
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' faces Republican family feud as Senate reveals its final text
Print Close
By Alex Miller
Published June 28, 2025
Senate Republicans unveiled their long-awaited version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," but its survival is not guaranteed.
Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., revealed the stitched-together text of the colossal bill late Firday night.
The final product from the upper chamber is the culmination of a roughly month-long sprint to take the House GOP's version of the bill and mold and change it. The colossal package includes separate pieces and parts from 10 Senate committees. With the introduction of the bill, a simple procedural hurdle must be passed in order to begin the countdown to final passage.
When that comes remains an open question. Senate Republicans left their daily lunch on Friday under the assumption that a vote could be teed up as early as noon on Saturday.
HOUSE CONSERVATIVES GO TO WAR WITH SENATE OVER TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL'
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital that he had "strongly encouraged" Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to put the bill on the floor for a vote Saturday afternoon.
"If you're unhappy with that, you're welcome to fill out a hurt feelings report, and we will review it carefully later," Kennedy said. "But in the meantime, it's time to start voting."
But Senate Republicans' desire to impose their will on the package and make changes to already divisive policy tweaks in the House GOP's offering could doom the bill and derail Thune's ambitious timeline to get it on Trump's desk by the July 4 deadline.
However, Thune has remained firm that lawmakers would stay on course and deliver the bill to Trump by Independence Day.
When asked if he had the vote to move the package forward, Thune said "we'll find out tomorrow."
TOP TRUMP HEALTH OFFICIAL SLAMS DEMOCRATS FOR 'MISLEADING' CLAIMS ABOUT MEDICAID REFORM
But it wasn't just lawmakers who nearly derailed the bill. The Senate parliamentarian, the true final arbiter of the bill, ruled that numerous GOP-authored provisions did not pass muster with Senate rules.
Any item in the "big, beautiful bill" must comport with the Byrd Rule, which governs the budget reconciliation process and allows for a party in power to ram legislation through the Senate while skirting the 60-vote filibuster threshold.
That sent lawmakers back to the drawing board on a slew of policy tweaks, including the Senate's changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate, cost-sharing for food benefits and others.
Republican leaders, the White House and disparate factions within the Senate and House GOP have been meeting to find middle ground on other pain points, like tweaking the caps on state and local tax (SALT) deductions.
While the controversial Medicaid provider tax rate change remained largely the same, a $25 billion rural hospital stabilization fund was included in the bill to help attract possible holdouts that have raised concerns that the rate change would shutter rural hospitals throughout the country.
On the SALT front, there appeared to be a breakthrough on Friday. A source told Fox News that the White House and House were on board with a new plan that would keep the $40,000 cap from the House's bill and have it reduced back down to $10,000 after five years.
But Senate Republicans are the ones that must accept it at this stage. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., has acted as the mediator in those negotiations, and said that he was unsure if any of his colleagues "love it."
"But I think, as I've said before, I want to make sure we have enough that people can vote for than to vote against," he said.
Still, a laundry list of other pocket issues and concerns over just how deep spending cuts in the bill go have conservatives and moderates in the House GOP and Senate pounding their chests and vowing to vote against the bill.
Republican leaders remain adamant that they will finish the mammoth package and are gambling that some lawmakers standing against the bill will buckle under the pressure from the White House and the desire to leave Washington for a short break.
Once a motion to proceed is passed, which only requires a simple majority, then begins 20 hours of debate evenly divided between both sides of the aisle.
'BABY STEPS': LEADER THUNE DETAILS HIS WORK TO CORRAL REPUBLICANS BEHIND TRUMP'S LEGISLATIVE VISION
Democratic lawmakers are expected to spend the entirety of their 10 allotted hours, while Republicans will likely clock in well below their limit. From there starts the "vote-a-rama" process, when lawmakers can submit a near-endless number of amendments to the bill. Democrats will likely try to extract as much pain as possible with messaging amendments that won't actually pass but will add more and more time to the process.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Once that is complete, lawmakers will move to a final vote. If successful, the "big, beautiful bill" will again make its way back to the House, where House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will again have to corral dissidents to support the legislation. It barely advanced last month, squeaking by on a one-vote margin.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hammered on the importance of passing Trump's bill on time. He met with Senate Republicans during their closed-door lunch and spread the message that advancing the colossal tax package would go a long way to giving businesses more certainty in the wake of the president's tariffs.
"We need certainty," he said. "With so much uncertainty, and having the bill on the president's desk by July 4 will give us great tax certainty, and I believe, accelerate the economy in the third quarter of the year." Print Close
URL
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-big-beautiful-bill-faces-republican-family-feud-senate-reveals-its-final-text
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
40 minutes ago
- Forbes
Will The ‘Beautiful' Bill Increase The Deficit?
NEW YORK - FEBRUARY 19: The National Debt Clock is seen February 19, 2004 in New York City. ... More According to a Treasury Department report, the U.S. governments national debt, the accumulation of past budget shortfalls, reached a total of more than $7 trillion for the first time. (Photo by) The performative exchange of military strikes between Iran and the US means that a nuclear tipped hot war in the Middle East is off the cards for the moment, though the bad news is that a far greater crisis awaits. In the past five or so weeks prominent financiers – Ray Dalio, Jamie Dimon and even Elon Musk – have warned about the burgeoning fiscal deficit and the mountain of debt that the US (and other countries) has accumulated. A very decent blog post by Indermit Gill, the chief economist at the World Bank, outlines the viewpoint. Next week, there is a good chance that the Senate passes President Trump's budget, which according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will swell the deficit by close to USD 3trn and push debt to GDP towards an unprecedented 125% in the next ten years Additionally, rumours that the next Federal Reserve chair will be picked soon by President Trump (Powell leaves in May 2026) has upset the dollar, making life even more difficult for foreign holders of US debt. What is interesting is not how gargantuan the world's debt load has become, but how few people care. Politics in the West has changed so much that it has neutered what used to be a political class who in a very Catholic way, pronounced themselves to be fiscally responsible. In the US, it used to be the case that a good number of Senators were what was called 'fiscal hawks', or had an aversion to large budget deficits, and an even greater aversion to resolving them through higher taxes (the US has only produced budget surplus twice – under Lyndon Johnson and then Bill Clinton – and in both cases taxes were raised). Paul Krugman has referred to deficit hawks as 'deficit scolds', because the spend more time warning about the dangers of the deficit than fixing it. Ronald Reagan, and the policy makers who surrounded him – namely James Baker, Nicholas Brady and Don Reagan, were fiscally conservative by reputation but had the luxury of being able to grow the US economy through tax cuts and de-regulation. At the time (early 1980's onwards) some Republicans had a 'starve the beast' mindset, which is to say that they favoured lowering taxes so that the government would have less revenue to spend, but there is little evidence that this worked as a strategy (partly because many of the initial Reagan tax cuts were aimed at the rich). In the post Reagan phase, deficit reduction as a virtue came into its own in the Robert Rubin era (at the Treasury), and many of his former colleagues and acolytes continued this during the early years of the Obama presidency (a relevant private body is the Hamilton Project, where Rubin was a founder). One of the notable initiatives of the Obama White House was the creation of the US National Committee on National Fiscal Responsibility and Reform or the Simpson-Bowles Commission as it became known, a bi-partisan body that aimed to reduce the fiscal deficit and debt. Its most noteworthy aspect, in my memory, was the degree of civility and collaboration between representatives of the Democrats and Republicans. Such a body could not exist today. Indeed, the radicalisation of parts of both parties, in the context of quantitative easing (which has dulled the impact of rising debt and deficits) has broken the link between fiscal responsibility and electability. For example, the first crack in the Republican edifice was the advent of the Tea Party Movement, one of whose tenets was tough fiscal responsibility, as inspired by a 'Chicago Tea Party' rant from CNBC commentator Rick Santelli in 2009. Many of the Tea Party oriented voters and Republican politicians then gravitated to the Trump corner in 2016, the price of which was a surrender of their fiscal sacred cows. Today there is only a handful of fiscally conservative Republican Senators (the Club for Growth publishes an annual scorecard of how fiscally rigorous it thinks members of the House and Senate are). The majority of Republican Senators appear happy to give the nod to a policy that edges the US closer to the financial precipice. Indeed, not only will the Trump budget favour wealthy households but it will increase the number of financially precarious households, and damage healthcare and education provision. The other interesting observation I draw is that the relationship between debt and politics has now reached a turning point, and from here debt will condition politics. I see this happening in at least three ways. The first is that in the context of 'zero fiscal space' the constraints imposed by high levels of debt and deficits, will drive new splits within parties, for example between those who are keen to spend more on defence, versus those who wish to preserve social welfare safety nets. The revolt by a large number of Labour MPs against benefit cuts imposed by Keir Starmer is an example. In the future, this cleavage may inspire new political parties. To echo a recent note (The Power Algorithm) new 'tech bro' parties could materialise that prefer using robots to do the work of immigrants and that technology should be deployed for social control. The second, related scenario is that in the absence of money to spend, the traditional 'pork barrel' cycle of politics disintegrates, and instead politicians tilt the broad political debate to non-fiscal issues – identity, foreign policy, and immigration. A third element in the hypothesis is that voters observe mainstream politicians to be helpless and useless in the face of very high fiscal constraints, and they become largely apathetic about politics and in some cases vote for extreme candidates, such as 'chainsaw economists' as in the case of Argentina. In this way, and perhaps exceptionally in history, the coming debt crisis (if the World Bank's economist is correct) will be intertwined with the current crisis of politics.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gilead, Kymera Partner in $750M Deal to Develop Novel Molecular Glue Degraders for Cancer
Gilead Sciences Inc. (NASDAQ:GILD) is one of the undervalued S&P 500 stocks to buy according to hedge funds. On June 25, Gilead Sciences expanded its oncology pipeline through an exclusive agreement with Kymera Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:KYMR). This deal is potentially valued at up to $750 million and focuses on advancing Kymera's innovative molecular glue degrader/MGD program targeting cyclin-dependent kinase 2/CDK2. Gilead will make an upfront payment of up to $85 million, with additional payments contingent on future development milestones and product sales, plus tiered royalties on net product sales. Kymera's MGDs are designed to selectively eliminate CDK2, which is a protein crucial for cell division that often drives uncontrolled growth in various cancers, such as breast cancer and other solid tumors. A physician and a patient having a discussion in a hospital about biopharmaceutical medicines. Unlike traditional CDK2 inhibitors that merely block protein activity, MGDs aim to remove the protein entirely. Kymera will lead all research activities for the CDK2 program. If Gilead exercises its option, it will gain worldwide rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize all resulting products. This move for Gilead follows closely on the heels of the US FDA approval of Yeztugo (lenacapavir) for HIV prevention. Gilead Sciences Inc. (NASDAQ:GILD) is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and commercializes medicines in the areas of unmet medical needs. Kymera Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:KYMR) is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that discovers and develops small-molecule therapeutics. While we acknowledge the potential of GILD as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
HCA Healthcare Foundation Awards $1 Million Grant to Educate Texas for Healthcare Career Pathways
HCA Healthcare Inc. (NYSE:HCA) is one of the undervalued S&P 500 stocks to buy according to hedge funds. On June 26, HCA Healthcare announced that its HCA Healthcare Foundation, through its Healthier Tomorrow Fund, will provide a new $1 million grant to Educate Texas, which is an initiative of Communities Foundation of Texas. HCA Healthcare Foundation promotes health and well-being across all the communities HCA Healthcare serves The latest donation expands upon a previous $1.35 million grant made by the Foundation to Educate Texas in 2022. The funding aims to increase student access to programs that prepare them for careers in healthcare, specifically focusing on high schools in Texas that offer Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH) healthcare career tracks. The initial 2022 grant supported the expansion of healthcare career pathways across P-TECH campuses, growing from 20 to 104 schools and enrolling ~10,000 high school students in these specialized programs. A team of healthcare professionals in lab coats and masks meeting at a hospital ward. The new $1 million grant will enable Educate Texas to further enhance the quality of program implementation. The initiative seeks to increase the number of students earning healthcare degrees and credentials and foster greater engagement of hospital employers, including HCA Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, with school districts in North Texas, Austin, San Antonio, and the Houston Gulf Coast region. HCA Healthcare Inc. (NYSE:HCA) owns and operates hospitals and related healthcare entities in the US. While we acknowledge the potential of HCA as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data