Thom Tillis, key Republican holdout on Trump's tax bill, won't seek reelection
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a key holdout on President Donald Trump's sweeping legislation on taxes, Medicaid, border resources and more, will not seek reelection.
Tillis, first elected to the Senate in 2014, said it was "not a hard choice" and that leaders who want bipartisan solutions have become an "endangered species" in Washington.
"As many of my colleagues have noticed over the last year, and at times even joked about, I haven't exactly been excited about running for another term. That is true since the choice is between spending another six years navigating the political theatre and partisan gridlock in Washington or spending that time with the love of my life Susan, our two children, three beautiful grandchildren, and the rest of our extended family back home."
"It's not a hard choice and I will not be seeking re-election," he said in the statement.
Tillis hinted that he may break from Republicans and Trump again in the coming year and a half. "I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit," he said in the statement.
The Republican's seat in battleground North Carolina was already a top target for Senate Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections. He faced a potentially brutal fight to keep the seat as the left pushed to reclaim control of the chamber.
After Tillis voted against advancing the GOP's massive domestic policy bill June 28, Trump threatened to embrace potential primary challengers in a series of social media posts.
'Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!' Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social.
Tillis said June 28 that he could not support the bill because of it's expected impacts on Medicaid and rural hospitals.
'I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities,' Tillis' statement read.
'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population, and even reducing critical services for those in the traditional Medicaid population,' he added
The House approved significant changes to Medicaid that were expected to save at least $625 billion − potentially causing 7.6 million Americans over the next decade to lose health insurance. The Senate sought even deeper cuts, and lawmakers are expected to vote on the push early June 30.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Another GOP senator warns Medicaid cuts could boomerang on Republicans
West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice (R) says he is a 'no' on the amendment proposed by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) to stop able-bodied adults without dependent children from receiving the 9-to-1 federal Medicaid matching share, a proposal that would reduce federal Medicaid spending by an additional $313 billion on top of what's already in the GOP megabill. Justice said he's worried about political repercussions if Republicans go much further in cutting Medicaid spending — revealing that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) isn't the only Republican senator worried that Medicaid cuts could boomerang politically on the party. 'We got in a situation where really our hospitals were really worried,' he said. 'A lot of folks here don't know what a rural hospital really is, but I do know. And I know that in West Virginia, if we don't watch out, you could very well lose a bunch of rural hospitals.' 'It just seems like we've taken it as far as I'm comfortable taking it,' he said of Medicaid spending cuts. 'And now we're taking it to another level,' he said of Scott's proposal to bar new enrollees into Medicaid in states that expanded the program from getting the generous 90-percent federal match. 'Here's the thing I'm the most concerned about and that is I am hung up on keeping our majorities,' he said. 'At the end of all this, there is a name or a family, you know. And if you don't watch out, you're going to alienate them, and when you alienate them, we're going to go right back to the minority,' he warned. The Senate will vote on the amendment as part of its vote-a-rama, which is in its 12th hour. Scott has expressed confidence that his amendment will pass, but Justice's decision to vote 'no' strikes a significant blow to its chances of being adopted to President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The most surprising victim of Trump's terrible tax agenda
The Republican Party's saving grace is supposed to be its commitment to economic growth and consumer abundance. Sure, the GOP may see unemployed cancer patients as shiftless mooches — and the Lorax as literature's greatest villain — but for precisely those reasons, Republicans are allegedly able stewards of industrial development: Unconstrained by concerns about inequality, the environment, or social justice, the GOP will unleash the private sector's productive potential. Republicans won't balance Americans' hunger for cheap gasoline against their enlightened interest in cleaner air or a cooler planet — they'll get you the cheap fuel now. And they won't weigh America's stake in technological supremacy against the risks of unregulated innovation — they'll give cutting-edge companies whatever they need to achieve global dominance. At least, this is the impression that Republicans have tried to cultivate, and which voters largely bought last November. According to polling by Democratic data firm Blue Rose Research, Americans in 2024 believed that the GOP would be better than Democrats on the economy and cost of living — but worse on income inequality and the environment — and considered the former issues more important. But the GOP's priorities aren't as advertised. President Donald Trump's agenda does not ask Americans to accept a dirtier atmosphere and more inegalitarian social order in exchange for cheaper goods, faster technological progress, and national industrial dominance. Rather, it asks us to accept not only greater inequality and environmental degradation, but also, higher prices, slower technological progress, and worse industrial performance for the sake of…I'm not sure what. Perhaps the conservative movement's cultural grievances? Or Trump's odd ideological fixations? In any case, Trump has long made his disregard for affordability and economic growth plain. As of mid-June, Trump's tariffs were still poised to increase Americans' annual cost of living by $2,000 on average, while knocking 0.6 percent off of economic growth. His administration's assault on funding for scientific research, meanwhile, has undermined US tech companies. And his crackdown on immigration is both chasing top-tier talent out of the US and exacerbating labor shortages in the construction industry, thereby slowing the pace of housing and infrastructure development. Now, with his inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) — which is poised to clear the Senate this week — Trump is rounding out his 'worst of both worlds' agenda. Predictably, his tax cut package would exacerbate inequality, taking health care and food assistance away from poor people in order to shower tax breaks on the wealthy. And the legislation also evinces contempt for the environment, offering new subsidies to American coal producers. More remarkably, however, BBB would also increase electricity prices for consumers while undermining America's competitiveness in a range of critical sectors. Specifically, the latest version of Trump's bill aims to throttle the production of renewable energy in the US. The legislation not only phases out federal subsidies for wind and solar power by 2027, but also imposes a new excise tax on renewable projects that use inputs made in China. Since Chinese firms dominate green energy supply chains, a very high percentage of all wind and solar development in the United States would be adversely impacted by the tax. What's more, Trump's legislation would actually reinforce American green energy companies' dependence on Chinese suppliers by curtailing subsidies to domestic manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. (As of this writing, some Republican senators are pushing an amendment that would strike the excise tax from the bill. But that amendment's fate is unclear. And even if it is adopted, Trump's legislation would still curtail subsidies to the solar and wind industries.) Taken together, these measures could slash the amount of new clean energy capacity added to America's grid over the next 10 years by more than 72 percent, according to an analysis from the Rhodium Group. That scarcity will translate into higher electricity costs for consumers. According to a variety of recent studies, merely ending federal tax credits for wind and solar could push up the average family's energy bill by as much as $400 per year within a decade. While increasing US households' costs, Trump's bill also reduces American firms' competitiveness in some of the world's fastest-growing industries. On one level, this is obvious. Renewables accounted for more than 90 percent of all newly added electricity generation last year. Even if America clings tightly to fossil fuels, demand for wind and solar energy is going to surge worldwide in the coming decades. If the United States actively sabotages its clean power industry, it will cede a larger share of the global energy market to China and other rival nations. Less intuitively, the BBB also undermines America's artificial intelligence industry. AI companies need vast amounts of new electricity to power their data centers. And renewables are uniquely well-suited to provide such power. At present, utilities can build wind and solar much faster than new natural gas plants, as there is a years-long backlog in the global market for natural gas turbines. Likewise, nuclear energy takes an enormous amount of time and regulatory wrangling to expand. Thus, if the federal government makes building renewables slower and more expensive, then American AI firms' progress could also be stymied. This has led some in the tech industry to criticize the bill. 'We urge the Senate to prioritize a reliable and resilient energy mix that advances AI innovation and growth and reject provisions that will harm the U.S.'s ability to compete in the global race for AI and energy dominance,' Janae Washington, a spokesperson for the Information Technology Industry Council, told the Washington Post on Sunday. Elon Musk, meanwhile, declared Saturday that 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country! Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Even one of the bill's strongest proponents — the pro-fossil fuels advocate Alex Epstein — has lamented its new tax on renewables with Chinese inputs, as has the US Chamber of Commerce. Nevertheless, as of this writing, that tax remains in the legislation. It is therefore a mistake to see Trump's agenda as prioritizing innovation over equality or affordability over the environment. The BBB doesn't concentrate wealth or degrade the climate in pursuit of some higher objective. Rather, it treats increasing inequality and boosting carbon emissions as ends in themselves — goals that it is prepared to pursue even at great cost to America industrial competitiveness and living standards.
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Exclusive — India Hopes for Imminent US Trade Deal, Minister Tells Newsweek
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. India is hopeful of reaching a trade deal with U.S. President Donald Trump's administration very soon, Indian foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar told Newsweek in an interview. Trump has set a July 9 deadline for imposing reciprocal tariffs, but trade talks have run into obstacles including discussions over duties on farm goods, steel and car parts. Trump has voiced optimism for a deal with India, an increasingly important diplomatic partner as well as being the world's most populous country and a Top Five global economy. "We are in the middle, hopefully more than the middle, of a very intricate trade negotiation. Obviously, my hope would be that we bring it to a successful conclusion, I cannot guarantee, because there's another party to that discussion, but no question," Jaishankar said at Newsweek's office. "I believe it's possible, and I think we'll have to watch this space for the next few days," he said. Left to right, Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Indian minister of external affairs, and Dev Pragad, Newsweek CEO, speak onstage during a Newsweek Exclusive Fireside Chat With Indian Minister Of External Affairs, at 1 World Trade Center... Left to right, Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Indian minister of external affairs, and Dev Pragad, Newsweek CEO, speak onstage during a Newsweek Exclusive Fireside Chat With Indian Minister Of External Affairs, at 1 World Trade Center on June 30 in New York City. Morefor Newsweek White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told a news briefing on Monday that "they are finalizing these agreements." Trump has had a friendly relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Jaishankar also underlined the importance of the ties between the countries within the Quad of countries that serve as a counterweight to China in Asia and the Pacific. The other members are Japan and Australia. "You have four countries, in a way, four corners of the Indo-Pacific who are actually to have decided that they have a shared interest in creating a stable or more prosperous Indo-Pacific and are willing to work in a very practical basis," he said, adding that India wanted to stay on good terms with neighboring China. "We have very strong convergences with the United States. At the same time, we are China's largest neighbor," he said. Jaishankar was speaking nearly two months after the most serious conflict in decades between India and nuclear rival Pakistan, with India striking what it called terrorist targets across the border after an attack on civilians in Kashmir left 26 people dead. Rejects Pakistan Talks He rejected an offer of talks with Pakistan on anything except ending terrorism and said India would strike again if needed. "We are now moving to a policy of no impunity. We will not accept that the terrorists are proxies and somehow, therefore, the state is not culpable. I mean, we think it's very clear the Pakistani state is up to its eyeballs in this one," Jaishankar said at Newsweek's office in New York. "I think we will strike at terrorists. We will protect. We will exercise the right to defend our people. And I think that message has been made pretty clear." Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed his readiness for peace talks last week, saying they could address a wide range of disputes between the countries. Pakistan denies supporting cross-border terrorists. "We are willing to hold talks on terror, but if there is an expectation that we will talk about other things while they continue their terrorism, I think that's, you know, that's not realistic," Jaishankar said. "Terrorism cannot be a diplomatic tactic of putting a neighbor under pressure, and saying, oh, OK, come and talk to me. You cannot be a good neighbor and be a terrorist at the same time. So, they have to end that terrorism." A view of the audience during a Newsweek Exclusive Fireside Chat With Indian Minister Of External Affairs, at 1 World Trade Center on June 30 in New York City. A view of the audience during a Newsweek Exclusive Fireside Chat With Indian Minister Of External Affairs, at 1 World Trade Center on June 30 in New York Newsweek India struck targets in Pakistan it said it had identified as terrorist bases on May 7 in response to the killing of 26 civilians in an attack on tourists at Pahalgam in Kashmir in April. Pakistan had denied any hand in the killings or other attacks in divided Kashmir, which it contests with India. Pakistan struck back at India with cross-border shelling and warned that it could resort to nuclear weapons if it felt its existence was threatened. "We are not going to yield to nuclear blackmail that you know there could be escalation, and therefore we should not do anything," Jaishankar said. Iran Offer The flare-up between India and Pakistan has been overshadowed globally by the war between Israel and Iran, with the United States also joining strikes against Tehran's nuclear program. Jaishankar offered India's help to bring a resolution to the crisis, highlighting its good relations with all parties and the important relationships the world's most populous country had through trade and migrant workers with the countries of the Middle East. "We have actually very good relations with both countries, both with Israel and Iran. I mean, we would be, quite honestly, one of the few who have the ability to talk to both of them very openly, very candidly. We have tried to do that for some years now," he said. "We know the complexity of this, of this issue, it's not something which is easily amenable to a solution. So, the long answer is, we are willing to do our part, if there's any way we can be of any help to either country to others, to the IAEA, to the United States." Left to right, Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Indian minister of external affairs, and Dev Pragad, Newsweek CEO, speak onstage during a Newsweek Exclusive Fireside Chat With Indian Minister Of External Affairs, at 1 World Trade Center... Left to right, Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, Indian minister of external affairs, and Dev Pragad, Newsweek CEO, speak onstage during a Newsweek Exclusive Fireside Chat With Indian Minister Of External Affairs, at 1 World Trade Center on June 30 in New York City. Morefor Newsweek Geopolitical Shifts Jaishankar said the United States is bringing about a global change with a shift away from alliances and in which countries pursue their own interests more individualistically. "The change in America's stance is very fundamental to the world order," he said. "I would say, you are, you are seeing the emergence of a post-alliance thinking, it's not that the alliances are going to go away tomorrow, but the alliances are not going to be the fulcrum around which world politics revolves. "You have the rise of China. You have the rise of India. You have Russia … So yes, I think we are heading for a much more individualistic world, in a way, where countries will pursue their interests more vigorously, not necessarily as collectively as before."
