logo
'Agonizing': How Alaska's pivotal Republican senator decided to vote for Donald Trump's bill

'Agonizing': How Alaska's pivotal Republican senator decided to vote for Donald Trump's bill

Yahoo14 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just after midnight, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was pacing in a Senate hallway, alone and looking concerned.
It had suddenly become clear to all her Republican colleagues that her vote would be their best chance of passing President Donald Trump's sweeping bill of tax and spending cuts. Had she decided whether she would support the bill? 'No,' Murkowski said, shaking her head and putting her hand up to signal that she didn't want to answer any questions.
Around 12 hours later, after she had convinced Senate leaders to change the bill to benefit her state and voted for the legislation, ensuring its passage, Murkowski said the last day had been 'probably the most difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period that I have encountered.'
'And you all know," she told reporters after the vote at midday Tuesday, 'I've got a few battle scars underneath me.'
This isn't Murkowski's first tough vote
Murkowski has been in the Senate for nearly 23 years, and she has taken a lot of tough votes as a moderate Republican who often breaks with her party. So she knew what she was doing when she managed to leverage the pressure campaign against her into several new programs that benefit her very rural state, including special carveouts for Medicaid and food assistance.
'Lisa can withstand pressure,' said Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a fellow Republican moderate and longtime friend. Collins said she spoke to Murkowski on Monday when she was still undecided, and 'I know it was a difficult decision for her, and I also know how much thought she put into it.'
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who has also served with Murkowski for two decades, was more blunt: 'She knows how to use her leverage,' he said.
The 887-page bill narrowly passed by the Senate on Tuesday — and now headed back to the House for possible passage — mentions California three times, Texas twice and New York not at all. But Alaska is in the bill 19 times, from new oil and gas lease sales in the state to tax breaks for Alaska fisheries and whalers to tribal exemptions for work requirements.
Even with all the provisions for Alaska, Murkowski was deeply torn up until the hours just before the vote, when the entire Senate was focused on what she would do — and as Republicans were pressuring her to support the bill and move the party one step closer to giving Trump a win.
She had always supported the bill's tax cuts and extensions, but she had serious concerns about the repercussions of cutting Medicaid in her state and around the country.
She got much of what she wanted
Murkowski eventually decided to support the legislation in the hours after the Senate parliamentarian approved language to allow several states with the worst error rates in the food stamp program — including Alaska — to put off having to pay a greater portion of the cost of federal benefits, and after Republicans added a $50 billion fund proposed by Collins to help rural hospitals that might otherwise be hurt by Medicaid cuts.
Even with the fund included, Collins was one of three Republicans who voted no on the bill, arguing that the cuts to Medicaid and food stamps would hit her small rural state especially hard. But she said she understands why Murkowski would support it and negotiate special treatment for her state. 'The fact is, Alaska is unique from every other state,' Collins said.
Nearly one-third of Alaska's total population is covered by Medicaid, and the state has long struggled with high health care costs and limited health services in many communities. Most Alaska communities are not connected to the state's main road system, meaning that many residents, particularly those in small, remote villages, need to fly to a larger city for certain kinds of care. Food security is also a longstanding concern, as the remote nature of many communities means food often is barged or flown in, and options can be limited and expensive.
'I had to look on balance, because the people in my state are the ones that I put first,' Murkowski said immediately after the vote. 'We do not have a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination.'
Some of her colleagues who voted against the bill were critical. 'They chose to add more pork and subsidies for Alaska to secure that vote,' said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the food stamp benefits, said that the food stamp provision would incentivize states with the worst oversight, which was the opposite of what Republicans originally intended. The provision would 'expand the graft,' Klobuchar said.
Lots of eyes have been on Murkowski
Murkowski, often accompanied by Collins, has been under a microscope for almost every major vote in the Senate in recent years. In February 2021, she joined six other Republicans and all Democrats in voting to convict Trump for inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, attack of his supporters on the Capitol after the House impeached him for a second time. In 2018, she opposed the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh amid sexual misconduct claims, ultimately voting 'present.'
So as Murkowski was wooed for days by Republican leaders and many of her colleagues to vote for the tax and spending cuts package, it was somewhat familiar territory — and an ideal environment for her to win some concessions in favor of her state.
On Monday evening and early Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 Senate Republican, spent hours on the Senate floor talking to Murkowski — who was sometimes wrapped in a blanket to stay warm in the frigid chamber. Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan, a Republican, would sometimes join the group, as did Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
As she mulled her vote, Murkowski sorted through drafts of amendments and talked to aides. And despite longstanding criticism of Trump, she communicated with White House officials who made the case that the measure would ultimately be a positive for her state and constituents.
Thune had said for weeks that he would hold a vote as soon as he had 51 senators supporting the legislation. And after days of delays, it became clear Tuesday morning that Murkowski had decided to support it when Thune told senators to come to the floor and scheduled a vote within the hour.
Murkowski, still looking a bit worried, voted 'aye.' After the vote, she said: 'I haven't slept in a long, long while now."
___
Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska. Associated Press reporters Seung Min Kim and Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit
Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit

Newsweek

time13 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Senate has passed a significant expansion to the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), more than tripling the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025. Senators voted 50-50 on President Donald Trump's broad tax and spending bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The increased SALT deduction cap would phase out for those earning above $500,000 and increase 1 percent annually until 2029, then revert to the current $10,000 limit in 2030. Why It Matters The move marks a dramatic reversal in policy on SALT deductions, one of the most contentious features of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and has implications for millions of taxpayers, especially those living in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California where property and income taxes often far exceed the old $10,000 cap. Analysts have said the provision will most likely benefit wealthier Americans who have high property taxes, as taxes paid on income and property ownership are typically the largest for those who itemize their taxes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald... Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald Trump's signature bill of big tax breaks and spending cuts, at the Capitol in Washington on July 1, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know Prior to 2017, taxpayers who itemized deductions could fully subtract the amount paid in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxable income. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 cap on these deductions, a limit that mostly affected residents of states with higher tax rates. Along with raising the cap to $40,000 until 2029, the Senate bill also increases a tax break for pass-through businesses to 23 percent while clamping down on a frequently used tax loophole for certain pass-through businesses. The House bill had proposed the same higher limit and $500,000 income phaseout but for a longer period of time, rising 1 percent each year from 2026 to 2033. The House also blocked certain white-collar professionals from being able to use a popular SALT deduction workaround. While the Senate version appears to be cheaper for the federal government, given its shorter time frame, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said that "it's actually far more generous." The CRFB said the Senate's direct SALT relief is "roughly 10 percent larger than the House," adding that it estimated the Senate changes would cost $325 billion while the House bill would cost roughly $200 billion. Affluent homeowners and high-income individuals stand to benefit the most from the expanded cap, according to the Tax Foundation's May analysis. The Tax Foundation also warned that the Senate's provisions would cost about $320 billion more than an extension of the existing cap, and cost $150 billion more than a $30,000 cap. "The bill is already suffering from a math problem," Tax Foundation analysts wrote. "This is a recipe for worsening deficits at a time when Congress needs to be more concerned about the country's fiscal outlook." What People Are Saying Owen Zidar, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, told Newsweek: "The broader bill and the SALT cap increase are a boon for high-income taxpayers, especially high-income private business owners who got a special loophole that lets them avoid the SALT caps. Millions are estimated to lose health insurance coverage. The bill is very irresponsible fiscally. It's mortgaging our future for our children. "The increase in the deficits will put pressure on interest rates and crowd out productive investment, hurting economic growth." What Happens Next After being passed by the Senate, the GOP tax bill will now head to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences between the Senate and House.

No taxpayer-funded hate in the arts in Florida
No taxpayer-funded hate in the arts in Florida

Miami Herald

time14 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

No taxpayer-funded hate in the arts in Florida

A new law banning public funding for organizations that promote hate, including antisemitism, passed the Florida Legislature and was signed into law last week by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Sponsored. by Sen. Tom Leek (R-Ormond Beach) and Rep. Hillary Cassel (R-Fort Lauderdale), House Bill 1519 and Senate Bill 1678 will stop taxpayer money from going to people or organizations that boycott Israel. It also expands Florida's existing anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or 'BDS' law, by including academic boycotts, mandating divestment from boycotting entities. Florida will no longer allow public funds to support museums, schools or other cultural and educational institutions that promote hate speech in any form. Institutions that continue to allow or promote hate may see their public funding rescinded — for up to 10 years. As a Florida resident for more than 25 years, I have always stood up for gay rights, free speech and especially for the arts. But as a Jew — like too many of my fellow Jews — I was not fully aware of how rampant antisemitism had become in creative spaces. Since the brutal Oct. 7 attacks against Israelis, antisemitism has surged in the United States, including physical assaults and online attacks aimed at Jews and Zionists. For the first time in their lives, my children experienced antisemitism — being singled out in public as Jews and subjected to Holocaust jokes from classmates. This ancient hatred has found its way into artistic institutions, often denying Jewish and Zionist artists the opportunity to perform, exhibit, or share their work with the public. Many of these rejections come under the guise of neutrality: 'We just don't want to be part of the controversy,' they say — even when the art itself has no political content. But what they are really saying is, 'Because you're Jewish, we're holding you accountable for what is happening in the Middle East.' Worse still, some institutions actively lend their platforms to artists who use their voices to promote hatred toward Jews. Artists have the right to free speech. This is the United States, and freedom of speech is enshrined in our Constitution. But that right does not extend to taxpayer funding. No one is entitled to public dollars to promote hate or discrimination. This new law makes that distinction clear — with consequences, especially financial ones. Since Oct. 7, 2003, hate crimes in Florida targeting Jews have doubled. That's why I, along with other activists, support this law. We believe the majority of Florida taxpayers do not support hate, and certainly do not want their money used to fund it. This law sends a simple message: no taxpayer-funded hate in Florida. It also expands the protections Florida has put in place since 2016 and again in 2024 to fight antisemitic discrimination and crime. Now, taxpayer money — whether through grants, contracts, or tax-exempt status — cannot be used to support programs or institutions that traffic in hate speech, including antisemitism. I call on our cultural and educational institutions to embrace this law and lead with integrity. Reject hate in museums, performing arts centers, and public universities. These are institutions that have long stood up for artists of every race, ethnicity, gender, and orientation. It's time to show the same commitment to Jews. I'm not asking for political loyalty or positions on global conflicts. I'm asking for consistency — stand against hate, no matter who it targets. Use your platform to speak for the marginalized and to reject discrimination in all forms. This new bipartisan law is a good step forward. It affirms that Florida taxpayers will not be forced to fund antisemitism or hate of any kind. George Lindemann Jr. is an investor, art collector and philanthropist. He is president of the board of trustees for The Bass museum on Miami Beach.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store