Latest news with #domesticpolicy
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill
President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill. In a White House speech on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed Medicaid is 'left the same' by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that was narrowly passed by the House in May and the latest version now being contemplated by the Senate contain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result in millions of people losing insurance coverage. Trump also falsely claimed that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors a substantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falsely claimed that 'there'll be a 68% tax increase' if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike. One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering. Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions. 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email. Here is a fact check. Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are 'not going to feel any' of the spending cuts included in the bill. He then said, 'Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions are expected to result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults. The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes that would not leave Medicaid 'the same.' All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions. Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be 'left the same' by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill 'are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week.' Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, he said the bill is 'so good' because it includes 'hundreds of things' that will benefit Americans – including 'no tax' on Social Security. He then said in a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans 'on the precipice' of delivering achievements including 'NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version would provide a $6,000 boost to seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000. This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security, period, remains incorrect. Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger. Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing the temporary tax cuts from his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he has frequently deployed when promoting the 2025 legislation. 'If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase,' he said. 'Think of that: 68%.' Trump again repeated the '68%' warning during Friday remarks at the White House. Facts First: Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank found that taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the '68%' figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment to other fact-checkers earlier in the month. In their articles, PolitiFact and noted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tank found that about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire. That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president.
CNN
4 hours ago
- Business
- CNN
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill
President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill. In a White House speech on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed Medicaid is 'left the same' by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that was narrowly passed by the House in May and the latest version now being contemplated by the Senate contain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result in millions of people losing insurance coverage. Trump also falsely claimed that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors a substantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falsely claimed that 'there'll be a 68% tax increase' if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike. One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering. Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions. 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email. Here is a fact check. Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are 'not going to feel any' of the spending cuts included in the bill. He then said, 'Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions are expected to result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults. The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes that would not leave Medicaid 'the same.' All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions. Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be 'left the same' by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill 'are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week.' Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, he said the bill is 'so good' because it includes 'hundreds of things' that will benefit Americans – including 'no tax' on Social Security. He then said in a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans 'on the precipice' of delivering achievements including 'NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version would provide a $6,000 boost to seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000. This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security, period, remains incorrect. Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger. Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing the temporary tax cuts from his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he has frequently deployed when promoting the 2025 legislation. 'If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase,' he said. 'Think of that: 68%.' Trump again repeated the '68%' warning during Friday remarks at the White House. Facts First: Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank found that taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the '68%' figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment to other fact-checkers earlier in the month. In their articles, PolitiFact and noted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tank found that about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire. That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president.
CNN
4 hours ago
- Business
- CNN
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill
President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill. In a White House speech on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed Medicaid is 'left the same' by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that was narrowly passed by the House in May and the latest version now being contemplated by the Senate contain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result in millions of people losing insurance coverage. Trump also falsely claimed that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors a substantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falsely claimed that 'there'll be a 68% tax increase' if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike. One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering. Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions. 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email. Here is a fact check. Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are 'not going to feel any' of the spending cuts included in the bill. He then said, 'Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions are expected to result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults. The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes that would not leave Medicaid 'the same.' All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions. Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be 'left the same' by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill 'are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week.' Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, he said the bill is 'so good' because it includes 'hundreds of things' that will benefit Americans – including 'no tax' on Social Security. He then said in a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans 'on the precipice' of delivering achievements including 'NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version would provide a $6,000 boost to seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000. This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security, period, remains incorrect. Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger. Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing the temporary tax cuts from his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he has frequently deployed when promoting the 2025 legislation. 'If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase,' he said. 'Think of that: 68%.' Trump again repeated the '68%' warning during Friday remarks at the White House. Facts First: Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank found that taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the '68%' figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment to other fact-checkers earlier in the month. In their articles, PolitiFact and noted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tank found that about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire. That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president.
CNN
2 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Trump's massive agenda bill faces headwinds in the Senate after key ruling from chamber's rules referee
The timeline to pass President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill by July 4 could slip as Republican lawmakers scramble to retool their bill to meet Senate rules and garner enough support in a deeply divided GOP conference. Senate GOP leaders had hoped to move Trump's massive agenda in their chamber by Saturday morning, giving it to Speaker Mike Johnson to jam it through the House by Tuesday — so the president could sign it by the Fourth of July. But Thursday morning, the Senate's rules referee, parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, struck down key provisions, saying they don't meet the chamber's strict budget rules that must be followed so the bill can be approved by a simple majority of 51 votes – or just GOP support. 'We don't control the timing of the parliamentarian. That's obviously something that we have to adapt to but we're plowing forward and when we actually get on it still is an open question, but rest assured we will,' Senate Republican Leader John Thune told reporters when asked about bill timing, saying they have 'contingency plans' for such 'speed bumps.' Chief among the denied provisions is the GOP's proposed changes to taxes that states can impose to help pay for Medicaid coverage – an issue known as the provider tax – which could have raised $200 billion to pay for programs in the bill. Now, Republican leaders are scrambling to retool the provision so it can both meet Senate rules and pass muster with a divided Senate GOP conference. It's unclear how long that process will take, according to several senior GOP sources. The parliamentarian has made a number of other notable rulings, but her determination that increases to provider taxes do not comply with budget rules means Republicans will have to find another way to offset the cost of the president's massive domestic policy bill just days before GOP leadership wanted to vote on it. Thune has previously ruled out trying to overrule the parliamentarian, worried about the precedent that would set for the chamber. 'We'll continue our work and find a solution to achieve the desired results,' a Republican source familiar with the negotiations told CNN Thursday morning. Potential changes to the Medicaid program have badly divided the Senate GOP, with a number of members – including Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Susan Collins of Maine, among others – worried that the new limits would devastate rural hospitals in their states. Others, still, want deeper Medicaid cuts to help pay for the multi-trillion-dollar tax overhaul in the bill. Republican leadership is looking to see if they can make changes to the bill's Medicaid provisions to resubmit to the Senate parliamentarian, in the hopes that she'll accept it the second time around. Hawley said Thursday morning that he prefers the House's model, which froze provider tax rates at current levels, and said he had spoken with Trump Wednesday evening and that the president agreed with him. But the House's approach to provider taxes, which was also included in the Senate bill, was also ruled out of order by the parliamentarian. 'His message was, do what the House did, so I agree with that,' he said, adding, 'If the leadership wants to redraft, my advice would be, why don't you do what the House did.' Pressed on the fact that the parliamentarian also overruled a freeze on provider taxes, Hawley answered, 'They're gonna have to redraft all of it, but this would be a chance to fix it.' 'This would be a chance for leadership to fix it and actually do something right here that's not gonna hurt rural hospitals,' he continued, without providing more details on what provisions he wants to see in a new draft that he thinks could withstand the parliamentarian's review. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who is up for reelection in 2026, has warned his colleagues for the last week that he won't vote to proceed to full Senate debate on the bill unless he gets state-specific answers. 'I'm still looking at answers to questions, so whether or not we retool that, or go back to the House baseline and build off there, I think those are discussions that the leadership will be having today,' Tillis told CNN. 'If retooling means I can get answers to what I consider to be fundamental questions, I'm open to it. But if retooling means I'm still not going to get the answers I need to understand the impact of the state, I'm opposed to it.' A number of Republican senators cautioned their timeline for passing the megabill had been upended by the parliamentarian's ruling, venting their frustrations on Capitol Hill in the hours after it came down. 'I'm concerned about the parliamentarian's ability to make these decisions,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin said, suggesting without evidence that 'it seems politically motivated.' 'The parliamentarians are not supposed to be in politics — and I'm not accusing her of that, I haven't heard her explanation of it. I want to see it before I just take this decision. I want to see how she got to the decision,' the Oklahoma Republican said. Sen. Tommy Tuberville went further, calling for the parliamentarian to be fired. 'The WOKE Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and advised Al Gore, just STRUCK DOWN a provision BANNING illegals from stealing Medicaid from American citizens. This is a perfect example of why Americans hate THE SWAMP,' Tuberville wrote on X. The Senate parliamentarian is a nonpartisan position that was created in the 1930s. In the role, MacDonough, the first woman to serve as parliamentarian, is tasked with advising the chamber on how its rules, protocols and precedents should be applied. That includes advising senators in a bill-review process known as a 'Byrd Bath' when they are looking to use Senate budget rules to pass a bill with a simple majority. Senators acknowledged that the parliamentarian's rulings could slow their timeline for passing the bill. 'One option, obviously, would be to go forward without the provider tax provisions, and we could do it pretty quickly,' Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said, noting that deficit hawks in the GOP conference would 'be screaming like they're part of a prison riot,' if leadership took that path. 'Another option would be to rewrite it, which will delay things. Will [Senate Majority Leader] Thune keep us here until we give them re-written? I don't know,' he continued. Saying 'it's pretty frustrating,' Florida GOP Sen. Rick Scott insisted he's optimistic his conference can rework the language. Pressed, however, on whether the legislation could still pass the Senate this weekend, as Republicans had hoped, Scott said: 'Who knows? I'm up here until we get it done.'
CNN
2 days ago
- Business
- CNN
Trump's massive agenda bill faces headwinds in the Senate after key ruling from chamber's rules referee
The timeline to pass President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill by July 4 could slip as Republican lawmakers scramble to retool their bill to meet Senate rules and garner enough support in a deeply divided GOP conference. Senate GOP leaders had hoped to move Trump's massive agenda in their chamber by Saturday morning, giving it to Speaker Mike Johnson to jam it through the House by Tuesday — so the president could sign it by the Fourth of July. But Thursday morning, the Senate's rules referee, parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, struck down key provisions, saying they don't meet the chamber's strict budget rules that must be followed so the bill can be approved by a simple majority of 51 votes – or just GOP support. 'We don't control the timing of the parliamentarian. That's obviously something that we have to adapt to but we're plowing forward and when we actually get on it still is an open question, but rest assured we will,' Senate Republican Leader John Thune told reporters when asked about bill timing, saying they have 'contingency plans' for such 'speed bumps.' Chief among the denied provisions is the GOP's proposed changes to taxes that states can impose to help pay for Medicaid coverage – an issue known as the provider tax – which could have raised $200 billion to pay for programs in the bill. Now, Republican leaders are scrambling to retool the provision so it can both meet Senate rules and pass muster with a divided Senate GOP conference. It's unclear how long that process will take, according to several senior GOP sources. The parliamentarian has made a number of other notable rulings, but her determination that increases to provider taxes do not comply with budget rules means Republicans will have to find another way to offset the cost of the president's massive domestic policy bill just days before GOP leadership wanted to vote on it. Thune has previously ruled out trying to overrule the parliamentarian, worried about the precedent that would set for the chamber. 'We'll continue our work and find a solution to achieve the desired results,' a Republican source familiar with the negotiations told CNN Thursday morning. Potential changes to the Medicaid program have badly divided the Senate GOP, with a number of members – including Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Susan Collins of Maine, among others – worried that the new limits would devastate rural hospitals in their states. Others, still, want deeper Medicaid cuts to help pay for the multi-trillion-dollar tax overhaul in the bill. Republican leadership is looking to see if they can make changes to the bill's Medicaid provisions to resubmit to the Senate parliamentarian, in the hopes that she'll accept it the second time around. Hawley said Thursday morning that he prefers the House's model, which froze provider tax rates at current levels, and said he had spoken with Trump Wednesday evening and that the president agreed with him. But the House's approach to provider taxes, which was also included in the Senate bill, was also ruled out of order by the parliamentarian. 'His message was, do what the House did, so I agree with that,' he said, adding, 'If the leadership wants to redraft, my advice would be, why don't you do what the House did.' Pressed on the fact that the parliamentarian also overruled a freeze on provider taxes, Hawley answered, 'They're gonna have to redraft all of it, but this would be a chance to fix it.' 'This would be a chance for leadership to fix it and actually do something right here that's not gonna hurt rural hospitals,' he continued, without providing more details on what provisions he wants to see in a new draft that he thinks could withstand the parliamentarian's review. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who is up for reelection in 2026, has warned his colleagues for the last week that he won't vote to proceed to full Senate debate on the bill unless he gets state-specific answers. 'I'm still looking at answers to questions, so whether or not we retool that, or go back to the House baseline and build off there, I think those are discussions that the leadership will be having today,' Tillis told CNN. 'If retooling means I can get answers to what I consider to be fundamental questions, I'm open to it. But if retooling means I'm still not going to get the answers I need to understand the impact of the state, I'm opposed to it.' A number of Republican senators cautioned their timeline for passing the megabill had been upended by the parliamentarian's ruling, venting their frustrations on Capitol Hill in the hours after it came down. 'I'm concerned about the parliamentarian's ability to make these decisions,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin said, suggesting without evidence that 'it seems politically motivated.' 'The parliamentarians are not supposed to be in politics — and I'm not accusing her of that, I haven't heard her explanation of it. I want to see it before I just take this decision. I want to see how she got to the decision,' the Oklahoma Republican said. Sen. Tommy Tuberville went further, calling for the parliamentarian to be fired. 'The WOKE Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and advised Al Gore, just STRUCK DOWN a provision BANNING illegals from stealing Medicaid from American citizens. This is a perfect example of why Americans hate THE SWAMP,' Tuberville wrote on X. The Senate parliamentarian is a nonpartisan position that was created in the 1930s. In the role, MacDonough, the first woman to serve as parliamentarian, is tasked with advising the chamber on how its rules, protocols and precedents should be applied. That includes advising senators in a bill-review process known as a 'Byrd Bath' when they are looking to use Senate budget rules to pass a bill with a simple majority. Senators acknowledged that the parliamentarian's rulings could slow their timeline for passing the bill. 'One option, obviously, would be to go forward without the provider tax provisions, and we could do it pretty quickly,' Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said, noting that deficit hawks in the GOP conference would 'be screaming like they're part of a prison riot,' if leadership took that path. 'Another option would be to rewrite it, which will delay things. Will [Senate Majority Leader] Thune keep us here until we give them re-written? I don't know,' he continued. Saying 'it's pretty frustrating,' Florida GOP Sen. Rick Scott insisted he's optimistic his conference can rework the language. Pressed, however, on whether the legislation could still pass the Senate this weekend, as Republicans had hoped, Scott said: 'Who knows? I'm up here until we get it done.'
