
Trump Administration Live Updates: Senate to Debate President's Policy Bill After Late Night Vote
G.O.P. leaders in the Senate are trying to quickly pass the legislation and send it to the House for final approval in time to meet the July 4 deadline that President Trump has set.
The Senate on Saturday narrowly voted to begin debate on the sprawling domestic policy package carrying President Trump's agenda, clearing a key procedural hurdle after Republican leaders cut a series of deals with holdouts in hopes of winning the votes to pass it.
The vote to take up the bill was 51 to 49, after party leaders held the vote open for more than three hours in a suspenseful scene while they haggled with holdouts, both on the Senate floor and behind closed doors, to secure their support.
Two Republicans, Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted with Democrats to block consideration of the measure.
Even as the vote unfolded on Saturday night, a clutch of hard-right Republicans, including Senators Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, were demanding that G.O.P. leaders insert even deeper spending cuts into the bill in exchange for their support. Ultimately, they all voted in favor, with Mr. Johnson switching his vote from 'no' to 'yes' in the final moments.
It was still not clear whether G.O.P. leaders had enough support to pass the measure and send it to the House for final approval in time to meet the July 4 deadline Mr. Trump has set. Democrats demanded a line-by-line reading of the bill, a procedural protest that was expected to take more than a dozen hours and likely push any final action in the Senate into Monday at the earliest.
But the test vote on Saturday night put the measure on track, even as it reflected the considerable angst among Republicans about their party's signature bill.
Mr. Tillis, who is up for re-election in 2026, said in a lengthy statement explaining his vote that he opposed the legislation because 'it would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities.'
'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,' Mr. Tillis said.
Hours later, Mr. Trump unleashed a lengthy social media broadside against him, calling his opposition a 'BIG MISTAKE' and saying he would meet with candidates seeking to challenge Mr. Tillis, who is up for re-election in 2026, in a Republican primary.
A 940-page version of the legislation that Republicans released just after midnight contained key changes aimed at winning over G.O.P. skeptics. They included the creation of a $25 billion fund to help rural hospitals expected to be hit hard by the Medicaid cuts the legislation would impose, a faster phaseout of tax credits for wind and solar projects, and an increase in the cap on the state and local tax deduction demanded by lawmakers in the House.
There were also a number of parochial changes aimed at placating some of the most vocal Republican opponents of the legislation, including several for Alaska, home to Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has said the measure would hurt her state. That appeared to have won her support, though she waited more than 90 minutes after the vote began to cast her 'aye,' after huddling in intense conversation with party leaders on the floor.
White House officials ratcheted up pressure on Republicans to fall in line behind the measure, issuing an official policy statement saying that failure to do so by Independence Day 'would be the ultimate betrayal.' Mr. Trump spent part of his day golfing with Republican senators and meeting with holdouts.
Party leaders are trying to appease two flanks of their conference. Some, including Mr. Tillis, have said they could not support it without greater reassurances that the Medicaid cuts it contains would not hurt rural hospitals in their states. And fiscal hawks, like Mr. Paul and Mr. Johnson, have said they do not want to back legislation that would only increase the deficit. Mr. Paul was among the president's golfing partners on Saturday, and Mr. Johnson among those he met with.
The core of the bill remains the same. It would extend tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017 and add some new ones Mr. Trump campaigned on, while slashing spending on safety-net programs, including Medicaid and food assistance. The biggest tax cuts and the biggest changes to those anti-poverty programs remained intact. Taken together, the bill would most likely increase federal debt by more than $3 trillion over the next decade, though lawmakers were still shaping the bill and awaiting an official estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.
With Mr. Trump demanding quick action, Republicans in Congress have intensified their efforts to push it through to enactment even as many of them — including several who voted for it in the House — have been open about their reservations about a measure they are concerned could be a political loser.
Image
Workers from the Service Employees International Union protesting the proposed Republican cuts to Medicaid outside the Capitol on Tuesday.
Credit...
Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times
The revisions released early Saturday were designed to allay some of those concerns.
Some Republican senators, including Mr. Tillis and Susan Collins of Maine, had pressed for the inclusion of a rural hospital fund to to help health care providers absorb the impact of a provision that would crack down on strategies that many states have developed to finance their Medicaid programs. Despite their pushback, that provider tax change remains in the bill, though lawmakers have delayed its implementation by one year.
It was unclear whether the $25 billion compensation fund added late in the process would be enough to win their votes. Ms. Collins had suggested that she wanted to provide as much as $100 billion to ensure that rural hospitals, which operate on thin margins, were not adversely affected.
But it appeared to be enough to win over at least one Republican holdout who had expressed concern about the Medicaid cuts, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who said he would vote for the bill despite his concerns about the impact of those reductions.
'We cannot be a working-class party if you are taking away health care for working-class people,' he said, denouncing the Medicaid changes in the bill as 'bad.'
A new provision allowing 'individuals in a noncontiguous state' to be exempt from enforcing new work requirements imposed on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, appeared aimed at mollifying Ms. Murkowski of Alaska. Her state would be hit with billions of dollars in nutrition assistance costs as a result of the legislation, and she had cited the provision as one of her chief concerns. The bill also includes new health provisions designed to benefit Alaska, as well as new tax benefits for fishermen in the state's waters.
Some of the changes were aimed at appealing to members of the House, where Republicans from high-tax states like New York had threatened to sink the bill if it did not include a substantial increase in the state and local tax deduction, currently capped at $10,000. Senate Republicans were skeptical of the deduction but ultimately decided to match the House plan to lift the cap to $40,000. But while the House would make the increase permanent, the Senate would keep it for only five years, allowing it to snap back to $10,000 in 2030.
The newest draft makes even sharper cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power, something that Mr. Trump and other conservatives had explicitly called for this week. It remains to be seen whether those changes could cause friction with Republicans who have publicly supported green-energy credits, including Mr. Tillis, Ms. Murkowski and Senator John Curtis of Utah.
Image
The newest draft makes even sharper cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power, something that Mr. Trump and other conservatives explicitly called for this week.
Credit...
Mason Trinca for The New York Times
Previously, the Senate proposed allowing companies that were building wind and solar farms to claim a tax credit worth at least 30 percent of their costs if they started construction this year, with a phaseout over two years. But the revised bill would require companies to place their projects 'in service' by the end of 2027 to claim the tax break.
The bill also would impose additional taxes on renewable energy projects that receive 'material assistance' from China, even if they do not qualify for the credit. Because China dominates global supply chains, those new fees could affect a large number of projects.
The new Senate measure would more quickly end tax credits for electric vehicles, doing away with them by Sept. 30. It would also slow the phaseout of a lucrative tax credit to make hydrogen fuels, allowing such projects to qualify if construction starts by the end of 2027, instead of by the end of this year.
Annie Karni and Zolan Kanno-Youngs contributed reporting.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress Won't Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn't Make Them Legal.
President Donald Trump has insisted that the sites in Iran targeted by American airstrikes last week have been 'obliterated,' decimating its nuclear program—a claim that has been backed up by key administration officials despite an initial intelligence report finding that the damage was more moderate. But alongside the question of whether significant damage has been done to Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is another thorny issue that lawmakers must now address: the legality of Trump's decision to authorize the strikes in the first place. 'It's not just a matter of statutory interpretation, it's a matter of [the] Constitution requiring that Congress be the one to play a critical role in making a decision and using force,' said Oona Hathaway, professor of international law at Yale Law School. 'For the president to make that decision unilaterally, without going to the Security Council, without going to Congress, and putting U.S. troops and allies at risk is really extraordinary and clearly unlawful.' The president's power to use military force is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Charter, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, although it has not done so since World War II. The War Powers Resolution was enacted in response to the Vietnam War as an attempt to counter presidents' approval of military action without the consent of Congress. It was pushed through over President Richard Nixon's veto. The law requires that a president consult with Congress before engaging military forces, and report within 48 hours why the action was taken, under what authority, and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' It also says a president must terminate the use of military force within 60 days if he has not sought approval from Congress. Despite its intention to ensure a conflict such as the Vietnam War never occurred without congressional consent again, the War Powers Resolution has often been ignored by the White House. For decades, presidents have pushed the limits of their power to engage in conflicts, while Congress has continued to take the back seat in enforcing its constitutional authority to declare war. Several presidents have taken military action without following the letter of the War Powers Resolution, including President Bill Clinton ordering airstrikes in Kosovo and President Barack Obama authorizing intervention in Libya. But Michael Glennon, professor of constitutional and international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, argued Trump's actions were unique in that 'the risks entailed in this particular action are orders of magnitude greater than any of the supposed recent precedents.' He cited the threat of retaliation to the tens of thousands of U.S. troops posted around the Middle East, as well as 'stoking long-term regional animosities' and 'degrading the American reputation in diplomatic dealings with other countries.' 'In none of these recent cases was the context the same—the context being the exposure of the United States to a level of risk and cost that has not occurred before,' Glennon said. Trump's actions do follow a pattern of presidential engagement in conflict being followed by congressional dithering. Over several decades, presidents have learned that there will be little consequence for ignoring the War Powers Resolution. Hathaway said that cases challenging a president's actions do not typically go to court due to lack of legal standing. 'I don't think that that should lead us to think that there is no relevant law here, that this is a law-free zone where the president can do whatever he wants because he knows no one can actually enforce the rules,' said Hathaway. 'If the fact that there may not be consequences means that there's no law, then we've really got a problem on our hands.' Any pushback to unilateral presidential action may come from public disapproval of extended conflict rather than direct congressional action. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that the public is largely reacting to Trump's strikes in Iran with disapproval, although Republicans remain on board with the president's actions. 'Ultimately, Congress has not, in a significant way, constrained presidents from acting in these cases,' said Jordan Tama, professor in the Department of Foreign Policy and Global Security at American University's School of International Service. 'The members of Congress who have been most concerned about violations of the War Powers Resolution, or presidential actions that are not authorized by Congress … have not been able to muster the majority you need in Congress to pass new binding legislation that explicitly prohibits the president from pursuing military action.' Trump's actions in Iran have been met with some pushback from lawmakers, particularly after a scheduled briefing by administration officials for lawmakers was postponed this week. Axios further reported that the White House is limiting the sharing of classified information with Congress. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine is leading a resolution that would require Trump to seek congressional approval before engaging in further military hostilities in Iran, with an added amendment intended to alleviate concerns that it might hamper American support for Israel's activities in the region. Although the Senate is set to vote on the measure on Friday evening, it's unclear whether it would garner any Republican support in the upper chamber. Moreover, GOP Representative Thomas Massie, the Republican co-sponsor of a parallel measure in the House, said that a vote on his bipartisan resolution might be made moot if the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds. Even if either of these measures makes it to the floor, however, it's unclear how much bipartisan support they would receive. Indeed, there is little political will to repudiate the president, and even if there was, lawmakers would need to marshal a veto-proof majority to take concrete action. Overturning a presidential veto would require support from two-thirds of members, which is unlikely in a Republican-majority Congress. In 2019, Congress approved a measure that would have pulled American support for Saudi Arabia's conflict in Yemen, but that resolution was vetoed by Trump. This puts Congress in a 'terrible fix,' said Hathaway: Rather than the president going to Congress to authorize military action, Congress must take the initiative to repudiate it. 'We end up with this learned helplessness in the sense that Congress chooses to stop trying, because what's the point?' said Hathaway. 'The president has learned that [he] can use military force without seeking authorities from Congress without consequence.' Aside from a seeming unwillingness to counter smaller-scale military engagements by presidents, Congress has similarly struggled to repeal or update authorizations for the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan approved ahead of the Gulf War and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 2001 authorization, which applied to perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, has been treated by presidents as an umbrella approval to strike at other organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda. Efforts to overturn or narrow these authorizations have floundered in recent years, even decades after they were approved. Countering the president invites risk for members of Congress. For Republicans, resistance to the president's aims will only court Trump's retaliation. More generally, however, lawmakers take the view that authorizing the commencement of military engagements—or ordering them to cease—comes with unintended political consequences. Voting in favor of the 2003 authorization of military force in Iraq became a major political albatross for Democratic primary candidates in the 2008 presidential election. That said, repealing such an authorization invites blowback, as well, if, for example, the move to do away with such a law was followed by a terrorist attack on American soil, or U.S. interests getting threatened abroad. The status quo has a latent appeal to lawmakers, who get to offset the political risk of military intervention while maintaining the ability to criticize it—or take credit. 'Casting a dangerous vote on an issue of war and peace is a perilous political act, and they would prefer to avoid that, because they would prefer their careers be extended and not hindered,' said Glennon.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Rages at Democratic Senator Who Exposed Reality of His Iran Plan
Early Monday morning, President Donald Trump lashed out against Democratic Senator Chris Coons for mentioning reports that the Trump administration is looking to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran eerily similar to the Obama-era agreement Trump discarded during his first term. On Thursday, CNN, citing four sources familiar with the matter, reported that 'the Trump administration has discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds.' Trump at the time called such reports a 'HOAX' propagated by a 'SleazeBag' within the 'Fake News Media.' Coons cited the reports in a Sunday appearance on Fox News, telling host Shannon Bream, 'I'll just note that President Trump, by press accounts, is now moving towards negotiation and offering Iran a deal that looks somewhat similar to the Iran deal that was offered by Obama: tens of billions of dollars of incentives and reduced sanctions in exchange for abandoning their nuclear program.' A piqued Trump took to Truth Social just before 3 a.m., posting, 'Tell phony Democrat Senator Chris Coons that I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama, who paid them $Billions under the stupid road to a Nuclear Weapon JCPOA (which would now be expired!), nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities.' Trump set off the chain of events leading to his June 21 bombing of Iran by withdrawing from President Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018—a decision which prompted Iran to 'accelerate its nuclear program,' per Axios, which in turn led Trump, upon resuming office, to consider a renewed deal that geopolitics expert Jeffrey Lewis called 'a dollar-store' JCPOA. 'He's trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again,' Lewis said earlier this month. This, of course, went up in smoke as the self-proclaimed dealmaker President Trump resorted to unlawful military action.


Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Spotted Wearing Glasses
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. President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses in his motorcade over the weekend, a rare sighting of the president who reportedly avoids using them in public. A photographer based in Northern Virginia captured the images and shared them on X, formerly Twitter. According to the photographer, the photos show Trump departing Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, on Sunday, a day after a round of golf. Why It Matters Trump, 79, who was the oldest president ever elected to a second term, has long been known to be very careful and savvy with his public image. While it isn't uncommon for somebody his age to require glasses, there are few publicly available photos of Trump wearing glasses during his presidency. Sunday's images appear to mark the first such instance during his second term. What To Know President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses on June 29, 2025, as he departed Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia. President Donald Trump was spotted wearing reading glasses on June 29, 2025, as he departed Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia. Supplied/NorthernVirginiaPoliceCars "President Donald J. Trump departs Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia following a round of golf with CIA Director John Radcliffe and Senators Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, and Eric Schmitt," professional police, fire, & EMS photographer, Northern Virginia Police Cars, posted on X on Sunday. "POTUS is seen reading the paper in the back of his newer low-profile Suburban." USA Today reported that Trump had played golf with the senators and Radcliffe before a Senate vote to debate the "Big Beautiful Bill." The images show the president wearing his reading glasses, a white shirt, and a cream-colored "Make America Great Again" cap while seated in the back of the Chevrolet Suburban presidential limousine. While it's unclear what he is reading from the photos, the president, according to a New York Times report in November 2019, has refrained from using reading glasses in front of others and rarely writes tweets himself in public. Instead, then White House social media director Dan Scavino would draft and send tweets on Trump's behalf, often enlarging printed drafts to extra-large fonts for the president to review and approve. One single-page article reportedly expanded to six pages once the font was enlarged to suit Trump's preferences. Sunday's sighting marks what appears to be the first time in years—and the first during Trump's second term—that he has been publicly photographed wearing reading glasses. He was also pictured in October 2017 wearing glasses while on his way back from the Trump National Golf Course. Before that, in January 2016, he wore glasses while campaigning in Cedar Falls, Iowa, as he read the lyrics to an song released by Al Wilson called "The Snake." What People Are Saying The images drew attention on social media. Some reactions on X included: "Has ANYONE seen him in glasses before?" "One of the few times I ever saw him with glasses on in public was his first 'The Snake' speech in Jan. 2016. I thought they looked good on him but he probably sees them as a sign of weakness." "GLASSES?!? I've often wondered if he wore one." "Rare glasses form." What Happens Next According to Trump's public schedule, he's due to sign executive orders in the Oval Office Monday afternoon.