Trump pushes 'Big, Beautiful Bill' as solution to four years of Biden failures: 'Largest tax cut, EVER'
President Donald Trump turned to social media on Monday evening to sell Americans on his vision for the "Big, Beautiful Bill," calling it an opportunity to turn the U.S. around after what he called "four disastrous years" under former President Joe Biden.
The House passed the spending bill in late May and it is now in the Senate's hands.
"We will take a massive step to balancing our Budget by enacting the largest mandatory Spending Cut, EVER, and Americans will get to keep more of their money with the largest Tax Cut, EVER, and no longer taxing Tips, Overtime, or Social Security for Seniors — Something 80 Million Voters supported in November," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "It will unleash American Energy by expediting permitting for Energy, and refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It will make American Air Travel GREAT AGAIN by purchasing the final Air Traffic Control System."
The president said the bill includes the construction of The Gold Dome, which he says will secure American skies from adversaries. The bill will also secure the border by building more of the wall and "supercharging the deportation of millions of Criminal Illegals" that he said Biden allowed into the U.S.
White House: Dems Have 'Never Been More Radical, Out Of Touch' After Voting Against 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
"It will kick millions of Illegals off Medicaid, and make sure SNAP is focused on Americans ONLY! It will also restore Choice and Affordability for Car purchases by REPEALING Biden's EV Mandate, and all of the GREEN NEW SCAM Tax Credits and Spending," Trump wrote. "THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL also protects our beautiful children by stopping funding for sick sex changes for minors."
Read On The Fox News App
The Senate returned to Washington on Monday, and in his post, Trump called on his Republican allies in Congress to work quickly to get the bill on his desk before July 4.
In a separate post, Trump addressed what he referred to as false statements about the bill, reiterating that it is the "single biggest Spending Cut in History."
Gop Holdouts Sound Alarm On $36T Debt Crisis As Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Passes House Vote
He noted that there will not be any cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, adding they will be saved from "the incompetence of the Democrats."
"The Democrats, who have totally lost their confidence and their way, are saying whatever comes to mind — Anything to win!" Trump said. "They suffered the Greatest Humiliation in the History of Politics, and they're desperate to get back on their game, but they won't be able to do that because their Policies are so bad, in fact, they would lead to the Destruction of our Country and almost did.
"The only 'cutting' we will do is for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, something that should have been done by the Incompetent, Radical Left Democrats for the last four years, but wasn't," he concluded.
House Gop Unveils Medicaid Work Requirements In Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
Senate Republicans will get their turn to parse through the colossal package and are eying changes that could be a hard sell for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who can only afford to lose three votes.
Congressional Republicans are in a dead sprint to get the megabill — filled with Trump's policy desires on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt — onto the president's desk by early July.
If passed in its current state, the bill is expected to add roughly $3 trillion to the national debt, including interest, according to the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget.
Fox News Digital's Amy Nelson, Pilar Arias, Brie Stimson and Alex Miller contributed to this report.Original article source: Trump pushes 'Big, Beautiful Bill' as solution to four years of Biden failures: 'Largest tax cut, EVER'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court refuses to lift ruling halting mass layoffs at Department of Education
A federal appeals court declined on Wednesday to lift a judge's ruling that blocked the Trump administration from effectively shutting down the Department of Education. The unanimous decision from the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals is another significant legal setback for President Donald Trump, whose efforts to rapidly shrink the federal government – including through dismantling entire agencies – have been tied up in numerous court challenges. Cutting the Department of Education has been of particular interest to Trump in his second term. Earlier this year, he moved ahead with mass layoffs at the agency, which is tasked with distributing federal aid to schools, managing federal aid for college students and ensuring compliance with civil rights laws. The administration, 1st Circuit Chief Judge David Barron wrote for the panel, has not 'shown that the public's interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be unlawfully disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions.' The court also said that the administration had not demonstrated that it was likely to ultimately win in the case, with Barron writing that Justice Department attorneys had not put forth evidence showing how the widespread layoffs at the department would not prevent it from carrying out its core functions. Last month, US District Judge Myong Joun of the federal court in Boston indefinitely halted Trump's plans to dismantle the agency and ordered the administration to reinstate employees who had been fired en masse. The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by a teachers' union, school districts, states and education groups. Noting that the department 'cannot be shut down without Congress's approval,' Joun, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, said that the planned layoffs at the agency 'will likely cripple' it. 'The record abundantly reveals that Defendants' true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute,' he wrote in the 88-page ruling. Attorneys for the Department of Justice quickly asked the Boston-based appeals court to pause Joun's ruling while they appealed it, writing in court papers that it 'represents an extraordinary incursion on the Executive Branch's authority to manage its workforce.' 'Beyond that, it requires the government to indefinitely retain and pay employees whose services it no longer requires, and the government cannot recoup those salaries if it prevails on appeal,' the DOJ attorneys wrote.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration signals it will slash funds for long-delayed California high-speed rail project
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Trump administration signaled Wednesday that it intends to cut off federal funding for a long-delayed California high-speed rail project plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, following the release of a scathing federal report that concluded there is 'no viable path' to complete even a partial section of the line. Voters first authorized $10 billion in borrowed funds in 2008 to cover about a third of the estimated cost, with a promise the train would be up and running by 2020. Five years beyond that deadline, no tracks have been laid and its estimated price tag has ballooned to over $100 billion. In a letter to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which oversees the project, Federal Railroad Administration acting Administrator Drew Feeley wrote that what was envisioned as an 800-mile system connecting the state's major cities has been reduced to a blueprint for 'a 119-mile track to nowhere.' After a $4 billion federal investment, the California agency 'has conned the taxpayer ... with no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time,' Feeley wrote. State officials defended what's known as the nation's largest infrastructure project and said they remain committed to construction, though it's not clear what funding would replace the federal support if it's withdrawn. Feeley noted the FRA could seek repayment of the federal funds but is not proposing to claw back those dollars at this time. Carol Dahmen, the state authority's chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the federal conclusions are misguided and 'do not reflect the substantial progress made to deliver high-speed rail in California.' Dahmen noted that the majority of the funding for the line has been provided by the state and that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's budget proposal would extend at least $1 billion a year for 20 years to complete an initial segment of the line. State officials are focused on a stretch connecting the Central Valley cities of Bakersfield and Merced, which is set to be operating by 2033. The state agency has about a month to formally respond to the FRA, after which the grants could be terminated. State Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican from Huntington Beach who is vice chair of the Transportation Committee, said that 'commonsense has prevailed" and urged the Legislature's dominant Democrats to redirect the funds from the rail line to lowering gas prices or investing in viable construction projects. 'Let's stop wasting California's hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' Strickland said. There is no known source for the billions of dollars that would be needed to complete the line. California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Ian Choudri suggested in April that private investors could step in and fill the funding gap for the project that promised nonstop rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles in under three hours. At the time, he acknowledged that even if funding is secured, it might take nearly two more decades to complete most of that segment. President Donald Trump said in May that his administration will not continue to fund the line. 'That train is the worst cost overrun I've ever seen,' Trump told reporters at the time, calling it "totally out of control.' Michael R. Blood, The Associated Press Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
Washington Post
23 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The New York mayor's race shows a badly divided Democratic Party
At first glance, it's stunning that former New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo and state Rep. Zohran Mamdani are so far ahead of their competitors in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York. After all, the field of candidates, who will debate one another for the first time Wednesday night, includes numerous contenders with more traditional résumés — they aren't 33 years old like Mamdani or had a government report conclude they sexually harassed 11 women like Cuomo. But if you follow Democratic politics closely, the ascendance of Cuomo and Mamdani is less surprising. In primaries across the country over the past decade, a bloc of disproportionately younger, college-educated and very liberal Democrats have coalesced around progressive candidates. At the same time, older and more-ideologically moderate Democrats, particularly those without college degrees and African Americans, often back more centrist candidates with deep ties to the party's establishment. Ahead of the June 24 primary in New York, Mamdani has become the candidate of the city's young progressives; Cuomo of the older moderates — and there's not much space left for anyone else. The persistence of this divide matters far beyond New York. Older moderate Democrats and younger progressives have disagreed sharply on how to take on President Donald Trump in the first few months of his administration. Looking forward to 2026 and 2028, it will be hard for Democrats to be unified if every primary results in one big bloc of the party feeling frustrated and unrepresented. I am shocked that the perennial Democratic divide is so strong that it has made Cuomo and Mamdani the top candidates for mayor of New York. Neither is a conventional candidate for the job. In a city that often chooses insiders with long résumés for mayor, Mamdani is fairly new to the scene and not part of the political establishment. He worked on the campaigns of a few left-wing New York politicians before running on his own in 2020. Helped by an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America, he defeated an incumbent in the primary for a Queens state house district and then easily won the general election. Mamdani of course isn't the only 30-something progressive rising in New York politics. But U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who has not endorsed Mamdani but is very critical of Cuomo, isn't in an executive role in a massive city. If elected, Mamdani will need to work with police chiefs, chief executives of major companies and other power brokers who aren't likely to show much deference to a 33-year-old. Cuomo, who has been the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban development, New York's attorney general and governor, has the requisite experience. But four years ago, it was hard to imagine him holding office again. The report from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James detailing Cuomo allegedly touching women without their consent and making inappropriate comments seemed (and should have been) permanently disqualifying, particularly for a party that prides itself on women's rights and autonomy. Cuomo denies the allegations, but resigned under the threat of impeachment. Also, in 2021, it seemed the Democratic Party had moved decidedly left and would no longer tolerate the centrist Cuomo, who for years had collaborated with Republicans in the New York State Senate to reduce the power of progressives in Albany. But the ethics scandals and unpopularity of current mayor Eric Adams, who is a Democrat, created a huge void. Numerous candidates — moderates, progressive and those trying to position themselves in between — are all running, including city Comptroller Brad Lander and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. (She is not related to the incumbent mayor.) It's a very complicated election. The Democratic primary will be decided by ranked-choice voting, meaning that New Yorkers actually select up to five candidates, putting them in order of their preferences. Eric Adams, fearing he would lose the primary, is running as an independent. Mamdani or Cuomo, who are affiliated with minor parties in New York, could run in the general election even if they lose the primary. So it's possible New York has a four-way race in the fall: the Democratic primary winner; the runner-up; Adams; and the Republican candidate. What's less complicated is how voters and activists have aligned themselves so far. New York is one of the nation's most distinct cities, but its mayoral race is playing out similarly to other recent Democratic primaries across the country. Cuomo is getting support from veteran politicians, church leaders and labor unions who backed his past campaigns and in some cases his father's. (Mario Cuomo was New York's governor from 1983-1994). That establishment support is helping him with voters more likely to be connected with those institutions, particularly voters older than 50 and African Americans. His voting base resembles the ones that helped former secretary of state Hillary Clinton defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) in the 2016 Democratic primary and former president Joe Biden beat Sanders in 2020. The kind of voters who were drawn to Sanders nationally are behind Mamdani in New York: White college graduates, people younger than 50 and those who identify themselves as very liberal in particular. Like Sanders, Mamdani is courting voters by proposing progressive ideas, such as a rent freeze and free city buses. He's also appealing to them with clever, personable ads and videos. I hope Mamdani wins. My policy views are closer to his than Cuomo's. And while Cuomo says he did nothing wrong, James's report depicts someone who should never again be given a powerful job. That said, even if Mamdani became mayor, I would be concerned about how he got there and what it portends for the broader American left. It's entirely logical that there are some fissures in the Democratic Party, which is made up of millions of people. What's so troubling is how big and perhaps intractable those divides are. Biden entered the presidency facing deep skepticism from progressives and younger Democrats because so few of them backed him during the primary. He never really gained their trust. Similarly, President Sanders likely would have received little grace or loyalty from moderate or older Democratic voters, who opposed him en masse. In New York, Mamdani would triumph despite strong resistance from older moderates in the party; a Cuomo win would be a defeat for young progressives. The party desperately needs to break this old/moderate/non-college vs. young/progressive/college-educated divide. But that's not easy. Progressives like me view the old guard as stuck in the past, conservative and uncreative. Moderate Democrats view progressives as elitist and impractical. Having such negative views of people you are supposed to be in coalition with is not ideal. Progressives think the party's left wing should be in charge. (The moderates' leadership has led us to a country where Trump dominates politics.) The moderates would rightly point that Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden didn't win presidential elections by calling themselves socialists. Mamdani is a charismatic, inspirational politician. He has a much better chance of moving people in the other camp to his than Cuomo, who is disliked even by people who agree with him on policy. But the New York race has made me even more nervous about 2027 and 2028. Will Democrats, instead of focusing on Trump, engage in a super-divisive, toxic presidential primary? If progressives and moderates remain divided by age, education, ideology and race, then the answer to that question seems, obviously, yes.
