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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some key votes so far:

Planned Parenthood 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicaid for undocumented immigrants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduction in funding for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

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

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

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

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

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

Medicaid hospitals and maternal mortality

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

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

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

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

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

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

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

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

Medicaid work requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Rural hospitals and Medicaid

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrow majority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Wraparound amendment’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still fluid

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

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

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

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

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

Senate bill would add $3.2 trillion to deficits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Alaska sweetener knocked out

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

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

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

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

Planned Parenthood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment fights ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thom Tillis, Rand Paul

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

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

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

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

U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., talks to reporters as he walks to the Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis announced Sunday he won’t seek reelection when his term ends next year, opening up a seat that will become central to control of Congress during next year’s midterms.

Tillis’ announcement came just hours after he voted against moving forward with Republicans’ tax and spending cuts package, eliciting a wave of criticism on social media from President Donald Trump.

Tillis wrote in a statement that it “has been a blessing to go on a journey from living in a trailer park and making minimum wage as a young man to having the honor of serving as U.S. Senator for North Carolina.”

His proudest accomplishments, he wrote, were the “bipartisan victories,” including “working across the aisle in the Senate to pass the largest investment in mental health in American history, passing the Respect for Marriage Act and monumental infrastructure investments, and reestablishing the Senate NATO Observer Group.

“Sometimes those bipartisan initiatives got me into trouble with my own party, but I wouldn’t have changed a single one.”

Tillis wrote he looks “forward to continuing to serve North Carolina over the next 18 months. I look forward to solely focusing on producing meaningful results without the distraction of raising money or campaigning for another election. I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit and representing the great people of North Carolina to the best of my ability.”

Targeted by Trump over vote

Tills’ announcement followed several hectic days on Capitol Hill, where GOP leaders sought to sway him to support the party’s “big, beautiful bill,” though he ultimately voted against advancing the tax and spending cut legislation toward final passage on Saturday night.

That vote elicited a torrent of rebuke from Trump on social media.

“Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against ‘Senator Thom’ Tillis,” Trump wrote in one post. ‘I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Tillis, 64, became a member of the state House of Representatives in 2007 before rising to become speaker in 2011. He held that position until 2014, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Tillis secured reelection in 2020 with 48.7% of the vote compared to his Democratic opponent’s 46.9%. The two were separated by fewer than 96,000 votes out of more than 5.2 million cast.

His term will officially expire in January 2027, but the contest to replace him is expected to begin quickly.

2026 election

Republicans will want whoever emerges from their primary well positioned to fend off a general election challenge. Democrats will be just as focused on the state as they look to regain control of the Senate following the 2026 midterm elections.

Republicans currently hold 53 seats in the Senate and while the map is highly favorable to the GOP, Democrats are expected to spend a considerable amount of time and money trying to flip seats.

North Carolina and Maine are the two most likely pick-up opportunities for Democrats and an open seat in North Carolina could help them a bit. But Democrats still face long odds to flip other seats in deeply red states like Alabama, Florida, Montana and West Virginia.

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter had rated both Maine and North Carolina as leaning toward Republican wins next year, though its analysts moved North Carolina into the “toss-up” category a few hours after the Tillis retirement announcement.

Jessica Taylor, the Senate and Governors editor for CPR, wrote that Tillis’ retirement “officially makes the Tar Heel State Democrats’ top pickup opportunity.”

“The vulnerability of this seat, however, does not alter the overall Senate math for 2026,” Taylor added. “Even if Democrats were to win here in 2026, they’d still need to flip three more seats, including at least two in deep red states, in order to win a bare majority.”

Democrats not only need to pick up several seats to regain control of the Senate but will need to defend an open seat in Michigan and Sen. Jon Ossoff’s seat in deeply red Georgia.

The Cook Political Report rates both Georgia and Michigan as “toss-up races.”

Campaign committees react

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., wrote in a statement he expects North Carolina will stay red following the midterms. 

“President Trump has won North Carolina three times, and the state’s been represented by two Republican Senators for over a decade,” Scott wrote. “That streak will continue in 2026 when North Carolinians elect a conservative leader committed to advancing an agenda of opportunity, prosperity, and security.”

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Maeve Coyle released a written statement just minutes after the announcement that “Tillis’ decision not to run for reelection is another blow to Republicans’ chances as they face a midterm backlash that puts their majority at risk.

“Even Tillis admits the GOP plan to slash Medicaid and spike costs for families is toxic — and in 2026, Democrats will flip North Carolina’s Senate seat.”

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said during an interview with NC Newsline just a few days before Tillis’ announcement that the state represented “one of our best pickup opportunities in the Senate” in 2026.

Martin said he had spoken with former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper about potentially running for the Senate seat.

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., talks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, June 28, 2025. Hawley said he will vote for the budget reconciliation measure after a rural hospital fund was added. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines late Saturday night to move forward with Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” that President Donald Trump wants on his desk in less than a week, after a dramatic three-hour pause when several GOP senators withheld their votes.

Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina  and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against moving forward with the sweeping tax break and spending cuts package that contains many of the GOP’s campaign promises. All Democrats were opposed. Vice President JD Vance came to the Capitol in case a tie-breaking vote was required, but in the end was not needed.

Tillis, who is up for reelection in 2026, had told reporters earlier that he would vote “no” on what is called a motion to proceed and on final passage. 

He said in a statement the legislation would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina and force the state to make “painful decisions” about Medicaid. Trump in a post on social media later threatened to find primary candidates to challenge Tillis.

The 51-49 vote doesn’t guarantee the bill will make it through a final passage vote but does make it significantly more likely, even with Republicans’ narrow 53-47 majority.

The procedural vote kicked off a maximum of 20 hours of floor debate on the bill, with half of that time controlled by Democrats and the other half by Republicans — though Democrats after the motion to proceed vote forced a reading of the giant bill expected to take as long as 15 hours. That would mean floor debate would not begin until sometime Sunday.

Unlike regular bills, budget reconciliation packages are not subject to the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, so as long as at least 50 Republicans support the package, and Vance casts the tie-breaking vote if needed, the measure will go back to the House.

The vote on the motion to proceed that began at about 7:30 p.m. Eastern was held open for more than three hours, with the votes of four senators in suspense — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida. All four eventually voted aye and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson switched his vote to aye after earlier voting against the measure.

Lee, however, just before the vote was over, announced he had pulled from the bill an extremely controversial proposal to sell some public lands that was opposed by other lawmakers from the West. He said because of the process being used for the bill, he was unable to obtain enforceable safeguards to ensure the land would be sold to American families and not China or foreign interests.

The latest version of the measure had set up the Interior Department to sell at least 600,000 acres of public land and up to 1.2 million acres of public land within 10 years, advocates said.

Critics, including hunters, anglers and other Western state constituents, have ripped the measure as a “land grab,” as put by Jennifer Rokala, executive director for the Center for Western Priorities.

A summary of the provisions by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee said the Bureau of Land Management “must sell a minimum of 0.25% and a maximum of 0.50% of their estate for housing and associated community needs. This will increase the supply of housing and decrease housing costs for millions of American families.”

Golfing with Trump

Senate GOP leaders released new bill text just before midnight Friday that satisfied rural state lawmakers’ worries about financial threats to rural hospitals posed by cuts in Medicaid. The bill also addresses concerns by Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska about access to food assistance for their constituents despite new restrictions on a USDA program for low-income people.

As talks continued on Capitol Hill Saturday afternoon, a handful of Senate Republicans, including Missouri’s Eric Schmitt and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were on the golf course with Trump, according to the White House. Graham said on social media that Kentucky’s Paul also played.

Senate Democrats said a fresh financial analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the preliminary Senate text would result in $930 billion in cuts to Medicaid, the joint federal-state low-income health insurance and disability assistance program.

The CBO score was not yet publicly available but Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Finance, pointed to it and slammed the Medicaid provisions as “cruel” in a statement Saturday afternoon. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, also cited the preliminary analysis, pointing to the nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts.

Collins promises amendments

Senate Republicans planned to take their negotiations to the floor and push for amendments after the procedural vote that triggered official debate on the bill, which in its current public version runs 940 pages.

GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who voiced concerns throughout negotiations about rural hospitals and health cuts that would harm low-income individuals, said her vote on the motion to proceed “does not predict my vote on final passage.”

“I will be filing a number of amendments,” she told reporters as she headed into a closed-door working lunch before the Senate convened at 2 p.m. Eastern.

While Sen. Tim Sheehy wrote on social media Saturday afternoon that he was a “no” on the motion to proceed because of a provision to sell off federal public lands, the Montana Republican changed his mind nearly an hour later and declared he would propose an amendment to strip the provision — which was later removed by its sponsor.

GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma painted somewhat of a rosier picture of the mood in the Senate, telling reporters “we’re good.”

“We won’t bring it to the floor if we don’t have the votes,” said Mullin, who was the lead negotiator with House Republicans on state and local tax deductions, or SALT — a sticking point for Republicans who represent high-tax blue states like New York and California.

The lawmakers settled on a $40,000 deduction through 2029 for taxpayers who earn up to $500,000 annually. The level then reverts to $10,000, the current limit under the 2017 tax law.

Medicaid turmoil

Proposed changes to Medicaid have been strongly resisted by rural medical providers who say they are already financially strapped.

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told reporters Saturday he would be a “yes” on both the motion to proceed vote and the final bill based on the new rural hospital “transformation program” Senate leadership included in the bill overnight. The measure has yet to be finalized.

The bill’s new version includes $25 billion in a stabilization fund for rural hospitals from 2028 through 2032. The amount is frontloaded to give more of the funds in the first two years.

Critics warn that amount will not fill the financial gaps that rural medical providers will face from losing a sizable portion of federal funding via Medicaid cuts.

While Hawley called the fund a “win” for Missouri over the next several years, he said his party needs to do some “soul searching” over the “unhappy episode” of wrangling over Medicaid cuts.

“If you want to be a working-class party, you’ve got to deliver for working-class people. You cannot take away health care for working people,” he said.

Senators had not yet agreed on other Medicaid provisions as of Saturday afternoon, including a phase-down of the provider tax rate from 6% to a possible 3.5% that’s become hugely controversial.

States use a combination of general revenues, provider tax revenues and in some cases local contributions to fund their Medicaid programs.

Advocates warn that it’s not a guarantee states would be able to backfill the lost revenue, and if they can’t, provider rate cuts and losses of benefits for patients could be on the horizon.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the House version’s provider tax changes — not as deep as the current Senate proposal — could lead to 400,000 people losing Medicaid benefits.

A full and final financial score for the Senate bill is not yet out as the several provisions remain up in the air.

Hawley also praised the inclusion of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act fund, or RECA, that revives payments for survivors and victims who suffered cancer as a result of U.S. atomic bomb testing and radioactive waste dumps.

Clean energy tax credits

In what clean power advocates dubbed a “midnight dumping,” Senate GOP leadership added language to accelerate the phase out of clean energy tax credits that were enacted under Democrats’ own massive mega-bill in 2022 titled the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

The language, which wasn’t yet finalized by Senate GOP tax writers as of 6 p.m. Eastern Saturday, tightened restrictions on foreign components in wind and solar projects — and added a new tax on those that don’t comply.

Senators largely targeted wind and solar credits, ending them for projects not plugged into the electricity grid by 2028. Additionally credits for wind turbine manufacturers would terminate in 2028.

Other tax credits would be phased out at a faster pace, including those for the production of critical minerals, though a credit for metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking, was added in.

Clean energy industry manufacturers and small businesses had hoped Senate Republicans would ease up rollbacks in the House version.

Kurt Neutgens, president and chief technology officer of Orange EV, told States Newsroom in an interview Friday that any further rollbacks would amount to “cutting our legs out from underneath us.”

Neutgens, whose Kansas City, Kansas-based company manufactures heavy duty electric trucks and chargers, was watching for changes to credits to the commercial clean vehicles credit. New Senate GOP text would terminate the credit in September of this year.

Jason Grumet, president of the Clean Power Association, said in a statement Saturday that imposing new taxes on the industry “will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments, threaten energy security, and undermine growth in domestic manufacturing and land hardest on rural communities who would have been the greatest beneficiaries of clean energy investment.”

Alaska carve-outs

Proposed cuts to federal food assistance remained largely unchanged in the new text released Friday night except for a few carve-outs for Alaska.

If the bill were enacted as written, Alaska’s state government could request a waiver for its citizens from stricter work reporting requirements that critics say will result in some SNAP recipients losing their food benefits.

GOP lawmakers also slightly shifted the timeline for when states will have to begin shouldering SNAP costs — the first time states will be on the hook for the federal food assistance outside of administrative costs.

States would be required to pick up a portion of the costs depending on their “payment error rate” — meaning how accurate states are at determining who needs SNAP, including both overpayments and underpayments.

States that have error rates at 6% or above would responsible for up to 15% of the food program’s cost. According to SNAP error rate data for 2023, the latest available, only seven states had an error rate below 6%.

The new text delays the cost-sharing for states until 2028 and allows states to choose the lesser of their two error rates in either 2025 or 2026.

Starting in 2029, states will be required to use their error rate from three years prior to the current year.

The new text includes the option for Alaska and Hawaii to waive their cost share burden for up to two years if their governments implement an improvement plan. In 2023, Alaska had the highest payment error rate of all states, reaching just above 60%. 

Advocates for low-income families worry the cost, which will amount to billions for most state governments, will incentivize states to tighten eligibility requirements for the program, or even drop SNAP altogether.

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates the cuts will affect up to 40 million people who receive basic SNAP assistance, including 16 million children and 8 million seniors.

The Senate bill would also increase a state’s share of administrative costs for the program to 75%, up from the previous 50% cost-sharing responsibility with the federal government.

Despite inaccurate public statements from Republicans as recently as in a bill summary released overnight, the bill does nothing to limit food assistance to immigrants without documentation because SNAP was never available to them.

SNAP benefits will remain available to legal permanent residents, and Republicans loosened some language to allow certain immigrants from Cuba or Haiti to access the program.

But if the bill passes, federal food assistance will not be available to refugees and asylees who are already in the U.S. — for example, people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and other war-torn places.

Education revisions

Republicans on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions revised or scrapped several measures that the parliamentarian deemed to not comply with the “Byrd Bath,” a Senate process named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd, according to a summary and new bill text out Friday.

Under the revised text, for any loans made starting July 1, 2026, borrowers will have only two repayment plan options: a standard repayment plan and an income-driven repayment plan. The original proposal would have applied these restrictions to existing borrowers, but the parliamentarian struck that down.

Republicans also nixed a proposal that opened up the Pell Grant — a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college — to institutions that are not accredited.

The new plan also scraps a restriction that barred payments made by students enrolled in a medical or dental internship or residency program from counting toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

‘Even worse than any draft’

Senate Democrats remain united in opposition to the bill and are expected to slow down final passage by introducing numerous amendments on the floor during what is called the vote-a-rama.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer continued to rally against the package during remarks on the Senate floor Saturday afternoon, saying it’s “hard to believe this bill is worse — even worse — than any draft we’ve seen this far.”

The New York Democrat said “it’s worse on health care, it’s worse on SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), it’s worse on the deficit.”

Schumer added that “if Republicans proceed, Senate Democrats will hold them to account.”

“We’ll gear up for another night of vote-a-rama very soon. We’ll expose this bill piece by piece. We will show how it cuts health care, raises costs, rewards the ultra rich.”

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities condemned the cuts to safety net programs as “all in service to tax cuts that are heavily skewed toward the wealthy and corporations.”

“None of this harm has anything to do with fiscal responsibility: our deficits and debts would soar under this bill,” said Sharon Parrott, the think tank’s president, in a statement Saturday.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan watchdog, released a new analysis Saturday finding the Senate version will add roughly $4 trillion to the national deficit over 10 years.

“If you thought the House bill borrowed too much — and it did — the Senate manages to make things even worse,” CRFB’s president Maya MacGuineas said in a statement.

House action

Senate Republicans have spent more than a month rewriting the bills that make up the measure in order to meet the strict rules for moving a budget reconciliation package and to earn support from enough Republicans to actually pass the legislation.

The lawmakers have been struggling to maintain spending cuts passed by House Republicans that will pay for the nearly $4 trillion price tag for extending and expanding the 2017 tax cuts.

The House voted 215-214 to approve its 11-bill version of the package in May. Many of that chamber’s GOP lawmakers hoped the Senate wouldn’t change much, though that hasn’t been the case.

The Senate has modified numerous proposals, including those addressing tax law; Medicaid; and SNAP. The Senate bill also raises the country’s debt limit by $5 trillion, a full $1 trillion more than the House version.

The revisions have led to concerns among both centrist House GOP lawmakers and far-right members of the party, muddying the waters around whether Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., can cobble together the votes needed to clear the package for Trump’s signature.

Republicans hold a 220-212 majority in the House, so leaders there can only lose four members if all of the chamber’s lawmakers are present and voting.

Trump has encouraged Congress to approve the legislation before the Fourth of July, but with time running short and some tempers rising over how the legislation will impact the country’s deficits, that might not be possible.

“The Great Republicans in the U.S. Senate are working all weekend to finish our ‘ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’,” Trump posted on social media Friday.

“The House of Representatives must be ready to send it to my desk before July 4th — We can get it done,” he added. “It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country, which is right now, ‘The Hottest Country anywhere in the World’ — And to think, just last year, we were a laughingstock. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

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

WASHINGTON — Republicans cannot exempt gun silencers, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns from being classified as firearms under a federal gun regulation law from the 1930s, according to the Senate parliamentarian’s latest ruling on the “big, beautiful bill.”

The provision addressing silencers, also called suppressors, was added to the House’s version of the bill by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde. The Senate Finance Committee expanded it, adding in the other two classifications.

Also out of the bill is a sweeping private school voucher program that would have extended billions a year in tax credits to parents who move their children out of public schools.

The rulings mean those sections now will be dropped from the Senate version of the tax and spending cut measure, or rewritten in a way that meets the rules. 

Friday morning’s disclosure of the latest parliamentary ruling came as the Senate continues to struggle with the massive legislation, which GOP leaders in Congress want to pass in time for a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline for President Donald Trump’s signature.

The Senate will likely stay in session throughout the weekend and possibly into early next week to finish negotiations on provisions and release the final text, take a procedural vote, debate the bill, hold a marathon amendment voting session and then vote on final passage.

The House, which is scheduled to be in recess all next week for the holiday, is expected to return to Capitol Hill about two days after the Senate approves the bill to clear the legislation for Trump’s signature.

Gun silencer debate in House

Clyde said during floor debate in May that because silencers were included in the National Firearms Act, they were also subject to a $200 tax that he argued violates people’s Second Amendment rights.

“Under the law, they are firearms and therefore are protected by another law enacted in 1791 called the Second Amendment of our beloved Constitution,” Clyde said. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and neither shall it be taxed.”

Florida Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost spoke out against the House provision during floor debate, saying that during mass shootings, “silencers make it harder to identify and respond to the source of the gunshots.

“Earlier, I put forth an amendment to strip this tax cut for the gun lobby, and House Republicans wouldn’t even let it come up for a vote.”

Frost said that during 2023, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “recovered over 400 silencers from violent crime scenes. For this reason, silencers have been highly regulated for nearly 100 years.”

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., released a statement Friday following the parliamentarian’s ruling, saying it eliminated Republicans’ “scheme to eliminate background checks, registrations and other safety measures that apply to easily-concealed firearms and gun silencers.”

“It’s no surprise that Republicans will jump at any opportunity to please the gun lobby by rolling back gun safety measures, but that kind of policy does not belong in a reconciliation bill,” Wyden wrote.

Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the committee has been going back and forth with the parliamentarian on how to rework other provisions deemed noncompliant to get them into the final bill.

A summary of the provision from Crapo’s office says it would have resulted “in the elimination of the transfer and manufacturing tax on these devices” and preempted “certain state or local licensing or registration requirements which are determined by reference to the National Firearms Act by treating anyone who acquires or possesses these rifles, shotguns, or other weapons in compliance with federal statute to be in compliance with the state or local registration or licensing requirements.”

Private school vouchers scrapped

The parliamentarian struck down the private school voucher program tucked into the Senate Finance Committee’s portion of the package, marking a significant blow to Trump’s and congressional Republicans’ school choice push.

The umbrella term “school choice” centers on alternative programs to a student’s assigned public school. Though advocates say school choice programs are necessary for parents dissatisfied with their local public schools, critics argue these efforts drain critical funds and resources from school districts.

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

The tax credit provision mirrored a bill that GOP lawmakers — Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana along with Reps. Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Burgess Owens of Utah — reintroduced in their respective chambers earlier this year.

Immigration

Several provisions to reshape how immigrants apply for asylum were struck down by the parliamentarian Friday.

Those provisions would have required a $1,000 fee for an immigrant to apply for asylum – something that is currently free to people fleeing harm or persecution – and imposed a $5,000 fee for someone to sponsor an unaccompanied minor.

Some of the provisions would have added extra fees to immigration courts, which are already facing a historic backlog of millions of cases, for a mandatory $100 fee to continue a case.

The parliamentarian also struck out a policy that would have extended quick deportations, known as expedited removal, to immigrants arrested for a crime regardless of legal status.

Expedited removal is a deportation tool used to swiftly remove an immigrant near a U.S. border without appearing before an immigration judge. The Trump administration has already expanded its use of expedited removal to include the interior of the U.S., rather than just at borders such as Mexico and Canada.

State and local tax

Senate Republicans were still wrangling Friday afternoon over the amount of state and local taxes, or SALT, that taxpayers can deduct from their federal tax bills. House Republicans who represent high-tax blue states are pressuring their counterparts in the Senate to agree on a $40,000 deduction cap for taxpayers who earn up to $500,000 annually.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent briefly stepped out of closed-door negotiations to brief reporters, telling them a deal was “very, very close.”

The handful of House Republicans who represent blue states, including New York and California, carry a lot of leverage over final passage of the bill because of the party’s razor-thin margin in the House.

Reconciliation process

Republicans are moving their sweeping tax and spending cuts bill through Congress using a special process called budget reconciliation that comes with complex rules in the Senate.

The chamber’s parliamentarian combs through the bill, hears from Republicans and from Democrats before determining whether each provision has an impact on spending, revenue, or the debt limit.

There are several other aspects to the Byrd rule, named for former West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, including that a provision cannot have a “merely incidental” impact on the federal ledger. Reconciliation bills also cannot touch Social Security.

The parliamentarian has ruled several other provisions in the GOP mega-bill don’t comply with the guardrails for a reconciliation bill, though some committees have been able to rework certain policy changes to fit.

Republicans chose to move the bill through reconciliation because it allows them to get around the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which typically forces bipartisan negotiations on major legislation. 

The process is time-consuming and opaque, but Republican leaders in Congress are still pushing forward with their self-imposed Fourth of July goal.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., left, listens as Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, speaks to reporters outside of the West Wing of the White House on June 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  after a meeting with President Donald Trump. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday told his supporters to call members of Congress and lobby them to support the “big, beautiful bill,” a crucial push with just days to go before a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline.

Trump’s plea follows several tumultuous days on Capitol Hill as GOP leaders struggled to find consensus on multiple policy disagreements, especially after the parliamentarian ruled core elements of the package don’t meet the complex rules for moving a budget reconciliation bill.

Trump during an event in the White House’s East Room that was attended by several GOP lawmakers also cautioned Republicans against voting down the tax and spending cut package.

“We don’t want to have grandstanders,” Trump said. “Not good people. They know who I’m talking about. I call them out. But we don’t need grandstanders. We have to get our country back and bring it back strong.”

Some Republican senators remain optimistic they can work through the weekend and that the House votes will come together next week, despite growing opposition from members in that chamber.

Sen. Eric Schmitt said he doesn’t think the parliamentarian’s rulings will delay the votes “outside the weekend window, which has been the goal all the time.”

“We’re probably voting into the weekend, though. That’s probably my guess — Saturday and I suppose even Sunday — but, that’s the goal, I don’t think that materially changes too much,” the Missouri Republican said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, appeared a bit less definite, telling reporters in the afternoon that he didn’t know when the chamber would take the procedural vote that kicks off floor consideration.

“I’ll get back to you on that,” he said.

Medicaid provisions tossed

Earlier Thursday, Senate Republicans suffered a significant setback when the parliamentarian ruled several changes to Medicaid in the bill don’t comply with the rules, which means billions of dollars in savings are no longer available for the GOP to offset the cost of tax cuts.

Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo. R-Idaho, must rework or completely eliminate nine changes the committee proposed to the health care programs, though more of the panel’s proposals are still under review.

Republicans can no longer reduce the amount of federal matching funds for state governments that use their own tax dollars to provide Medicaid coverage for immigrants in the country without proper documentation.

The GOP bill cannot bar gender-affirming care for Medicaid patients.

And Republicans need to change or scrap a proposal to reduce states’ Medicaid provider tax credits, an issue that is relatively in the weeds of health care policy but has sharply divided the GOP and drawn fierce opposition from states.

The changes or eliminations will have a major impact on how much in savings the GOP tax and spending cut bill will generate during the next decade and will likely make the overall package’s deficit impact higher than before. The legislation is intended to extend the 2017 tax cuts and make spending reductions.

The ruling might make it more difficult for Trump and GOP leaders in Congress to get the votes needed to pass the bill at all, let alone before their self-imposed Fourth of July timeline. Senate GOP leaders had said they wanted to begin procedural votes as soon as Friday.

The measure already had been stuck on Wednesday amid growing disputes over how Medicaid changes will impact rural hospitals and far more.

Democrats to continue scrutinizing bill

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who released the parliamentarian’s rulings, wrote in a statement that Democrats will continue to advocate for removing dozens of proposals from the bill that they believe don’t meet reconciliation rules.

“Republicans are scrambling to rewrite parts of this bill to continue advancing their families lose, and billionaires win agenda, but Democrats stand ready to fully scrutinize any changes and ensure the Byrd Rule is enforced,” Merkley wrote.

A staffer, who was granted anonymity to discuss the chairman’s plans, said the Finance Committee will “rework certain provisions to address the Byrd guidance and be compliant with reconciliation.”

The Byrd rule, named for former West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, includes several guardrails for reconciliation bills.

Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote in a statement that the parliamentarian’s ruling will lead to “more than $250 billion in health care cuts removed from the Republicans’ big bad bill.

“Democrats fought and won, striking health care cuts from this bill that would hurt Americans’ walking on an economic tightrope. This bill is rotten to its core, and I’ll keep fighting the cuts in this morally bankrupt bill until the end.”

The parliamentarian is still deciding whether several health provisions meet reconciliation rules, including language that would block all Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood, effectively blocking Medicaid patients from visiting the organization for routine health services.

Federal law already bars funding for abortions with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient.

The parliamentarian will also decide later whether Republicans’ bill can block the Department of Health and Human Services from implementing a Biden-era rule that would require nursing homes to have a nurse working 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Higher ed provisions axed

The parliamentarian also struck down several attempts from congressional Republicans to overhaul the higher education system.

GOP lawmakers cannot streamline student loan repayment options for current borrowers to just a standard repayment plan or an income-driven repayment plan, making such restrictions apply to only new borrowers.

Republicans have to nix a proposal that opened up the Pell Grant — a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college — to institutions that are for-profit and not accredited.

The parliamentarian scrapped a proposal that would have barred payments made by students enrolled in a medical or dental internship or residency program from counting toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

The federal program eliminates remaining debt for borrowers when meeting certain requirements, including working for a qualified employer within the government or nonprofit sector.

The parliamentarian rejected GOP lawmakers’ proposal to end federal student aid eligibility for certain immigrants who are not U.S. citizens.

‘Too many Medicaid cuts’

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley said the parliamentarian’s ruling on the Medicaid provider tax rate will give lawmakers “a chance to get it right.”

“This is a chance for the Senate to fix a problem that they created and not defund rural hospitals,” Hawley said, later adding he supports the House language that would freeze the rate at 6% instead of decreasing it to 3.5% over several years. 

Hawley said hours before Trump’s event that he expects the president to get more involved in negotiations now that he’s back from a NATO conference in Europe and said Trump was in a “terrific mood” during a recent phone call.

“I think he wants this done. But he wants it done well. And he does not want this to be a Medicaid cuts bill,” Hawley said. “He made that very clear to me. He said this is a tax cut bill, it’s not a Medicaid cuts bill. I think he’s tired of hearing about all these Medicaid cuts, you know. As am I. It’s because there are too many Medicaid cuts.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy early Thursday night called on leaders to put the House’s language regarding Medicaid back into the bill, wiping out changes made by the Finance Committee.

“My position is that cuts, and especially drastic cuts, to Medicaid have to be avoided. The Senate bill cuts Medicaid too much,” the influential chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee wrote in a social media post. “I agree with President Trump, the House version is better.”

SNAP cuts

The Agriculture Committee also is reworking parts of its bill, some being closely watched by states, to meet the rules that govern reconciliation.

Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., said he expects to hear from the parliamentarian before the end of Thursday about whether a revised state cost share provision for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that’s based on error rate payments will be in the final bill.

“It was thrown out the first time, so we actually gave her revised text. If she rules the revised text is fine, then we’ll release it,” Boozman said.

The committee released a statement later in the day announcing the parliamentarian had cleared the revised state cost share for SNAP that’s based on a state’s error payment rate.

States that have SNAP error payment rates higher than 6% will have to contribute some of the cost of the program. The updated proposal will give states the option of choosing between fiscal 2025 and fiscal 2026 to determine their match, which will begin during fiscal 2028. After that, a state’s match will be determined by its error payment rate for the last three fiscal years. 

State and local tax, ‘revenge tax’

Senate Republicans also remained stuck on finding a deduction level for state and local tax, or SALT, that passes muster with House Republicans who represent high-tax blue states.

The House version would allow taxpayers making under $500,000 to deduct up to $40,000 in SALT from their federal tax bill. 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. The deduction cap phases down for higher earners.

Senate Republicans and the White House sought to lower the income threshold but were shot down Thursday by House Republicans, according to multiple reports.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, the lead negotiator on SALT for Senate Republicans, said he remained optimistic.

“We’re gonna be in a good spot. We’re gonna find a landing spot,” Mullin said.

A Senate Finance Committee spokesperson declined to comment on current negotiations, including any proposed income level changes.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also weighed in on another tax provision: the so-called “revenge tax” on investments from countries whose trade policies the president views as unfair to U.S. businesses.

Bessent asked lawmakers to remove the up to 20% tax from the mega-bill following an agreement made with G7 partners, he wrote on social media.

“This understanding with our G7 partners provides greater certainty and stability for the global economy and will enhance growth and investment in the United States and beyond,” Bessent said.

The retaliation tax would have raised roughly $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Timing on votes

Republican lawmakers don’t have much time left to rework all of the ineligible provisions, clear them with the parliamentarian, read through final bill text, slog through a marathon amendment voting session in the Senate and then move the bill through the House before their self-imposed deadline.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing before Trump’s event that the president is “adamant” Congress must pass the “big, beautiful bill” within the next week, despite the latest ruling.  

“We expect that bill to be on the president’s desk for signature by July Fourth. I know there was a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian this morning,” Leavitt said. “Look, this is part of the process, this is part of the inner workings of the United States Senate. But the president is adamant about seeing this bill on his desk here at the White House by Independence Day.” 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters at the Capitol as lawmakers work on the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans appeared deeply divided Wednesday over how to establish a fund for rural hospitals to offset the budget impacts of Medicaid cuts in the “big, beautiful bill.”

The hospitals, which are generally already hurting financially, rely heavily on Medicaid, a state-federal partnership that provides health insurance for low-income households and for some people with disabilities.

GOP senators haven’t yet reached agreement on how to structure the fund, or on dozens of other unresolved provisions in the sweeping package, even though leaders hope to begin voting as soon as Friday. Still up in the air were agreements on major provisions of the measure involving the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food aid program for low-income people and a proposed selloff of certain public lands.

Republican leaders continued to project optimism. “We’re well on our way to getting this bill passed this week,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a floor speech, continuing to press ahead toward a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline. 

Others saw it differently. Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson cast doubt on the short timeframe leaders have set to reach final agreement and move the bill through both chambers.

“We’re still discussing some pretty fundamental issues,” Johnson said. “I’m just laying out the reality of the situation. We’ve got a lot of work to do.”

‘The only person up here that’s ever ran a rural hospital’

Dueling plans to establish the rural hospital fund to ease the threat of Medicaid cuts circulated among senators working to finalize the massive tax and spending cut measure, but an agreement had not surfaced by late afternoon.

Unofficial details showed Senate Republicans eyeing the inclusion of a $15 billion fund — $3 billion a year between fiscal 2027 and fiscal 2031 — to help rural hospitals, according to multiple reports.

But Sen. Roger Marshall, who sits on the Senate Committee on Finance, said he wants to increase that fund to $5 billion annually, with “half of that going to rural hospitals, and half of it going to primary care and prescription drugs and throw in physical therapy and occupational therapy, all the others as well.”

The Kansas Republican and physician said “we should probably only do it for four or five years and then regroup and see where we are.”

“I’m the only person up here that’s ever ran a rural hospital — I actually know something about them,” he added.

While Marshall said he loves “90%” of the broader bill, he said not nearly enough is being cut.

“But I can’t get the votes to do that, so it’d still be the largest cut in spending in my lifetime anyway,” he said, noting that “it’s going to be hard for the House to vote against it.”

Fund size criticized

On a midday call with reporters, Traci Gleason with the Missouri Budget Project said the stabilization fund being batted around by lawmakers “would fall well short of addressing these problems.”

“Forty-three percent of Missouri’s rural hospitals are at risk of closing, and 17% are considered to be at immediate risk,” said Gleason, who spoke during a virtual press briefing organized by the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

“Those figures don’t account for all of the other health care providers in rural communities, like federally qualified health centers and others that operate on these incredibly thin margins. So the massive cuts to Medicaid are what is creating the problem and the only real way to address it is for Congress to not make these massive cuts,” she said.

‘Problematic’ Medicaid cuts

Sen. Susan Collins was advocating for a much bigger rural hospital stabilization fund, at $100 billion.

“I don’t think that solves the entire problem,” the Maine Republican and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee said.

“The Senate cuts in Medicaid are far deeper than the House cuts, and I think that’s problematic as well.”

Sen. Jim Justice of West Virginia said that the $15 billion “is better than zero.”

“You know, naturally, I’d want it to be as high as it possibly can,” he said, adding that rural hospitals are the “lifeblood” of his state.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a loud voice against Medicaid benefit cuts, said a stabilization fund is a “good idea but we’re still going to have to address the longer term effects of this.”

When asked for a dollar figure, Hawley said “it depends on the structure of it.”

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said he keeps hearing the Senate will take a procedural vote on Friday, though that isn’t set in stone. 

“Should be a fun weekend for all of us,” Cornyn said. “Can’t wait.”

Once the Senate votes on what is called a motion to proceed, there’s a maximum of 20 hours of floor debate before the chamber must begin its marathon amendment voting session and eventually a passage vote.

SNAP provisions

Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, said a revised version of his committee’s bill had not yet been reviewed by the parliamentarian.

The updated text alters a section restructuring the cost-share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, a key food assistance program for low-income people.

The provision would require states for the first time to shoulder some of the cost of the program’s benefits. The amount a state owes would be determined by its error payment rate, with greater error rates requiring a higher state share.

Complex rules govern what can and can’t be included in the measure. The Senate parliamentarian ruled the language in the initial proposal did not comply with the chamber’s reconciliation rules.

The updated proposal would allow states more flexibility during the policy’s phase-in in fiscal 2028, allowing them to choose either the error rate in fiscal 2025 or fiscal 2026.

Boozman told reporters that change sought to respond to the parliamentarian’s ruling.

The parliamentarian “asked us to allow them (states) to use a different time frame — essentially gave them more time to understand what their error rate would be and to plan for it,” Boozman said. “And so we adjusted for that and I think we satisfied it.”

Lee and public lands

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee of Utah reportedly narrowed a provision that would mandate the sale of Bureau of Land Management lands. He has not publicly said where it stands with the parliamentarian.

A committee spokesman did not return messages seeking clarification Tuesday and Wednesday, but a version of the changes obtained by news media shows changes consistent with what Lee proposed Monday.

Those changes include limiting the mandated sales to only the BLM — and not U.S. Forest Service lands, as Lee had initially proposed — and lowering the percentage of the agency’s lands that must be sold to between .25% and .5%. The initial proposal required between .5% and .75%.

The updated provision would also only require lands located within 5 miles of a population center to be sold and exempts lands that are currently used for grazing or another “valid existing right that is incompatible with the development of housing,” according to a copy of the changes obtained by hunting and angling publication Outdoor Life.

The provision has sparked opposition from Western lawmakers, including a handful of conservatives.

But it also has its share of supporters. Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan told reporters he had not seen the updated text but remained supportive of the idea.

“I’ve been supportive of what Sen. Lee is trying to do,” he said. “We have a lot of public lands in Alaska that the federal government abuses. But we’re in a good discussion on that, so I need to see the update.”

 

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

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s request to claw back $9.4 billion in previously approved spending on foreign aid and public media ran into significant opposition Wednesday, potentially dooming its path forward in the Senate.

Numerous GOP lawmakers on the Appropriations Committee, including Chairwoman Susan Collins, expressed concern at how the proposed rescissions would affect American “soft power” as well as local radio and television stations that rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — many in rural America.

Collins, R-Maine, highlighted opposition to cutting already approved funding for CPB, which goes toward National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations outside the nation’s larger metropolitan areas.

“The vast majority of this funding, more than 70%, actually flows to local television and radio stations,” Collins said. “In Maine this funding supports everything from emergency communications in rural areas to coverage of high school basketball championships and a locally produced high school quiz show. Nationally produced television programs such as ‘Antiques Roadshow,’ ‘Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood,’ are also enjoyed by many throughout our country.”

Collins said she understands objections to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting providing funding to national NPR operations, given what she called its “discernibly partisan bent.”

“There are, however, more targeted approaches to addressing that bias at NPR than rescinding all of the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Collins said.

Effect on Alaska

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski appeared to signal she also opposes cancelling funding that Congress previously approved for public media and told White House budget director Russ Vought that she wanted him to understand the ramifications on her home state.

“I hope you feel the urgency that I’m trying to express on behalf of people in rural Alaska, and I think in many parts of rural America, where this is their lifeline, this is where they get the updates on that landslide, this is where they get the updates on the wildfires that are coming their way,” Murkowski said.

“And so how they will be able to not only get the emergency alerts that they need, but also the weather reporting to make sure that fishermen … can go out safely. So that these communities can be connected when a deadly landslide has come through,” she said.

Rural radio in South Dakota, Nebraska

South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds pressed Vought to ensure uninterrupted federal funding to local radio stations in rural areas of his home state, even if Congress rescinds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s appropriation.

“First of all, we have Native American radio stations in South Dakota. They get their funding through NPR – 90 some percent of what they use. They will not continue to exist if we don’t find a way to take care of their needs,” Rounds said. “It’s not a large amount of money, but would you be willing to work with us to try and find a way for these places where, literally, they’re not political in nature?

“These are the folks that put out the emergency notifications. They talk about community events and so forth. But they’re in very, very rural areas where there simply isn’t an economy to support buying advertising on these stations.”

Vought appeared to agree to work with Rounds, before saying that if Congress approves the rescissions request for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the administration wouldn’t pull back funding until the next fiscal year, which starts on Oct. 1.

Vought also pledged to work with Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer to ensure people in rural areas will have a way to learn about emergency alerts if the rescissions request is approved.

“I am very concerned also about the emergency alerts that come to many places in Nebraska only through that rural radio,” Fischer said. “We’re a state of vastness, very sparsely populated areas that don’t receive cell service in many cases. It’s difficult even with landlines in many areas of my state.”

Reductions to AIDS relief

Chairwoman Collins also said during the nearly three-hour hearing that cutting funding on certain global health programs, including the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, “would be extraordinarily ill-advised and short-sighted.”

“PEPFAR has saved more than 26 million lives and enabled 7.8 million babies to be born HIV-free to mothers living with HIV,” Collins said. “This program remains a bipartisan priority of Congress. After years of commitment and stable investment the finish line is in sight. The United States has the tools to fulfill PEPFAR’s mission and get the job done while transitioning HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention to country ownership by the year 2030.”

Collins argued that the Trump administration is unlikely to spend foreign aid dollars on the same “questionable projects” that were part of the Biden administration.

“Unless the current administration plans to continue these controversial projects that it has identified — which I very much doubt — those projects alone cannot be used to justify the proposed rescissions,” Collins said.

Just before Vought began giving his opening statement to the committee, a group of protesters in the room stood up and began to yell in an attempt to preserve PEPFAR funding. They were escorted out by U.S. Capitol Police.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Defense spending subcommittee and former majority leader, appeared to reject some of the proposed foreign aid cuts, arguing they eroded American influence around the world.

“There’s plenty of absolute nonsense masquerading with American aid that shouldn’t receive another bit of taxpayer funding. But the administration’s attempt to root it out has been unnecessarily chaotic,” McConnell said.

“In critical corners of the globe, instead of creating efficiencies, you’ve created vacuums for adversaries like China to fill. Responsible investments in soft power prevent conflict, preserve American influence and save countless lives at the same time. So if we’re concerned about spending, and we should be, it’s important to remember what wars cost.”

Protesters are escorted out of the hearing by U.S. Capitol Police. (Video by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, however, announced that he will vote for the rescissions package, arguing that some ways the Biden administration spent funds in the PEPFAR account deserved rebuke.

“No more preaching to me. I’m going to vote for this package. And do you know why I’m going to vote for this package? Just as a statement that PEPFAR is important but it’s not beyond scrutiny,” Graham said. “That how you run the government has consequences. Don’t lecture me about being mean or cruel.”

How rescissions work

The Trump administration sent Congress the $9.4 billion rescissions request in early June, allowing the White House budget office to legally freeze funding for the various programs included in the proposal for 45 days while lawmakers decide whether to approve or reject it.

The request called on lawmakers to zero out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting during the next two fiscal years, a total of $1.1 billion in previously approved spending.

It proposed more than $8 billion in cuts to numerous foreign aid accounts run by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, including health programs, initiatives that promote democracy, economic development, peacekeeping activities and refugee assistance.

One of the rescissions proposed lawmakers claw back $500 million of the $4 billion that Congress previously approved for “activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/ AIDS, and infectious diseases.

“This proposal would not reduce treatment but would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs.”

The House voted mostly along party lines in June to approve the request in full, sending it to the Senate, where it has been on the sidelines for weeks as Republicans instead work toward an agreement on the party’s “big, beautiful bill.”

The rescissions bill isn’t subject to the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, so it only needs the support of 50 Republicans and Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote to become law. That, however, must happen before the 45-day clock runs out on July 18.

If Senate leaders do not schedule a floor vote, or that vote does not get the necessary support, the Trump administration would have to spend the funding as previously planned. And the White House budget office would be blocked from sending up a rescissions request for the same accounts for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s time in office.

Senate floor consideration also comes with unlimited amendment debate, giving senators from both parties the chance to call for votes on whether to keep or eliminate each proposed rescission.

Any changes to the bill would require it to go back across the Capitol for a final vote in the House before the deadline. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana speaks to reporters about the Republican budget reconciliation package at a weekly press conference on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans were scrambling Tuesday to restructure several proposals in the “big, beautiful bill” that don’t meet their chamber’s strict rules for passing a reconciliation package, while GOP lawmakers on the other side of the Capitol warned those changes may doom its passage in the House.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he and several others are working on a way to bolster rural hospitals, which could experience financial strain as a result of the various changes to Medicaid and other health care programs in the package.

“We are working on a solution for rural hospitals and that’s something that’s been in the works now for several days in response to a number of concerns that our colleagues have mentioned in ensuring that the impact on rural hospitals be lessened, be mitigated,” Thune said. “And I think we’re making good headway on that solution.”

Thune said GOP lawmakers shouldn’t let the “perfect be the enemy of the good,” though he predicted there “could be” two or three Republicans who vote against the package.

“We’ve got a lot of very independent-thinking senators who have reasons and things that they’d like to have in this bill that, in their view, would make it stronger,” Thune said. “But at the end of the day this is a process whereby not everybody is going to get what they want. And we have to get to 51 in the United States Senate.”

More objections to Medicaid cuts

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who has been vocal about Medicaid changes and rural hospitals, said he had “no details whatsoever” about the rural hospital fund or how it would work if it’s added to the bill.

But he said he’s not going to support a bill that takes away working people’s health care.

“We’ve got 1.3 million people on Medicaid in Missouri, hundreds of thousands of kids. That’s 21% of my population. Most of these people are working people. They’re on Medicaid, not because they’re sitting around at home; they’re on Medicaid because they don’t have a job that gives them health care and they cannot afford to buy it on the exchange,” Hawley said. “They don’t want to be, but it’s their only option. And I just think it’s wrong to take away health care coverage from those folks. Now if they’re not working, then sure, they should be.”

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said she had a “lengthy discussion” with her home state’s hospital association earlier in the day.

“This has a lot of impacts and we want to make sure we have a lot of rural hospitals. That’s why this rural hospital fund idea is developing,” Capito said. “I don’t think anything is set yet but that is an issue. I think Medicaid, we need to preserve it for the people it’s intended for and get rid of the people who don’t deserve it and don’t qualify and are bilking the system.”

Capito said she hadn’t yet formed an opinion on the rural hospital fund since there isn’t yet a formal proposal written down.

Public lands

In one major development, the Senate parliamentarian ruled Monday that a controversial provision championed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee to mandate the sale of at least 2 million acres of public lands in 11 Western states did not comply with the chamber’s rules for reconciliation.

Lee, a Utah Republican, has said the provision would free up land to build new housing. But Democrats and some Republicans from the affected states strongly opposed it.

Lee said on social media Monday evening that he was working to rewrite the proposal to comply with reconciliation rules. A spokesperson for his office did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday morning.

SNAP cost-sharing under debate

In another turn of events, Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., earlier Tuesday had announced the panel successfully reworked a provision that would transfer some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to state governments.

But a spokesperson for the panel said later that the parliamentarian actually has not yet made a ruling. The spokesperson said “we’ve gotten some clarification from leadership and it’s steering in the direction it would be compliant but not official.”

Boozman earlier had said his proposal would improve SNAP. “Our commonsense approach encourages states to adopt better practices, reduce error rates, be better stewards of taxpayer dollars, and prioritize the resources for those who truly need it,” Boozman wrote in a statement.

The new language, if accepted, would give states the option of selecting fiscal year 2025 or 2026 as the year that the federal government uses to determine its payment error rate for SNAP, which will then impact how much of the cost the state has to cover starting in fiscal year 2028. Afterward, a state’s payment error rate will be calculated using the last three fiscal years.

Any state with an error rate higher than 6% will have to cover a certain percentage of the cost of the nutrition program for lower income households.

Rushing toward deadline

The internal debates among lawmakers about how to rewrite major pieces of the tax and spending cuts package have led to a rushed feeling among Republican leaders, who have repeatedly promised to approve the final bill before the Fourth of July — an exceedingly tight timeline.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a press conference shortly after a closed-door House GOP conference meeting Tuesday that he’s hopeful the final bill that comes out of the Senate won’t make too many changes to what the House approved earlier this year.

“I remain very optimistic that there’s not going to be a wide chasm between the two products — what the Senate produces and what we produce,” Johnson said. “We all know what the touchpoints are and the areas of greatest concern.”

Republicans, he said, know they need to focus on preserving a fragile compromise on the state and local tax deduction, or SALT, that helps offset the cost of living in some higher-tax states like California, New Jersey and New York.

A deal Johnson brokered with GOP lawmakers in the SALT Caucus has been significantly rewritten in the Senate, but is expected to move back toward the House version, though not entirely.

Johnson also mentioned GOP efforts to roll back certain clean-energy provisions that Democrats approved and President Joe Biden signed into law in their signature climate change, health care and tax package, called the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, in 2022.

“We’ve got to get the SALT negotiation number right. We’ve got to make sure the IRA subsidies are handled in an appropriate manner,” Johnson said. “Look, you’ve got a number of provisions.”

Johnson said he expects the Senate to vote on its final bill by Friday or Saturday and that he’s told House lawmakers to “keep your schedules flexible” on being in Washington, D.C., for a final House vote. 

Trump goads Republicans

President Donald Trump sought to spur quick approval of a final bill, posting on social media that GOP lawmakers should get the package to him as soon as possible.

“To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don’t go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK. Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote Tuesday. “NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT’S DONE. Everyone, most importantly the American People, will be much better off thanks to our work together. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin said there are concerns among his fellow Republicans about all of the provisions that must be removed or significantly reworked to meet the complex rules for moving a reconciliation bill through that chamber.

“Every time something comes out that we’re using as a pay for, it takes the deficit reduction down. And they’ve taken out nearly $300 billion so far. We’ve got to make that up,” Mullin said after leaving the closed-door House GOP meeting. “The Senate can’t come in below the House version as far as deficit reduction. So that makes it difficult.”

Mullin, who has been acting as his chamber’s top negotiator with SALT Republicans in the House, told reporters he expects the deduction for state and local taxes to remain at the $40,000 level negotiated in the House. But said the Senate will likely rewrite the $500,000 income ceiling to qualify for the tax deduction.

“I think 40 is a number we’re going to land on,” Mullin said. “It’s the income threshold that’s in negotiations.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said “most of us would like to make it zero.”

“I hate the idea of $40,000 but if that’s what it takes to pass the bill, I probably could do it. I would like to maybe find some other tweaks to it, somehow, like changing the income levels,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters he expects a resolution on SALT in the next 24 to 48 hours.

“I had a very successful lunch meeting with the senators. I think that we are on track,” Bessent said.

The ‘red line’ in the House

New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler told reporters following the closed-door meeting that Senate leaders shouldn’t assume whatever they pass will be accepted by the House.

“I’ve been very clear about where my red line is. So, you know, we’ll let this process play out,” Lawler said. “I think the Senate should recognize the only number that matters is 218, and 50 plus 1. That’s it. And how do you get there?”

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, so leadership cannot lose more than four votes and still approve the package, given that Democrats are universally opposed.

In the House, GOP leaders have 220 seats and need nearly every one of their members to support whatever the Senate sends back across the Capitol for it to make it to the president’s desk before their self-imposed deadline.

In addition to the SALT tax compromise, Lawler said he has concerns about how the Senate has changed other provisions, including those addressing Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower income people.

“Yeah, there are a number of concerns about decisions that they’re making,” Lawler said. “And obviously, the bill on their side is not final, so we’ll see where it goes.”

Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that crafted the tax provisions in the reconciliation bill, stood by the House’s version of the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentives. The House version extends the incentive from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for a year, while the Senate’s version makes it permanent.

The Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive was pushed by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott during the first Trump administration, which aimed to create tax cuts for businesses and real estate to invest in low-income communities, but it had mixed results.

“The tax bill that we’re going to deliver is gonna deliver for working families, small businesses and farmers,” Smith said.

Thumbs down from one House Republican

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., posted on social media that he doesn’t support how the Senate has changed the bill and that he would seek to block it from becoming law. 

“The currently proposed Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill weakens key House priorities—it doesn’t do enough to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, it backtracks on Green New Scam elimination included in the House bill, and it greatly increases the deficit – taking us even further from a balanced budget.

“If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won’t vote ‘present.’ I’ll vote NO.”

Rattlesnakes and the Senate

West Virginia Republican Sen. Jim Justice told reporters that it’s important for the Senate to take its time in its changes to the reconciliation package and that GOP lawmakers need to be patient.

“If you’re walking through the woods and you look right over there at that wall and there’s a rattlesnake all curled up there and everything, what do you do?” Justice asked. “Most people just jump and take off runnin’, well … rattlesnakes run in pairs and if you just jump left or right or behind, that one can hurt you right there.”

Rattlesnakes are typically solitary creatures, but new research has shown that rattlesnakes are more social than previously thought.

Justice said the best course of action when dealing with a rattlesnake, or two, is to stand still for a moment.

“Look to the left, look to the right, look behind you, and then decide which way you’re going,” he said. “That’s what I think we need to do (in the Senate).”

At a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida, on April 14, 2012, SNAP recipients were able to use their Electronic Benefits Transfer cards for food. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats have succeeded in eliminating more than a dozen policy changes from Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” after successfully arguing before the chamber’s parliamentarian that the elements didn’t comply with the strict rules that go along with writing a budget reconciliation bill.

Removed is language that would have transferred some of the cost of running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to state governments, potentially leaving states on the hook for billions in added spending on the food aid program for lower-income people.

Democrats also fended off a proposal to eliminate funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which fields complaints on banking and other financial institutions, and another that sought to bar federal district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. 

Among the contested items that remained, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley announced in a social media post that his years-long effort to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Fund, or RECA, passed what’s known on Capitol Hill as the “Byrd bath” test.

“Terrific news for Missouri, radiation survivors, and MAHA: RECA has passed the ‘Byrd bath’ – Democrats did not strip it – and will be in the final bill,” Hawley wrote, referring to the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again slogan. “Huge step forward #MAHA.”

Democrats to continue challenges

Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., has cheered many of the parliamentarian’s rulings, though Republican committee chairs say they’ll look for ways to rewrite the various proposals.

“Today, we were advised by the Senate Parliamentarian that several more provisions in this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill will be subject to the Byrd Rule — and Democrats plan to challenge every part of this bill that hurts working families and violates this process,” Merkley wrote in a statement released Saturday night. “Republicans’ relentless attack on middle class families in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires is a slap in the face to working families everywhere, and Democrats are fighting back.”  

The changes could create several issues for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and eventually for Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who need nearly every GOP lawmaker in Congress to vote for the sweeping tax and spending cuts package in order for it to become law.

The House voted 215-214 to approve its version of the bill in May, but since the Senate is making substantial changes, the House will have to vote on the measure again before it can go to President Donald Trump for his signature. GOP leaders hope to complete all that before the Fourth of July.

Republicans are using reconciliation, instead of moving the bill through the regular legislative process, to avoid needing Democratic votes to get past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

But the lower threshold for passing a reconciliation bill comes with several requirements, including that all of the proposals in the package have an impact on spending or revenues that’s not “merely incidental.”

The Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s official scorekeeper who holds a detailed understanding of the rules and procedures, examines each of those policies and hears from both Republicans and Democrats before issuing the rulings.

The Byrd bath began last week behind closed doors and will continue for at least several more days. Once it concludes, Senate GOP leaders can move the bill to the floor, where members of both parties can call for votes on as many amendments as they want.

SNAP program

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., released a written statement defending his committee’s bill after the parliamentarian ruled several provisions must go to comply with the rules.

“To rein in federal spending and protect taxpayer dollars the committee is pursuing meaningful reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to improve efficiency, accountability and integrity,” Boozman wrote. “We are continuing to examine options that comply with Senate rules to achieve savings through budget reconciliation to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

The parliamentarian ruled the committee erred in including language that would have shifted some of the cost of the SNAP program to state governments if they didn’t meet an efficiency benchmark before 2028.

A proposal to eliminate SNAP eligibility for “immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents, with certain exceptions,” was also determined not to comply with the rules, according to a press release from Merkley.

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, ranking member on the committee, wrote the parliamentarian’s ruling “made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts.

“While Republicans’ proposed cuts to SNAP will still be devastating to families, farmers, and independent grocers across the country, we will keep fighting to protect families in need. Instead of a rushed partisan process, Republicans should work with us to lower costs for Americans and pass a bipartisan Farm Bill that works for all farmers and rural America.”

Consumer financial agency victory for Dems

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee’s proposal to eliminate funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Congress established in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also doesn’t comply with the rules, under the parliamentarian’s ruling.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, ranking member on the panel, wrote in a statement that the GOP’s proposal for the CFPB represented “a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk–all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.”

But committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., wrote in a separate statement that he remains “committed to advancing legislation that cuts waste and duplication in our federal government and saves taxpayer dollars.”

Scott listed provisions that he said will remain.

“As it stands now, the Banking Committee’s reconciliation provisions will delay the implementation of Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, which reduces CFPB spending and protects the privacy and data of small business owners; rescind unused funds earmarked for green initiatives to give HUD discretion in funding critical housing programs; and save taxpayer dollars by eliminating an unnecessary reserve fund at the SEC,” Scott wrote. “My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee’s provisions.”

Judges and injunctions

The parliamentarian told lawmakers that various elements of the Judiciary Committee’s bill don’t comply with the rules, including an attempt to block federal district court judges from issuing nationwide preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders.

The issue has become a thorn in Trump’s side during the past few months as he’s watched the courts block several of his executive orders and other unilateral administration actions.

The Judiciary Committee’s reconciliation bill cannot block the Department of Justice from awarding Byrne JAG and COPS grants to “sanctuary cities.” The bill also can’t send funding to local and state governments for the purpose of “apprehending aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, did not respond to a request for comment, but a committee spokesperson wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “Democrats are clinging to their radical open borders legacy by fighting to keep criminal migrants in the United States.

“Republicans are committed to enforcing the rule of law, and will continue using all available avenues to secure our borders, clean up the mess left by the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous policies and ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards.”

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking member on the committee, issued a statement calling the bill’s policies “an attempted power grab by our Republican colleagues that we would not stand for.”

“Here’s what Senate Republicans attempted to sneak into their so-called Big, Beautiful Bill: a provision intended to limit the ability of individuals and organizations to challenge lawless Trump Administration executive actions by putting those potential plaintiffs on the hook for millions of dollars; and a provision conditioning grant eligibility on a state or locality’s compliance with federal immigration policies,” Durbin wrote.

Artificial intelligence and states

The parliamentarian didn’t, however, remove all of the proposals contested by Democrats.

Language that would prevent local and state governments from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade if those jurisdictions want to receive money from a $500 million fund does meet the reconciliation requirements and can remain in the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation’s bill.

But that doesn’t mean the provision will stay in the bill moving forward, since several GOP lawmakers have expressed concern about potentially tying the hands of local and state governments when it comes to AI.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote in a social media post after she voted for the House’s bill that she had no idea about the AI provision. That chamber’s package barred state and local AI regulation for a decade without tying it to any funding stream.

“We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous,” Greene wrote. “This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.

“When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it.”

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks during a press conference inside the Capitol building on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden is at right. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The next hurdle for Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate and the “big, beautiful bill”: Democrats — and possibly a few of their own members — in a marathon voting session will make last-ditch attempts to change the tax and spending cut measure.

The vote-a-rama, as it’s known, is expected to begin sometime during the last full week of June as Congress heads toward the Fourth of July recess. It will likely begin in the afternoon and  last overnight into the next morning. Senators will debate and vote on dozens of amendments attempting to revise the massive legislation that could have an effect on nearly every American.

Democrats, who have 47 votes in the Senate compared to 53 for Republicans, plan to zero in on Medicaid, taxes, corruption, policies that could raise energy costs and proposals that would increase the deficit, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and the committee chairs tasked with drafting pieces of the package have spent weeks combing through the House-passed bill to figure out what needs to be altered to avoid divisive floor votes. 

They’ve rewritten numerous policy proposals to comply with the strict rules that go along with the complex reconciliation process and are now trying to work out disagreements among GOP senators that could doom or complicate a final deal.

The goal is to avoid a protracted debate over core GOP provisions in full public view once the vote-a-rama begins, though some senators are already predicting votes on GOP amendments.

‘A potentially messy process’

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, who has raised concerns about the bill’s impact on rural hospitals, said he hopes GOP leaders reach a consensus before vote-a-rama but didn’t rule out offering his own amendments if they don’t settle their disputes.

“Amending it on the floor, that’s a potentially messy process,” Hawley said. “I would hope that we could get to a good place before that. But we have to fix the rural hospital issue.”

Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville said he will likely propose amendments during floor debate, though he declined to say what specific policies he’d seek to change or eliminate from the package.

“Yeah, we’ll have some,” Tuberville said. “And we’ve got them all, we just haven’t turned them in yet.”

Thune said he and other negotiators are making “headway” toward consensus on the more significant provisions in the package, which in many respects is far from its final form.

“The meetings right now are on the major provisions in tax and health. We have sort of pre-litigated a lot of that,” Thune said. “But there are a lot of the other provisions in the bill, chapters in the bill that are still subject to going through the Byrd bath, and we’re in the process of doing that. But hopefully that’ll be done by early next week.”

Republicans are using the reconciliation process to pass their sweeping tax and spending cuts package through the Senate with just a simple majority vote, requiring them to comply with the Byrd rules.

That includes the Byrd bath — going before the Senate parliamentarian to explain how each provision has an impact on federal revenue or spending that is not “merely incidental.” Democrats then usually debate before the parliamentarian the various changes that don’t meet that threshold. The process is named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat.

Once the parliamentarian rules what elements comply and which need to be removed, the bill can go to the floor and senators can trudge through vote-a-rama. Eventually, all 100 lawmakers will vote to approve or disapprove of the legislation.

GOP senators passing their version of the package would send it back to the House, which passed its version on a slim 215-214 vote earlier this year — and could make yet more changes in the Senate bill.

Democrats develop strategy

Democrats are hoping to highlight policy divisions among Republicans during the vote-a-rama. And even if they don’t succeed in getting any of their amendments adopted, several votes could serve as fodder for campaign ads during next year’s midterm elections.

Schumer said Wednesday during a press conference it would be “difficult” for Democrats to peel off at least four GOP senators from the rest of the party in order to get an amendment adopted, but said he’s hopeful Republicans will “vote with us on some things they’ve all said they’ve agreed with.”

Democratic senators, he said, have created a task force to reach out to Republicans on major issues in the package, including how it would impact rural hospitals.

“Many of these hospital administrators and employees are Republican,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said. “In many of the rural hospitals, they are the largest employer in the county, and in most they’re the only supplier of health care. It infuriates the rural counties, and they tend to be Republican.”

‘It’s just a show, it’s a charade’

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said she’s not concerned about having to vote on dozens of amendments. 

“We’re here to vote,” Capito said. “As a creature of the House, we voted all the time on everything, so this doesn’t bother me. And, you know, just let the body work its will. If some changes are made, those will have to be dealt with. But I’m not worried about that.”

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman said he expects the vote-a-rama will be “a very late night” and that he’s not planning to offer any of his own amendments.

As chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Boozman expects to spend a considerable amount of time during vote-a-rama arguing against amendments seeking to change those provisions — including controversial cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food aid for lower-income families.

Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson said he plans to spend much of the vote-a-rama “going back and forth from my hideaway,” the ceremonial office that every senator holds in the Capitol building.

But Johnson cast doubt on actually being able to amend the package during that process, saying changes to the various bills that Senate committees have released need to be agreed to before then.

“You’ve got to get this before it ever goes to the floor. I mean, you’re not going to change things substantially or significantly with amendments. I know people have some idealized version that happens. It doesn’t,” Johnson said. “You’ve got to get these things in the base bill. Amendments; it’s just a show, it’s a charade.”

Vote-a-rama after vote-a-rama

The Senate has held two vote-a-ramas so far this year, and both demonstrated how difficult it is to change a piece of legislation.

The first all-nighter in February went along with Senate debate on its budget resolution and included votes on 25 amendments, with lawmakers adopting just two — one from Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan and one from Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee.

The second vote-a-rama took place in April just before the Senate voted to approve the budget resolution that ultimately cleared the way for Congress to use the budget reconciliation process to advance the “big, beautiful bill.” Senators debated 28 amendments, voting to adopt one change from Sullivan.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the Finance Committee, said he and staff on the panel will continue to parse through details of the panel’s bill, which Republicans just released Monday.

Wyden said he plans to hold several town hall meetings in GOP areas of his state over the weekend to gauge how residents there view the policy revisions Republican senators have put forward.

“We’ve had this bill for basically 36 hours. The first time I had it, I stayed up all night, so last night I got a little sleep,” Wyden said on Wednesday. “But on the plane, I’ll be working through it. And I expect to be working through it all through the next few days, except when I’m having these town hall meetings where I’ll have a number of questions.”

Guns for sale at Caso’s Gun-A-Rama in Jersey City, New Jersey, which has been open since 1967. (Photo by Aristide Economopoulos/New Jersey Monitor)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s decision to restore 10 convicts’ ability to legally purchase firearms and explosives violated the law, according to a letter six high-ranking congressional Democrats released Friday.

The Justice Department publication of an interim final rule moving the authority to restore some convicts’ gun rights from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the attorney general also violated the separation of powers and a decades-old provision in the department’s annual funding bill, according to the 12-page letter.

The Democrats wrote that while Congress did delegate the authority to “oversee restoration of federal firearm privileges applications” to the ATF several decades ago, lawmakers have included language in nearly every government funding bill since 1993 barring the ATF from spending any money to process those applications.

The prohibition followed then-President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, trying to move the authority from the ATF to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“Given the pervasiveness of gun violence in our nation, this Administration should not be circumventing Congress’ authority to prioritize restoring firearm privileges to individuals convicted of serious or violent crimes,” the Democrats wrote.

The letter was signed by House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.; Senate Appropriations ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash.; House Judiciary ranking member Jamie Raskin, D-Md.; Senate Judiciary ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; House Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee ranking member Grace Meng, D-N.Y.; and Senate Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee ranking member Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment from States Newsroom.

Mel Gibson case

The DOJ under President Donald Trump has so far restored 10 individuals’ ability to legally purchase firearms, including the actor Mel Gibson, who “pleaded no contest to a charge of domestic violence” in 2011, according to Reuters.

Federal law bars several types of people from legally buying firearms, including anyone sentenced to more than one year in prison, which typically coincides with felonies, and those who commit domestic violence.

The six Democrats wrote that the “intersection between firearms and domestic violence remains a key concern, demonstrating the need to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers.

“Research has shown that the presence of firearms significantly increases the risk of death or serious injury for victims of domestic or dating violence. The Supreme Court has recognized that the danger of a domestic abuser with a gun serves as a limitation on the Second Amendment.” 

The Democrats wrote that for decades Congress has prevented the ATF from restoring prohibited people’s ability to legally purchase firearms. The annual DOJ appropriations bill also bars moving the ability to approve those applications away from ATF to any other federal agency. 

“The concerns that originally led to these provisions — recidivist crime, limited investigative resources, and difficulty in assessing applicants — remain unchanged,” they wrote. “Congress made an explicit policy choice to prioritize investigating crime, rather than to waste funds on evaluating whether to restore firearm rights to previously convicted felons.”

Study cited

The letter says a study from the Violence Policy Center that looked at restorations during the late 1980s is one of many reasons Congress prohibited the ATF from restoring some felons’ ability to legally purchase firearms.

The study, which reviewed 100 ATF case files obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, showed the federal government had restored the ability of “terrorists, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, gun traffickers, and child molesters” to legally purchase firearms and explosives.

“The FOIA-obtained records also showed that of those granted relief between 1985 and 1989, 47 individuals were later re-arrested for serious offenses such as attempted murder, first-degree sexual assault, kidnapping, child molestation, illegal possession of a machine gun, trafficking in cocaine, LSD, and PCP, and illegal firearms possession or carrying,” they wrote.

The letter ends with Democrats calling on the DOJ to withdraw the interim final rule and “vacate the wrongfully granted restoration of federal firearms privileges to the 10 individuals.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., center, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., right, speaks to reporters following a weekly Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 19, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republican leaders expressed confidence Tuesday they’ll be able to tamp down opposition to various elements of the party’s “big, beautiful bill” in time to approve the measure before the Fourth of July, though they acknowledged there’s considerable work left to do. 

GOP senators from across the political spectrum have debated the broad strokes of the tax and spending cut legislation for weeks, but raised fresh concerns after the influential Finance Committee released its portion of the package, which addresses taxes and Medicaid. Some GOP senators objected to a change in Medicaid policy they said could harm rural hospitals.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a press conference that reducing the Medicaid provider tax rate that states can charge from the current 6% to 3.5% by 2031 represented “important reforms.”

“We think they rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered by Medicaid,” Thune said. “But we continue to hear from our members specifically on components or pieces of the bill that they would like to see modified or changed or have concerns about. And we’re working through that.”

While the complex provision is deep in the weeds of Medicaid policy, several GOP senators expressed concern during interviews Tuesday that changing the provider tax rate in states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act would be a problem for rural hospitals.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he opposes that provision and wants to see GOP leaders put back in the House language that would freeze the Medicaid provider tax rate at 6%.

“We have to do something,” Hawley said. “If we pass this as it is, there’s going to be a lot of rural hospitals in Missouri that close. So that’s a big problem.”

West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice said he had “all kinds of concerns” about provisions in the Finance Committee’s portion of the “big, beautiful bill,” which the panel released Monday.

“The House side on the provider tax and everything said, freeze it,” Justice said. “Now there’s a whole lot (of) different gyrations going on with that and everything. And there’s other things that we just need to — just give us some time. We need to work our way through it.”

Justice said he didn’t plan to be a “rubber stamp” on anything and appeared to discourage GOP leaders from bringing the package to the floor next week ahead of their self-imposed Fourth of July deadline.

“I would love to get it done, like the president wants to get it done, by the Fourth of July. I would love for us to be able to do that and everything,” Justice said. “But I think, way more importantly than anything, we got to get it right.”

Other Medicaid issues

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski declined to weigh in on the changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate since her state doesn’t use it the way many others do.

“I don’t have a dog in that fight, because we don’t have provider taxes in Alaska,” Murkowski said. “We’re the only state that’s actually maybe playing by the rules.”

But Murkowski told reporters she does have issues with other ways the legislation would change Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower income people, and expects the bill will undergo revisions before a final floor vote.

“I don’t think it’s going to stay in this form, let’s just put it that way,” Murkowski said.

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said he’d vote against the package if leaders bring it to the floor next week as planned and said he expects that if they rush floor consideration, the entire bill will fail to pass.

“I hope not because my guess is it’ll fail and I don’t want to see it fail. I want this thing to succeed,” Johnson said. “Again, the ball has been in the Senate court for two weeks — two weeks. But now we’re seeing language. Now we’re finally seriously considering some of these ideas, let’s have time to seriously consider it and hopefully get them incorporated in the bill.”

The House voted mostly along party lines to approve its version of the package in late May, but Senate Republicans have been reworking the bill in the weeks since.

Among the changes in the Senate, Republicans plan to raise the country’s debt limit by $5 trillion, a full $1 trillion more than House GOP lawmakers proposed in their version.

Possible recess delay

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman said that if the Senate doesn’t vote to approve the package the week of June 23, they’ll likely stay in town the following week to debate the bill, instead of heading home for the Fourth of July week break.

But he cautioned that “the longer it hangs out, the more difficult it is” to pass.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley declined to answer questions about whether he supports or wants to change his chamber’s newly unveiled Medicaid provisions.

“Ask me that question in a couple days because there’s still discussion going on about it,” he said.

Sen. James Lankford praised aspects of the bill, including, “long-term tax policy that’s actually permanent,” which he said is “important for individuals and for small businesses.”

“We’re doing the full expensing, making that permanent — that doesn’t change a dollar as far as the income coming into the Treasury, but very significant for our economy,” the Oklahoma Republican said.

Lankford said he also likes “the R&D tax credit piece to make sure we’re competing with China on it,” “modernization of the air traffic control system,” as well as “some dollars that are going to border security, which has been very important to me, which they have been asking for for a long time and trying to get into structural things to the border that are needed there.” 

The U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators emerged from a briefing with federal law enforcement officials Tuesday saying they’ll likely boost funding on safety and security for members and their families in an upcoming government funding bill.

The hour-long briefing by U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate sergeant-at-arms followed the weekend assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband as well as the attempted murder of a state senator and his wife.

The gunman had a list of Democratic elected officials, including members of Congress, and their home addresses, which renewed long-standing security concerns among lawmakers.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., spoke about the shootings during a floor speech shortly after the meeting, pressing for an end to political violence.

“I’m profoundly grateful to local law enforcement that the alleged shooter is in custody and I look forward to seeing him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Thune said. “There is no place for this kind of violence in our country. None.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, said that California Democrat Adam Schiff and Pennsylvania Republican Dave McCormick suggested during the closed-door meeting that Congress bolster funding for member safety.

“The Capitol Police and the sergeant at arms gave a very detailed discussion of how they can protect members here, back in our states, at our homes, in our offices,” Schumer said. “The violence, threats against elected officials, including people in the Senate, has dramatically increased, and that means we need more protection. We need more money.”

The USCP and other law enforcement agencies, Schumer said, are taking some immediate steps to bolster security, though he said “there are other things that will take a little while with more resources.”

Schumer also called on political leaders to be more cautious about how they discuss policy differences.

“The rhetoric that’s encouraging violence is coming from too many powerful people in this country,” Schumer said. “And we need firm, strong denouncement of all violence and violent rhetoric — that should be from the president and from all of the elected officials.”

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith called the meeting “very productive,” but didn’t want to elaborate.

“I’m not going to comment any more,” Smith told reporters. “I think it’s important for members’ safety that we don’t talk a lot about what is being done to keep us safe in order to keep us safe.”

Support for funding increase

Senate Appropriations ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she expects the panel will increase funding for USCP in the bill that covers the upcoming fiscal year.

“I believe we need to do that,” Murray said.

Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said the current situation is “incredibly concerning, gravely concerning.”

“And I appreciate the prompt and thorough bipartisan response,” Coons said.

Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who is running for governor in Alabama, said USCP will increase its security measures for members of Congress.

“They’re going to try to do as much as they can, that’s about it,” he said after the briefing. “You know, security at home and here.”

Asked whether there’s a legislative solution or anything lawmakers can do, Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Lankford told reporters “there’s a cultural solution.”

Sen. Martin Heinrich did not go into details about the meeting but said “everybody is having a very robust discussion about the sort of heightened security, dangerous environment we’re all operating in right now and what to do about that, both tactically to meet some of that threat, but also how to reduce the volatility of the environment that we’re in every day.”

The New Mexico Democrat is the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, which funds USCP and the sergeant at arms.

Asked about boosting USCP funding, Heinrich said this is “an obvious place that lawmakers will look,” but added that senators should be strategic about funding.

“We also just need to be smart and targeted about this,” he said. “There are a lot of things that can be done that don’t require a lot of funding that would reduce the scale of the target that is on the backs of anybody in public office these days.”

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 18, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Republicans and backers of President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again platform support the party’s “big, beautiful bill” as passed by the U.S. House, though Americans overall view the legislation unfavorably, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

The survey shows that nearly two-thirds of those polled, or 64%, don’t support the tax policy changes and spending cuts Republicans have included in the sweeping House version of the bill that the Senate plans to take up this month.

When broken down by political affiliation, just 13% of Democrats and 27% of independents view the legislation favorably. Those numbers are in sharp contrast to Republicans, with 61% supporting the bill and 72% of those who identify as MAGA supporters.

But those views fluctuated when the people surveyed were asked specific questions about certain elements of the package and the real-world impacts of the legislation:

• The overall percentage of those surveyed with an unfavorable view of the bill increased from 64% to 67% when they were told it would lower federal spending on Medicaid by more than $700 billion, an estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
• Dislike of the legislation rose to 74% when those polled were told policy changes would lead to 10 million people losing their health insurance coverage, another estimate from the CBO analysis.
• Opposition rose to 79% when people were told the legislation would reduce funding for local hospitals.

“The public hasn’t had much time to digest what’s in the big, beautiful, but almost incomprehensible bill as it races through Congress, and many don’t have a lot of information about it,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman wrote in a statement. “Our poll shows that views toward the bill and its health-care provisions can shift when presented with more information and arguments about its effects, even among MAGA supporters.”

Senators wrestling with what to do

The House voted mostly along party lines to approve its 11-bill package in late May, sending the legislation to the Senate.

GOP senators have spent weeks internally debating which parts of the House legislation to keep, which to change and which to remove, while also conducting closed-door meetings with the parliamentarian to determine which parts of the bill comply with the rules for the complex reconciliation process.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., plans to bring his chamber’s version of the package to the floor next week, though that timeline could slip. Before the Senate can approve the rewritten bill, lawmakers will spend hours voting on dozens of amendments during what’s known as a vote-a-rama.

Significant bipartisan support for Medicaid

The KFF poll released Tuesday shows that 83% of Americans support Medicaid, slated for an overhaul and spending reductions by GOP lawmakers.

That support remains high across political parties, with 93% of Democrats, 83% of independents and 74% of Republicans holding a favorable opinion of the state-federal health program for lower-income people and some with disabilities.

Those surveyed appeared supportive of a provision in the House bill that would require some people on Medicaid to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month.

The change is supported by about two-thirds of those surveyed, though the numbers shift depending on how the question is asked.

For example, when told that most adults on Medicaid already work and that not being able to complete the paperwork associated with the new requirement could cause some to lose coverage, 64% of those polled opposed the new requirement. 

Planned Parenthood

There was also broad opposition, 67% overall, to language in the House bill that would block any Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for routine health care. There is a long-standing prohibition on federal funding from going toward abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient.

Opposition to the Planned Parenthood provision increased to 80% when those polled were told that no federal payments to Planned Parenthood go directly toward abortion and that ending all Medicaid payments to the organization would make it more challenging for lower-income women to access birth control, cancer screenings and STD testing.

Republicans are more supportive of that change, with 54% backing the policy and 46% opposing the new block on Medicaid patients going to Planned Parenthood. But 78% of independent women and 51% of Republican women oppose the change.

Food assistance program

Those surveyed also had concerns about how changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, would impact lower-income people’s ability to afford food, with 70% saying they were either very or somewhat concerned.

Democrats held the highest level of concern at 92%, followed by independents at 74% and Republicans at 47%.

Overall, Republicans hold the highest share of people polled who believe the dozens of GOP policy changes in the “big, beautiful bill” will help them or their family.

A total of 32% of Republicans surveyed believe the legislation will benefit them, while 47% said it will not make much of a difference and 21% said it will hurt them or their family.

Thirteen percent of independents expect the legislation will help them, while 39% said it likely won’t make a difference and 47% expect it will harm them or their family.

Of Democrats polled, just 6% said they expect the GOP mega-bill to help them, while 26% said it wouldn’t matter much and 66% expected it to hurt them or their family.

When asked whether the bill would help, not make much of a difference, or hurt certain groups of people, the largest percentage of those polled expect it to help wealthy people.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they expect wealthy people will benefit from the bill, 21% believe it will help people with lower incomes and 20% said they think middle-class families will benefit.

Seventeen percent think it will help immigrants, 14% expect it to help people who buy their own health insurance, 13% believe it will help people on Medicaid, 13% think it will help people on SNAP and 8% expect it will benefit undocumented immigrants.

KFF conducted the poll June 4 – 8, both online and by telephone, among a nationally representative sample of 1,321 U.S. adults. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full sample size. 

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., right, and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., hold a press conference on the Republican budget bill at the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans unveiled Monday that they plan to raise the country’s debt limit by $5 trillion in the “big, beautiful bill,” a full $1 trillion more than House GOP lawmakers proposed in their version.

The provision is tucked into the Senate Finance Committee’s 549-page section of the package, which also includes tax law changes and how Republicans in the upper chamber plan to rework Medicaid.

The bill is one of 10 the Senate will bundle together in the days ahead before bringing the full package to the floor for debate and amendment votes.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., hopes to approve the legislation before the Fourth of July break, but because the chamber is changing the House bill in numerous ways, it will have to go back across the Capitol.

Given the extremely narrow majorities in each chamber, GOP leaders cannot lose more than a handful of their own members and still have the measure make it to President Donald Trump for his signature.

Earlier debt limit suspension expired Jan. 1

The debt limit change released Monday could frustrate some far-right members of the party, who believe it sends the wrong message about how the mega-bill will affect the country’s fiscal future.

Congress must raise the debt limit by a dollar amount or suspend it through a future date before the Treasury Department runs out of accounting maneuvers known as extraordinary measures.

The previous debt limit suspension, which was agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans, expired on Jan. 1, leaving the Treasury Department to move money around to keep paying all of the country’s bills in full and on time.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote to congressional leaders in May, urging them to address the debt limit before leaving on their customary August recess.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that lawmakers have until sometime between mid-August and the end of September to address the debt limit before default would hit.

Traditionally, the White House and congressional leaders from both political parties negotiate a debt limit deal. But GOP leaders are hoping to raise the debt limit in their mega-bill since that avoids having to make any concessions to Democrats in order to avoid a default on the debt. 

U.S. Capitol Police officers stand guard outside of the U.S. Capitol on June 16, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate will gather behind closed doors Tuesday to hear from federal law enforcement officials about protection for lawmakers and the safety of their families, just days after a gunman said to be posing as a police officer targeted state lawmakers in Minnesota.

The briefing from U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms follows years of increased funding for both entities as threats and attempted assassinations against members of Congress have become part of the job.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, said Monday on the floor that the suspected shooter had a list of more than 70 public officials he wanted to target, including several members of the Senate.

“My highest priority right now is working with the Senate leadership on both sides, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Capitol Police, to ensure everyone’s safety,” Schumer said. “This weekend I asked Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms to increase security for members, including Sen. (Alex) Padilla and the Minnesota senators.”

California Sen. Padilla moved to the forefront of the public debate about immigration and deportations last week when he was forcibly removed from a press conference after trying to ask Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question while she was still speaking.

Schumer said the briefing would be an opportunity for USCP and the SAA to “convey what they’re doing for members to keep them safe.”

He urged senators to “come together” to oppose political violence in all forms, before criticizing Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee for social media posts. Lee made two posts that drew condemnation.

“I was deeply disappointed and sickened to see a member of this chamber use the tragedy in Minnesota to take cheap political shots at the other side on social media and risk escalating a perilous moment,” Schumer said. “What the senior senator from Utah posted after the shooting was reckless and beneath the dignity of his office.

“For a senator to fan the flames of division with falsities while the killer was still on the loose is deeply irresponsible. He should take down his post immediately and apologize to the families of the victims.”

On another social media account, Lee wrote, “These hateful attacks have no place in Utah, Minnesota, or anywhere in America.”

Suspect faces state and federal charges

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Sunday during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the attack on the two state lawmakers and their spouses was clearly motivated by politics.

Klobuchar said she has received additional security and that she was concerned about the possibility of more attacks against lawmakers.

“I have had threats before, as several of our colleagues have had,” Klobuchar said. “And I think one of the things is, we don’t talk about this stuff much because you don’t want to see copycats that copy exactly what they’ve done.”

The suspected gunman, who was arrested Sunday following a manhunt, has been charged by both state and federal prosecutors with murdering state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, and attempting to kill state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife.

The suspect went to the homes of at least two other state lawmakers and had a list of Democratic lawmakers’ home addresses as well as abortion providers, according to police.

Lawmakers disclose they were on list of targets

The U.S. House won’t receive a security briefing this week since its members are out of session on a district work period, typically a time when lawmakers are back in their communities for town halls and other public events, though the shooting has led some members to change their schedules.

Michigan Democratic Rep. Hillary Scholten announced Monday she would postpone her town hall in Muskegon, writing in a statement she didn’t want to “divert additional law enforcement resources away from protecting the broader public at this time.”

“Nothing matters more to me than the safety and well-being of the people I serve,” Scholten wrote. “After being made aware that my name was on a list connected to the recent tragic shooting in Minnesota, my office has made the difficult decision to postpone our planned town hall in Muskegon.”

Scholten added she hoped to “reschedule this event as soon as possible.”

Ohio Democratic Rep. Greg Landsman released a statement on Monday, announcing that USCP bolstered his security after his name was found among the suspected Minnesota shooter’s possessions.

“On Sunday morning, Capitol Police contacted my office to inform me that the FBI had found my name among the evidence collected during the search for a suspect in Minnesota — who is accused of murdering and seriously injuring lawmakers,” Landsman wrote. “Since the suspect was still at large at that time, we worked very closely with the Cincinnati Police Department to arrange for increased security for my family and me.”

Texas Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar wrote in a statement posted to social media that she was among the people the suspected Minnesota shooter had on his list.

“This was only a day after protestors were shot in Utah, an extremist drove a car into protests in Virginia, credible threats were made against state lawmakers in Austin and a man pointed a gun at protestors here in El Paso,” Escobar wrote.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and New York Democratic Rep. Joseph D. Morelle, ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday, urging him to take action to ensure members’ safety. 

“While we differ in many areas related to policy and our vision for America’s future, Member safety must be an area of common ground. Representatives from both sides of the aisle have endured assassination attempts that changed their lives and careers forever,” the two wrote. “Too many other patriotic public servants have left Congress because they no longer felt safe carrying out their duty as elected officials. We must act to protect each other and preserve this great American institution.”

Threats on the rise over the years

Members of Congress and their families are no strangers to threats, which have steadily risen for years, attacks and shootings.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked in their family home in San Francisco in October 2022 by a man wielding a hammer, who was searching for Pelosi, a California Democrat.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La, was shot and severely wounded in 2017 when a gunman opened fire at GOP lawmakers practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. Several others were injured during the shooting.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords survived being shot in the head during a constituent meeting in a grocery store parking lot in 2011 when a gunman opened fire, killing six people and injuring a dozen others.

Even President Donald Trump, who has extensive Secret Service protection, was shot in the ear last July while campaigning in Pennsylvania. The gunman in that incident killed local fireman Corey Comperatore and injured two others.

The union representing U.S. Capitol Police warned more than a year ago that the federal law enforcement agency was struggling to keep up amid an increasingly hostile political environment and staffing shortages.

“We’ve never seen a threat environment like this,” union Chairman Gus Papathanasiou wrote in a statement. “Given the profound divisions in this country and this year’s elections, people ask me if I’m concerned and I tell them I am worried — very worried.”

Former USCP Chief Thomas Manger, who retired earlier this year, told lawmakers well before the union’s public statement that he was concerned by how few threats against members of Congress were actually prosecuted successfully.

Few threats led to prosecution

Klobuchar, who was chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee at the time of the hearing, said USCP referred 458 threat cases for prosecution during 2021, with 40 of those leading to a court case. That was out of 9,625 total threats.

Just 22 of the 7,501 threats lobbed at members during 2022 led to prosecution, a USCP spokesperson confirmed to States Newsroom at the time.

Threats against lawmakers have continued to increase ever since.

USCP investigated 8,008 “concerning statements and direct threats against the Members of Congress, including their families and staff” in 2023 and 9,474 in 2024, according to data from USCP. 

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., holds up an Elmo toy while the chamber debates a bill that would eliminate previously approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides grants to public radio and television stations, including the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, which airs "Sesame Street." (Screen shot taken from House Clerk website livestream.)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House narrowly passed legislation Thursday that would revoke $9.4 billion in previously approved funding for public media, including National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, as well as foreign aid, though the bill’s future in the Senate amid a strict timeline is uncertain.

The 214-212 mostly party-line vote marks just the third time in several decades the House has approved a bill to claw back funding that lawmakers formerly agreed to spend. President Donald Trump sent the rescissions request that led to the House bill to the Republican-controlled Congress earlier this month.

Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Mike Turner of Ohio voted against approving the bill along with all of the chamber’s Democrats.

Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon and New York Rep. Nick LaLota, both Republicans, switched from opposing to supporting the bill after Speaker Mike Johnson spoke with them on the floor as the vote was held open.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., contended during floor debate that pulling back the funding is the right place to start, but said the GOP will seek to do much more in the months and years ahead.

Scalise said PBS and NPR should have to compete against other media organizations without grant funding from the federal government.

“There is still going to be a plethora of options for the American people,” Scalise said. “But if they’re paying their hard-earned dollars to go get content, why should your tax dollars only go to one thing that the other side wants to promote? Let everybody go compete on a fair basis.”

Maine Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree said every state in the country would feel the impact of eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“I rise today in strong opposition to the reckless attack on public media contained within this rescissions bill and millions of Americans who rely on and treasure their local public television and radio stations,” Pingree said.

Efforts to defund CPB, she said, were the result of Trump’s “agenda against the free press and his authoritarian desire to control the media.”

Public media would lose $1.1 billion

The seven-page bill would rescind all funding that Congress approved for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, a total of $1.1 billion.

CPB, which provides grants to public radio and television stations throughout the country, is one of the few programs that receives an advanced appropriation. So the funding elimination envisioned in the House bill would take effect starting on Oct. 1.

The legislation revokes more than $8 billion from several foreign aid programs run by the U.S. State Department or the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Florida Republican Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee, said during an interview Wednesday there were extensive talks between GOP lawmakers and the Office of Management and Budget before the Trump administration officially submitted this rescissions request.

But Díaz-Balart cautioned there would need to be substantial pre-negotiations ahead of any future rescissions requests for programs within his annual funding bill.

“This rescission package — which I’ve had communication with OMB on — if this passes, we can move forward,” he said. “Now, if you’re talking about a potential for future additional rescissions, that could potentially create a problem and tie the president’s hands when it comes to dealing with adversaries or helping allies.”

Díaz-Balart said that OMB officials hoping to make any additional rescissions requests on foreign aid would need to engage in “a level of coordination that is so detailed, so intense to make sure that nothing comes forward that could potentially hurt the president’s ability to really do the America First agenda internationally.”

Florida Democratic Rep. Lois Frankel, ranking member on the State-Foreign Operations spending panel, said during floor debate Thursday the bill was an attack on American values and posed a threat to national security.

“It’s not charity, it’s strategy,” Frankel said of foreign aid. “Don’t take my word for it, military leaders from both parties have warned us for years — if we fail to lead with soft power, we’ll end up paying in blood, bombs and more boots on the ground.”

“Cutting foreign assistance will deepen desperation, fuel extremism, push fragile societies toward collapse and when that happens we all pay the price,” she added. “Refugee crises surge, diseases spread, trade routes shut down, our troops and diplomats face greater danger and our homeland security is weakened.”

First of many requests

The House vote took place just one week after the Trump administration sent lawmakers the rescissions request, the first of many proposals the White House budget office plans to submit. 

The $9.4 billion cancellation proposal represents a small fraction of the roughly $6.8 trillion the federal government spends each year.

The recommendation said some of the foreign aid should be cancelled because it supported “programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs.”

The rescissions request allows the Office of Management and Budget to legally freeze funding on the programs listed for 45 days while lawmakers decide whether to approve the recommendation as is, amend it, or ignore it.

The House and Senate must agree to approve the same rescissions bill before mid-July for the changes to take effect. Failure to reach a bicameral agreement before then would require the Trump administration to spend the funding and block the president from requesting the same cancellation for the rest of his term.

Rescissions requests are rare since Congress typically negotiates spending levels on thousands of federal programs in the dozen annual spending bills that are then signed by the president.

The first Trump administration proposed rescissions in 2018, but the bill never made it through the Senate.

The last time Congress actually approved rescinding funding was in 1992 during the George H.W. Bush administration, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

More action in the Senate

The Senate will need to take up the bill before mid-July if it wants to approve any of the spending cuts, though several GOP senators told States Newsroom during brief interviews Wednesday ahead of the House vote they may amend the package, which would require it to go back to the House for final approval before the 45-day clock runs out.

Rescissions bills come with a vote-a-rama in the Senate, giving Republicans and Democrats the chance to call up as many amendments as they want for a floor vote. The GOP holds a 53-member majority, so four or more Republicans opposing any element of the bill would likely lead to its removal.

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she will give the rescissions bill “careful consideration.”

In a statement released earlier this month just after the White House sent the request to lawmakers, Collins wrote the committee would “carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations.”

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee, said he’s mostly supportive of the rescissions request, though he didn’t rule out offering an amendment to restore full funding for the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, often called PEPFAR.

“I think I’ll be okay with most of it. I’m concerned about PEPFAR. I’ll have to look at that,” Graham said.

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chairwoman of the spending panel that oversees the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said she’s planning to evaluate the bill once it arrives.

“We’ve got all these other things I’m thinking about. I haven’t even focused on it,” Capito said, referring to ongoing negotiations over the party’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, said she’s going to “try to” ensure the Corporation for Public Broadcasting keeps its funding.

“I’m a supporter of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It’s a lifeline for many of my small, rural communities,” Murkowski said

Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, a senior appropriator, said he’s “trying to figure out a strategy of how to deal with” both the foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting provisions once the bill comes over from the House.

“I’m looking at both of them to see what the right outcome should be.”

‘The risk of living in a news desert’

Both PBS and NPR released statements following the House vote, pledging to do their best to keep their funding intact.

Katherine Maher, NPR president and CEO, wrote in a statement the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is essential to the organization.

“Americans who rely on local, independent stations serving communities across America, especially in rural and underserved regions, will suffer the immediate consequences of this vote,” Maher wrote. “If rescission passes and local stations go dark, millions of Americans will no longer have access to locally owned, independent, nonprofit media and will bear the risk of living in a news desert, missing their emergency alerts, and hearing silence where classical, jazz and local artists currently play.”

Paula Kerger, president and CEO at PBS, wrote in a separate statement the “fight to protect public media does not end with this vote, and we will continue to make the case for our essential service in the days and weeks to come.

“If these cuts are finalized by the Senate, it will have a devastating impact on PBS and local member stations, particularly smaller and rural stations that rely on federal funding for a larger portion of their budgets. Without PBS and local member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., center, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., right,  speaks to reporters following a weekly Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 19, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the U.S. Senate will spend the next couple weeks defending the party’s “big beautiful bill” against Democratic criticisms and attempting to pass a final version that can win 51 votes.

Reconciliation, the name for the process under which the massive bill is being considered, comes with a lot of rules in the Senate, including that every proposal in the bill addresses federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit. And language addressing the first two cannot be deemed “merely incidental,” or it gets kicked to the curb.

Reconciliation is also favorable for the party in power, in this case Republicans, since the bill is not subject to the legislative filibuster. That means the GOP will need no more than a simple majority for passage.

As you watch and read about Senate action during the coming weeks, here are the answers to five questions about reconciliation and other ways in which Congress sets a budget and allocates taxpayer money:

Q: Where does reconciliation fit in with everything else that’s happening, like the president’s budget request, the budget resolution Congress approved earlier this year, the appropriations bills and rescissions?

A: Yeah, they really don’t make this easy.

The president’s budget request is a proposal that serves as the starting point for lawmakers’ work on a variety of fronts, including the annual appropriations bills. Nothing in the president’s budget request becomes real unless Congress takes action.

Congress’ budget resolution is separate from that request. It is a tax and spending blueprint that lawmakers are supposed to use to plan the country’s financial future for the next decade.

It is not a bill and cannot become law, but when the House and Senate adopt a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions it unlocks the process Republicans are now using to pass their “big beautiful bill” — reconciliation.

Reconciliation bills move through Congress similar to how a regular bill becomes a law. However, in the Senate, the political party using the process must defend its work to the parliamentarian, who ensures the legislation complies with the Byrd rule, which is actually a law.

In a process separate from this are the dozen annual appropriations bills, which is how Congress, with its power of the purse, funds the departments, agencies and programs that most people picture when they think about the federal government.

Those bills account for about one-third of federal spending. The other two-thirds comes from mandatory programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that lawmakers designed to run outside of the annual appropriations process.

Congress is supposed to approve the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, but lawmakers rarely complete the work before their deadline and typically have to use a stopgap spending bill to give themselves more time to negotiate full-year government funding bills.

This is why there could still be a partial government shutdown later this year, even though Congress has already adopted a budget resolution and will likely pass a budget reconciliation package in the months ahead.

Yet another process related to government spending is a rescissions request, which Trump sent to Capitol Hill earlier this month. It asks lawmakers to claw back funding approved in an earlier appropriations bill.

Just making the request allows the White House budget office to freeze funding for 45 days while the House and Senate debate the proposal. Senate approval of a rescissions bill is not subject to the chamber’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, so Democratic opposition won’t stop it from becoming a reality if the vast majority of GOP senators vote to cut the previously approved spending.

Q: What are the rules for budget reconciliation bills?

A: Again, remember that in general, this type of legislation must address revenue, spending, or the debt limit. Neither political party can use the process to change policies unless they have a significant impact on federal coffers.

For example, Democrats had to remove a provision that would have raised the federal minimum wage from a reconciliation bill they passed during the Biden administration because the parliamentarian ruled it was “merely incidental.”

Q: Why didn’t the bill have to go through all these extra steps in the House?

A: Congress established the reconciliation process in a 1974 budget act and passed its first reconciliation bill in 1980. But it wasn’t until 1985 and 1986 that the Senate put extra guardrails in place.

The Byrd rule got its name from West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who argued that the reconciliation process needed to be more focused on budgetary issues. The Byrd rule evolved a bit over the years before being made a statute in 1990.

The Byrd rule requires each provision to change revenue or spending in a way not deemed “merely incidental.” Also, committees that receive reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution can only write bills within their jurisdiction and those committees must work within their reconciliation instructions’ fiscal targets.

In addition, proposals cannot increase the deficit outside the 10-year budget window and the package cannot change Social Security.

Q: What is a vote-a-rama?

A: Senate floor debate on a reconciliation package is much different than in the House, where GOP leaders were able to block any amendment debate.

The Senate is required to hold floor votes on reconciliation amendments and this usually leads to a vote-a-rama, where lawmakers debate dozens of amendments overnight and sometimes well after sunrise.

Democrats are likely to focus their amendments on proposals in the reconciliation bill that at least four GOP senators do not support, since that’s the minimum number Democrats would need for any of their amendments to be adopted. Republicans control the chamber with 53 votes and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President J.D. Vance.

GOP senators are likely to call for votes on their own amendments, though typically leaders try to work out many of the final details before the bill comes to the floor, to avoid potentially divisive votes.

Q: How often does Congress use this process to approve legislation?

A: Congress has approved 27 reconciliation bills since 1980, with 23 of those becoming law. Former President Bill Clinton vetoed three and former President Barack Obama vetoed one, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

During the last decade, Congress approved three reconciliation bills — Republicans’ 2017 tax law; a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package Democrats passed in 2021; and Democrats’ signature climate change, health care and tax package, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, in 2022.

If you’re interested in reading more about budget reconciliation, here is another explainer from earlier this year.