The U.S. Education Department directed its federal student loan servicers to restart interest accrual on Aug. 1 for participants in the Biden-era SAVE plan. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Interest accrual on the debt of nearly 7.7 million student loan borrowers enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education plan will resume Aug. 1, the U.S. Education Department said Wednesday.

The Biden-era income-driven repayment plan better known as SAVE saw legal challenges from several GOP-led states beginning in 2024, creating uncertainty for borrowers who were placed in an interest-free forbearance amid that legal limbo.

The SAVE plan, created in 2023, aimed to provide lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time.

In February, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court injunction that blocked the SAVE plan from going into effect. The department said Wednesday that it’s instructing its federal student loan servicers to start charging interest Aug. 1 to comply with court orders.

When the SAVE plan forbearance ends, “borrowers will be responsible for making monthly payments that include any accrued interest as well as their principal amounts,” the department said in a written announcement.

“For years, the Biden Administration used so-called ‘loan forgiveness’ promises to win votes, but federal courts repeatedly ruled that those actions were unlawful,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement alongside the announcement.

“Congress designed these programs to ensure that borrowers repay their loans, yet the Biden Administration tried to illegally force taxpayers to foot the bill instead,” she added.

McMahon said her department is urging borrowers under the SAVE plan to “quickly transition to a legally compliant repayment plan.”

“Borrowers in SAVE cannot access important loan benefits and cannot make progress toward loan discharge programs authorized by Congress,” she said.

‘Unnecessary interest charges’

Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, blasted the department’s decision in a statement Wednesday.

“Instead of fixing the broken student loan system, Secretary McMahon is choosing to drown millions of people in unnecessary interest charges and blaming unrelated court cases for her own mismanagement,” he said.

“Every day, we hear from borrowers waiting on hold with their servicer for hours, begging the government to let them out of this forbearance, and help them get back on track — instead, McMahon is choosing to jack up the cost of their student debt without giving them a way out.”

The agency has taken heat for its sweeping actions in the months since President Donald Trump took office as he and his administration look to dismantle the department.

The department is also mired in a legal challenge over some of its most significant efforts so far, including laying off more than 1,300 employees earlier this year as part of a reduction in force effort, an executive order calling on McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own agency and Trump’s proposal to transfer some services to other federal agencies. These actions have been temporarily halted in court.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump signed a massive tax and spending cut bill into law last week, part of which forces any borrower under the SAVE plan to opt in to a different repayment plan by July 1, 2028, or be automatically placed in a new, income-based repayment plan. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanders criticizes Monarez on vaccine safety

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

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

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

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

Second CDC choice from Trump

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

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

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

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

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

A farmer on a tractor sprays soybean crops. (Photo by Westend61/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s administration will pursue a ban on Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland as part of an effort to strengthen farm security, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said Tuesday.

Appearing alongside other Cabinet officials, Republican governors and members of Congress at an event outside the U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters in Washington, D.C., Rollins announced a department initiative to block “foreign countries of concern” from owning U.S. agriculture lands.

Rollins said officials will even try to revoke lands already owned by China-backed entities.

The administration will “take swift legislative and executive action to ban the purchase of American farmland by Chinese nationals and other foreign adversaries,” she said.

The executive branch will also work with state and local officials “to do everything within our ability, including presidential authorities, to claw back what has already been purchased by China and other foreign adversaries.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the nation’s food supply was a national security issue on par with energy and water supplies.

Plan details

The seven-part initiative, titled the National Farm Security Action Plan, is based on the idea that “farm security is national security,” according to a preamble to USDA’s written plan.

U.S. farmers dominate the global industry, the preamble said.

“Because that dominance is earned and not assured, it is critical we continuously adapt our approach to American agriculture security and elevate it to the top echelon of national security priorities,” the document read.

To protect U.S. farmland, the USDA, with help from the Justice Department, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security and cooperative state and local governments, will seek to block investment by foreign adversaries and launch an online tool to help farmers report on potential unknown foreign ownership.

The administration will look for vulnerabilities in the agricultural supply chain and attempt to ensure crop and nutrition programs are not being used to fund terrorist or criminal activity, while cutting down on fraud and abuse. The plan instructs the administration to strengthen biosecurity measures.

The initiative also calls for making sure foreign governments cannot access USDA research grants or other department funding programs.

The USDA will continue to work with the national security establishment and law enforcement to protect the agriculture sector’s critical infrastructure, according to the plan.

After Republican Sens. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and Roger Marshall of Kansas at the event criticized the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an executive branch agency, for not having a spot for the Agriculture secretary, Rollins said she would be joining the panel as of Tuesday afternoon.

Farmland security

At the Tuesday event, speakers offered few specifics about the initiative but praised the administration for elevating the issue of foreign investment in farmland.

“A country has to be able to feed itself, fuel itself, and fight for itself to truly be free,” Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “We now have a president who understands it and is willing to do everything within his power to make sure the United States continues to be the greatest country on the face of the planet.”

“Our farmland is not just dirt, it is our national security, it is our economic future, it is our children’s heritage,” Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said. “And it is under threat, and the leaders here recognize that.”

Speakers emphasized what they called the threat of Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland.

“Today, we tell China to get the hell out of American agriculture,” Marshall said.

Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen said his state had moved to ban Chinese equipment from telecommunications infrastructure and has worked to deny Chinese companies from owning farmland. He related a story of stonewalling Chinese-owned Syngenta, which sought a meeting with the governor.

“I said, ‘I have no interest in having a meeting,’” he said. “‘Have no interest in you being in Nebraska. My suggestion would be to leave. My suggestion would be to get a different job.’”

The company later sold their assets in Nebraska, Pillen said.

Alabama and China

Tuberville, who is running in the state’s gubernatorial race next year, appeared to say China owned 2.2 million acres of farmland in his state alone – a number that actually describes the acres of land owned by all foreign entities in the state. Chinese entities own no acres in Alabama, according to USDA data.

“China is a threat,” he said. “They’re not a threat. They are dominating us in almost everything that they do because we’ve sat back and the politicians have been counting their money instead of doing what’s right and helping this country stay in the front. We’ve got to be number one. We can’t be number two. We’ve got to fight back.

“They are coming into our country and buying our farmland. In my state of Alabama alone, they own 2.2 million acres of farmland. That’s right in Alabama. Foreign adversaries.”

Asked about the comment, Tuberville spokesperson Mallory Jaspers said he was referring not only to Chinese ownership but all foreign adversaries and indicated that he opposed any foreign ownership of U.S. farmland.

“Sen. Tuberville believes American farmland should be owned by Americans,” she wrote in an email.

The most recent year-end USDA report on foreign investment, in 2023, showed Chinese-linked investors held about 276,000 acres of U.S. farmland nationwide.

An analysis from the American Farm Bureau, an advocacy group, estimated Chinese investors accounted for only about .02% of all foreign owned U.S. agricultural land.

GOP governors back plan

In addition to Lee, Huckabee Sanders and Pillen, who spoke outside of USDA, the Republican governors of Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota and Oklahoma signed a Tuesday letter to Rollins in support of the plan.

“As America First Governors, we firmly stand together in our unwavering support of President Donald J. Trump and his administration’s National Farm Security Action Plan,” they wrote. “This plan is a critical and decisive response to the invasion of our land, food system, and sovereignty by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A protester holds a photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

GREENBELT, Maryland — A federal judge at a hearing Monday sought more information on the Trump administration’s plans for wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose attorneys are pressing to have him transferred to Maryland from a Tennessee jail.

Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland with his wife and family before he was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador in March. While there, he said he was tortured, physically and psychologically, by Salvadoran officials, according to court records.

Now he is in custody in Tennessee, where he faces federal criminal charges related to human smuggling. He could be released as soon as July 16, and Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis questioned Department of Justice lawyers about their intentions for him upon his release.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys expressed concern that once he is released, immigration officials would immediately detain the Maryland man and either quickly remove him to a third country or send him back to El Salvador by attempting to remove his earlier deportation protections.

“We do need protection from the government waking up tomorrow and upon Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release from criminal custody, (removing him) to somewhere they haven’t identified,” said Andrew J. Rossman, of Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case in Maryland.

DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn said removing Abrego Garcia to a third country is likely the path forward, but could not confirm or detail which country.

‘Jello to a wall’

Xinis set a Thursday afternoon hearing to obtain testimony from a witness who will be involved in making the decision about what will happen to Abrego Garcia.

“It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall to figure out what happens next week,” she said of Abrego Garcia’s potential release on July 16 ahead of his trial.

Xinis said until she’s clear about what steps the Trump administration will take next, she’ll hold off on issuing an order bringing Abrego Garcia back to Maryland.

During the Monday hearing, Xinis also denied the Trump administration’s two requests to dismiss the case.

DOJ lawyers argued that because Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States, the case is now moot. Xinis said the case is not moot because the “status quo” has not been fulfilled — although Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., he is not back in Maryland, but instead is in the custody of U.S. marshals in Tennessee.

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia made the same request last month, on an emergency basis to try to bring him back to Maryland while his criminal case continues, but Xinis denied that request as well.

At that time she referred to an answer from DOJ attorney Guynn, who said Abrego Garcia’s removal to a third country was not immediate, as part of her reasoning.

“He will be taken into (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” Guynn said June 26 of Abrego Garcia’s release. “There are no imminent plans to remove him to a third country.”

Rossman during Monday’s hearing also raised concerns that Abrego Garcia, yet again, would not receive proper due process if he is to be removed to a third country. He said Abrego Garcia must be notified where he will be sent and have time to appeal if he fears he will face harm in that country.

Xinis said while that will likely fall under an immigration judge, she does have the authority to have access to the information detailing how the Trump administration is going to remove Abrego Garcia.

Tennessee case

Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. from El Salvador last month to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee that accuse him “of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.”

The indictment by the Trump administration occurred while Abrego Garcia was in prison custody in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

During Monday’s hearing, Xinis pressed Department of Justice attorney Bridget O’Hickey on whether the federal charges played a role in the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

“He was not indicted with the purpose of bringing him back,” O’Hickey said.  “He was indicted because he was under investigation.”

Xinis questioned the timing of the investigation, which began on April 21, when Abrego Garcia was in a Salvadoran prison and shortly after the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return.

O’Hickey could not give an answer on when the investigation into Abrego Garcia began, but she said that he was “under investigation prior.”

Xinis also questioned O’Hickey on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case entirely in May.

On May 27, the Department of Justice told Xinis that nothing could be done to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador and therefore the case should be dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction. But federal charges were filed on May 21.

“Why else would you file an indictment against someone you couldn’t produce?” Xinis asked O’Hickey.

O’Hickey said that negotiations with El Salvador were ongoing and that it was not clear that the indictment would mean Abrego Garcia would be released from El Salvador.

“I am aware that the proceedings were moving in tandem,” she said. 

President Donald Trump is displayed on a television screen as traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on April 7, 2025 in New York City. Markets around the world fell dramatically as global leaders, businesses and economies tried to understand and come to terms with Trump's tariff policy. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump on Monday threatened tariffs from 25% to 40% on all goods from seven countries, including major U.S. trade partners Japan and South Korea.

The tariffs would go into effect Aug. 1, rather than Wednesday, which was the deadline Trump already extended once from an initial April date, Trump wrote in a series of letters to the countries’ leaders that he posted on his social media platform.

Countries that will see 25% tariffs are Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and Kazakhstan, with South Africa subject to a 30% rate and Laos and Myanmar seeing a 40% tariff rate.

The letters are nearly identical and begin by acknowledging the United States faces a trade deficit with the other country.

“Nevertheless, we have decided to move forward with you, but only with more balanced, and fair, TRADE,” Trump wrote in the letters. “We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with (your country), and have concluded that we must move away from these longterm, and very persistent, Trade Deficits.”

The economy-wide tariffs would apply above any sector-specific levies, Trump wrote.

The administration would respond to any effort by the other country to place a reciprocal tariff on the U.S. by setting a new tariff rate on that country that equaled whatever rate it set, plus 25%, Trump said.

Letters on the way

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday  about 14 countries would receive similar letters.

“These new rates that will be provided in this correspondence to these foreign leaders will be going out the door within the next month, or deals will be made,” Leavitt said. “Those countries continue to negotiate with the United States. We’ve seen a lot of positive developments in the right direction, but the administration, the president and his trade team want to cut the best deals for the American people and the American worker.”

The administration has used tariffs aggressively to reset trade relationships with every partner. The new threats are part of a push to reach trade deals with individual countries.

Trump set a goal of reaching 90 deals within 90 days of his April 2 announcement, but only two — Vietnam and the U.K. — had materialized by that deadline.

Trump will also sign an executive order further extending to Aug. 1 the deadline for tariffs on every country without a one-to-one trade agreement with the U.S., Leavitt said.

Trump shook the global economy when he imposed wide-reaching levies on nearly every country on April 2. The president walked them back just seven days later, announcing a 90-day pause on staggering tariffs that reached nearly 50% on some major U.S. trading partners and, briefly, 125% on Chinese imports.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs May 28. The following day, an appeals court temporarily restored the tariffs and as of Monday they remain in place while the court case is being heard.

Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem delivers remarks to staff at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters on Jan. 28, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended temporary protections Monday for nationals from Nicaragua and Honduras, opening up roughly 76,000 people to deportations by early September.

The move is the latest effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to wind down legal statuses, such as Temporary Protected Status, amid an immigration crackdown and pledge to carry out mass deportations.

So far, the Trump administration has moved to end legal statuses, including work authorizations and deportation protections, for more than half a million immigrants.

TPS has been used since the 1990s and is granted to nationals from countries deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, natural disasters or other unstable conditions.

Roughly 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans had temporary protections since 1999 following Hurricane Mitch, a Category 5 storm that destroyed parts of Central America and killed more than 10,000 people.

“Temporary Protected Status was never meant to last a quarter of a century,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.

Noem determined that conditions in Nicaragua and Honduras had improved and TPS for the two countries is no longer needed, DHS said.

In late June, Noem traveled to Honduras, where she met with President Xiomara Castro de Zelaya regarding the repatriation of Hondurans from the U.S.

“It is clear that the Government of Honduras has taken all of the necessary steps to overcome the impacts of Hurricane Mitch, almost 27 years ago,” Noem said Monday. “Honduran citizens can safely return home, and DHS is here to help facilitate their voluntary return.”

Noem has also ended TPS for nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Nepal and Venezuela.

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.

Federal authorities detain a man after attending a court hearing at immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on July 1, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill cleared Thursday has as its centerpiece $170 billion for the administration’s immigration crackdown, helping fulfill the president’s 2024 campaign promise of mass deportations of people without permanent legal status.

The measure, passed by the House 218-214, would fulfill several of Trump’s key immigration priorities, such as bolstering border security, increasing immigration detention capacity and adding fees to legal pathways for immigration, among other things. Thousands more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are slated to be hired.

While most of the immigration-related provisions in the massive bill would vastly expand immigration enforcement, it also aims to limit benefits currently extended to some immigrants with legal status.

Immigrants with a lawful status, including asylum, under the bill would be ineligible to receive food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Immigrants without legal status or authorization to be in the country are already ineligible for SNAP benefits, which roughly 42 million people rely on.

The bill could also cut off tax benefits from mixed-status families, in which family members have different immigration statuses.

For example, while Republicans would raise the child tax credit to $2,200 per eligible child, the bill would exclude that benefit to U.S. citizen children who are born to immigrant parents without legal status. The proposal would require that the parent applying for the child tax credit also have a Social Security number.

The 870-page megabill was passed by the Senate 51-50 on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote.

Here’s an overview of what else the bill will do:

Immigration enforcement

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country, at nearly $30 billion through September 2029.

Those funds would go toward hiring 10,000 ICE officers within five years. The money would also pay for retention bonuses, transportation of immigrants, upgrades of ICE facilities, detainment of families, and the hiring of ICE immigration lawyers for enforcement and removal proceedings in immigration court.

An ICE signing bonus would be given to those hired after the bill is signed into law, and as a retention bonus if an ICE agent has five years of service specifically dealing with immigration enforcement. The bill does not specify how much a signing bonus or retention bonus should be.

The Senate’s version provides ICE with added flexibility in which areas to allocate the nearly $30 billion.

DOD funding

Separately from ICE, the bill would include $1 billion for the Department of Defense to deploy military personnel for border-related operations, construction and temporary detention on military installations.

Trump in April directed several agencies to start militarizing a stretch of the southern border as he continues to intertwine the U.S. military with his administration’s immigration crackdown.

Created was a military buffer zone along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico. It means that any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, and therefore allows active-duty troops to hold them until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive.

National and military experts have raised concerns that militarizing that strip of land could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.

Additionally, the Trump administration last month deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, amid major protests that arose after immigration agents began targeting day laborers at Home Depots for immigration enforcement.

Detention

The bill sets aside $45 billion for building new centers to detain immigrants, from single individuals to families. It’s a more than 300% increase from ICE’s fiscal year 2024 budget for detaining immigrants, which was about $9 billion. 

Building new detention centers takes time, so private prison companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group are likely to enter into more contracts with ICE.

Those companies have begun expanding detention capacity. CoreCivic last month acquired a 736-bed facility in Virginia and GEO this month purchased a 770-bed facility in western California.

Border security

The bill would allocate $46.6 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to construct a wall along the U.S. Mexico border, as well as make any repairs. That would be more than three times what the first Trump administration spent on barriers at the southern border, at roughly $15 billion.

Some of the technology that would be added on the border includes cameras, lights, sensors, and other detection improvements. The funds would be used beginning in fiscal year 2025 until Sept. 30, 2029.

Another $4.1 billion would go toward hiring CBP personnel, until the end of September 2029. Another $2 billion would go toward retention and bonuses for CBP personnel.

The bill would also set aside $855 million for the repair of vehicles that CBP officers use. Republicans included $5 billion for upgrades and repairs at CBP facilities.

Additionally, $6.1 billion would go toward buying nonintrusive equipment to detect illicit narcotics at ports of entry along the southwest, northern and maritime borders.

Also, any immigrant without legal authorization and who is apprehended at a port of entry would be subject to a $5,000 fine.

There is currently a civil fine ranging from $50 to $250. Asylum-seekers typically surrender themselves at ports of entry.

Legal immigration pathways, application fees

The bill would give the Department of Justice roughly $3.3 billion for the Executive Office for Immigration Review to prosecute immigration matters, such as noncitizen voting – something that is extremely rare – and violations of the Alien Registration Act.

In April, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced that immigrants in the country without legal authorization were required to register with the agency or face jail time and a fine of up to $5,000.

The bill would also provide funding for the hiring of immigration judges, but will cap the number of judges at 800. There are roughly 700 now, amid a 3.5 million case backlog in immigration court, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC.

The bill would also overhaul immigration fees and application fees for immigrants seeking legal pathways, both permanent and temporary.

For the first time, there would be a fee to apply for asylum, set at $100. There are no fee waivers for nearly every new fee set or increased by the bill, except for applications dealing with unaccompanied minors. All fees would also be subject to adjustment for inflation. 

Asylum-seekers who want to apply for initial work permits would also have to pay another fee of $550, something that is currently free.

For an asylum applicant wanting to renew work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, where it is currently $470 to renew online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.

For immigrants on Temporary Protected Status, meaning the DHS secretary has deemed the immigrant’s home country too dangerous to return to, the fee to apply would be $500. It’s currently $50.

The fee to apply for humanitarian relief would increase to $1,000, where it is currently $630.

The bill would slightly increase the initial work application fee for TPS holders and those with humanitarian status to $550, up from a $470 fee for submitting online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.

To renew those work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, down from $470 for online and $520 for mail.

The nonimmigrant visa, which is currently free and handled by the State Department, would now cost $250 under the bill. This visa is typically used for international students, agricultural workers and other special skilled immigrant labor.

Unaccompanied immigrant children

Some of the $2 billion in funding for DHS would go toward removing unaccompanied children under certain circumstances. That includes if the child is found by a port of entry, is not a victim of human trafficking, and does not fear returning to their home country.

The bill would also provide a $300 million fund for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which handles unaccompanied children, to conduct background checks and home studies on any potential sponsor of an unaccompanied child.

There would also be funding to check children in ORR custody for their potential criminal and gang history. Those 12 and older would be subject to examinations “for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings,” according to the bill.

The special juvenile immigrant visa, which is for immigrant children who are either abandoned or abused by a parent, and allows them to apply for lawful permanent resident status, would now cost $250 under the bill, but the fee could be waived. It’s currently free.

State grants, World Cup and Olympics

The bill would also give some states $450 million for the Operation Stonegarden Grant Program, which gives funding to states and local governments that participate in border enforcement.

The bill would help states that are hosting major sporting events such as the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028.

The bill allocates $625 million for security and other costs related to the FIFA World Cup and $1 billion for security and planning costs for the Olympics, which Los Angeles is hosting in 2028. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffries: “It guts Medicaid’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overnight drama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOP holdouts delay passage

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

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

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

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

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

Tax breaks and so much more

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food aid, higher education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prison officers stand guard at a cell block at the Salvadoran mega-prison Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on April 4, 2025. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported in March to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, endured “severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture” while there, his attorneys wrote in a late Wednesday filing.

The filing, an amended complaint to the District Court of Maryland, provides the first disturbing details of what Abrego Garcia experienced at Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

His wrongful deportation has become the most high-profile example of the conflict between the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportations campaign and the judiciary’s call for the due process rights of immigrants.

The allegations of torture also raise questions about the U.S. State Department’s payment to El Salvador of up to $15 million to detain about 300 immigrant men at CECOT, a possible violation of the human rights law known as the Leahy Law.

The law bars State’s financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — such as military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

Hit with batons, forced to kneel for hours

When Abrego Garcia first arrived to CECOT, he was told by a prison official, “Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn’t leave,” according to the filing from lawyers with Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia was later kicked, hit with wooden batons and beaten by Salvadoran guards on his first day at CECOT on March 15, according to the new filing.

“By the following day, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia had visible bruises and lumps all over his body,” according to the complaint.

While in a cell, Abrego Garcia and 20 other incarcerated Salvadorans were forced to kneel from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. and guards would strike “anyone who fell from exhaustion,” according to the filing. During that time, Abrego Garcia was denied access to a bathroom and soiled himself.

“The detainees were confined to metal bunks with no mattresses in an overcrowded cell with no windows, bright lights that remained on 24 hours a day, and minimal access to sanitation,” according to the complaint.

At CECOT, the guards would threaten to put Abrego Garcia in cells with gang members “who, they assured him, would ‘tear’  him apart,” according to the filing. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have denied he is a gang member.

During his first two weeks at CECOT, Abrego Garcia’s health deteriorated, and he lost 31 pounds, his attorneys said.

Transfers to two more facilities

On April 9, Abrego Garcia and four others were transferred to a different sector in CECOT, “where they were photographed with mattresses and better food—photos that appeared to be staged to document improved conditions,” according to his attorneys.

Around April 10, he was later transferred alone to a separate prison facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador. On April 10, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia — who had deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador since 2019.

But for months, the Trump administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador, and the United States could not force El Salvador to return him.

At the new location, Abrego Garcia “was frequently hidden from visitors, being told to remain in a separate room whenever outside visitors came to the facility,” according to the filing.

“During his entire time in detention in El Salvador, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was denied any communication with his family and access to counsel until Senator (Chris) Van Hollen visited him on April 17, 2025,” according to the brief.

The Maryland Democrat traveled to El Salvador in an effort to bring back Abrego Garcia, who is a longtime Maryland resident.

Criminal charges

While Abrego Garica was returned to the U.S. last month, it was to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee while he was detained in El Salvador. His attorneys have denied the charges of human smuggling and say they are nothing more than the Trump administration trying to save face.

Abrego Garcia’s criminal case is being handled out of a Tennessee court and he’s being kept in jail due to fears Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will deport him.

Department of Justice attorneys stated in the District Court of Maryland last week that the Trump administration plans to remove Abrego Garcia to a third country, but said the move was not immediate.

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia are trying to move forward with discovery to determine if the Trump administration flouted the district court’s order and the Supreme Court’s order in refusing to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after the Trump administration admitted his deportation was a mistake.

“Defendants’ disdain for the law and legal process, and their cruelty, shocks the conscience and demands immediate, sustained, judicial relief and oversight,” according to the complaint. “It also marks a profound constitutional crisis in which executive agencies have repeatedly and deliberately flouted the authority of multiple federal courts—including the Supreme Court itself.”

“This defiance undermines the foundational principles of our constitutional system by eroding the checks and balances and rule of law that protect individual liberty from government overreach,” the attorneys continued. 

Shelley Feist, 61, of Washington, D.C., who was raised in North Dakota, protests outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, as House Republicans try to pass the "big beautiful bill." Feist said she's worried about effects on rural hospitals as a result of Medicaid cuts because her parents, in their 80s, depend on rural health care in Minot, North Dakota. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Protesters demonstrated against the “big beautiful bill” outside the U.S. Capitol Wednesday as House Republicans whipped votes to get the bill across the finish line and to President Donald Trump’s desk by a self-imposed July Fourth deadline.

Shelley Feist stood on Independence Avenue near the entrance to the House of Representatives holding signs above her head, one reading “Cruel Corrupt Cowards,” the other a Republican elephant with the word “Treason” written on it.

“I think they’re being cruel. I think cruelty is the point,” Feist, 61, of Washington, D.C., and originally from North Dakota, told States Newsroom. “It’s also extremely alarming that there’s such cowardice in the GOP.”

The massive budget reconciliation package, passed by Senate Republicans Tuesday with a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance, extends and expands 2017 tax cuts at a cost of roughly $4.5 trillion over the next decade. It also yanks funding from federal food and health safety net programs.

The bill aggressively rolls back clean energy tax credits, as well as raising the nation’s borrowing limit to $5 trillion.

Latest figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show the package would add $3.4 trillion to the nation’s deficit over the next decade, when the country is mired in record-breaking debt. That office’s earlier analysis of the House-passed bill found the package would reduce resources for low-income families while padding higher earners.

Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, who chaired an hours-long final committee hearing about the bill overnight, said Wednesday the package is an “embodiment of the America First agenda and we would all do well to remember that.”

Medicaid cuts

Top of mind for Feist is the bill’s cuts to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income individuals and some with disabilities. The Senate version of the package, passed Tuesday, included a  $1 trillion cut to Medicaid over 10 years, according to the CBO.

“I have parents in North Dakota who are 85 and 86. They already have difficulty seeing their doctor. For every doctor that leaves, he takes on 14 times more burden. Rural health care is already extremely difficult. I would expect there will not be a hospital near where my parents live if this bill is signed into law,” said Feist, whose parents live near Minot.

Rural hospitals rely on Medicaid payments. In a last-minute move before Tuesday’s vote, Senate Republicans doubled a fund to $50 billion to subsidize hospitals that will lose funding. Critics say that amount is not enough to fill the gap.

GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted no after voicing concerns over Medicaid cuts.

Nadine Seiler, 60, of Waldorf, Maryland, stood near a press conference by the Congressional Hispanic Conference protesting the bill. Seiler held a large spray-painted sheet above her head with a message on each side: “Free America from Big Bad Bill” and “Coming Soon Freedom in Name Only.”

“I’m concerned about my fellow citizens who are going to be losing Medicaid, food stamps, human health services. People are going to die,” Seiler said.

“And I know Joni Ernst says that we all gonna die, but we gonna die faster and unnecessarily and I care about that.”

Seiler was referring to Sen. Ernst’s response to her Iowa constituents who expressed concern about Medicaid cuts at a town hall on May 30.

SNAP and ICE

Mark Starr sang a protest song he wrote about the “big beautiful bill” as he played guitar and harmonica outside the Longworth House Office Building Wednesday.

The 39-year-old Albuquerque, New Mexico, native told States Newsroom he drove to the capital in late April to begin protesting the bill. He said he’s particularly focused on additional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement contained in the package as well as cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides food benefits to low-income households.

“New Mexico is pretty poor, and so if these cuts to SNAP go, kids can go hungry in New Mexico,” Starr said. “It’s just, like, really gonna mess us up, and we’re just one of the many states that will be affected that way.”

New Mexico has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation.

A provision in the bill will shift food assistance costs to state governments for the first time in the federal program’s history. Critics worry that states could tighten eligibility requirements or drop the program because of the financial burden.

The left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 55,000 teens age 14 and up, and adults up to age 64 could lose food assistance in New Mexico because of the bill’s cuts to state work requirement waivers. Children would remain eligible but households would overall see significantly decreased SNAP dollars.

The CBO found in late May that the House-passed bill would result in over 3 million people nationwide losing food assistance.

Starr said he’s also against additional funding provided for immigration enforcement.

“I think they have enough,” he said, pointing to Trump’s visit to a new detention facility in Florida that the White House is touting as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

The Senate-approved version includes an additional $45 billion for ICE detention facilities and $29.9 billion for ICE enforcement and deportation, among billions more directed toward the Southern border.

Clean energy to take a hit

Tiernan Sittenfeld, of the League of Conservation Voters, huddled just outside the House with a group wearing t-shirts that read “Hands off our air, land and clean energy.”

Sittenfeld, the organization’s senior vice president of government affairs, argues the rollbacks of clean energy tax credits in the Senate version will “kill clean energy jobs.”

“It is bad for our economy. It’s bad for jobs. It’s going to raise people’s energy bills. And of course, it’s bad for the planet,” she said.

Senate Republicans accelerated the phase-out of some residential, manufacturing and production credits at a faster rate than the House bill. A last-minute change loosened the timeline on some tech-neutral energy credits though, and removed a previously added tax on wind and solar projects.

Industry groups and energy companies small and large have warned early termination of the credits will have a major impact on growth.

The tax credits for solar, wind, batteries for energy storage, and electric vehicles, among others, were enacted under Democrats’ own 2022 budget reconciliation bill known as the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

The majority of investment in new clean energy manufacturing and production has been concentrated in rural states and states that elected Trump to his second term, according to data collected since 2022 by the Clean Investment Monitor, a joint project by the Rhodium Group and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.

“Any Republican who votes for this legislation is voting against the interest of their constituents, voting to kill jobs in their district, voting to kill clean energy projects, voting to make their constituents’ energy bills go up,” Sittenfeld said.

Far-right House members who as of Wednesday afternoon were withholding their votes maintain the rollbacks on the clean energy tax cuts, which they’ve dubbed the “green new scam,” do not go far enough.

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

This report has been updated.

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

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

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

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

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

‘We can’t make everyone 100% happy’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump presses House GOP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax cuts favor higher incomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate turmoil

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

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

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

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

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

3 Senate Republicans voted no

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Customs and Border Protection agents question families who have presented themselves at the Paso del Norte bridge to request asylum on May 11, 2023. (Photo by Corrie Boudreaux for Source NM)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge Wednesday ruled as unlawful an executive order by President Donald Trump that barred asylum by claiming an “invasion” at the southern border and the need to protect states.

It’s the first major blow to the Trump administration in its attempt to end the ability for asylum seekers to make asylum claims.

“The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted,” District of Columbia U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss wrote in his opinion.

“Here, nothing in the (Immigration and Nationality Act) or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,” continued Moss, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

The order from Moss also prevents the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from enforcing the executive order.

He also agreed to certify a class for potential asylum-seekers, which comes after last week’s Supreme Court ruling that curtailed nationwide injunctions from lower courts. Certifying a class was suggested by the court to give judges an avenue to make an order broader.

Moss put his order on hold for 14 days, to give the Trump administration time to appeal his ruling. If the order is upheld by an appeals court and the Supreme Court, it would require the Trump administration to begin processing asylum applicants for migrants.

“(The executive order) is unlawful insofar as it purports to suspend or to restrict access to asylum, withholding of removal, or the existing regulatory processes for obtaining (Convention Against Torture) protection,” Moss wrote in his order.

Inauguration Day

The asylum order was one of several immigration-related executive orders that Trump signed on the Inauguration Day of his second term. The order proclaimed that the “current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion” and barred asylum-seekers from being able to claim asylum.

Trump characterized asylum-seekers seeking entry at the U.S.-Mexico border as an “invasion” and said that the states need “protection,” so the White House would suspend physical entry until the president deemed the “invasion” over.

Encounters at the southern border have been the lowest in several years.

The section Trump cited in his proclamation, section 212(f), is part of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under that section, the president has the authority to “suspend the entry” of people who are not U.S. citizens under certain circumstances.

Complaint filed in February

The suit from the American Civil Liberties Union and other legal organizations, on behalf of Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, or RAICES, and other immigration legal service providers, argued the executive order unlawfully denies asylum and other humanitarian protections that are “expressly granted by Congress.”

“It is returning asylum seekers—not just single adults, but families too—to countries where they face persecution or torture, without allowing them to invoke the protections Congress has provided,” according to the initial complaint filed in February. “Indeed, the Proclamation does not even exempt unaccompanied children, despite the specific protections such children receive by statute.”

RAICES, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Florence Immigrant And Refugee Rights Project, which provide legal services to immigrants, argued that the proclamation harms the legal aid work of the individual plaintiffs.

Those individual plaintiffs in the suit include people who allege they fled persecution in Afghanistan, Ecuador, Cuba, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey and Peru. Some plaintiffs have either been removed to their home country, or to a third country such as Panama, according to the filing.

The U.S. Capitol on June 30, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The final “big beautiful bill” approved by Senate Republicans Tuesday included some last-minute changes on hot-button issues such as safety net programs and clean energy tax credits.

Senate Republicans had wrangled for weeks to deliver legislative text to satisfy concerns from lawmakers who objected to cutting Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program for low-income families and some individuals with disabilities.

Other sticking points included threats that the health cuts pose to rural hospitals, and tax revisions that hamper clean energy jobs and investment, most of which are in states that elected President Donald Trump to his second term.

The lawmakers debated amendments for more than 24 hours. Even with final changes, now under consideration in the House, three Republicans held out: Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie breaking vote.

Here are several rewrites that popped up in the bill’s final minutes and hours:

Rural hospital fund

Senate Republicans doubled the amount for a rural health “transformation program,” or money to compensate rural hospitals for the funds they would lose as a result of the proposed Medicaid cuts.

The latest proposal sets aside $50 billion, up from $25 billion, and moves up the distribution timeline to begin in 2026, up from 2028.

Collins had unsuccessfully introduced an amendment to bump the fund to $50 billion. Despite some support from GOP colleagues, the amendment was blunted by a technical budget point of order.

The Maine Republican still voted “no” Tuesday on the final bill.

SNAP

The lawmakers also made a late change to how and when states would begin to shoulder the responsibility for costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

According to the new version, if a state’s payment error rate in 2025 multiplied by 1.5 is equal or greater than 20%, then that state would be permitted to wait until 2029, rather than 2028, to begin footing a portion of the bill for food assistance.  A state’s accuracy rate is the annual measurement of over- or underpayments to recipients.

Nine states would hover in the territory of meeting that threshold, according to the Department of Agriculture’s latest error rates published Monday. They are: Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Oregon.

Alaska had the highest payment error rate of all states in both 2023 and 2024. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s final decision on the bill was largely unknown until she cast a “yes” vote Tuesday.

A late amendment to strike the language offered by Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota failed 45-55.

Critics say the measure incentivizes states to keep the payment error rates high this year.

Solar energy

GOP senators late Friday added a clean energy excise tax into the bill, taking the industry by surprise. Then it vanished.

The tax that would have been imposed on new solar and wind projects was no longer in the legislation that senators voted on around noon Eastern Tuesday.

Other text loosened a squeeze on tech-neutral tax credits meant to incentivize the installation of energy systems that do not use fossil fuels. Senate Republicans added a year of leeway for new projects to break ground and avoid cutting short two of the tax credits.

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after signing executive orders in the Oval Office on April 23, 2025. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon look on. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)  

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has put on hold $6.8 billion in federal funds for K-12 schools, according to an Education Department notice obtained by States Newsroom.

The agency informed states on Monday that it would be withholding funding for several programs, including before- and after-school programs, migrant education and English-language learning, among other initiatives.

But the agency notified states just a day ahead of July 1 — the date these funds are typically sent out as educators plan for the coming school year.

“The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President’s priorities and the Department’s statutory responsibilities,” the Education Department wrote to states.

The notice, which did not provide any timeline, said the funds are under review and “decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming academic year.”

The affected programs, according to the Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee, include:

• Title I-C, on migrant education
• Title II-A, on improving the effectiveness of teachers and school leaders
• Title III-A, on English language acquisition
• Title IV-A, on STEM education, college and career counseling and other activities
• Title IV-B, on before- and after-school programs and summer school programs
• Grants geared toward adult education and literacy programs

States have been on the lookout for these funds. For instance, just last week, Oklahoma’s Department of Education reported that it had yet to get money from the federal government for migrant education, English language acquisition and other programs, according to Oklahoma Voice. 

‘Winding down’ the department

Adding fuel to the fire, Trump is looking to eliminate all these programs as part of his fiscal 2026 budget request. That wish list, according to a department summary, calls for $12 billion in total spending cuts at the agency.

That proposed $12 billion cut “reflects an agency that is responsibly winding down,” the document notes.

Meanwhile, a coalition of 16 states is also suing the Trump administration over the cancellation earlier this year of roughly $1 billion in school mental health grants — a different piece of school funding — to try to restore that money.

The lawsuit was filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. The states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

Uncertainty created

In a Tuesday statement, Washington state U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate spending panel, urged the Trump administration to immediately release the frozen funds.

“President Trump himself signed this funding into law — but that isn’t stopping him from choking off resources to support before and after school programs, help students learn, support teachers in the classroom, and a lot more,” Murray said. “The uncertainty he has created has already forced districts to delay hiring and other initiatives to help students. The only question left now is how much more damage this administration wants to inflict on our public schools.”

“Local school districts can’t afford to wait out lengthy court proceedings to get the federal funding they’re owed — nor can they make up the shortfall, especially not at the drop of a pin,” Murray added.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, blasted the administration’s actions, saying this is “another illegal usurpation of the authority of the Congress” and “directly harms the children in our nation.”

“K-12 public school leaders across the country who should have been able to start planning months ago for the summer and the upcoming school year are instead left mired in financial uncertainty,” added Weingarten, who leads one of the largest teachers unions in the country.

Approved by Congress

Carissa Moffat Miller, CEO of the Council of Chief State School Officers, said “the administration must make the full extent of title funding available in a timely manner,” in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Tuesday.

“These funds were approved by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in March,” Miller said. “Schools need these funds to hire key staff and educate students this summer and in the upcoming school year.”

In response to a request for comment on the frozen funds, the Education Department referred States Newsroom to the Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for administering the federal budget and overseeing the performance of departments throughout the federal government.

Administration comment

In a statement shared with States Newsroom on Wednesday, a spokesperson for OMB said “this is an ongoing programmatic review of education funding” and “no decisions have been made yet.”

The spokesperson noted that “initial findings have shown that many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.” 

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

This report has been updated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats react

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump weighs in ahead of vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On to the House

House approval is far from guaranteed.

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

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

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

Three amendments succeed

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

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

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

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

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

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

National private school voucher program

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

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

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

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

Safety funding for Virginia airport across from D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump budget director’s office targeted

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

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

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

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

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

Collins loses vote on rural hospital fund

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some key votes so far:

Planned Parenthood 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medicaid for undocumented immigrants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduction in funding for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

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

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

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

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

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

Medicaid hospitals and maternal mortality

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

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

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

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

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

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

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

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

Medicaid work requirements

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

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

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

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

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

Rural hospitals and Medicaid

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Narrow majority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Wraparound amendment’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still fluid

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

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

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

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

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

Senate bill would add $3.2 trillion to deficits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Alaska sweetener knocked out

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

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

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

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

Planned Parenthood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment fights ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thom Tillis, Rand Paul

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

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

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

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