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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still fluid

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

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

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

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

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

Senate bill would add $3.2 trillion to deficits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Alaska sweetener knocked out

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

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

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

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

Planned Parenthood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment fights ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thom Tillis, Rand Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Targeted by Trump over vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

2026 election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Campaign committees react

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Trump Accounts' included in the tax and spending cut bill would be available to U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028, and whose parent, or parents, if legally married, already have Social Security numbers. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Tucked in the “one big beautiful bill” is a proposal for tax-advantaged “Trump Accounts,” each seeded with $1,000 from the government for certain babies born in the United States over the next few years.

But financial experts and advocates for low-income children are not overly impressed.

The idea is not new and has been likened to other “baby bonds” programs aimed at reducing the growing wealth gap, like state-run trust funds in California and Connecticut. Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill to create a similar federal program. 

The White House has touted the proposal in the tax and spending cut measure as “pro-family” and one that “will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth.”

At a June 9 event to promote the “Trump Accounts” featuring CEOs of top American companies, President Donald Trump promised the pilot program will make it possible for “countless American children to have a strong start in life at no cost to the American taxpayer.”

Speaking at the same event, top House Republican tax writer Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri said “every child born under this policy will have a better shot at a future. It does not matter if they live on a city block or on a county road, this will make a significant difference to their lives.”

Critics say the accounts, as proposed, would mostly benefit children born to wealthier families.

They also say the restricted-access accounts, and the one-time government contribution of $1,000, will not help in the face of cuts to food and health programs for low-income people written into the massive budget reconciliation bill, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

How ‘Trump Accounts’ would work

The investment savings accounts would be available to U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028, and whose parent, or parents, if legally married, already have Social Security numbers.

Each year, from a child’s birth to age 18, family and friends, parents’ employers, churches and other private foundations, could contribute up to a combined $5,000 annually to the investment account that will track a stock index and gain interest accordingly.

Deposits into the account are taxed. Later on, withdrawals would be subject to the long-term capital gains tax — a tax on the profit made from selling an asset, or investment, that a person has held for longer than a year.

After reaching 18, the account beneficiary could access half the account’s value only for qualified expenses that include higher education, vocational training, the purchase of a first home, and costs associated with an enterprise for which the beneficiary has received a small business loan or small farm loan.

The beneficiary could access the remaining half of the account after age 25. At age 31, the account loses its status as a “Trump Account” and any remaining balance is taxed as income.

Drawbacks seen

The Urban Institute warns that the proposed structure of the account will mostly benefit wealthy families who already have the resources to grow the funds.

The bottom 80% of households, by income, only hold half as much cash on hand as the top 20% of households, according to the left-leaning think tank’s nationwide financial health data.

Additionally, because of penalties for early withdrawals, lower-income families would be incentivized to save in less restrictive accounts, according to the think tank’s May 27 analysis.

The institute recommends the government provide more contributions based on income level, beyond just the one-time $1,000, and lessen the penalties for accessing cash for catastrophic events.

A 2023 Democratic legislative proposal put forth by Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts aimed to create an account that would target the benefit to children from lower-income households.

Their plan suggests accounts be initially seeded with $1,000, and then children would receive up to an additional $2,000 annually based on their family’s income level.

According to Booker’s and Pressley’s plan, a child from a family of four that brings in less than $25,100 in annual income would have an estimated $46,200 in investment savings by the time they turn 18.

Under the Trump Account proposal, a child’s one-time $1,000 deposit from the government would grow to roughly $5,000 by age 18 if no other contributions were ever made, according to the Urban Institute.

Child tax credits

Brendan Duke, senior director for federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the GOP proposal “wasn’t particularly well thought through.”

“It’s this question of whether it makes more sense to give every family $1,000 that they can’t access in those really important years, or whether you should have expanded the child tax credit,” Duke said.

Duke criticized lawmakers’ proposals that do not expand the child tax credit to the lowest-income families in the massive GOP budget reconciliation package.

While the House version temporarily expands the credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, and the Senate version permanently expands the credit by a more modest amount of $2,200, neither version expands income or refundability parameters that would benefit the poorest families.

The CBPP estimates that 17 million children are left out of the credit because of the restrictions.

Existing savings vehicles

Another criticism of the Trump Accounts is that they provide a redundant option among the several existing tax-preferred savings vehicles for Americans, including 529 education investment savings accounts, Roth and Traditional IRAs and Health Savings Accounts.

The Tax Foundation’s Alex Muresianu said the account is “a move toward complexity rather than simplification.”

“We already have plenty of savings accounts with specific purposes, and a lot of different strings attached,” said Muresianu, senior policy analyst with the right-leaning foundation.

“We don’t really need another targeted account for a specific purpose, rather than a more easily accessible account with fewer conditions.”

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

This report has been updated.

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

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

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

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

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

More objections to Medicaid cuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public lands

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

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

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

SNAP cost-sharing under debate

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

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

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

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

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

Rushing toward deadline

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

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

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

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).”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A potentially messy process’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats develop strategy

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

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

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

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

‘It’s just a show, it’s a charade’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote-a-rama after vote-a-rama

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Capitol on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released detailed analysis Wednesday showing Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” would increase federal deficits by $2.4 trillion during the next decade.

CBO projects that if enacted as written, the legislation would result in 10.9 million people losing access to health insurance by 2034, a number that includes “1.4 million people without verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status who would no longer be covered in state-only funded programs in 2034.”

The score is the most up-to-date analysis by Congress’ official scorekeeper on how the sweeping tax and spending cuts package the House approved last month will impact the federal budget in the years ahead.

Republicans have been highly critical of the CBO’s assessment of the legislation’s real-world impacts, arguing that keeping tax rates as they are now, instead of letting them rise at the end of the year when the 2017 GOP tax law expires, will boost economic growth.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., lambasted the CBO during a press conference shortly after the report came out, arguing its economic growth projections haven’t been completely accurate.

“This bill will actually reduce the deficit, if you recognize the historical economic growth that has always been there,” Scalise said. “To say you’re going to get 1.8% growth. At a minimum, we think you can get 2.5 to 4% growth. Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, says over 4% economic growth. So I get that we’ve got to play by the rules of the referee, but the referee has been wrong.”

During the last decade, U.S. growth only surpassed 3% during one year, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Gross domestic product growth measured 2.5% in 2014, 2.9% in 2015, 1.8% in 2016, 2.5% in 2017, 3% in 2018, 2.6% in 2019, -2.2% in 2020 during the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, 6.1% in 2021, 2.5% in 2022, 2.9% in 2023 and 2.8% in 2024. 

White House budget director Russ Vought posted on social media that the CBO score “confirms what we knew about the bill at House passage.”

“The bill REDUCES deficits by $1.4 trillion over ten years when you adjust for CBO’s one big gimmick–not using a realistic current policy baseline,” Vought wrote. “It includes $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, the most in history. If you care about deficits and debt, this bill dramatically improves the fiscal picture.”

Disagreement over the ‘big beautiful bill’

GOP lawmakers have also sought to brush aside criticism from some of their own members, including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who both argue the legislation must cut spending more to reduce the federal deficit in the long run.

Billionaire and former Trump administration staffer Elon Musk has also become increasingly vocal about his opposition to the package, writing on social media this week that the “massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”

The House voted mostly along party lines in May to send the sweeping spending and tax cuts package to the Senate, which is expected to debate and amend the legislation in the weeks ahead.

CBO’s analysis will likely inform some of that conversation, and help senators better understand how the policy changes proposed by their House colleagues would affect state government budgets and the communities they represent. 

The CBO previously shared analysis of each of the 11 bills that make up the package, but those didn’t reflect several changes GOP House leaders made just hours before the floor vote in that chamber.

Updated numbers

The updated projections show Republicans’ plan to extend the 2017 tax law and make other tweaks to tax policy would increase the deficit by $3.754 trillion during the next decade. That increase to the deficit caused by the tax changes, which CBO has also found would decrease resources for low-income families over the next decade while increasing resources for top earners, would be partly offset by spending reductions on certain programs.

The Armed Services Committee’s bill would increase deficits by $144 billion, more than the $100 billion ceiling Republicans envisioned in the budget outline that was supposed to set guardrails on the package. Homeland Security’s provisions would increase deficits by $79 billion. And the Judiciary Committee’s language would increase deficits by $9 billion during the 10-year budget window.

The section of the package drafted by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which would make substantial changes to Medicaid and several other programs within the panel’s jurisdiction, would decrease spending by $1.086 trillion during the 10-year budget window.

The panel’s bill has four subcategories: energy, environment, communications and health. The health provisions, which include substantial changes to Medicaid, would reduce federal spending by $902 billion between 2025 and 2034.

Language barring Medicaid from covering gender transition procedures for anyone in the state-federal health program would reduce federal spending by $2.6 billion during the next decade.

Requiring some people on Medicaid to work, participate in community service or attend educational programs for at least 80 hours a month would reduce federal spending by $344 billion during the next 10 years.

Blocking any Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood would cut federal costs by $261 million during the 10-year budget window. Federal law already bars health care programs like Medicaid from covering abortions unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or it endangers the life of the woman.

Separate analysis from CBO, released later Wednesday, projects that 7.8 million people would lose access to Medicaid because of the policy changes laid out in the House GOP bill. Another 2.3 million would lose access to health insurance due to changes to tax policy and 1.3 million people would no longer be able to purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

CBO estimates that about 500,000 people would be impacted by interactions among the various health care policy changes. That number, subtracted from the numbers of those who would lose access, leads  to a total of 10.9 million people losing access to health insurance by 2034.  

Democratic criticism

Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, wrote in a statement that it’s “shocking House Republicans rushed to vote on this bill without an accounting from CBO on the millions of people who will lose their health care or the trillions of dollars it would add to the national (deficit).

“The truth is Republican leaders raced to pass this bill under cover of night because they didn’t want the American people or even their own members to know about its catastrophic consequences.”

The Agriculture Committee’s provisions, including pushing off some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to states, would reduce federal spending by $238 billion during the next decade.

The Education and Workforce Committee’s language would decrease federal spending by $349 billion. The Financial Services section of the package would reduce federal spending by $5 billion. Natural Resources would lower spending by $18 billion. And Transportation and Infrastructure would reduce spending by nearly $37 billion. 

The Oversight and Government Reform bill would decrease spending by $12 billion, significantly less than the minimum of $50 billion the panel was supposed to cut under the reconciliation instructions included in the budget resolution. 

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan at a town hall meeting in Eau Claire, with a chair for Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden who represents the 3rd Congressional District that includes Eau Claire. The chart behind Pocan shows most of the tax cuts passed by House Republicans go to those in the highest income brackets. | Photo by Frank Zufall/Wisconsin Examiner

“Is Derrick here?” asked U.S. Rep.  Mark Pocan, the Democratic congressman representing Wisconsin’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes  Dane County. Pocan was in Eau Claire, the 3rd Congressional District represented by Derrick Van Orden, a Republican, on Saturday, May 31, at a town hall organized by Opportunity Wisconsin, a coalition of grassroots groups, at the Pablo Center at the Confluence, Eau Claire’s performing arts center.

Van Orden was invited to attend the event but declined.

Pocan is one of several congressional Democrats who have begun holding town hall meetings in Republican districts where Republican representatives have been reluctant to meet their constituents who are upset about  budget cuts that threaten access to Social Security, Medicaid and federal food assistance. 

Pocan focused on what President Dondald Trump (R) has called “the Big Beautiful Bill” that was recently passed by the House of Representatives, and which  Pocan called “the worst bill I’ve ever seen introduced by anyone, by any political party.”

He chided Republican supporters for cutting  Medicaid benefits  for nearly 14 million Americans,  raising the premiums for the Affordable  Care Act (ACA), and cutting food assistance to 11 million mostly low-income children through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The Republican budget reconciliation package  also extends  tax cuts passed in 2017 for America’s top earners, resulting in a nearly $5 trillion national deficit over 10 years.

A May 20 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the GOP budget bill projects it would increase the national deficit by $3.8 trillion and decrease Medicaid spending by $698 billion and SNAP spending by $267 billion.

A May 22 CBO projection notes the bill would reduce SNAP participation by “roughly 3.2 million people in an average month over the 2025–2034 period.”

There are different projections on how many people would experience a Medicaid cut, with estimates ranging from 7.5 to 10 million.

Van Orden sent out a release after Pocan’s appearance in Eau Claire:

“What Mr. Pocan is doing is absolutely despicable – continuing to fearmonger our vulnerable populations, including seniors, veterans, hungry children, individuals with disabilities and pregnant women. This bill protects Medicaid and SNAP for those most in need and prevents a 25% tax hike on Wisconsin families. Anyone telling you anything different, including Mr. Pocan, is lying to you.”

Van Orden also disputes  the CBO’s analysis, stating that the CBO has been wrong in the past and tends to be overly critical of Republican-sponsored legislation.

“There are not cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, veteran benefits, SNAP and WIC (Women, Infants and Children program) are not being cut,” Van Orden told a local TV station after the House passed the bill.

But Pocan said Van Orden has been corrected even by other Republicans who admit the bill would reduce spending on Medicaid.

“83% of the benefit goes to the top 1% of the people,” Pocan said of the tax cuts, “so they are taking from the pockets of pretty much everyone in this room and putting it into the pockets of Elon Musk and Donald Trumps and others.”

Pocan added that  only 5% of the tax cuts in the bill will go to working people, including those who won’t have to pay taxes on tips,  seniors and to offset interest payments on car loans. And, he noted, those cuts will  sunset, while the much larger tax cuts for top-earners, which account for  83% of the cost of the bill, are permanent.

“The single largest cut to health care in American history is in this bill, 13.7 million people are estimated would lose access to health care because of the cuts to Medicaid,” Pocan said. “But what doesn’t get as much coverage is they also cut some of the premium assistance for the Affordable Care Act. So it’s a $700 billion cut to Medicaid, but also a $300 billion cut to the Affordable Care Act. We don’t even have the estimates of the numbers yet, but millions more will pay increased premiums.”

Pocan said Republicans have said the Medicaid cuts are really about setting work requirements in exchange for benefits and not a straight cut.

“Two-thirds of the people who get Medicaid are working poor,” Pocan said. While they shouldn’t be affected by the new work requirements, the red tape involved in proving their work history will help push people off Medicaid.

 “It’s not about trying to have any accountability,” he said. “It’s to just make it harder for people to get health care.” Pocan pointed to a state work requirement for Medicaid recipients in  Arkansas, where people who lost coverage were actually eligible for care. The work requirements did not boost employment, researchers found and many of those who lost coverage had trouble accessing the online reporting system. 

Pocan also noted that the projected increase in the deficit under the House proposal would trigger a sequestration requirement, resulting in automatic cuts to Medicare of nearly $500 billion.

SNAP cuts would mean a loss of $314 million for Wisconsin.

 Pocan also criticized Trump’s “on again, off again” practice of announcing tariffs, which had created a climate of uncertainty for businesses.

“Not only did Donald Trump not reduce costs like he promised in November, but the tariffs are actually a tax on all of us,” he said.

Pocan criticized Van Orden for not coming to town hall meetings to defend his vote for the Republican budget bill.

Van Orden has said he prefers telephone town halls where the meeting isn’t dominated by people he describes as leftwing critics, and he also has said that his family has received death threats and is vulnerable in an in-person setting.

Pocan acknowledged death threats should be taken seriously, but also stated he and many others in Congress have received death threats, and he criticized Van Orden’s telephone town halls for only allowing his supporters to talk.

Pocan also criticized Van Orden for going back on his promise never to cut Medicaid or reduce SNAP.  Van Orden has claimed  the bill doesn’t reduce Medicaid and that Medicaid and  SNAP payments will continue as usual for recipients if they meet the new work requirements.

A registered nurse who attended the town hall in Eau Claire said many of her clients are on Medicaid and Medicare, with several living in nursing homes, and she asked what would happen to them if the House budget bill became law.

State Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) who came to the town hall with Pocan,   said approximately 55% of people in long-term care in Wisconsin are on Medicaid and if Medicaid funding is cut it will also impact the other 45-50% who have private insurance  because facilities will close due to lack of funding.

Pocan also responded to questions about cuts to Social Security Administration staff, saying, “When you cut thousands of people who work for Social Security, you make it harder for people to get access to their money.”

Speaking more generally of federal cuts under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, he added, “They fired the people who worked on avian flu, bird flu, which was affecting us greatly recently, and they had to rehire them at the Department of Health and Human Services.” 

Pocan said he believed Trump won in November because the cost of living was high and noted that in other countries incumbents  also lost because of a backlash caused by global  inflation.

“So that was the No. 1 thing going for Donald Trump in November, but today it’s the No. 1 thing that’s taking him down the polls, because he said he would address it. He’s done nothing,” said Pocan.

Asked how Democrats could encourage younger people to vote, Pocan said, “The good news is younger people absolutely agree with more progressive public policy and not conservative policy.” But people “want to fight back, you want something to happen,” he added.

He encouraged Democratic leaders to hold more town hall meetings in Republican districts.

 “We should be going into many more Republican districts,” he said.

Pocan also encouraged attendees to meet Van Orden whenever he is in Eau Claire and ask to talk to him directly, and invite the press to be there for the interaction.

He encouraged the crowd of 100-plus to become active.

“You happen to be in this very unique position of having a member that is in a purple district,” Pocan  said of Van Orden, who  won in 2024 by one of the smallest majorities for a Republican in Congress. He “could lose his seat if he doesn’t listen to you.” 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Capitol is pictured on Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom) 

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans on the Budget Committee moved the “one big, beautiful” reconciliation bill a step closer to the chamber floor in a rare Sunday night vote after a handful of conservatives blocked the bill Friday. 

The massive deal squeaked through on a 17-16 vote, with four far-right panel members voting “present.” They were Reps. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Ralph Norman of South Carolina and Chip Roy of Texas. All four voted no on the bill Friday.

Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania flipped his Friday vote of “no” to support the massive budget reconciliation deal that cuts safety net programs to pay for extending, and expanding, President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax law — at a cost of $3.8 trillion over the next decade.

Smucker, the panel’s vice chair, switched his vote Friday because of committee procedural rules that allowed him to propose reconsideration of the measure.

Brecheen, Clyde, Norman and Roy voted “no” on Friday after demanding work requirements for some Medicaid recipients begin prior to the bill’s stated date of 2029, and that clean energy tax credits phase out at a faster pace.

Roy wrote on social media Sunday night that he changed his vote “out of respect for the Republican Conference and the President to move the bill forward” but that the bill “does not yet meet the moment.”

Other details on why the members changed their votes to “present” were unclear. 

When asked by Democrats on the panel whether anything had changed in the bill, Budget Committee Chair Jody Arrington said negotiations were “fluid.”

“Deliberations continue at this very moment. They will continue on into the week, and I suspect right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House,” said Arrington of Texas.

Ranking Member Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania said his side of the aisle wanted “transparency.”

“If the bill has changed and there’s been some side agreement reached, I think it’s important that all the members have the full details on that in advance of any vote,” Boyle said.

Massive bill

The committee’s tense Sunday night meeting began nearly 30 minutes late.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana told reporters on Capitol Hill shortly beforehand that talks were going “great” and that “minor modifications” had been made over the weekend.

The 1,116-page bill package that includes bills from 11 separate committees will now need to clear the House Committee on Rules to advance to a full House vote. House members are set to leave for Memorial Day recess on Thursday.

As written, the bill cuts more than $600 billion over the next decade from Medicaid, the government health program for low-income individuals as well as those with disabilities.

Credit downgrade

Sunday night’s vote came just two days after Moody’s Ratings downgraded the U.S. government’s credit rating, citing a gloomy outlook for U.S. debt and interest burdens.

“Successive US administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs,” a Friday statement from the investment rating service read. “We do not believe that material multi-year reductions in mandatory spending and deficits will result from current fiscal proposals under consideration.”

The reconciliation package could add up to $3.3 trillion to the national debt through 2034, reaching $5.2 trillion if temporary provisions are made permanent, according to analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Congressional Budget Office has not yet released scores for all parts of the megabill.

The far-right House Freedom Caucus board released a statement shortly after Sunday night’s vote, saying the bill continues to increase deficits “with possible savings years down the road that may never materialize.”

“Thanks to discussions over the weekend, the bill will be closer to the budget resolution framework we agreed upon in the House in April, but it fails to actually honor our promise to significantly correct the spending trajectory of the federal government and lead our nation towards a balanced budget,” according to the statement posted on social media.

Members of the caucus who do not serve on the Budget Committee made similar public statements.

“America faces the reality of financial insolvency and looming bankruptcy. For 9 years, I have remained faithful to principles that include an end to the continuous growth of FedGov deficit spending. I will not support a federal budget that increases federal deficit spending,” GOP Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana wrote on his X profile Sunday.

Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee wrote on the social media site, “The Moody’s downgrade is yet another wake up call. We need to decrease spending immediately!”

Thin margins

As expected, and following Friday’s same result, Democrats on the panel voted unanimously against the package.

Republicans hold a slim 220-213 margin in the House, meaning that if more than three Republicans vote with Democrats — who are all expected to vote against the package — the bill would fail on the floor.

Republicans swiftly voted down several last-ditch efforts by Democrats on the panel to protect low-income health care and food assistance programs, as well as clean energy and manufacturing tax credits.

Johnson must also contend with a parallel — and expensive — fight among his conference on the state and local taxes, or SALT, deduction. Republicans who represent high-income, high-tax blue states like California and New York, are demanding a more generous cap on the amount they can deduct. 

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas shakes hands with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman following a hearing of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on Thursday, May 8, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A footnote in a budget bill U.S. House Republicans are trying to pass before Memorial Day is the first major signal for how Congress may address artificial intelligence legislation, as they seek to create a moratorium on any AI laws at the state level for 10 years.

The measure, advanced Wednesday, May 14, as part of the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s budget reconciliation proposal, says a state may not enforce any law or regulation on AI models and systems, or automated decision-making systems in the next 10 years. Exceptions would include laws that “remove legal impediments to, or facilitate the deployment or operation of” AI systems.

“No one believes that AI should be unregulated,” said California Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, during a markup Wednesday. But he said he believes that responsibility should fall to Congress, not the states. 

The AI law moratorium was packaged with a budget line item proposing to spend $500 million modernizing federal IT programs with commercial AI systems through 2035.

This move by House Republicans is not really out of left field, said Travis Hall, director for State Engagement at tech policy and governance organization Center for Democracy and Technology. Many have been itching to create a preemptive federal law to supersede AI legislation in the states.

At a Senate Commerce Committee session earlier this month, Chairman Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, said it was in his plans to create “a regulatory sandbox for AI” that would prevent state overregulation and promote the United States’ AI industry. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, once open to AI regulations, testified that the country’s lack of regulation is what contributed to his success.

“I think it is no accident that that’s happening in America again and again and again, but we need to make sure that we build our systems and that we set our policy in a way where that continues to happen,” Altman said.  

As the language of the bill stands, Congress would prohibit enforcement of any existing laws on AI and decision-making systems, and nullify any potential laws that could be put forth over the next decade, Hall said. Though they discussed AI research last year, Congress has not put forward any guidelines or regulations on AI.

“I will say what feels very different and new about this particular provision … both in terms of conversations about artificial intelligence and in terms of other areas of tech and telecom policy, is the complete lack of any regulatory structure that would actually be preempting the state law,” Hall said.

States have been developing their own laws around AI and decision-making systems — software that helps analyze and sort data, commonly used for job applications, mortgage lending, banking and in other industries — over the last few years as they await federal legislation. At least 550 AI bills have been introduced across 45 states and Puerto Rico in 2025, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported.

Many of these state laws regulate how AI intertwines with data privacy, transparency and discrimination. Others regulate how children can access these tools, how they can be used in election processes and surround the concept of deepfakes, or computer-generated likenesses of real people.

While lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have called for federal AI legislation, Hall said he thinks industry pressure and President Donald Trump’s deregulated tech stance won’t allow Congress to effectively act on a preemptive law — “states are stepping into that vacuum themselves.”

On Friday, 40 state attorneys general signed a bipartisan letter to Congress opposing the limitation on state AI legislation. The letter urged Congress to develop a federal framework for AI governance for “high risk” systems that promotes transparency, testing and tool assessment, in addition to state legislation. The letter said existing laws were developed “over years through careful consideration and extensive stakeholder input from consumers, industry, and advocates.”

“In the face of Congressional inaction on the emergence of real-world harms raised by the use of AI, states are likely to be the forum for addressing such issues,” the letter said. “This bill would directly harm consumers, deprive them of rights currently held in many states, and prevent State AGs from fulfilling their mandate to protect consumers.”  

A widesweeping AI bill in California was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year, citing similar industry pressure. Senate Bill 1047 would have required safety testing of costly AI models to determine whether they would likely lead to mass death, endanger public infrastructure or enable severe cyberattacks.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, a Bay Area Democrat, has found more success with the Automated Decisions Safety Act this year, but said as a regulatory lawyer, she would favor having a federal approach.

“We don’t have a Congress that is going to do what our communities want, and so in the absence of their action, the states are stepping up,” she said.

The moratorium would kill the Automated Decisions Safety Act and nullify all of California’s AI legislation, as well as landmark laws like Colorado’s which will go into effect in February. State Rep. Brianna Titone, a sponsor of Colorado’s law, said people are hungry for some regulation.

“A 10 year moratorium of time is astronomical in terms of how quickly this technology is being developed,” she said in an email to States Newsroom. “To have a complete free-for-all on AI with no safeguards puts citizens at risk of situations we haven’t yet conceived of.”

Hall is skeptical that this provision will advance fully, saying he feels legislators will have a hard time trying to justify this moratorium in a budget bill relating to updating aging IT systems. But it’s a clear indication that the focus of this Congress is on deregulation, not accountability, he said.

“I do think that it’s unfortunate that the first statement coming out is one of abdication of responsibility,” Hall said, “as opposed to stepping up and doing the hard work of actually putting in place common sense and, like, actual protections for people that allows for innovation.”

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

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

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

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

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

Speedier work requirements

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

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

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

“We have to fix this,” he said.

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

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

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

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

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

‘A wrecking ball to Medicaid’

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

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

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

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

Republican-only bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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