logo
Senate Republicans barely pass Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' after record-breaking all-nighter

Senate Republicans barely pass Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' after record-breaking all-nighter

Yahoo19 hours ago
Senate Republicans finally passed their version of President Donald Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' Tuesday afternoon despite sharp criticism of the legislation from some within the president's party who held out for changes that dragged negotiations to a marathon two-day session.
The legislation passed after Vice President JD Vance cast the deciding vote on a 50-50 tie. It now gets sent back to the House of Representatives for reconsideration with the new amendments.
Trump and Republicans had prioritized the bill's passage, given that it includes an extension of the 2017 tax cuts Trump signed in his first term as president as well as increased spending for immigration enforcement, oil exploration and the U.S. military. The legislation funds a massive expansion of ICE, including the hiring of 10,000 new agents, as Trump pursues a campaign of mass deportation across America.
The final vote came after a marathon series of amendments known as a 'vote-a-rama.' But it did not come easy, with Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voting against the bill.
Paul, a libertarian, criticized the way that the bill increases both the deficit and the debt limit, while Tillis criticized its Medicaid cuts. Shortly after Tillis voted against the motion to proceed, and drew a strong threat of political retribution from Trump, he announced on Sunday he would not seek re-election in one of the most contentious senate races in the country.
Senate Republicans engaged in an aggressive campaign overnight to win over Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the moderate Republican from Alaska, who emerged as a final, but winnable, holdout.
Murkowski, who voted to convict Trump in 2021 for his actions on January 6, received a series of exemptions for her home state of Alaska in exchange for her vote. During one point, Thune, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo and her fellow Alaskan Sen. Dan Sullivan cornered her in the back of the Senate chamber for an aggressive lobbying session.
The senator spoke to reporters on Tuesday after voting for the bill, and said that she wanted to see further changes made before it became law. Explaining that she hoped the House would send it back to the Senate again, Murkowski knocked the 'artificial' deadline under which she said both chambers were working.
'Reconciliation is never a very dignified process, but we were operating under a timeline that was, basically an artificial timeline,' said the senator. 'And I think rather than taking the the deliberative approach to good legislating, we rushed to get a product out.'
'My hope is that the House is going to look at this and recognize that we're not there yet,' she added.
But the senator also made clear what factors had drawn her to vote for the current version. She and others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, spoke about wanting to avoid a self-imposed tax hike cliff later this year when the tax cuts passed in 2017 are set to expire, something Murkowski depicted as a negative outcome on par or similar to the risks that the legislation is projected to pose to Medicaid coverage rates.
'I had to look at it on balance,' said Murkowski. 'But I have urged our leadership. I have urged the White House that I think that more process is needed to this bill, because I would like to see a better outcome for people in this country.'
A carve-out in the bill creating a $50bn fund for rural hospitals, warned to be at risk of closure due to Medicaid eligibility cuts, also sweetened the deal.
Markwayne Mullin, a senator from Oklahoma, spoke to reporters Tuesday following the vote and pointed to the fund as crucial for getting members on board.
'This wasn't just specifically for Lisa [Murkowski]. This is for all of us who represent rural areas,' Mullin said. He confirmed that Sen. Susan Collins wanted the fund doubled to $100bn, which failed.
Republicans avoided a Democratic filibuster by passing the bill via a process known as budget reconciliation. The process allows the Senate to pass legislation by a simple majority rather than the normal 60 votes as long as it relates to federal spending and it follows reconciliation's strict rules policed by the Senate parliamentarian.
Democrats pounded their Republican opponents on Tuesday after the bill's passage.
Senator Raphael Warnock lamented having to vote against 'various versions of a bad bill' as he exited the chamber.
No part of the bill was as contentious as its changes to Medicaid. Specifically, the bill caps the amount of money that states can tax medical providers like hospitals and nursing homes. It also implements work requirements on the program's benefits: able-bodied adults with dependent children will either work, participate in an education program or community service for 80 hours to receive Medicaid benefits. The Senate version of the bill ends the exemption for work requirements once the household's youngest child turns 14.
The Senate parliamentarian later said the provider tax cap did not comply with the rules of reconciliation, which led to Republicans to revise the language and delay the implementation of the provider tax, which the parliamentarian later allowed.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that if the bill passed, as many as 11.8 million people could lose their Medicaid benefits, making it the steepest cut to Medicaid in history.
The bill's passage signals a major political victory for Trump, who has signed few pieces of legislation since his return. Polling shows the legislation is incredibly unpopular among those who are politically engaged, but also shows that many more voters have not formed an opinion at all. Republicans seem unconcerned.
'You pass it and let them live with the blessings of the good policy,' Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota told The Independent.
Sen. Bill Cassidy faces re-election next year in Louisiana and said he thought the legislation would be a selling point for Republicans in a tough midterm season.
'Helps them with child tax credits, helps them with school choice, it helps them with lots of things,' Cassidy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, told The Independent. 'Prevents the largest tax increase. It should be a pretty easy sell.'
Mullin, meanwhile, credited Vance with being 'the closer' who brought Murkowski on board. Lindsey Graham, answering a question from The Independent, denied that the president's weekend blow-up at no-vote Tillis hardened the senator's stance. He also credited a weekend golf game with bringing the rest of the caucus on board.
'It helped a lot, quite frankly. We'll talk about that later,' he said. 'Rand Paul playing was helpful.'
'I think Thom had sort of made a decision that he couldn't get there before they met, and sort of the rest of his history,' said Graham. 'I like Thom....I respect his decision. He's a smart guy.'
The House, which passed its initial version of the bill 215-214 on May 22, will now consider the Senate-approved version. The lower chamber is facing another arbitrary deadline: President Trump wants it on his desk for a signature by July 4, when America celebrates Independence Day.
But the GOP package is not out of the woods yet. Numerous Republicans in both chambers harbor lingering reservations, and there's no guarantee the changes made by the Senate will sit well in the lower chamber. Conservatives continue to insist that the bill's deficit spending is untenable.
Murkowski, speaking to reporters on Tuesday, said that she hoped that Republican holdouts in the lower chamber would recognize the risks posed by letting the bill die on the floor, and work to get the bill to the president's desk even it it meant blowing past the July 4 deadline.
'This is probably the most difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period that I have encountered, and I've been here quite a while,' Murkowski told reporters. As she stepped into an elevator, the senator added: 'I'm going to go take a nap.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GA Secretary of State announces audit of voter rolls
GA Secretary of State announces audit of voter rolls

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

GA Secretary of State announces audit of voter rolls

An audit of Georgia's voter rolls will happen over the next several months. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said the multiple stages of the audit will include traditional list maintenance, as well as new procedures developed to ensure the integrity of Georgia's voter registration lists. 'There are no 'off-years' in keeping elections secure,' said Raffensperger. 'We will have a statewide election this year, and a general election in 2026. We will use this period over the Summer of 2025 to take every step to maintain the accuracy of Georgia's voter registration lists.' The first phase of the audit will include mailings to inactive voters to move them to canceled status. The office will audit any voters without activity in the last five years. The audit will also check for voters who may have moved by comparing data from the US Postal Service, other states' voter lists, and lists from the Department of Drivers' Services. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] TRENDING STORIES: Man drowns after jumping into Chattahoochee River to rescue child Georgia special tax refunds: When will most eligible taxpayers receive their checks? Delta flight leaving Atlanta loses piece of wing in North Carolina driveway [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]

Trump visits Iowa to kick off America's 250th anniversary, reassure farmers on trade
Trump visits Iowa to kick off America's 250th anniversary, reassure farmers on trade

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump visits Iowa to kick off America's 250th anniversary, reassure farmers on trade

By Nandita Bose WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump travels to Iowa on Thursday to kick off celebrations marking America's 250th anniversary next year and to tout recent trade and legislative actions to heartland voters who helped propel his return to the White House. Trump will deliver a campaign-style speech at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines, a familiar stop for presidential candidates in the early primary state. Trump won Iowa's 2024 Republican caucuses by a historically large margin and carried the state by 13 percentage points in the general election. His latest visit comes ahead of a Friday deadline he set for Congress to pass his sweeping tax and spending legislation, a cornerstone of his second-term domestic agenda that touches everything from immigration to energy policy. In remarks mixing patriotism and policy, Trump will aim to reassure Iowa's voters that his administration is defending their interests and delivering tangible results, according to a person with knowledge of the speech. Trump's trade policies have whipsawed agricultural communities in Iowa, creating economic uncertainty and testing loyalties. Iowa farmers have been hit hard, especially with China's retaliatory tariffs slashing soybean exports and prices. In a Truth Social post on Tuesday announcing his trip, Trump called Iowa "one of my favorite places in the world." "I'll also tell you some of the GREAT things I've already done on Trade, especially as it relates to Farmers. You are going to be very happy with what I say," Trump said. At recent Republican town halls in Iowa, tensions flared as farmers and constituents pressed congressional leaders, including Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, to push back against Trump's retaliatory tariffs. Some Republicans also worry that deep cuts to the Medicaid health program in their sweeping tax bill will hurt the party's prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. Trump has made several memorable trips to the Iowa State Fairgrounds. In 2015, the reality TV star and presidential candidate gave children rides on his personal helicopter as he aimed to overshadow Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. In 2023, Trump's private jet buzzed low over the crowds in another flashy power move, stealing the spotlight from primary rival Ron DeSantis as he campaigned on the ground below.

Trump showed moral clarity on Iran. He should do the same for Ukraine.
Trump showed moral clarity on Iran. He should do the same for Ukraine.

Washington Post

time19 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Trump showed moral clarity on Iran. He should do the same for Ukraine.

On June 19, facing pressure to join in Israel's bombing campaign against Iran, President Donald Trump announced, 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' Cynics assumed this was yet another example of the president putting off a difficult decision indefinitely. 'TACO,' some said, employing a popular acronym for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' The doubters were wrong. Two days later, U.S. bombs and missiles hit three Iranian nuclear sites. Though there has been much debate over just how much damage the Iranian nuclear program suffered, at least one thing now seems clear: Trump meant it went he said that Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism that has vowed 'death to Israel,' would not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. If only the president had the same moral clarity about stopping the barbaric war being waged in Ukraine by Iran's despotic ally, Russia. When it comes to that conflict, however, Trump appears to be engaged in exactly the kind of irresolute policy that many (wrongly) suspected he was pursuing with Iran. On May 28, Trump was asked by a reporter whether Russian dictator Vladimir Putin wants to end the war. He replied: 'I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks. … We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not, and if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently.' More than a month later, Trump isn't doing anything differently even as Russia shows no sign of ending its aggression. Every week seems to bring fresh reports of Russian airstrikes on Ukrainian cities that are described as the largest since the war began. Over the weekend, Russia fired 537 aerial weapons, including 60 missiles, at Ukraine, primarily at civilian targets. Some Ukrainians are now going to sleep with whistles around their necks to make it easier to find them if they are buried under rubble by a Russian attack. Trump has repeatedly insisted that, if he had been president in 2022, Putin would never have invaded Ukraine. But since Trump returned to office this year, Putin's attacks have surged — and Trump hasn't done anything about it. Russia's summer offensive appears stalled, despite the country's large numerical advantage in troops, but Ukrainian cities are suffering more damage from Russian drone and missile strikes amid fears that Ukrainian air defenses are being depleted. In April, Trump beseeched Putin: 'Vladimir, STOP!' Vladimir hasn't stopped, yet Trump does not appear to be applying pressure to back up his words. Instead, at the Group of Seven summit in Canada recently, Trump complained about Russia's expulsion from the group. He apparently continues to speak regularly and cordially with Putin, who has been indicted as a war criminal by the International Criminal Court and is a pariah throughout the West. And the Trump administration continues to block legislation, with more than 80 sponsors, that would impose tariffs of 500 percent on any nations that buy Russia's energy products. Admittedly, there is a case to be made, as Post columnist Jim Geraghty recently noted, that this well-intentioned bill is impractical: Are we really willing to cut off all U.S. trade (which is what a 500 percent tariff would mean) with important international partners, including India, Turkey, Brazil, the European Union and South Korea, if they don't stop buying Russian energy? But it isn't as if Trump is doing anything else to turn up the heat on the Kremlin; since returning to office, he has not imposed any additional sanctions on Russia, thereby allowing existing sanctions to become less effective. Two other possible courses of action would be more effective and produce less collateral damage: providing Ukraine with badly needed air defense ammunition and other munitions while pressuring European countries to release to Ukraine the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets. Ukraine already produces about 40 percent of the weapons it uses on the front lines. With that influx of Russian funds, Ukraine could dramatically expand defense production and become more self-sufficient with weapons. That would send a strong signal to Putin that he might as well make a deal, because he is never going to achieve his objective of turning Ukraine into a Kremlin satrapy. Of even greater immediate impact would be additional deliveries of Patriot air defense interceptors. The Patriot is the most advanced air defense system in Ukraine and the Ukrainians' only effective means of shooting down ballistic missiles, but, more than a year after the last U.S. aid package was approved, Ukrainian stockpiles are dwindling. Last week, Trump said, 'We're going to see if we can make some available,' but there is no indication that his administration is doing so. Instead, the Pentagon this week halted further military aid, supposedly because U.S. stockpiles were running low. President Volodymyr Zelensky in recent months has done everything Trump wanted, from supporting an immediate ceasefire to signing a minerals deal with Washington. Putin would not even agree to a temporary ceasefire. And yet Trump is essentially punishing Ukraine and rewarding Russia. Having failed to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours — as he repeatedly promised on the campaign trail — Trump now seems ready to wash his hands of the conflict. He has hinted that he might step back from the frustrating peace talks, which would mean allowing Putin to wage war without repercussions. Trump has even compared the two sides to 'two young children fighting like crazy': 'Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' Such comments suggest Trump is guilty of moral myopia about the war in Ukraine — quite a contrast to the moral clarity he displayed about the Iranian nuclear program. Ukraine and Russia are not toddlers squabbling on the playground over inconsequential stakes. Ukraine is a pro-Western democracy that is the victim of an unprovoked war of aggression launched by an anti-American dictator. There is no moral equivalence between the sides; the war is as pure an example of good vs. evil as the modern world has seen. If Russia wins, all of Europe will be endangered, and other aggressors such as China will be emboldened. That makes aid to Ukraine — leading to a peace settlement that safeguards its sovereignty — a moral and strategic imperative for the United States. Trump just doesn't get it, and Ukraine could wind up paying a heavy price for his shortsightedness.

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