How House Republicans could bypass their own budget
As soon as this morning, the speaker will attempt to ram the Senate-passed megabill through the House as dozens of Republicans threaten to vote it down. The detractors come from across the Republican conference after the Senate sent over a bill with deeper Medicaid cuts, steeper deficit hikes and less onerous clean-energy provisions than expected.
And he's gunning to deliver by President Donald Trump's self-imposed July 4 deadline, as severe thunderstorms in Washington threaten full attendance.
'We'll see. I've got to play the cards that are dealt to me,' Johnson said Tuesday, after admitting he was 'not happy' with the Senate's changes to the bill. 'And we're working through that. … But we remain optimistic we're going to land it at this point.'
Johnson has 24 to 48 hours to persuade reluctant fiscal hawks and Medicaid moderates to swallow the Senate's bill. He spent Monday on calls with concerned lawmakers and caucuses, scrambling to figure out how to pass it this week without making changes to the bill. (John Thune and Johnson have been in contact through much of the process but did not speak in the hours leading up to the Senate vote, the majority leader told POLITICO.)
But the Senate bill will be tough to sell. House Freedom Caucus members like Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) blasted the Senate's bill Tuesday for adding to the deficit and softening clean energy tax credits. Roy and Norman both voted against the bill in the Rules Committee overnight.
House moderates are worried about the steep cuts to Medicaid, which Johnson has privately said could cost Republicans the House in 2026. Sen. Thom Tillis' (R-N.C.) speech torching the Senate's Medicaid provisions for similar reasons shook many vulnerable Republicans.
And a substantial cross section of the two groups of holdouts would rather take time to rework the package and send it back to the Senate, instead of jamming the Senate version through the House under a self-imposed deadline. Norman said the House should go back to the original bill, leave town and come back when Senate Republicans are 'serious.'
Some signs of progress for Johnson: Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) appeared more likely to support the bill Tuesday night after previously refusing a deal on a state and local tax deduction. Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), previously a strong no on the bill over the Medicaid provider tax, told POLITICO a local provider tax tweak in the wraparound amendment for New Jersey and other states has him feeling better about the bill.
But it would still be a gamble for Johnson to put it on the House floor: Many Republicans think the bill would fail without additional changes. However, the speaker has previously succeeded in putting bills on the floor without the votes — and relying on Trump to pressure holdouts to fold.
What else we're watching:
— Weather problems could delay House vote: Over 200 flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport were either canceled or delayed Tuesday amid thunderstorms in Washington, according to the flight-tracking service FlightAware. Johnson said Tuesday night that the travel issues could push back the House vote on the GOP megabill, which is expected as early as Wednesday.
— More reconciliation packages: As the House looks to pass the current reconciliation package without further tweaks, Johnson is suggesting there could be future opportunities for lawmakers to get their priorities into party-line packages. In an interview on Fox News on Tuesday night, Johnson said the House will plan to do two more reconciliation bills during this session of Congress, which ends in 2026.
Jordain Carney, Meredith Lee Hill and Benjamin Guggenheim contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Cities' Immigration Approach Is a Model of Multiracial Democracy
Federal immigration enforcement aimed at cities that are home to large immigrant populations rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how city-led immigrant inclusion policies are making America safer and more prosperous. Claims that big cities harbor and protect illegal immigrants is political misinformation. To be clear: There isn't a city or town in America that can legally prohibit ICE agents from carrying out their work. So-called sanctuary cities instead direct their local law enforcement to not independently do ICE's job for them, going on immigration raids, sweeping worksites for immigration papers, or otherwise diverting resources away from keeping the peace locally. The American flag is pictured. The American flag is pictured. Robbie Jay Barratt - AMA/Getty Images Data shows that cities that don't participate in ICE raids report lower poverty, crime, and unemployment rates than those that preemptively enforce immigration regulations. It isn't just about not cooperating with ICE, however. Cities across the country—run by Democrats and Republicans alike—are prioritizing holistic policies that build trust with immigrant communities. These efforts aim to ensure that residents do not fear local police, enabling them to report crimes and engage with civic life without fear of deportation. Programs under the Welcoming Cities Initiative—adopted in Fargo, Gainesville, Huntsville, Akron, and others—focus on integrating immigrants through local action plans that often include improving relationships with law enforcement. On the other hand, evidence shows that police forces that work with ICE to hunt down undocumented immigrants, even if they haven't committed a local crime, drive down a whole community's rates of reporting crimes when they do occur. Other cities, including Boise and Chattanooga, have joined the Strong Cities Network, working to counter violence against groups like immigrants and promote social cohesion across their city—a key vision of inclusive and pluralist democracy. These community-based initiatives stand in stark contrast to the top-down directives from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Cities like New York, Trenton, Washington, D.C., and Dayton have implemented municipal ID programs, useful for connecting utilities and establishing identity with law enforcement or doctors regardless of immigration status, all without conferring federal voting rights or privileges. From Gainesville, Fla., to the border town of San Diego, local police have served as an important part of the cities' "Immigrant Inclusion Blueprints," creating plans to boost the cultural competence of police, educate immigrants on their constitutional rights, and make victim rights information available in several languages. Such policies reflect cities' practical, nonpartisan approach to complex national issues that tend to become overly polarized in Washington, D.C. Immigrants, regardless of immigration status, are not the moochers and dangerous "vermin" that some would paint them as. Local economies in inclusive and welcoming cities are thriving. Fargo's immigrant population contributed $542.8 million to the metro GDP while paying $13.8 million in state and local taxes and $28.3 million in federal taxes. Dayton's immigrant population contributed $74 million to Social Security and more than $19 million to Medicare in 2019. The Gainesville, Fla., action plan on inclusive public safety shows results too. As the immigrant population continues to rise, the city has seen a historic drop in the crime rate. Increasing representation, honoring various perspectives, and promoting deliberative engagement produce outcomes that make communities stronger. Cities do not—and should not—provide sanctuary for criminals against federal enforcement. Instead, they are creating a sanctuary where everyone, regardless of country of origin, race, or ethnicity can flourish. These policies show that treating all people with human dignity both improves everyone's bottom line and keeps communities safe. Pluralist, multiracial democracy means that regardless of background or blood, residents can coexist and flourish because it is America's civic institutions that bind "We the People" together. Our democratic identity is forged as we work together to make our communities safer, more prosperous, and welcoming. In these policies and programs toward immigrants, America's cities are fundamentally fulfilling the founding pledge to form "a more perfect union." Joel Day, Ph.D., is the managing director of the University of Notre Dame's Democracy Initiative and a former administrator for the city of San Diego, where he led local immigration initiatives and oversaw several public safety programs. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
San Francisco Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republican spending bill could deal a huge blow to abortion access in California
Access to abortion in California could be substantially reduced if the House passes President Donald Trump's budget bill. The legislation, now awaiting a final vote in the House, would eliminate federal Medicaid funding for any type of medical care to organizations that perform abortions. An earlier version of the bill would have cut the funds off for 10 years, but lawmakers supporting the measure limited it to the 2025-26 fiscal year before the latest vote. Even so, Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, says it may have to close about one-third of its 600 U.S. clinics if it lost all $700 million of the federal funds it receives annually from Medicaid and the Title X family-planning program. Planned Parenthood says its 115 clinics in California serve about one-third of its patients nationwide — nearly 1 million per year, about 80% of whom are low-income patients on Medi-Cal. Clinics that remain open, for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, might have to limit their services without increased funding from private donors or from state and local governments. That means cancers would go undetected, sexually transmitted infections would be untreated and birth control would be less available. 'The public health infrastructure of California's most vulnerable communities will break down,' said Jodi Hicks, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Shelby McMichael, a Planned Parenthood spokesperson, said Wednesday that the organization 'worked with the state to ensure that these reproductive health services were in the state budget' for 2025-26, which includes funding for the clinics. But McMichael told the Chronicle that the federal legislation was 'effectively a back-door abortion ban, even in a state like California where voters have affirmed that it's a constitutional right.' She was referring to a ballot measure approved by two-thirds of the state's voters in November 2022, five months after the Supreme Court repealed the nationwide constitutional right to abortion that it had declared in 1973. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said the congressional action was 'a major step toward ending the forced taxpayer funding of the Big Abortion industry — a crucial victory in the fight against abortion, America's leading cause of death.' Congress cut off federal abortion funding for low-income women in the Medicaid program with the Hyde Amendment in 1977. A 1981 California Supreme Court decision has enabled the state to replace the federal dollars with its own funds for Medi-Cal abortions. California's laws would not be changed by the cutoff of federal funding to abortion providers. But by forcing shutdowns of abortion clinics and reductions in services from those that remain open, the congressional legislation would make it harder for many Californians to find abortion providers. 'Medi-Cal patients will have less places to turn for care, for any type of reproductive health care services, including abortion,' said Melissa Goodman, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy at UCLA Law School. 'The federal effort to defund those who provide abortion services is a key tactic for restricting abortion access in states that protect abortion by radically shrinking the pool of abortion providers who can afford to continue operating.' Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and author of several books on reproductive law, said some health care providers in California may have to stop providing abortions because of the loss of funding. Or, she said, they 'may have to scale back other services, their wait times may get longer or they may close.' In a separate action in March, the Trump administration ordered withdrawal of federal funding to California and other states for Title X, which pays for family planning programs for low-income residents and those who lack insurance. Those programs would have had to close without state funding, which was provided in the newly enacted 2025-26 budget. But on Wednesday, Essential Access Health, a nonprofit that administers Title X grants in California, said it had been notified by the Trump administration's Department of Health and Human Services that the state would receive $12.2 million in Title X funding this year, about $1 million less than last year's family-planning funds. McMichael, of Planned Parenthood, said the state budget also includes funding to make up for the federal reduction. 'We recognize that this may be only a temporary reprieve,' as the administration could change course again in the coming months, said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, a spokesperson for Essential Access Health. She said advocates of the funding have sued the Trump administration in federal court in Washington, D.C. over nationwide reductions in Title X funding. Federal courts blocked a similar action by Trump's first administration in 2019. The congressional budget vote comes in the wake of the latest legal victory for abortion opponents, a Supreme Court decision allowing South Carolina to eliminate all Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood or any other health care provider that also performs abortions. The state had banned the funding in 2018, saying funds provided for other services could be diverted by the providers to pay for abortions. A federal appeals court said the cutoff violated a 1965 federal law that requires states to allow Medicaid patients to receive services at any qualified institution. But in a 6-3 ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood on June 26, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said the law could be enforced only by the federal government, not by private parties like Planned Parenthood or the patient who joined the suit. Although the ruling applied only to states with laws against abortion funding, it could also affect states like California, which has provided abortions and other reproductive care for women who have been denied treatment in their home state.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tax-cut bill heads to a final vote in US House
Republicans in the House of Representatives have advanced US President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill towards a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. Following a day of closed-door meetings both on Capitol Hill and at the White House, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote early on Thursday morning. Lawmakers then reopened debate for a final vote that was expected a couple of hours later. An earlier procedural vote was held open for seven hours on Wednesday, giving Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson time to convince holdouts to back the president's signature bill. Trump expressed frustration with the slow passage of the bill and lashed out at congressional Republicans on social media, warning them they would lose MAGA votes if the bill died. Johnson had expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. After the vote he praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation, which nonpartisan analysts say will add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt over the next decade, by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. With a narrow 220-212 majority, Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, saying that its tax breaks disproportionately benefit the wealthy while cutting services that lower- and middle-income Americans rely on. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that almost 12 million people could lose health insurance as a result of the bill. "This bill is catastrophic. It is not policy, it is punishment," Democratic Representative Jim McGovern said in debate on the House floor. Republicans in Congress have struggled to stay united in recent years, but they also have not defied Trump since he returned to the White House in January. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet the July 4 deadline. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities, from tax cuts to immigration enforcement. The bill would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. The Medicaid cuts have also raised concerns among some Republicans, prompting the Senate to set aside more money for rural hospitals.
