
US Senate passes Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, setting up House battle, World News
The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives for possible final approval, though a handful of Republicans there have already voiced opposition to some of the Senate provisions.
Trump wants to sign it into law by the July 4 Independence Day holiday, and House Speaker Mike Johnson said he aimed to meet that deadline.
The measure would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, give new tax breaks for income from tips and overtime pay and increase spending on the military and immigration enforcement. It also would cut about US$930 billion of spending on the Medicaid health programme and food aid for low-income Americans and repeal many of Democratic former President Joe Biden's green-energy incentives.
The legislation, which has exposed Republican divides over the nation's fast-growing US$36.2 trillion debt, would raise the federal government's self-imposed debt ceiling by US$5 trillion. Congress must raise the cap in the coming months or risk a devastating default.
The Senate passed the measure in a 51-50 vote with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie after three Republicans — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky — joined all 47 Democrats in voting against the bill.
The vote followed an all-night debate in which Republicans grappled with the bill's price tag and its impact on the US healthcare system.
Much of the late horse-trading was aimed at winning over Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who had signalled she would vote against the bill without significant alterations.
The final Senate bill included two provisions that helped secure her vote: one that sends more food-aid funding to Alaska and several other states, and another providing $50 billion to help rural hospitals cope with the sweeping cuts to Medicaid. 'Not fiscal responsibility'
The vote in the House, where Republicans hold a 220-212 majority, is likely to be close.
Johnson, the House speaker, said during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that Republican leadership would seek to move the legislation through the Rules Committee on Wednesday morning and get it before the entire House before Friday's holiday, unless travel plans were upset by thunderstorms that have menaced the Washington area.
"Hopefully we're voting on this by tomorrow or Thursday at latest, depending on the weather delays and travel and all the rest — that's the wild card that we can't control," Johnson said.
A White House official told reporters that Trump would be "deeply involved" in pushing House Republicans to approve the bill.
"It's a great bill. There is something for everyone," Trump said at an event in Florida on Tuesday. "And I think it's going to go very nicely in the House."
An initial version passed with only two votes to spare in May, and several House Republicans have said they do not support the Senate version, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will add US$800 billion more to the national debt than the House version.
Republicans have struggled to balance conservatives' demands for deeper spending cuts to reduce the impact on the deficit with moderate lawmakers' concerns that the Medicaid cuts could hurt their constituents, including service cutbacks in rural areas.
The House Freedom Caucus, a group of hardline conservatives who repeatedly threatened to withhold their support for the tax bill, has criticised the Senate version's price tag.
"There's a significant number who are concerned," Republican Representative Chip Roy, a member of the Freedom Caucus, said of the Senate bill.
A group of more moderate House Republicans, especially those who represent lower-income areas, have objected to the steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate's plan.
Meanwhile, Republicans have faced separate concerns from a handful of House Republicans from high-tax states, including New York, New Jersey and California, who have demanded a larger tax break for state and local tax payments.
The legislation has also drawn criticism from billionaire Elon Musk, the former Trump ally who has railed against the bill's enormous cost and vowed to back challengers to Republican lawmakers in next year's midterm elections.
House Democrats are expected to remain unanimously opposed to the bill.
"This is the largest assault on American healthcare in history," House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. "It's the largest assault on nutrition in American history." Tax breaks, immigration crackdown, tighter benefits
The Senate bill would deliver some of its biggest benefits to the top one per cent of US households, earning US$663,000 or more in 2025, according to the Tax Foundation. These high earners would gain the most from the bill's tax cuts, the CBO has said.
Independent analysts have said the bill's tightening of eligibility for food and health safety net programmes would effectively reduce poor Americans' incomes and increase their costs for food and healthcare. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that nearly 12 million more people would become uninsured under the Senate plan.
The bill's increase in the national debt effectively serves as a wealth transfer from younger to older Americans, nonpartisan analysts have said.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the vote "covered this chamber in shame," adding that the bill would be "ripping health care away from millions of Americans, taking the food out of the mouths of hungry kids."
Republicans rejected the cost estimate generated by the CBO's longstanding methodology and have argued the Medicaid cuts would only root out "waste, fraud and abuse" from the system.
[[nid:719722]]
Hashtags

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

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
US Supreme Court liberals increasingly marginalized as conservatives flex muscles
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court's three liberal justices exerted waning influence during its recently concluded term, and their frustrations with the conservative majority spilled into public view in major cases involving President Donald Trump and issues such as transgender rights. In five of the biggest cases of the term, which wrapped up with its final rulings on June 27, the court's six conservative justices were in the majority and liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson were in dissent. Top among these was the ruling on the term's final day that curbed the ability of judges to impede Trump's policies through nationwide injunctions. The other four came in cases at the heart of the American "culture wars." Those included rulings that upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors, backed a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify the age of users in an effort to protect minors, let parents opt children out of public school classes with LGBT themes and allowed South Carolina to strip abortion provider Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding. The ideological divide was abundantly clear in cases in which the justices acted on an emergency basis, sometimes called the "shadow docket," which produced a string of orders permitting Trump to enact policies impeded by lower courts. Trump's appointment of three justices - Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Neil Gorsuch in 2017 - during his first term in office gave the court its 6-3 conservative majority, and the nation's top judicial body has since moved American law decisively rightward, as it did again this term. "The three liberals are out of cards at the table," said George Mason University law professor Robert Luther III, using a card-game analogy. "They just don't have the numbers to make an impact." Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore $3b money laundering case: 9 financial institutions handed $27.45m in MAS penalties over breaches Singapore Seller's stamp duty hike will curb short-term speculation; market effect likely minimal: Analysts Singapore NTUC says some foreigners taking on platform work illegally, calls for work group to address issue World Trump says countries to start paying tariffs on Aug 1, floats range of 10% to 70% Singapore Sengkang murder: Man accused of killing elderly mother escorted back to crime scene Singapore Tourism bump from Lady Gaga concerts raked in up to estimated $150m for Singapore economy Singapore Jail for man who recruited 2 Japanese women for prostitution at MBS Life Book review: OB Markers sequel Ink And Influence makes catch-22 proposal for The Straits Times Their lack of sway was particularly evident in "core culture war cases," added Luther, who has advised Trump on judicial nominations. "These are the kinds of cases that brutal confirmation fights like Kavanaugh's are all about," Luther said, referring to the Republican-led Senate's narrow confirmation of Trump's nominee following allegations of sexual misconduct dating back decades that Kavanaugh denied. "These are the kind of cases that prove the right is winning the war for the courts." THE ROBERTS COURT The court has been under the guidance of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts since 2005. But it was after Trump appointed Barrett to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg five years ago that the liberal bloc's influence sank to a low point. "I think it's a mistake to think the liberals ever had serious sway on the Roberts Court since they've been winnowed down to three members," said Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis. "The only question is this: can the liberals convince their colleagues, on occasion, that they're wildly out of step with the public and need to pull back on some decisions? And do two of their conservative colleagues even care?" Kreis asked. If the liberal justices remain united, they need two conservatives to join them in a case in order to prevail. In the emergency docket cases, which reach the justices on a condensed timeline that leaves little time for consensus-building, the six justices appointed by Republican presidents gave a green light to several Trump policies. Endorsing his expansive view of presidential authority, they let him move forward with mass deportations, fire the heads of independent federal agencies and ban transgender people from the military. In the June 27 ruling authored by Barrett in the birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court did not address the legality of a Trump directive blocked by three federal judges. Trump had directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. Instead, the court curbed the ability of federal judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies nationwide. Sotomayor, the most senior of the liberal justices, read her entire dissent from the bench, signaling her strong disagreement with the conservative majority's ruling. Over the course of 20 minutes, Sotomayor denounced the decision, saying "no right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates." "Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship," Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. "Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship." 'POLITICAL WHIMS' Sotomayor similarly read a scathing dissent from the bench on June 18 after the court allowed Tennessee to restrict gender-transition medical care for people under age 18. Sotomayor said with the ruling the court "abandons transgender children and their families to political whims." Jackson wrote in a dissent that the ruling authored by Barrett on nationwide injunctions posed an "existential threat to the rule of law." Barrett's ruling, Jackson asserted, is "profoundly dangerous since it gives the executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the (nation's) founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate." Barrett countered that "Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary" and "would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the president on down, is bound by law.'" Sotomayor, who told a Harvard University audience last year that she sometimes cries in her office after rulings, is writing her dissents to an audience of future generations of lawyers, according to George Washington University law professor Paul Schiff Berman. "Dissenting opinions do have an impact on the law over time," Berman said. Sotomayor's approach resembles one employed by the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, according to Trinity College historian Kevin McMahon. Scalia often found himself in the minority in important rulings and sometimes was criticized by other conservatives for not making more of an effort to build consensus with his liberal colleagues, McMahon said. But years later, Scalia's dissents are serving as the foundation for rulings now that the court has moved decidedly to the right, McMahon said. Scalia's death in 2016 left the court with four liberal justices and four conservative justices. Trump's three appointments in the next four years created a conservative super majority. "Scalia often wasn't willing to compromise. He was more interested in writing that powerful, powerful dissent," McMahon said. "And, in the long run, those dissents have become law." Kagan is regarded as the liberal justice most willing to moderate her positions to build consensus with the conservatives. McMahon said Kagan's approach resembles that of the late liberal Justice William Brennan, who would tell his clerks: "Five votes can do anything around here." Kagan's willingness to compromise has allowed her to author rulings in some major cases in recent years such as a 2024 decision that clarified how the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections against government abridgment of freedom of speech apply to social media companies. "When you're a Supreme Court justice, you know you're going to be there for a long time, and you know things are going to change," McMahon said. "Sometimes, you take a little win. And then, maybe a couple years later you can expand your thinking." REUTERS

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Kremlin says it pays close attention to Trump statements after he voices disappointment with Putin call
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia's President Vladimir Putin are seen during the G20 leaders summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina November 30, 2018. REUTERS/Marcos Brindicci/File Photo MOSCOW - The Kremlin said on Friday that Russia closely follows all of Donald Trump's statements after the U.S. president said he was "very disappointed" with his latest conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the war in Ukraine. Trump, who had confidently stated last week that Putin was "looking to settle" the conflict, said after Thursday's phone call that he did not think the Russian leader was looking to stop it. Asked about the comments, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: "Of course, we are paying very close attention to all of President Trump's statements." He did not address Trump's implied criticism of Putin. Trump, who returned to the White House in January with a promise to swiftly end the "bloodbath" in Ukraine, said after Thursday's call: "I didn't make any progress with him at all." Peskov said Putin had told Trump that Russia would prefer to achieve its goals in Ukraine by political and diplomatic means, but in the meantime would continue what it calls its "special military operation". He said the Kremlin leader had told Trump that Russia expects to agree a date for a third round of peace talks with Ukraine, following earlier talks in May and June. REUTERS Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore $3b money laundering case: 9 financial institutions handed $27.45m in MAS penalties over breaches Singapore Seller's stamp duty hike will curb short-term speculation; market effect likely minimal: Analysts Singapore NTUC says some foreigners taking on platform work illegally, calls for work group to address issue World Trump says countries to start paying tariffs on Aug 1, floats range of 10% to 70% Singapore Sengkang murder: Man accused of killing elderly mother escorted back to crime scene Singapore Tourism bump from Lady Gaga concerts raked in up to estimated $150m for Singapore economy Singapore Jail for man who recruited 2 Japanese women for prostitution at MBS Life Book review: OB Markers sequel Ink And Influence makes catch-22 proposal for The Straits Times

Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Germany plans six-month voluntary military service, sources say
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox BERLIN - Germany plans to introduce a voluntary six-month military service scheme, sources familiar with the plan said on Friday, as Berlin tries to train more reservists and bolster national defences over security concerns about Russia. Volunteers would be sought for training in simple tasks such as guard duties under the scheme but a military draft to recruit more people could be considered if uptake were deemed too low, the sources said. With European states that are in NATO also under pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump to invest more in their own security since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Defence Minister Boris Pistorius wants to increase the number of soldiers in service from 180,000 to 260,000. Germany hopes the voluntary six-month scheme would help double the number of trained reservists from the current level of around 100,000 and that some of the volunteers would go on to have a career in active service, the sources said. The defence ministry declined to comment when contacted by Reuters. Participants in Germany's planned scheme will have the opportunity to extend their homeland security training to obtain a truck driver's licence or train as a tank driver, the sources said. New improvised barracks are also planned so that recruits can train closer to home, they added. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore $3b money laundering case: 9 financial institutions handed $27.45m in MAS penalties over breaches Singapore Seller's stamp duty hike will curb short-term speculation; market effect likely minimal: Analysts Singapore NTUC says some foreigners taking on platform work illegally, calls for work group address issue World Trump says countries to start paying tariffs on Aug 1, floats range of 10% to 70% Singapore Sengkang murder: Man accused of killing elderly mother escorted back to crime scene Singapore Tourism bump from Lady Gaga concerts raked in up to estimated $150m for Singapore economy Singapore Jail for man who recruited 2 Japanese women for prostitution at MBS Life Book review: OB Markers sequel Ink And Influence makes catch-22 proposal for The Straits Times The sources said Pistorius wants to have the legislation passed by the end of next month, with the first recruits to start training from May 2026. Questions remain about the plan, including who would be drafted for compulsory service if the government did not meet its recruitment targets. This element of the plan is also controversial within the minister's own Social Democratic Party. Germany ended its previous compulsory military service programme in 2011. Efforts to end Russia's war in Ukraine have faltered, with Trump reporting no progress in talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday. Russian officials have accused Western leaders of invoking a "fabricated 'Russian threat'" to justify increased defence spending. REUTERS