Darryl Chavis, 62, served in the U.S. Army for two years as a watercraft operator. He stands outside the Borden Avenue Veterans Residence, a short-term housing facility in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, N.Y., where he lives. Chavis relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and is worried about new work requirements for the program, commonly known as food stamps. (Photo by Shalina Chatlani/Stateline)

NEW YORK — After a year in the U.S. Navy, Loceny Kamara said he was discharged in 2023, because while on base he had developed mental health issues, including severe anxiety and nightmares, and had fallen into alcoholism.

Kamara, 23, went to rehab and managed to get sober for some time while living with family in the Bronx, he said. But after he lost his job as a security guard in December, Kamara was kicked out of his home. Now he lives at a veterans homeless shelter in Long Island City, a neighborhood in Queens, New York, and he relies on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly known as food stamps — and odd jobs to make ends meet.

Each month, nearly 42 million people receive SNAP benefits to help supplement their grocery budgets. Able-bodied SNAP recipients who are between 18 and 54 and don’t have children have always been required to work. Veterans, however, have been exempt from those rules — but that’s about to change.

The giant domestic policy measure that President Donald Trump signed on July 4 eliminates that exemption. Beginning in 2026, veterans will have to prove they are working, volunteering, participating in job training, or looking for work for at least 80 hours a month to keep their food stamps beyond three months, unless they qualify for another exemption, such as having certain disabilities.

Republicans in Congress and conservatives who helped formulate the law say these eligibility changes are necessary to stop people who could be working from abusing the system. But critics say the change fails to take into account the barriers many veterans face, and that the new work rules will cause thousands of veterans to go hungry.

“I’m pissed. I mean, I cannot get a job. Nowhere to live,” said Kamara. As he spoke, Kamara pointed to his collared shirt, noting that he had just dressed up to interview for a job as a security guard. He learned that morning he hadn’t gotten the job.

“I’ve been out of work for eight months,” Kamara told Stateline. “It’s hard to get a job right now for everybody.”

Veterans depend on SNAP

Nationally, around 1.2 million veterans with lower incomes, or about 8% of the total veteran population of 16.2 million, rely on food stamps for themselves and their families, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research group.

An analysis by the group found veterans tend to have lower rates of employment because they are more likely to have health conditions, such as traumatic brain injuries, that make it difficult for them to work. They also tend to have less formal education, though many have specialized skills from their time in the military.

There has been a work requirement for most SNAP recipients since 1996. But Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the rules have “never really been enforced.” Rector argued that able-bodied people who have been exempt from the work requirement, such as veterans and homeless people, create an unnecessary burden on the system if they are capable of working but don’t.

“Most of the people that are in this category live in households with other people that have incomes, and so there really isn’t a chronic food shortage here,” Rector said in an interview. “We have tens of thousands of free food banks that people can go to. So it’s just a requirement to nudge these people in the proper direction, and it should no longer go unenforced.”

Darryl Chavis, 62, said that view ignores the difficulties that many veterans face. When Chavis left the U.S. Army at 21 after two years of service, he said, he was “severely depressed.”

“Nobody even came to help me,” said Chavis, who served as a watercraft operator, responsible for operating and maintaining tugboats, barges and other landing craft.

Chavis said he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, which has made it difficult for him to keep a job. He just moved back to New York from Virginia after leaving a relationship. He’s been at the housing shelter in Long Island City since January.

“What I’m trying to do is get settled in to, you know, stabilize into an apartment. I have the credentials to get a job. So it’s not like I’m not gonna look for a job. I have to work. I’m in transition, and the obstacles don’t make it easy,” Chavis said.

The new SNAP work rules apply to all able-bodied adults between 55 and 64 who don’t have dependents, and parents with children above the age of 14. Some groups, such as asylum-seekers and refugees, are no longer eligible for the program.

Barbara Guinn, commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, estimates that around 300,000 New Yorkers could lose SNAP benefits due to work requirements. Of those, around 22,000 are veterans, homeless or aging out of foster care, she said. Almost 3 million New Yorkers relied on SNAP as of March 2025.

Veterans in other states are in a similar situation. In California, an estimated 115,000 veterans receive SNAP benefits, according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The number is nearly 100,000 in Florida and Texas, and 49,000 in Georgia.

Between 2015 and 2019 about 11% of veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 lived in food insecure households, meaning they had limited or uncertain access to food, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP.

“We know that SNAP is the best way to help address hunger. It gets benefits directly to individuals,” Guinn said. “There are other ways that people can get assistance if they need it, through food banks or other charitable organizations, but we do not think that those organizations will have the capacity to pick up the needs.”

A greater burden on states

In addition to the work rule changes, the new law reduces federal funding for SNAP by about $186 billion through 2034 — a cut of roughly 20%, according to the Congressional Budget Office, an independent research arm of Congress. The federal government expects the new work requirements to reduce SNAP spending by $69 billion as people who don’t comply are dropped from the rolls.

SNAP has historically been funded by the federal government, with states picking up part of the cost of administering the program. Under the new law, states will have to cover between 5% and 15% of SNAP costs starting in fiscal year 2028, depending on how accurately they distribute benefits to people who are eligible for the program.

“This has been a strategic agenda to dismantle SNAP and to blame states for doing so, because they knew they are making it so incredibly burdensome to run and operate and unaffordable,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP deputy director at the Food Research & Action Center, a poverty and hunger advocacy group.

“States are going to have to cut something, because there’s no surplus. There are no unlimited resources that states may have in order to be able to offset the harm.”

Guinn said New York expects to see a new cost burden of at least $1.4 billion each year. In California, new state costs could total as much as $3.7 billion annually, according to the California Department of Social Services.

Kaitlynne Yancy, director of membership programs at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said many veterans with disabilities will not be able to fulfill the work requirements or find resources elsewhere. And it’s unclear whether states will be able to provide their own relief to people who are no longer exempted from work requirements or will be excluded from the program.

“It is a frustrating thing to see, especially for those that have been willing to put everything on the line and sacrifice everything for this country if their country called them to do so,” she said.

Yancy, 35, served in the U.S. Navy from 2010 to 2014. She began to use food stamps and the Medicaid program, the public health insurance program for people with lower incomes, as she navigated life’s challenges. They included going back to school to pursue her bachelor’s degree, becoming a single mother, and a leukemia diagnosis for one of her children. Frequent trips to the hospital made it hard for her to work steadily or attend school for 20 hours each week, she said.

Guinn said the new rules will create significant administrative challenges, too; even SNAP recipients who are working will struggle to prove it.

“Maybe they’re working one month, they have a job, and then their employer cuts their hours the next month,” Guinn told Stateline. “There are mechanisms for people to upload documentation as needed to demonstrate compliance with the program, but from an administrative standpoint, right now, we don’t have any super-high-tech automated way of doing this.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

Mitchell Berman is seeking the 2026 Democratic nomination to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District. (Berman for Congress photo)

Mitchell Berman, a Racine County nurse, announced Tuesday he will seek the Democratic nod to run for Congress in Wisconsin’s 1st District against fourth-term incumbent U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Janesville).

Berman is the most recent candidate to officially announce he is entering the Democratic primary race for the seat. Randy Bryce, who lost to Steil in 2018 in one of the nation’s most closely watched congressional contests, announced May 20 that he would try again. Gage Stills, a third Democratic hopeful for the seat, launched a campaign in mid-July. 

Berman introduced his candidacy Tuesday with a video shot on a mobile phone that stresses his working class background and rural Wisconsin upbringing.

“I’m running for Congress because Bryan Steil isn’t looking out for families like mine,” Berman says in the video. “We deserve a government that works for us, not the elite.”

Berman worked as a nurse at the Milwaukee VA hospital for 10 years and in the video highlights his service to military veterans.

He told the Wisconsin Examiner on Tuesday that he left the job when he decided to run for Congress because the federal Hatch Act bars federal employees from running for partisan  office.

The father of two and a 15-year resident of the 1st Congressional District, Berman said concern for his daughters “about whether or not they have the ability to make their own health care decisions” motivated his run for the seat.

“Seeing the cuts to the VA and just the overall gutting of Medicaid in general has also prompted me to get into this race,” he said. Cuts to Medicaid and the SNAP federal nutrition aid program were part of the Republican budget reconciliation bill that Steil voted for and President Donald Trump signed on July 4.

“These things were made for tax cuts for billionaires,” Berman said, adding that in the process, Congress added $3.5 trillion to the federal budget deficit instead of  reducing it.

“I think the No. 1  issue that we need to focus on is affordability,” Berman said. “And I think that umbrella covers many different issues … decreasing the cost of child care, decreasing the cost of health care, decreasing the cost at the grocery store.”

As of July 30, the Cook Political Report rated the 1st District a likely Republican win in 2026 with a 2-point edge for the incumbent, Steil. Cook defines seats rated “likely” for one or the other party as “not considered competitive at this point” but adds that they “have the potential to become engaged.”

Berman said he believes his life experiences will attract voters.

“I’ve lived paycheck to paycheck. I had to work three jobs in college,” Berman said. “I was a first-generation college student. I graduated with student loan debt. My wife and I, we struggled with fertility issues and our children are a blessing of IVF [in vitro fertilization]. So a lot of these kitchen table concerns for people, a lot of these things that people care about close to home, are things that I’ve experienced.”

Berman said he followed news accounts of Steil’s July 31 public event in Elkhorn, where the congressman was met with an angry, noisy crowd and questioners who loudly pushed back on many of his comments.

“I think that’s a good representation of people’s dismay and how upset they are in how Bryan Steil … his lack of representation for the district.”

A first-time political candidate, Berman said he’s been active in local politics as a volunteer, including filing a successful lawsuit that charged the Town of Raymond School District violated the state open meetings law in holding a school board retreat in 2022. The suit was settled in December 2024.

The school district was also embroiled in a dispute among parents over its  social-emotional learning curriculum and the firing of a popular principal. Berman was a leader in a campaign to recall two board members who opposed the curriculum. One of the board members resigned before the recall vote was held, while the other survived the recall election.

“Everyone in my community, everyone I’ve talked to about this opportunity, has been very encouraging,” Berman said.

A reliably Democratic seat in the 1970s and ‘80s, the 1st District has remained in GOP hands since 1994, despite recurring attempts by Democrats to unseat Republican incumbents. The seat was held for two decades by former Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), who rose to become U.S. House speaker before leaving office at the end of 2018.

Steil, a corporate lawyer who previously worked as Ryan’s aide, won his first term against Bryce with more than 54% of the vote to Bryce’s 42%. He won his two most recent races by similar margins. He beat former state Department of Revenue Secretary Peter Barca 54-44 in 2024 and Ann Roe, now a Wisconsin state representative from Janesville, 54-45 in 2022.

This report was updated 8/18/2025 to clarify that Berman, originally identified here as the “second Democrat” in the race, was preceded by another candidate, Gage Stills. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

From left, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Kentucky Gov. Tony Evers said Democratic governors need to respond "in kind" to GOP mid-decade redistricting that's intended to protect the Republican House majority. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.)

MADISON — Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly and other Democratic governors said responding “in kind” to Republican mid-decade redistricting is necessary at a Friday Democratic Governors Association press conference.

Kelly said she thinks courts would rule that redrawn maps from Republicans and Democrats are unconstitutional. If Republicans take this path, however, Democratic governors must also pursue mid-decade redistricting to “protect the American people,” she said.

“It’s incumbent upon Democratic governors, if they have the opportunity, to respond in-kind,” Kelly said. “Things are bad enough in Washington right now. What it would look like if there’s even a greater majority that this President controls — God help the United States of America.”

Kelly and other Democratic governors were in Madison for the DGA’s summer policy conference. 

Discussion over redistricting ahead of midterm elections started in Texas, where President Donald Trump’s political team pressured state leaders to redraw its map to gain more seats in the U.S. House and help Republicans maintain their congressional majority in 2026. Trump said a “very simple redrawing” of the state’s maps could help pick up five seats. 

Redistricting, the process of redrawing state legislative and congressional district boundaries, typically happens every ten years after the U.S. Census. 

Other Republican-led states, including Florida and Ohio, also said they would look at redrawing their maps mid-decade.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was not at the press conference, was the first Democrat to float the idea of gerrymandering the Democratic state to have fewer Republican seats in response. Democrats in New York and Maryland have also been looking for a path to gain additional seats in their states as well. 

None of the governors at the press conference said they would pursue that route but said they supported those that had a path to use it. Kelly joked that she “could” do mid-decade redistricting. “But what would I do? I’d just give them another Republican.” 

Evers said the blatant direction from Trump to pursue redistricting is a “constant threat to our democracy.” 

“I’m really pissed frankly, and we’re going to do whatever we can do to stop this,” Evers said, adding that Wisconsin would not be changing its maps. He said the state has already worked hard to “get fair maps.”

The Republican-led Legislature and Evers adopted new maps for the state Legislature in 2024 following a state Supreme Court ruling. Some have been calling for new Congressional maps, though those efforts have so far been rejected by the state Supreme Court. 

Wisconsin’s current congressional maps were drawn in 2022 by Evers and selected by the state Supreme Court with a conservative majority at the time. Democrats and their allies filed a new challenge to the maps in Dane County Circuit Court in July, arguing they are unconstitutional because they’re anti-competitive. Republicans currently represent six of Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts. 

“Because of those fair [state legislative] maps that we had, we were able to pass a relatively bipartisan budget, and it was a good budget, and so, in my heart of hearts, this is where we have to be, but… when you have a gun up against your head, you gotta do something,” Evers said.

“This move is unconstitutional. It’s again breaking the system. It’s, again, meant to game the system,” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said. “Democrats are expected to have the decorum — we’re expected to protect the institutions, we’re expected to follow the rules on this.”

The times call for a different approach, however, he argued. 

“We’re not playing with a normal administration,” Walz said. “We’re playing with one that has thrown all the rules out of there… I think it is incumbent upon states that have the capacity or the ability to make sure that we are responding in kind.”

Governors criticize GOP over effects of the Republican megabill 

The Democratic governors also warned about the potential effects of Republicans’ federal reconciliation package. Kelly, who chairs the Democratic Governors Association, said government systems and programs being cut are not set up for states to operate on their own. 

“They were set up with the federal government as a very robust partner, and without them being a partner, there is no way that any of our states will be able to pick up the tail,” Kelly said. “The best we could do is perhaps mitigate the pain, but even that will be difficult.” 

The legislation, ” signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, made major changes to the federal Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Trump and Republicans in Congress are “trying to gut programs that Wisconsin families count on,” Evers said. “They’re willing to break our constitutional system to make that happen.” 

The megabill is just one tool, he suggested. “Whether it’s the Republican budget or the continued illegal action to fire Wisconsin workers, strip funds away from our state, damage public education, we have to fight.” 

A memo released this week by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau found that the exact effects of the federal reconciliation law on Medicaid and FoodShare in Wisconsin are uncertain, but will likely result in fewer enrollees.

Currently, about one in five Wisconsin residents rely on Medicaid for health care coverage. 

“The full impact of the Act’s Medicaid provisions on the state’s MA enrollment and costs remains uncertain,” the fiscal bureau memo states. “This is partly because some of the details of implementation requirements will depend upon forthcoming federal guidance, but also because the eligibility and enrollment requirements are new for the program and so little is known about their actual effects.” 

Starting in January 2027, childless adults will be required to complete 80 hours per month of paid work, school, employment training or community service per month to maintain their Medicaid eligibility. There are about 184,000 childless adults currently enrolled in Wisconsin. DHS estimates that 63,000 Wisconsinites will be at high risk of losing their coverage.

The LFB memo said that enrollment will likely drop due to the work requirement provisions. 

“Enrollment reductions could occur either because of the additional complexity of the application process or because the work requirements cause some individuals to increase their earnings to above the eligibility threshold. The magnitude of the program disenrollment, and associated reduction in [Medicaid] benefits costs, is uncertain,” the memo states. 

The governors warned that hospitals still face a difficult environment under the federal law. 

“Our rural hospitals in particular are extremely at risk,” Kelly of Kansas said. “We’ve already closed 10 of them in those 10 years and many more are on the brink, and this reconciliation bill is going to throw them over the edge.” 

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said 35 hospitals are at risk in his state, making it the state with the most hospitals at risk in the nation. 

“Donald Trump’s big ugly bill is the single worst, most devastating piece of legislation that I have seen in my lifetime. It is a direct attack on rural America,” Beshear said. 

Three hospitals in Wisconsin have been identified as at risk of closure. 

Costs for the SNAP program will increase in Wisconsin as the law reduces the federal share of the program — known as FoodShare in Wisconsin — from 50% to 25%. This will leave states responsible for 75% of the costs, a change that the Wisconsin Department of Health Services estimates will require an additional $51 million annually from the state. 

The FoodShare program currently helps nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites access food, and nearly 90,000 Wisconsinites will be at risk of losing their benefits due to the new federal provisions, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. 

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee echoed concerns over the ability of the state  to pick up the gaps left by federal cuts in social programs.

“We’re not going to be able to absorb in funding what’s coming our way,” McKee said. “The taxpayers are going to pay for it in our states or the benefits are going to get reduced.” 

The law extends work requirements for SNAP recipients from the current top age of 54 to age 64. It narrows the work requirement exemption for caregivers and parents by changing the definition of “dependent child” from under 18 years of age to under 14, meaning that parents of 15- to 17-year-olds could now be required to have employment in return for their SNAP benefits. 

It provides an exception from work requirements for a married person responsible for a child under age 14 and residing with someone who complies with the work requirements. It also exempts individuals who are eligible for the Indian Health Services. 

“While Wisconsin just passed a Wisconsin budget that invests in our kids, cuts taxes for working families and supports our rural hospitals, Trump and Congressional Republicans are moving in just the opposite way,” Evers said. “Democratic governors aren’t going to just sit idly and watch it happen. When Trump tried to strip hospital funding, we moved real quickly to protect $1.5 billion dollars in health care funding for Wisconsin. When they threaten our schools, we stand up and fight back. When they attack programs that matter to working families, we find ways to fill the gaps.”

“Republican governors fall in line behind Trump’s agenda. Democratic governors are standing up for the people that we serve,” Evers said before mentioning 2026 elections. He said Wisconsinites will “make a choice about the future of our state when they elect our next governor. They’re going to choose a leader who will work together and expand health care, support working families and build an economy that works for everybody.”

Evers announced on July 24 that he would not be running for a third term in office, setting up the first open race for governor in Wisconsin since 2010.

“I know that [Evers’] leadership is not going to end just because the title might, and that he is going to be out there fighting for what he believes in moving into the future,” said Kentucky Gov Andy Beshear, who won’t be able to run for another term in 2027 due to term limits.

So far, Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez has announced her campaign, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley is planning on entering the race and other Democrats are still mulling a decision. There will likely be a crowded Democratic primary. Two Republicans have officially launched their campaigns for governor, while U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has been teasing a run.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Prairie du Chien) speaks at a hearing in the House of Representatives. Van Orden claims to have engineered the Wisconsin State budget deal that mitigated the Medicaid cuts he voted for. | Screenshot via Youtube

Success has many fathers, but U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden is not one of them. Contrary to Van Orden’s triumphant tweets, he did not “secure” $1 billion for rural health care in Wisconsin. He had nothing to do with the bipartisan state budget deal that was drafted and rushed to completion in order to capture those funds — which, by the way, represent just a fraction of the billions the state stands to lose in Medicaid funds under the Republican mega bill Van Orden approved.

What Van Orden did do was vote to cut Medicaid and Affordable Care Act health insurance, with the result that tens of thousands of rural Wisconsinites now face losing their health care coverage and several rural Wisconsin hospitals are in danger of closing. As he prepared to join the narrow, four-vote majority that passed the disastrous federal bill, Van Orden sent some last-minute messages to Gov. Tony Evers urging him to hurry up and sign the deal Evers had already reached with state legislators. Now Van Orden is taking credit for Wisconsin leaders’ work mitigating the harm he caused. It would be laughable if the consequences were not so dire. 

For months, Evers and leaders of the Wisconsin Legislature met behind closed doors to hammer out a deal, even as massive federal cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and other programs essential to the wellbeing of Wisconsinites loomed. Among the issues Evers and legislative leaders agreed on was the importance of getting the budget done before the federal mega bill was signed, so the state could still qualify for $1 billion in soon-to-expire Medicaid matching funds. 

Evers signed the budget in the nick of time last week, at 1:30 a.m. on July 3, just before the U.S. Congress granted President Donald Trump’s wish and sent him his “big beautiful bill” to sign on July 4. 

Van Orden immediately began taking credit for both budgets.

“I just helped secure $1,000,000,000 a year for BadgerCare and $500,000,000 for rural healthcare infrastructure,” Van Orden boasted on X. The $500 million he claimed credit for was added to the bill by U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other Senate Republicans worried about the bill’s devastating impact on rural hospitals. Van Orden had nothing to do with it. Nor is the money earmarked for Wisconsin — it’s a nationwide program meant to blunt the blow Van Orden and his GOP colleagues have just dealt to rural health care. 

But the biggest whopper Van Orden told is that he somehow led the bipartisan budget deal between Evers and the Legislature. 

It seemed weird at the time when Van Orden, on the brink of voting for the federal law that will cause so many Wisconsinites to lose their health care, started shouting at Evers on X to hurry up and sign the state budget.

Now it’s clear that he was simultaneously preparing to vote to take health care away from his constituents and planning to take credit for saving them from the effects of his own vote.

After both budgets were signed, Van Orden repeatedly shared a copy of a letter he wrote to Evers on July 2 emphasizing the “importance of signing the proposed state budget into law without delay.” According to Van Orden, the letter and a conversation he claims to have had with Evers caused the governor to sign the deal the next day. 

“Not true,” Evers spokesperson Britt Cudaback wrote on X in response to Van Orden’s bragging. “You never personally advocated to @GovEvers or our office to increase the hospital assessment in the bipartisan budget deal until it was already in the deal. And you had zero to do with Gov. Evers deciding to sign the budget before the reconciliation bill was signed.” 

What Van Orden did do was to vote for a bill that will push an estimated 30,000 rural Wisconsinites off Medicaid and will take away food assistance from another 90,000 people in the state, 1 in 3 of whom are children.

Van Orden was one of several Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives who expressed concern about the food assistance cuts in the GOP mega-bill — and then voted for the cuts anyway. 

Those cuts only got deeper after the bill moved to the U.S. Senate, and the bill’s cost in massive increases to the federal deficit also grew from $2.5 trillion in the House version to $3.4 trillion in the final deal. Still, Van Orden stayed on board, voting for the bill a second time when it came back to the House and sending it to President Donald Trump to sign into law.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan compares Van Orden to an arsonist who takes credit for recommending the residents of the house he torched take steps to put out the fire. “You know, he poured gasoline around the house. He started throwing matches around, and then he said, ‘you better use that extinguisher,’” Pocan said at a press briefing this week.

Van Orden continues to obfuscate. In between doubling down on his preposterous claims and slinging insults at his detractors on social media, the congressman who has been rebuked by Senate leaders of both parties for yelling vulgarities at high school pages claimed to have given Evers a lesson in civility and bipartisanship:  “Why did Tony sign the bill at 1:30 am? Because I asked him personally to put politics aside,” he declared this week. 

For all his posturing on X, Van Orden still hasn’t been willing to face his constituents in a town hall to stand behind his vote. Pocan decided to hold one for him last month, to explain the details of what he called the worst budget bill he’s seen in 30 years in politics. At a press conference Pocan said, “I think this month I may have to do another visit.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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. 

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

This report has been updated.

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

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

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

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

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

More objections to Medicaid cuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public lands

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

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

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

SNAP cost-sharing under debate

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

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

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

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

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

Rushing toward deadline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump goads Republicans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ‘red line’ in the House

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thumbs down from one House Republican

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

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

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

Rattlesnakes and the Senate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats to continue challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SNAP program

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consumer financial agency victory for Dems

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

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

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

Scott listed provisions that he said will remain.

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

Judges and injunctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artificial intelligence and states

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

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

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

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

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

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