
Senators prep for a weekend of work to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is expected to grind through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline.
Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks.
The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain and there is a long path ahead, with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments.
Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House.
'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday.
The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time.
At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line.
'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.'
The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda.
But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate.
'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text.
The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill.
Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them.
The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers.
Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions.
Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said.
One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000.
The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators says that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it.
'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are 'very close' to finishing up.
'We would still like to meet that July Fourth, self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La.
With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers.
___
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
Hashtags

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


CNBC
16 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump loses latest bid to get Central Park Five defamation lawsuit tossed
A federal judge on Friday dealt another blow to President Donald Trump's efforts to throw out a defamation lawsuit against him filed by plaintiffs formerly known as the Central Park Five. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone said that Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP law, designed to protect defendants from lawsuits targeting protected speech, does not apply in federal court, rejecting Trump's motion to dismiss the case. "The only issue before the Court is whether Plaintiffs' claims for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") can survive given Pennsylvania's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, otherwise known as its Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Statute," Beetlestone wrote in a 13-page filing. "Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP Statute (a state law) does not apply here, in federal court," she wrote in the filing, adding: "Accordingly, Defendant's Motion shall be denied." Five men who as teenagers were wrongfully convicted in the so-called Central Park Five jogger rape case sued Trump in October, accusing the then-Republican presidential nominee of defaming them. They cited a number of statements Trump made during his Sept. 10 presidential debate against former Vice President Kamala Harris, accusing him of falsely stating that the men killed somebody and pled guilty to the crime. "These statements are demonstrably false," they wrote in their filing against Trump. The five men — Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray and Korey Wise — spent years in prison for the rape and assault of a white female jogger, a crime they were later exonerated of and did not commit. Trump has tried to dismiss the defamation lawsuit against him, but has not been successful. Judge Beetlestone in April also threw out Trump's motion to dismiss the case against him in a different filing.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Kisses yes, Bezos No,' protesters say, as Bezos wedding bonanza stirs controversy in Venice
VENICE, Italy (AP) — Hundreds of protesters marched through Venice's central streets on Saturday to say 'No' to billionaire Jeff Bezos, his bride and their much-awaited wedding extravaganza, which reached its third and final day amid celebrity-crowded parties and the outcries of tired residents. On Friday, the world's fourth-richest man and his bride Lauren Sanchez Bezos tied the knot during a private ceremony with around 200 celebrity guests on the secluded island of San Giorgio. The wedding, however, angered many Venetians, with some activists protesting it as an exploitation of the city by the billionaire Bezos, while ordinary residents suffer from overtourism, high housing costs and the constant threat of climate-induced flooding. As the two newlyweds prepared for the final party Saturday evening, hundreds of Venetians and protesters from across Italy filled Venice's tiny streets with colorful banners reading 'Kisses Yes, Bezos No' and 'No Bezos, no War.' The demonstration contrasted with the expensive wedding bonanza, seen by critics as an affront to the lagoon city's fragile environment and its citizens, overwhelmed by throngs of tourists. 'We are here to continue ruining the plans of these rich people, who accumulate money by exploiting many other people … while the conditions of this city remain precarious,' said Martina Vergnano, one of the demonstrators. The protest organizers claimed a victory after Saturday's wedding party, which was initially to be held in central Venice but which they said was later moved to a former medieval shipyard, the Arsenale. Bezos donated 1 million euros ($1.17 million) each to three environmental research organizations working to preserve Venice, according to Corila, the Venetian environmental research association. But many protesters blasted the move as a clear attempt to appease angry residents. 'We want a free Venice, which is finally dedicated to its citizens. … Those donations are just a misery and only aimed at clearing Bezos' conscience,' said Flavio Cogo, a Venetian activist who joined Saturday's protest. Details of the exclusive wedding ceremony Friday night were a closely guarded secret, until Sánchez Bezos posted to Instagram a photo of herself beaming in a white gown as she stood alongside a tuxedo-clad Bezos. Athletes, celebrities, influencers and business leaders converged to revel in extravagance that was as much a testament to the couple's love as to their extraordinary wealth. The star-studded guest list included Oprah Winfrey and NFL great Tom Brady, along with Hollywood stars Leonardo Di Caprio and Orlando Bloom, tech entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates and top socialites, including the Kardashian-Jenner clan. Ivanka Trump, her husband Jared Kushner, and their three children also joined the celebrations. The bride and groom stayed at the Aman Venice hotel on the Grand Canal, where Bezos posed for photos and Sanchez Bezos blew kisses to the press. 'The planet is burning but don't worry, here's the list of the 27 dresses of Lauren Sánchez,' read one protest slogan, a reference to the bride's reported wedding weekend wardrobe. It featured a mermaid-lined wedding gown by Dolce & Gabbana and other Dolce Vita-inspired looks by Italian designers, including Schiaparelli and Bottega Veneta. The city administration has strongly defended the nuptials as in keeping with Venice's tradition as an open city that has welcomed popes, emperors and ordinary visitors alike for centuries. ___ Zampano reported from Rome. Associated Press journalist Niccolò Lupone in Venice contributed to this report.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next.
The Social Security trustees expect to deplete the trust fund in just a few years without changes. Cuts to the program will be even steeper than expected a year ago. There are several factors driving the increased deficit. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security is the backbone of many Americans' retirement plans. More than one-third of adults said the government program would be a major source of income in retirement in the most recent edition of an annual Gallup poll. That number has climbed higher over the last 20 years since Gallup started the survey. Meanwhile, six in 10 current retirees say their monthly check is a big piece of their budget. But with more and more Americans relying on Social Security, the future of the program has never looked more uncertain. Not only are seniors staring down the barrel of benefit cuts in just a few years, but the problem is only getting worse. Here's what seniors can expect and how they can plan for the future of Social Security. Retirees could see a significant benefit cut in just eight years if Congress doesn't act to change Social Security and improve its longevity. That's when the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates the program will deplete the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund. The Social Security trust fund was established to hold excess tax revenue from wages to pay out to retirees when they start collecting benefits later. In the meantime, the Social Security Administration invests those funds in government bonds to earn a steady return on the principal. Over time, the balance grew as the working population grew faster than the retirement population. But as Baby Boomers started retiring, life expectancies increased, and younger generations had fewer children, the demographic shifts started putting pressure on the trust fund balance. As a result, Social Security has been running a deficit in most years since 2018. And that deficit is getting worse each year as the retired population grows faster than the working population. Every year, the trustees analyze the current state of Social Security and forecast the future of the program. Changes in the workforce, life expectancies, or Social Security policies can impact those estimates. Unfortunately for seniors, the projections got even worse this year. While the 2024 Trustees Report expected retirees to face a 21% overall reduction in benefits starting in 2033, that number climbed to 23% in the latest edition. Here's why seniors could be facing bigger benefits cuts and what they can do about it. It's not just the growing retiree population that's negatively impacting the health of Social Security. After all, almost everyone collecting Social Security today paid into the system for years before retiring. One notable shift negatively impacting Social Security is the growing income inequality in America. Only 82% of earnings were subject to Social Security tax in 2022. That compares to the 90% benchmark Congress targeted in its 1983 Social Security reforms. But even if we returned to that benchmark, it would only make up a portion of the shortfall over the coming years. Another challenge is a slow-growing working population. That's exacerbated by a decline in immigration and further hurt by current immigration policies imposed by the Trump administration. That said, allowing more immigrants to work in the United States (and pay Social Security taxes) would provide only a small amount of additional revenue to Social Security. The biggest change over the past year that's led the trustees to increase their forecast of the Social Security shortfall is the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act. The law repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset, boosting Social Security benefits for 3.2 million retirees and many more in the future. It was also retroactive to 2024, further depleting the trust fund. So, while those retirees will see a step up in their benefits, many more could see deeper cuts in the future. That's not lost on most seniors, and it's led a surprising number of 62-year-olds to claim their benefits as soon as possible this year instead of waiting to maximize their benefits at age 70. But that might not be the smartest move. Here's why. While the program faces a major threat if Congress fails to act within the next eight years, it's still in most seniors' best interest to wait to claim Social Security on their own terms. There are two key reasons. First, it's highly unlikely Congress will allow Social Security benefits cuts. It may enact laws raising the full retirement age in the future, increasing the Social Security tax, increasing the amount of taxable wages, or some combination of all that and more. It could allow benefits to come out of the general fund instead of the trust fund (hopefully with a plan to return Social Security to solvency and reduce the overall government debt). But the clock is ticking for Congress to take action. Second, even if there are benefit cuts in the future, taking Social Security early (when you'd otherwise wait) could result in a much worse scenario for you in the future. The breakeven point for lifetime Social Security income will get pushed out further if you wait and Social Security is forced to cut benefits. But at its core, Social Security is longevity insurance. You'll be much better off in your late 80s if you waited to take Social Security and receive a bigger check than if you claimed as soon as possible. So, while the outlook for Social Security is getting worse, seniors shouldn't be in a rush to get their money while they can. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next. was originally published by The Motley Fool