas and Missouri want a federal judge to let them intervene in a case that’s already been to the U.S. Supreme Court, so they can argue the FDA erred when it updated prescribing guidelines for mifepristone in 2016.

The goal is to get those changes thrown out so use of mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, reverts to what was in place between 2000 and 2016.

That would cap medication abortion at seven weeks gestation instead of the current 10 weeks and patients seeking medication abortions would need to attend three, in-person doctor appointments. Medication abortion would no longer be available via telehealth and it could no longer be legally mailed to patients.

The Trump administration wrote in a 15-page brief filed with the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas that the three states “cannot keep alive a lawsuit in which the original plaintiffs were held to lack standing, those plaintiffs have now voluntarily dismissed their claims, and the States’ own claims have no connection to this District.”

“The States are free to pursue their claims in a District where venue is proper … but the States’ claims before this Court must be dismissed or transferred pursuant to the venue statute’s mandatory command,” the brief adds.

The Department of Justice also wrote that at “a minimum, the States’ challenge to FDA’s 2016 actions is time-barred because the States sought to intervene more than six years after FDA finalized those actions.”

Original suit began in 2022

The original case challenging the federal government’s 2000 approval and current prescribing guidelines for medication abortion began in November 2022 when anti-abortion groups filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Texas.

That case worked its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in June 2024 that the anti-abortion organizations lacked standing to bring the case.

But Idaho, Kansas and Missouri state officials sought to intervene in the case before it reached the high court and have tried to keep the challenge to the 2016 prescribing guidelines moving forward.

The Department of Justice wrote in its brief that there were several reasons the case shouldn’t continue in the Northern District of Texas.

Among those is that the three states “fail to identify any actual or imminent controversy over whether any of their laws are preempted” and that they lack Article III standing since “they failed to exhaust their claims; and their challenge to FDA’s 2016 actions is outside the six-year statute of limitations.”

The case is assigned to Judge Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk, who overturned the FDA’s original 2000 approval of mifepristone in April 2023 in the original lawsuit.

That ruling never took effect as the original lawsuit worked its way through the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and up to the Supreme Court. 

From left to right, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump released a budget request Friday that would dramatically slash some federal spending, the initial step in a monthslong process that will include heated debate on Capitol Hill as both political parties work toward a final government funding agreement.

The proposal, for the first time, details how exactly this administration wants lawmakers to restructure spending across the federal government — steep cuts to domestic appropriations, including the elimination of dozens of programs that carry a long history of bipartisan support, and a significant increase in defense funding.

Trump wants more than 60 programs to be scrapped, some with long histories of assistance to states, including Community Services Block Grants, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities within the National Institutes of Health, and the Sexual Risk Avoidance and Teen Pregnancy Prevention programs.

Congress will ultimately decide how much funding to provide to federal programs, and while Republicans hold majorities in both chambers, regular funding bills will need Democratic support to move through the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

White House budget director Russ Vought wrote in a letter that the request proposes shifting some funding from the federal government to states and local communities.

“Just as the Federal Government has intruded on matters best left to American families, it has intruded on matters best left to the levels of government closest to the people, who understand and respect the needs and desires of their communities far better than the Federal Government ever could,” Vought wrote.

The budget request calls on Congress to cut non-defense accounts by $163 billion to $557 billion, while keeping defense funding flat at $893 billion in the dozen annual appropriations bills.

The proposal assumes the GOP Congress passes the separate reconciliation package that is currently being written in the House, bringing defense funding up to $1.01 trillion, a 13.4% increase, and reducing domestic spending to $601 billion, a 16.6% decrease.

Many domestic cuts

Under Trump’s request many federal departments and agencies would be slated for significant spending reductions, though defense, border security and veterans would be exempt. 

The cuts include:

• Agriculture: – $5 billion, or 18.3%
• Commerce: – $1.7 billion, or 16.5%
• Education: – $12 billion, or 15.3%
• Energy: – $4.7 billion, or 9.4%
• Health and Human Services: – $33 billion, or 26.2%
• Housing and Urban Development: – $33.6 billion, or 43.6%
• Interior: – $5.1 billion, or 30.5%
• Justice: – $2.7 billion, or 7.6%
• Labor: – $4.6 billion, or 34.9%
• State: – $49.1 billion, or 83.7%
• Treasury: – $2.7 billion, or 19%

Increases include:

• Defense: + $113 billion, or 13.4% with reconciliation package
• Homeland Security: + $42.3 billion, or 64.9% with reconciliation package
• Transportation: + $1.5 billion, or 5.8%
• Veterans Affairs: + $5.4 billion, or 4.1%

The budget request also asks Congress to eliminate AmeriCorps, which operates as the Corporation for National and Community Service; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides some funding to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service; the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences; and the 400 Years of African American History Commission.

What if Congress won’t act on the cuts?

Debate over the budget proposal will take place throughout the summer months, but will come to a head in September, when Congress must pass some sort of funding bill to avoid a partial government shutdown.

A senior White House official, speaking on background on a call with reporters to discuss details of the budget request, suggested that Trump would take unilateral action to cut funding if Congress doesn’t go along with the request.

“Obviously, we have never taken impoundment off the table, because the president and myself believe that 200 years of the president and executive branch had that ability,” the official said. “But we’re working with Congress to see what they will pass. And I believe that they have an interest in passing cuts.”

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act bars the president from canceling funding approved by Congress without consulting lawmakers via a rescissions request, which the officials said the administration plans to release “soon.”

The annual appropriations process is separate from the reconciliation process that Republicans are using to pass their massive tax cuts, border security, defense funding and spending cuts package.

Huge boost for Homeland Security

The budget proposal aligns with the Trump’s administration’s plans for mass deportations of people without permanent legal status, and would provide the Department of Homeland Security with $42.3 billion, or a 64.9% increase.

The budget proposal suggests eliminating $650 million from a program that reimburses non-governmental organizations and local governments that help with resettling and aiding newly arrived migrants released from DHS custody, known as the Shelters and Services Program.

The Trump administration also seeks to eliminate the agency that handles the care and resettlement of unaccompanied minors within Health and Human Services. The budget proposal recommends getting rid of the Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien Children Programs’ $1.97 billion budget. The budget proposal argues that because of an executive order to suspend refugee resettlement services, there is no need for the programs.

A federal judge from Washington state issued a nationwide injunction, and ruled the Trump administration must continue refugee resettlement services.

The budget proposal also calls for axing programs that help newly arrived migrant children or students for whom English is not a first language.

For the Education Department, the budget proposal suggests eliminating $890 million in funding for the English Language Acquisition and $428 million for the Migrant Education and Special Programs for Migrant Students.

Key GOP senator rejects defense request

Members of Congress had mixed reactions to the budget request, with some GOP lawmakers praising its spending cuts, while others took issue with the defense budget.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., outright rejected the defense funding level, writing in a statement that relying on the reconciliation package to get military spending above $1 trillion was unacceptable. 

“OMB is not requesting a trillion-dollar budget. It is requesting a budget of $892.6 billion, which is a cut in real terms. This budget would decrease President Trump’s military options and his negotiating leverage,” Wicker wrote. “We face an Axis of Aggressors led by the Chinese Communist Party, who have already started a trade war rather than negotiate in good faith. We need a real Peace Through Strength agenda to ensure Xi Jinping does not launch a military war against us in Asia, beyond his existing military support to the Russians, the Iranians, Hamas, and the Houthis.”

The senior White House official who spoke on a call with reporters to discuss details of the budget request said that splitting the defense increase between the regular Pentagon spending bill and the reconciliation package was a more “durable” proposal.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, wrote the panel will have “an aggressive hearing schedule to learn more about the President’s proposal and assess funding needs for the coming year.”

“This request has come to Congress late, and key details still remain outstanding,” Collins wrote. “Based on my initial review, however, I have serious objections to the proposed freeze in our defense funding given the security challenges we face and to the proposed funding cuts to – and in some cases elimination of – programs like LIHEAP, TRIO, and those that support biomedical research. 

“Ultimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement she will work with others in Congress to block the domestic funding cuts from taking effect.

“Trump wants to rip away funding to safeguard Americans’ health, protect our environment, and to help rural communities and our farmers thrive. This president wants to turn our country’s back on Tribes—and let trash pile up at our national parks,” Murray wrote. “Trump is even proposing to cut investments to prevent violent crime, go after drug traffickers, and tackle the opioids and mental health crises.”

A press release from Murray’s office noted the budget request lacked details on certain programs, including Head Start.

House Speaker Mike Johnson R-La, praised the budget proposal in a statement and pledged that House GOP lawmakers are “ready to work alongside President Trump to implement a responsible budget that puts America first.”

“President Trump’s plan ensures every federal taxpayer dollar spent is used to serve the American people, not a bloated bureaucracy or partisan pet projects,” Johnson wrote.

Spending decisions coming

The House and Senate Appropriations committees are set to begin hearings with Cabinet secretaries and agency heads next week, where Trump administration officials will explain their individual funding requests and answer lawmakers’ questions.

The members on those committees will ultimately write the dozen annual appropriations bills in the months ahead, determining funding levels and policy for numerous programs, including those at the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, State and Transportation.

The House panel’s bills will skew more toward Republican funding levels and priorities, though the Senate committee has a long history of writing broadly bipartisan bills. 

The leaders of the two committees — House Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., House ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Senate Chairwoman Collins and Senate ranking member Murray — will ultimately work out a final deal later in the year alongside congressional leaders.

Differences over the full-year bills are supposed to be solved before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, but members of Congress regularly rely on a stopgap spending bill through mid-December to give themselves more time to complete negotiations.

Failure to pass some sort of government funding measure, either a stopgap bill or all 12 full-year spending bills, before the funding deadline, would lead to a partial government shutdown.

This round of appropriations bills will be the first debated during Trump’s second-term presidency and will likely bring about considerable disagreement over the unilateral actions the administration has already taken to freeze or cancel federal spending, many of which are the subject of lawsuits arguing the president doesn’t have that impoundment authority. 

A poll released Thursday, May 1 showed 76% of Americans oppose cuts to Medicaid. (Photo via Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans, including most Republicans, oppose major cuts in federal funding for Medicaid, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

The survey shows that 76% of those questioned wouldn’t support  Congress slashing the amount of spending dedicated to the state-federal health program for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities.

Democrats held the highest rate of opposition at 95%. A small majority of Republicans surveyed, 55%, said they don’t support substantial federal spending cuts for the program.

The breakdown was nearly even among respondents who identified as Make America Great Again supporters — President Donald Trump’s base — with 51% of that group saying they support less federal funding for Medicaid and 49% saying they oppose major cuts to the federal allocation.

The survey comes just days before House Republicans are expected to release a bill that will likely propose cutting hundreds of billions in federal funding for Medicaid.

That legislation, as well as bills from several other committees, is supposed to help Republicans offset some of the $4.5 trillion deficit impact that comes with extending the 2017 tax law.

The KFF poll also showed strong opposition to slashing federal funding to other health care programs — 74% were against cuts to states for mental health and addiction prevention services, 71% didn’t support reducing federal spending to track infectious disease outbreaks, 69% opposed limiting federal dollars for research at universities and medical centers, 65% were against cuts to HIV prevention program allocations and 65% didn’t support reducing federal funding to help people buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

Polling of 1,380 U.S. adults took place from April 8 to April 15 via telephone and online. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Senate GOP watching House action

Senate Republicans are closely watching how their House colleagues restructure federal funding for Medicaid, and will likely propose changes when the entire 11-bill package comes over from the House later this year.

Several GOP senators told reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday they will judge the package based on how changes to Medicaid will impact their constituents.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he’s unlikely to support any changes to Medicaid that “will result in cutting benefits or denying eligibility for people who are otherwise working.”

“I’m all for work requirements,” he said. “I don’t think you get any Republican objection to that.”

But Hawley said going beyond that might be pressing the issue too far to get his vote.

“I just met with the governor of my state this morning. He’s in town. We just sat down and we talked about this issue,” Hawley said, adding that Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, was “very worried about” potential changes to federal Medicaid funding.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins said she’s planning to evaluate the House bill once it makes it through that chamber based on “the impact on low-income seniors who are dual eligible, families with children with disabilities, low-income families, our rural hospitals, healthcare providers.”

Dual eligibility refers to people who are on Medicare and Medicaid.

“I am open to carefully crafted work requirements for able-bodied adults who do not have preschool children,” Collins said. “But I have no idea what the package is going to contain at this point.”

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran said he’s told his chamber’s Republican leadership that “Medicaid is an important issue” for him in determining whether he votes for the entire package once it’s on the floor.

“I’m going to look at overall how it impacts citizens, particularly people with disabilities, and how it impacts my state and the hospitals that provide services to people in Kansas,” Moran said.

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said “the challenge is going to be to find savings in line with what the president has described.”

“He said he doesn’t want any cuts to Medicaid,” Hoeven said. “But how do you make sure that you eliminate waste, fraud and abuse? And that the folks that should be getting it are getting it, rather than an able-bodied person who should be out there working and is able to do that and take care of themselves.”