President Donald Trump holds up the "big, beautiful bill" that was signed into law as during a Fourth of July military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Brandon - Pool/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed into law Friday evening his massive spending cut and tax break package to fulfill his domestic policy agenda on immigration and defense and overhaul American energy production.
The “big, beautiful bill,” which Trump signed on Republicans’ self-imposed Fourth of July deadline, will make permanent the 2017 tax cuts from his first term and provide billions to carry out his plans of mass deportations, an immigration crackdown and increased defense spending.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill could add $3.4 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years, according to its most recent analysis.
“America is winning, winning, winning like never before,” said Trump, speaking to military families at a Fourth of July picnic on the White House lawn prior to the bill signing. Military aircraft including a B-2 bomber flew over the White House as the national anthem was sung.
Trump saluted 150 airmen and their families at the event from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, where the B-2s that bombed Iran in June originated their flights.
But he also attacked Democrats who opposed his legislation, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who gave a speech on the floor in opposition on Wednesday that broke a House record for its length.
Members of the Cabinet were present for the bill-signing as well as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota, Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Mike Crapo of Idaho and other top GOP members of Congress.
The president signed the bill seated at a desk in front of the picnic-goers, with lawmakers and Cabinet members surrounding him. Johnson presented Trump with the gavel that Johnson said he used when the vote closed to pass the “big, beautiful bill.” Trump pounded on the desk with the gavel and handed out pens to those gathered around him.
Medicaid slashed
In order to fulfill priorities in the tax and spending cut bill, congressional Republicans scaled back spending on Medicaid, food assistance for low-income people and clean energy programs.
Democrats objected to the cuts to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and other provisions. But because Republicans have unified control of Congress, the GOP was able to pass the bill through a complex process known as reconciliation, skirting the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
The Senate passed its version of the bill after Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking 51-50 vote Tuesday. The House managed Thursday to pass the new version of the bill after two chaotic days negotiating with far-right members who initially objected to the bill and later acquiesced, with a vote of 218-214.
The only Republicans to object in the Senate were Maine’s Susan Collins, Kentucky’s Rand Paul and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis. The House GOP members who voted with Democrats were Kentucky’s Thomas Massie and Pennsylvania’s Brian Fitzpatrick.
Also tucked into the bill is a provision that raises the country’s debt ceiling by $5 trillion, which has brought objections from Republican fiscal hawks like Paul.
Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, shown here in a June 17, 2025, committee hearing, proposed paring down the moratorium on state-based AI laws included in the budget bill, but the provision still proved unpopular. On Monday, Blackburn cosponsored an amendment to remove the measure. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
A moratorium on state-based artificial intelligence laws was struck from the “Big Beautiful Bill” Monday night in a 99-1 vote in the U.S. Senate, after getting less and less popular with state and federal lawmakers, state officials and advocacy groups since it was introduced in May.
The moratorium had evolved in the seven weeks since it was introduced into the megabill. At an early May Senate Commerce Committee session, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said it was in his plans to create “a regulatory sandbox for AI” that would prevent state overregulation and promote the United States’ AI industry.
GOP senators initially proposed a 10-year ban on all state laws relating to artificial intelligence, saying the federal government should be the only legislative body to regulate the technology. Over several hearings, congressional members and expert witnesses debated the level of involvement the federal government should take in regulating AI. They discussed state’s rights, safety concerns for the technology and how other governmental bodies, like the European Union, are regulating AI.
Over the weekend, Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Cruz developed a pared down version of the moratorium that proposed a five-year ban, and made exceptions for some laws with specific aims such as protecting children or limiting deepfake technologies. Changes over the weekend also tied state’s ability to collect federal funding to expand broadband access to their willingness to nullify their existing AI laws.
Monday night, an amendment to remove the moratorium from the budget bill — cosponsored by Blackburn and Sen. Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat — was passed 99-1.
“The Senate came together tonight to say that we can’t just run over good state consumer protection laws,” Cantwell said in a statement. “States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws. This also allows us to work together nationally to provide a new federal framework on Artificial Intelligence that accelerates U.S. leadership in AI while still protecting consumers.”
The “overwhelming” vote reflects how unpopular unregulated AI is among voters and legislators in both parties, said Alexandra Reeve Givens, president and CEO of the tech policy organization, Center for Democracy and Technology, in a statement.
“Americans deserve sensible guardrails as AI develops, and if Congress isn’t prepared to step up to the plate, it shouldn’t prevent states from addressing the challenge,” Reeve Givens said. “We hope that after such a resounding rebuke, Congressional leaders understand that it’s time for them to start treating AI harms with the seriousness they deserve.”
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.
'Trump Accounts' included in the tax and spending cut bill would be available to U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028, and whose parent, or parents, if legally married, already have Social Security numbers. (Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Tucked in the “one big beautiful bill” is a proposal for tax-advantaged “Trump Accounts,” each seeded with $1,000 from the government for certain babies born in the United States over the next few years.
But financial experts and advocates for low-income children are not overly impressed.
The idea is not new and has been likened to other “baby bonds” programs aimed at reducing the growing wealth gap, like state-run trust funds in California and Connecticut. Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill to create a similar federal program.
The White House has touted the proposal in the tax and spending cut measure as “pro-family” and one that “will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth.”
At a June 9 event to promote the “Trump Accounts” featuring CEOs of top American companies, President Donald Trump promised the pilot program will make it possible for “countless American children to have a strong start in life at no cost to the American taxpayer.”
Speaking at the same event, top House Republican tax writer Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri said “every child born under this policy will have a better shot at a future. It does not matter if they live on a city block or on a county road, this will make a significant difference to their lives.”
Critics say the accounts, as proposed, would mostly benefit children born to wealthier families.
They also say the restricted-access accounts, and the one-time government contribution of $1,000, will not help in the face of cuts to food and health programs for low-income people written into the massive budget reconciliation bill, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
How ‘Trump Accounts’ would work
The investment savings accounts would be available to U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028, and whose parent, or parents, if legally married, already have Social Security numbers.
Each year, from a child’s birth to age 18, family and friends, parents’ employers, churches and other private foundations, could contribute up to a combined $5,000 annually to the investment account that will track a stock index and gain interest accordingly.
Deposits into the account are taxed. Later on, withdrawals would be subject to the long-term capital gains tax — a tax on the profit made from selling an asset, or investment, that a person has held for longer than a year.
After reaching 18, the account beneficiary could access half the account’s value only for qualified expenses that include higher education, vocational training, the purchase of a first home, and costs associated with an enterprise for which the beneficiary has received a small business loan or small farm loan.
The beneficiary could access the remaining half of the account after age 25. At age 31, the account loses its status as a “Trump Account” and any remaining balance is taxed as income.
Drawbacks seen
The Urban Institute warns that the proposed structure of the account will mostly benefit wealthy families who already have the resources to grow the funds.
The bottom 80% of households, by income, only hold half as much cash on hand as the top 20% of households, according to the left-leaning think tank’s nationwide financial health data.
Additionally, because of penalties for early withdrawals, lower-income families would be incentivized to save in less restrictive accounts, according to the think tank’s May 27 analysis.
The institute recommends the government provide more contributions based on income level, beyond just the one-time $1,000, and lessen the penalties for accessing cash for catastrophic events.
A 2023 Democratic legislative proposal put forth by Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts aimed to create an account that would target the benefit to children from lower-income households.
Their plan suggests accounts be initially seeded with $1,000, and then children would receive up to an additional $2,000 annually based on their family’s income level.
According to Booker’s and Pressley’s plan, a child from a family of four that brings in less than $25,100 in annual income would have an estimated $46,200 in investment savings by the time they turn 18.
Under the Trump Account proposal, a child’s one-time $1,000 deposit from the government would grow to roughly $5,000 by age 18 if no other contributions were ever made, according to the Urban Institute.
Child tax credits
Brendan Duke, senior director for federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the GOP proposal “wasn’t particularly well thought through.”
“It’s this question of whether it makes more sense to give every family $1,000 that they can’t access in those really important years, or whether you should have expanded the child tax credit,” Duke said.
Duke criticized lawmakers’ proposals that do not expand the child tax credit to the lowest-income families in the massive GOP budget reconciliation package.
While the House version temporarily expands the credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, and the Senate version permanently expands the credit by a more modest amount of $2,200, neither version expands income or refundability parameters that would benefit the poorest families.
The CBPP estimates that 17 million children are left out of the credit because of the restrictions.
Existing savings vehicles
Another criticism of the Trump Accounts is that they provide a redundant option among the several existing tax-preferred savings vehicles for Americans, including 529 education investment savings accounts, Roth and Traditional IRAs and Health Savings Accounts.
The Tax Foundation’s Alex Muresianu said the account is “a move toward complexity rather than simplification.”
“We already have plenty of savings accounts with specific purposes, and a lot of different strings attached,” said Muresianu, senior policy analyst with the right-leaning foundation.
“We don’t really need another targeted account for a specific purpose, rather than a more easily accessible account with fewer conditions.”
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.”
Paul Danos, vice president of domestic operations at Danos and Curole in Houma, Louisiana, advocated for energy provisions in the Republican tax and spending bill at a weekly House Republican press conference on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
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!”
“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.”
Sam Palmeter, founder of Laser Marking Technologies LLC in Caro, Michigan, advocated for the passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” during the weekly House Republican press conference on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
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.
Retired Sheriff James Stuart, now executive director of the Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, spoke alongside House Republicans at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, about a temporary elimination of tax on overtime in the Republican budget reconciliation bill. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
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).”
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.
“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.”
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Sen. 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. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
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.”
Login
