5 blue-state Republicans willing to sink tax bill over state, local deduction
The lawmakers are saying they're prepared to vote no as a group on the wide-ranging tax and spending cut package key to President Trump's agenda if they don't get the raise they want.
The group consists of Reps. Andrew Garbarino (N.Y.), Nick LaLota (N.Y.), Mike Lawler (N.Y.) Young Kim (Calif.) and Thomas Kean (N.J.) — Republicans from wealthier suburban districts of major U.S. metropolitan areas, where higher property taxes make the increased cap especially valuable to taxpayers.
'Those are the five of us who are most SALT-y, most resolved to withhold our votes until we get an accommodation from our party,' LaLota told reporters on Tuesday. 'Folks who are on the peripheries of that have a voice, but we're the ones who are willing to vote no if the time requires it.'
'The five of us have discussed our own different needs … but we recognize that our strength is in numbers, and the more we're able to stick together, the more we'll be able to answer the call for all of us,' he added.
Garbarino listed the same five Republicans as LaLota did Tuesday, saying the group is 'really sticking together on this' since their districts have a similar makeup and stand the most to lose from a lower cap.
He added that Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) — who was President Trump's pick for United Nations ambassador before she withdrew earlier this year and who said over the weekend that she was 'strongly considering' running for New York governor — has become engaged on the issue.
'She voted no against the tax package because of SALT ten years ago, and she's been involved in discussions. She understands that this is a big issue for New York, and she wants to see it righted,' Garbarino told The Hill.
The group of five is set apart from other SALT caucus members from both parties, including Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.). Malliotakis is from a New York City district that has a different property tax scheme from the one in the suburbs that makes a higher SALT cap more desirable, LaLota said.
'The New York suburbs … just require a higher cap and more SALT,' he said.
Suozzi and Gottheimer are also unlikely to vote for a tax bill attached to Trump's broader legislative agenda, which includes steep spending cuts to social safety net programs.
Garbarino said the group isn't seeking a complete revocation of the cap, as was the case prior to Republicans' 2017 tax law, due to the fact that the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which is a separate tax provision, kicks in at a level that makes an unlimited SALT deduction unnecessary.
'We do agree that a cap is necessary,' he said. 'You don't need unlimited, because … AMT is going to step in and hit people that would be benefitted by unlimited anyway.'
LaLota said Tuesday that the suburban SALT block had discussed and agreed to a floor for the cap increase below which they would vote no on the GOP bill, though he declined to say what that number was.
Republicans on House committees are meeting this week and next to decide on specific tax provisions and budget cuts that they want as part of their 'big, beautiful bill,' to be passed through reconciliation, a procedure that allows a party-line vote and avoids a potential filibuster from Democrats in the Senate.
The most contentious markups — which are set for the Agriculture and Energy and Commerce committees, along with the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee — haven't happened yet.
The Energy and Commerce Committee is instructed to reduce the deficit by $880 billion, much of which is expected to come from Medicaid, and the Agriculture Committee is instructed to reduce the deficit by $230 billion, which could come from the food stamps program meant to help poorer Americans.
The Ways and Means Committee is working to extend the $4.6 trillion Trump tax cuts while working in a number of additional tax cuts promised by President Trump while campaigning last year. They are instructed not to add more than $4.5 trillion to the deficit, making their task a difficult one, though they are expected to be helped by adjustments to the accounting baseline in the Senate.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Can States Handle Disasters Without FEMA? The Legal Gaps Business Leaders Should Know
HUNT, TEXAS - JULY 6: Vehicles sit submerged as a search and rescue worker looks through debris for ... More any survivors or remains of people swept up in the flash flooding on July 6, 2025 in Hunt, Texas. Heavy rainfall caused flooding along the Guadalupe River in central Texas with multiple fatalities reported. (Photo by) A year already marked by record-smashing heatwaves, catastrophic storms, and deadly flash floods is forcing business leaders to reckon with an unsettling question: What happens if the federal government pulls back from disaster response? The idea of handling disasters without FEMA is not an abstract worry. In recent weeks, political debates have intensified over proposals to reduce federal spending on disaster relief or even eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season, as reported by NBC News. Former President Trump and some congressional leaders have floated plans to shift primary responsibility for disaster recovery to state governments—a move that could leave businesses navigating a patchwork of legal systems without the backstop they've come to rely on for decades. This uncertainty comes as disasters batter communities from coast to coast. In the first half of 2025 alone, the U.S. suffered at least 15 billion-dollar weather disasters, including historic flooding, tornado outbreaks, and prolonged heat waves, according to Yale Climate Connections. Just this past weekend, flash floods devastated Kerr County, Texas, forcing rescues and shutting down businesses in a region still recovering from earlier storms. For business owners, investors, and insurers, this brewing shift raises urgent questions: If FEMA disappears, can state laws and budgets fill the gap? Will private enterprises have to shoulder more responsibility for disaster planning and recovery? And which states are prepared—or dangerously unprepared—to protect their residents and economic lifelines in a post-FEMA landscape? A Federal Safety Net Under ThreatALTADENA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 30: People walk past a FEMA sign following a press conference at the ... More Altadena Disaster Recovery Center on January 30, 2025 in Altadena, California. House Democratic leaders and local officials held the press conference near the Eaton Fire burn zone to call for federal disaster assistance following the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County. (Photo by) Since its founding in 1979, FEMA has been the cornerstone of America's disaster response. It funds emergency shelters, debris removal, rebuilding grants, and cash assistance for displaced families. Critically for businesses, FEMA programs like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant fund projects that reduce future risks, a crucial buffer as extreme weather grows more frequent. Yet the agency has long faced political crossfire, with critics labeling it bloated or inefficient. Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration's previous halt to BRIC funding for certain states, highlighting how political swings can upend even well-established federal programs. If proposals to wind down FEMA proceed, business leaders would be left relying on a fragmented patchwork of state disaster laws—many of which, my research suggests, lack the resources or legal frameworks to handle large-scale crises. State Disaster Laws Are A Patchwork of Authority Every U.S. state has laws empowering governors and local officials to declare emergencies and coordinate response efforts. Yet those powers vary widely in scope, funding, and legal protections for vulnerable communities. Despite these structures, most states still rely heavily on FEMA for funding, specialized teams, and logistical support. Without FEMA, states would have to cover enormous costs themselves. For example, after Hurricane Harvey, Texas received over $13 billion in FEMA aid, money that state coffers alone could not match. The Business Risks Of A FEMA Void Businesses have more skin in this game than ever. Beyond humanitarian concerns, legal and financial risks loom if federal safety nets vanish. Federal aid often helps cover costs insurers won't, such as temporary housing, debris removal, and infrastructure repair. Without that aid, insurance companies may face larger payouts or withdraw entirely from high-risk markets. In Florida, for example, multiple insurers have already exited the market due to hurricane risks, leaving businesses scrambling for coverage. A weakened federal role could mean higher premiums, stricter underwriting, or outright denial of coverage in disaster-prone regions, especially for small and midsize enterprises without deep cash reserves. If state laws differ significantly on evacuation orders, business owners may be caught between conflicting mandates. For instance, if local officials order an evacuation, but state law vests that authority only in the governor, businesses face legal ambiguity about when to close operations, protect staff, or move inventory. Disaster response gaps also raise potential civil rights issues. Federal laws like the Stafford Act prohibit discrimination in disaster aid based on race, disability, or language. Many states lack comparable mandates, meaning vulnerable communities—and businesses serving them—could fall through the cracks if federal oversight disappears. Companies with operations across multiple states face a regulatory minefield if FEMA's uniform national standards vanish. Without coordinated federal logistics, restoring supply chains and reopening businesses could take longer, increasing downtime and losses. Which States Are Ready? Which Aren't? Few states are fully prepared to absorb FEMA's responsibilities. According to my analysis of disaster laws across the South and Mid-Atlantic, only a handful—like Virginia and Texas—have begun integrating equity planning, vulnerable population registries, and robust local emergency powers into state statutes. Other states, particularly smaller ones with limited budgets, may lack: That leaves gaps businesses can't ignore. A company operating in Virginia might navigate disaster recovery relatively smoothly, while the same company in Mississippi or Georgia could face a chaotic patchwork of legal obligations, prolonged closures, and community backlash. What Business Leaders Should Do Now While FEMA's fate remains uncertain, businesses should: FEMA's potential dismantling would represent the biggest shift in American disaster management in generations. Businesses that fail to prepare for handling disasters without FEMA amidst a state-led disaster regime risk higher costs, legal headaches, and reputational damage. Disasters don't respect state lines, but the laws governing them increasingly do. For business leaders, understanding those legal boundaries might be the key to survival in a future where the federal safety net is no longer guaranteed.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The market usually fails the environment when the government doesn't help
To the editor: Contributing writer Veronique de Rugy is evenhanded when it comes to government subsidies: There should be none for the private sector. Let the market determine winners and losers in the economy ('Good riddance to those green-energy tax breaks. Now keep closing other loopholes,' July 17). When it comes to consumer goods, private enterprise can be an effective allocator of resources, but the market has proved woefully deficient in other ways. It has failed to provide a decent life for all on a healthy planet. Short-term profit has overwhelmed long-term well-being. Corporate dominance has brought us a world fouled by chemical and plastic residues and climate-changing pollution. Even as renewable energy becomes practical and affordable, its relative powerlessness compared with the fossil fuel industry impedes its quick adaptation. Meanwhile China, which has embraced a major role for the government in the economy, is eating our lunch in this regard. Electric vehicle manufacturing and more sustainable artificial intelligence are just two of its recent successes. China is still a major emitter of carbon dioxide, but it leads the world in renewable energy investment. I don't want to live in authoritarian China. I want to live in a democratic USA that recognizes that the market must be supplemented by rational policy. If we don't prioritize humanistic, environmentally friendly policies via government action, they will not prevail. Grace Bertalot, Anaheim .. To the editor: De Rugy appears to present a rational argument: She wants more green energy, but subsidizing it is the wrong way to get there. She says, 'When you compare the size of green versus fossil-fuel subsidies, the difference is staggering.' Nonsense. I would assume an economist such as De Rugy would know the term 'externalities' — that is, social costs that come from economic activity. Burning fossil fuels creates horrendous externalities. Air pollution kills more than 8 million people annually. Carbon emissions from burning coal, oil and gas overheat the planet and cause more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and wildfires, which all cost communities billions of dollars. I agree that subsidizing clean energy is not the most effective government policy to correct the energy marketplace. Instead of focusing on subsidies, however, De Rugy should join fellow economists, including some conservative Republicans, who call for mitigating fossil fuel externalities with a tax on carbon pollution. Caroline Taylor, Santa Barbara .. To the editor: De Rugy's support for eliminating green energy subsidies in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' omits vital context. While President Trump didn't get the $1 billion he reportedly sought from the fossil fuel industry during his 2024 campaign, he did receive more than $75 million from various interests associated with fossil fuels. That aligns with his constant 'drill, baby, drill' chants and his bizarre, debunked claims that wind turbines cause cancer. Meanwhile, the country reels from the devastating effects of climate change, from deadly floods in Texas to wildfires in California. The green energy subsidies De Rugy criticizes were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, one of the Biden administration's major successes, backing proven clean energy companies. Let's be honest: This repeal isn't about sound policy. It's about political revenge — and protecting fossil fuel donors. Mark Winkler, Studio City
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Coca-Cola confirms it will launch cane sugar version in US amid Trump ‘enthusiasm'
Coca-Cola Company confirmed on Tuesday that it will launch a cane sugar version of its iconic drink in the U.S. amid President Trump's ' enthusiasm,' coming less than a week after the president revealed the change on social media. 'As part of its ongoing innovation agenda, this fall in the United States, the company plans to launch an offering made with U.S. cane sugar to expand its Trademark Coca-Cola product range,' the company said in a news release. The Atlanta-based company said the addition is 'designed to complement the company's strong core portfolio and offer more choices across occasions and preferences.' Trump said in a post on Truth Social last week that Coca-Cola agreed to use cane sugar in its flagship drink instead of high-fructose corn syrup. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' the president wrote on Wednesday. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!' The soft drink giant did not confirm the change last week, but said it appreciated Trump's 'enthusiasm' for the brand and that more details on 'new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon.' The soda sold in the U.S. is usually sweetened with corn syrup, while other countries — like Mexico, already use cane sugar. The 'Mexican Coke' is also sold in the U.S. Trump has been a longtime aficionado of Diet Coke, with the president having a red button installed at the Resolute Desk during his first term. When pressed, a staffer would bring the drink to the president.
