
Twisted arms and late-night deals: how Trump's sweeping policy bill was passed
On Thursday, the president's commanding influence over his party was apparent once again: the bill passed just in time for Trump's Fourth of July deadline.
But while the GOP may call the budget bill big and beautiful, the road to passing the final legislation has been particularly ugly. Arm-twisting from Trump and last-minute benefits targeting specific states cajoled holdouts, despite conservative misgivings over transformative cuts to Medicaid and the ballooning deficit.
Here's the journey of the sprawling tax-and-spending bill.
The initial version of the mega-bill passed by the House in May extended tax cuts from 2017.
It also increased the debt limit by about $4tn, and added billions in spending on immigration enforcement while adding work requirements to Medicaid and requiring states to contribute more to Snap nutrition assistance. The Budget Lab at Yale estimated the House bill would add $2.4tn to the debt over the 2025-34 period.
Several conservative Republicans balked at several aspects of the bill during long debate sessions. Mike Lawler, a congressman representing New York, wanted a larger Salt deduction – which concerns offsetting state and local taxes – while the California congressman David Valadao was concerned about the Medicaid cuts, which his district heavily relies on for healthcare.
Then Trump traveled to Capitol Hill in late May to help assuage the holdouts. At his meeting with lawmakers, 'he was emphatic [that] we need to quit screwing around. That was the clear message. You all have tinkered enough – it is time to land the plane,' the South Dakota congressman Dusty Johnson told reporters.
'Ninety-eight per cent of that conference is ready to go. They were enthused. They were pumped up by the president, and I think with the holdouts, he did move them. I don't know that we are there yet, but that was a hugely impactful meeting.'
In the end, there were only two House Republicans who voted against the bill: Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, both of whom are fiscal hawks concerned about the federal deficit. The bill moved on to the Senate.
The Senate version of the budget bill passed on a 50-50 vote with JD Vance, the vice-president, breaking the tie. Until the final stages, however, all eyes were on the Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, both noted moderates, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, both noted fiscal conservatives.
The bill's authors added tax provisions to benefit Alaska's whaling industry to win the support of Murkowski. They also tried to add provisions protecting rural hospitals from Medicaid cuts in 'non-contiguous states', but the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the amendments would violate restrictions on what the bill could contain without triggering the 60-vote filibuster.
Murkowski acquiesced after winning new tax revenues from oil and gas drilling leases for Alaska, provisions protecting clean energy tax credits, and delays on Snap changes.
'Do I like this bill? No,' Murkowski said as she stared down an NBC reporter who had just relayed a comment by the Kentucky Republican Rand Paul describing her vote as 'a bailout for Alaska at the expense of the rest of the country'.
Other changes to the Senate bill were made in the final days of negotiations, including the striking of a 10-year federal ban on state regulation of AI. A record number of amendments were proposed.
Tillis, who announced he would not run again in his politically competitive state, gave a rousing speech about the perils of Medicaid cuts and voted against the bill. Collins and Paul remained in opposition.
With few other options, Democrats tried to delay the vote by requiring the entire bill to be read out loud on the floor the night before the vote.
But in the end, with Murkowski's vote, the Senate had a tie, allowing Vance to cast the deciding vote.
Given the total opposition of Democrats to the bill's passage, Republicans in the House could lose no more than three of their own to get the bill to the finish line.
On Wednesday, the last push still felt dubious. Even the procedural vote that is required to move to an actual vote was delayed for hours, as some Republicans considering holding their vote.
Ralph Norman of South Carolina told C-Span after voting against the bill in committee that he opposed the Senate version's inclusion of tax credits for renewable energy and its failure to restrict Chinese investment in American property.
'We have one chance, one moment to curb the spending that has plagued this country and will take this country down if we don't get it under control,' he said. 'What I see right now, I don't like.'
Victoria Spartz of Indiana had withheld support over concerns about increases in the federal debt.
'I'll vote for the bill, since we need to make it happen for our economy & there are some good provisions in it. However, I will vote against the rule due to broken commitments by Speaker Johnson to his own members,' she wrote on X on Wednesday. 'I'm on Plan C now to deal with the looming fiscal catastrophe.'
Spartz referred to a promise Johnson made to fiscal conservatives that he would not bring a budget bill to a vote if it increased the debt beyond a certain amount. Spartz said this bill exceeded the agreed-upon amount by about $500bn.
Shortly before midnight there were five Republicans voting no on the procedural rule. But deals were still being made – executive orders promised and other negotiations done on the floor.
Once again Trump stepped in, joining the speaker, Mike Johnson, in coaxing the party members to cast their final approval. The president called several House members and posted on his Truth Social account. 'What are the Republicans waiting for??? What are you trying to prove??? MAGA IS NOT HAPPY, AND IT'S COSTING YOU VOTES!!!' he wrote early on Thursday morning.
Johnson held the vote open for seven hours, the longest vote recorded. And it worked. On Thursday morning, Norman voted yes to advance the bill.
So did Andrew Clyde of Georgia, a notable second amendment rights activist in Congress, who failed in his push for an amendment to the bill to remove the registration requirement for firearms suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns from the National Firearms Act, creating a path for legal civilian use without registration and paying a federal tax.
The holdouts fell into line, and the House voted early on Thursday morning 219-213 in a procedural vote to move forward.
There was still a way to go. Johnson had expected to open the vote at 8am. But the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, commandeered the dais for more than eight hours – setting a record previously held by the Republican Kevin McCarthy – in a marathon stemwinder of a speech attacking the perils of the legislation and delaying the vote.
But Johnson remained confident after a night of promises and threats.
Massie remained the face of conservative holdouts on the bill. He has faced withering personal attacks from Trump on social media, the creation of a Super Pac to fund a primary challenge and local advertisements attacking his stance on the bill.
In the end it was only Massie and Brian Fitzpatrick, a congressman in Pennsylvania who voted for Kamala Harris last year, who voted against a bill that will now rewrite the American political landscape.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says there could be a Gaza deal next week
WASHINGTON, July 4 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Friday it was good that Hamas said it had responded in "a positive spirit" to a U.S.-brokered Gaza ceasefire proposal. He told reporters aboard Air Force One there could be a deal on a Gaza ceasefire by next week but that he had not been briefed on the current state of negotiations.


Sky News
36 minutes ago
- Sky News
Gaza: The man in the room acting as backchannel for Hamas in negotiations with US
Behind the efforts to secure the Gaza ceasefire and hostage release is the remarkable story of one man's unlikely involvement. His name is Bishara Bahbah, he's a Harvard-educated economics professor from Phoenix, Arizona. In April, his phone rang. It was Hamas. Since that phone call, Dr Bahbah has been living temporarily in Qatar where he is in direct contact with officials from Hamas. He has emerged as an important back-channel American negotiator. But how? An inauguration party I first met Dr Bahbah in January. It was the eve of President Trump's inauguration and a group of Arab-Americans had thrown a party at a swanky restaurant in Washington DC's Wharf district. There was a sense of excitement. Arab-Americans were crediting themselves for having helped Trump over the line in the key swing state of Michigan. Despite traditionally being aligned with the Democrats, Arab-Americans had abandoned Joe Biden in large numbers because of his handling of the Gaza war. I'd reported from Michigan weeks earlier and been struck by the overwhelming support for Trump. The vibe essentially was 'it can't get any worse - we may as well give Trump a shot'. Mingling among diplomats from Middle Eastern countries, wealthy business owners and even the president of FIFA, I was introduced to an unassuming man in his late 60s. We got talking and shared stories of his birthplace and my adopted home for a few years - Jerusalem. He told me that he still has the deed to his family's 68 dunum (16 acre) Palestinian orchard. With nostalgia, he explained how he still had his family's UN food card which shows their allocated monthly rations from their time living in a refugee camp and in the Jerusalem's old city. Dr Bahnah left Jerusalem in 1976. He is now a US citizen but told me Jerusalem would always be home. 1:58 He echoed the views I had heard in Michigan, where he had spent many months campaigning as the president of Arab-Americans for Trump. He dismissed my scepticism that Trump would be any better than Biden for the Palestinians. We exchanged numbers and agreed to meet for lunch a few weeks later. A connection with Trump Dr Bahbah invited two Arab-American friends to our lunch. Over burgers and coke, a block from the White House, we discussed their hopes for Gaza under Trump. The three men repeated what I had heard on the campaign trail - that things couldn't get any worse for the Palestinians than they were under Biden. 2:54 Trump, they said, would use his pragmatism and transactional nature to create opportunities. Dr Bahbah displayed to me his own initiative too. He revealed that he got a message to the Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, to suggest he ought to write a personal letter of congratulations to President Trump. A letter from Ramallah was on the Oval Office desk on 6 November, a day after the election. It's the sort of gesture Trump notices. It was clear to me that the campaigning efforts and continued support of these three wealthy men had been recognised by the Trump administration. They had become close to key figures in Trump's team - connections that would, in time, pay off. There were tensions along the way. When Trump announced he would "own Gaza", Dr Bahbah was disillusioned. And then came the AI video of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sunning themselves in a Gazan wonderland. 0:35 "It is provocative and unacceptable," he told me just after the president posted the video in February. Trump must have thought it was funny, so he posted it. He loves anything with his name on it." Then came the Trump plan to resettle Palestinians out of Gaza. To this, he released a public statement titled Urgent Press Release. "Arab-Americans for Trump firmly rejects President Donald J Trump's suggestion to remove - voluntarily or forcibly - Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt and Jordan," he said. He then changed the name of his alliance, dropping Trump. It became Arab-Americans for Peace. I wondered if the wheels were coming off this unlikely alliance. Was he realising Trump couldn't or wouldn't solve the Palestinian issue? But Dr Bahbah maintained faith in the new president. "I am worried, but at the same time, Trump might be testing the waters to determine what is acceptable…," he told me in late February as the war dragged on. "There is no alternative to the two-state solution." He told me that he expected the president and his team to work on the rebuilding of Gaza and work to launch a process that would culminate in the establishment of a Palestinian state, side by side in peace with Israel. It was, and remains, an expectation at odds with the Trump administration's official policy. The phone call In late April, Dr Bahbah's phone rang. The man at the other end of the line was Dr Ghazi Hamad, a senior member of Hamas. Dr Bahbah and Dr Hamad had never met - they did not know each other. But Hamas had identified Dr Bahbah as the Palestinian-American with the most influence in Trump's administration. Dr Hamad suggested that they could work together - to secure the release of all the hostages in return for a permanent ceasefire. Hamas was already using the Qatari government as a conduit to the Americans but Dr Bahbah represented a second channel through which they hoped they could convince President Trump to increase pressure on Israel. There is a thread of history which runs through this story. It was the widow of former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat who passed Dr Bahbah's number to Dr Hamad. In the 1990s, Dr Bahbah was part of a Palestinian delegation to the multilateral peace talks. He became close to Arafat but he had no experience of a negotiation as delicate and intractable as this. The first step was to build trust. Dr Bahbah contacted Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy. Witkoff and Bahbah had something in common - one a real-estate mogul, the other an academic, neither had any experience in diplomacy. It represented the perfect manifestation of Trump's 'outside the box' methods. But Witkoff was sceptical of Dr Bahbah's proposal at first. Could he really have any success at securing agreement between Israel and Hamas? A gesture to build trust was necessary. Bahbah claims he told his new Hamas contact that they needed to prove to the Trump administration that they were serious about negotiating. Within weeks a remarkable moment more than convinced Dr Bahbah and Witkoff that this new Hamas back-channel could be vitally important. On 12 May, after 584 days in Hamas captivity, Israeli-American Edan Alexander was released. We were told at the time that his release was a result of a direct deal between Hamas and the US. Israel was not involved and the deal was described by Hamas as a "good faith" gesture. Dr Bahbah sees it as his deal. 27:55 Direct talks took place between Dr Bahbah and five Hamas officials in Doha who would then convey messages back to at least 17 other Hamas leadership figures in both Gaza and Cairo. Dr Bahbah in turn conveyed Hamas messages back to Witkoff who was not directly involved in the Hamas talks. A Qatari source told me that Dr Bahbah was "very involved" in the negotiations. But publicly, the White House has sought to downplay his role, with an official telling Axios in May that "he was involved but tangentially". The Israeli government was unaware of his involvement until their own spies discovered the backchannel discussion about the release of Alexander. Since that April phone call, Dr Bahbah has remained in the Qatari capital, with trips to Cairo, trying to help secure a final agreement. He is taking no payment from anyone for his work.


Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump threatens crippling attack on the EU that'll leave key industry on its knees
President Donald Trump has reportedly threatened the European Union with a 17 percent tariff on food exports, a move that could cripple that industry. The threat came ahead of a July 9 deadline to strike a trade deal otherwise the EU faces a 50 percent tax on all its goods going into the United States. EU officials told the Financial Times the new food tax is an escalation between the two trading partners. It was unclear if the 17 percent hit on food and farm exports would be in addition to the other tariffs announced by Trump or instead of them. The value of EU food exports to the U.S., including products such as wine, reached almost $58 billion last year. Should the U.S. and EU fail to cut a deal by next week's deadline, then EU goods imported to the U.S. could be hit by duties of up to 50 percent. That could be swiftly followed by retaliatory measures from European bloc that would target a wide range of American goods, including food stuffs and technology. The U.S.-EU trade relationship is one of the biggest in the world, accounting for around 30 percent of global goods. Key exports from the U.S. to the EU include crude oil, civilian aircraft, and pharmaceutical products. The EU, for its part, exports a wide range of goods to the U.S., including machinery, vehicles, chemicals, and food stuffs. In 2024, trade between the two was valued at around 1.68 trillion euros – or $1.98 trillion. The EU has a surplus of 198 billion euros when it comes to goods, but a deficit of around 148 billion euro in services given the Europeans an overall trade surplus of around 50 billion euros. Trump has repeatedly railed against the European Union, accusing it of taking advantage of the United States. The EU was 'formed to screw the United States,' he has charged repeatedly. Negotiations have been challenging. Reports say the two sides are working on a five-page draft 'agreement in principle', but it has very little agreed-upon text in it. 'What we are aiming at is an agreement in principle,' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Thursday, adding that a detailed agreement was 'impossible' to reach during the 90-day reprieve. She also warned that, if no agreement is reached, 'all the instruments are on the table.' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent seemed hesitant about the odds of agreement being reached before the July 9th deadline. 'We'll see what we can do with the European Union,' he told CNBC's 'Squawk on the Street' on Thursday. Talks are continuing over the weekend. EU officials may accept maintaining the 10 percent baseline tariff for most goods in exchange for sectoral exemptions, per reports. The bloc wants immediate relief for pharmaceuticals, aircraft, semiconductors, and alcohol exports – critical industries where supply chains span the Atlantic. European negotiators, however, are not being helped by internal divisions among its 27 members - some nations want to accept higher tariffs in return for a period of certainty and others want to retaliate to put pressure on Trump to compromise. Friedrich Merz, chancellor of Germany, the EU's biggest and most export-dependent economy, has been pressing the commission, which runs trade policy, to settle for a quick deal. He wants exemptions from Trump's 25 percent tariff on vehicles and 50 percent on steel. Germany is one of the biggest exporters of automobiles.