‘We're All Going to Die': GOP Struggles to Defend Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME's politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.
Donald Trump's demand for a sprawling legislative package of expensive tax cuts and big spending reductions is running into trouble as even his strongest Republican allies are having trouble defending it.
Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa leaned into tongue-in-cheek gallows humor last week, telling an audience 'Well, we all are going to die,' in response to concerns that kicking millions off Medicaid would lead to more deaths. House Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, is simply repeating the inaccurate statements that the White House keeps putting out, asserting—very wrongly—on Sunday that 'we're not cutting Medicaid,' and last month claiming that the bill's deepest cuts would target migrants in the country without proper documentation. 'The numbers of Americans who are affected are those that are entwined in our work to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. So, what do I mean by that? You got more than 1.4 million illegal aliens on Medicaid,' Johnson said on CNN on May 25. And just this week, he told NBC another disproven assertion: 'I am telling you this is going to reduce the deficit.'
It all points to how openly frustrated Republicans on Capitol Hill are about walking a plank of their own making. Trump's demands to take on his second-term agenda in one bite has boxed in his party and they're plenty steamed about the blatant lack of an off-ramp. As one Hill aide put it to me, it's like watching what can most generously be called an 'Ostrich Strategy'—head in the sand, hoping no one notices the reality happening above ground.
The fissures are there for anyone who dares see them. Sen. John Hawley of Missouri on Monday said the President had told him not to cut Medicaid benefits, despite the House-passed version doing exactly that with Trump's enthusiastic endorsement. The so-called Medicaid Moderates like Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have already balked at the House's version, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says would boot roughly 10 million people from current coverage.
But other Republicans, like Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah, have a very different complaint—that the bill doesn't cut enough. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin says he would be fine leaving his seat if it means tanking a proposal that would balloon the debt by over $1 trillion even when factoring in economic growth. Sen. Rand Paul is objecting to a provision that increases the credit limit on the national credit card to cover purchases already made, also known as raising the debt ceiling.
And these are nominal Trump allies.
These big-ticket ideas rise and fall on salesmanship. At the height of debate over the Affordable Care Act, as Republicans were making hay out of so-called death panels, then-White House adviser David Axelrod had to tell President Barack Obama a hard truth: 'A whole bunch of facts and figures won't change that' opposition. Eventually, Obama's flood-the-zone approach powered Obamacare across the finish line, but it was plenty messy. The measure has proven durable because its benefits were tangible, and voters seldom surrender benefits.
But that is not the norm. The wasteland of these policy failures is crowded. Bill Clinton's attempts to overhaul health care in the 1990s doomed his fellow Democrats to a hellish 1994 midterm cycle. George W. Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security after his re-election bid ran headlong into a woodchipper. Obama's second-term quest at a border bill similarly crashed into unbending opposition. Trump's first-term Infrastructure Week never really got off the ground as he lurched from tweet to tweet.
Which explains why so many Republicans are squeamish about this current package. As passed by the House, Medicaid spending would be cut by at least $600 billion over a decade, reducing the rolls by 10.3 million people. The biggest chunk of that, $280 billion, would come from requiring Medicaid recipients to prove they are working. That work requirement is seen as bureaucratic red tape targeting a small pool of able-bodied participants who aren't currently working, while potentially kicking out many others who are already working but making too little to afford health coverage.
Ultimately, this is going to come down to a simple truth in politics: the biggest bullhorn wins. With an ambitious timeline of getting the 'big beautiful bill' to the White House for the President's signature by the July 4 holiday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has to work fast. The House bill as it arrived cannot pass, meaning the Senate needs to take up the shell and do a pretty hefty rewrite. Working with a 53-vote GOP majority in a 100-member chamber, Republicans are working under a rule loophole that will allow them to get to the finish line with a bare majority, and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President J.D. Vance if needed. That means Thune can lose just three of his own, and there are at least five nos at the moment, with a few others hinting that they want their seat at the rewrite table.
Republicans have ownership of the House, Senate and White House. That doesn't mean they have control over every corner of them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Supreme Court limits outside access to DOGE records
The Supreme Court has reined in a lower-court order that allowed a watchdog group wide-ranging access to records of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency. The high court's majority said a judge's directive allowing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to examine DOGE's recommendations for cost savings at executive branch agencies was 'not appropriately tailored.' In a two-page order Friday, the Supreme Court said such access was not a proper way to resolve an ongoing dispute about whether DOGE is a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act or operates as a presidential advisory body that does not have to share its records with the public. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,' the court's majority wrote. All three of the court's liberal justices indicated they disagreed with the decision, but none provided an explanation of her views.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Over the finish line': Tuberville says passing spending bill bolster economic growth
ALABAMA (WHNT) — As the Big Beautiful Bill is under consideration in the Senate, an Alabama Senator says his top priority is to get the spending bill passed. U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville said Thursday the legislation is likely to undergo some significant changes while in the Senate, but he said his ultimate goal was to get the bill over the finish line. Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Rick Pate to run for lieutenant governor 'The number one priority in this bill is getting the jobs and tax cuts done,' Tuberville said. The spending bill has received criticism from conservatives over the past few days, including the former head of the Department of Governmental Efficiency. Elon Musk has called the bill an 'abomination,' posting on social media platform X about how the spending bill will significantly increase the national debt. 'The problem that Elon Musk looks at, I look at it different,' Tuberville told members of the press on Thursday. 'Number one, the way to grow this country is to get the tax cuts done and that tax cuts are in this bill and we need to make them permanent.' Tuberville said he and his colleagues have complained that Democrats spend too much money. He said he wants to cut back on how much can be cut from this bill. 'There's a lot of things the federal government, in this bill, is trying to send down to the states,' Tuberville said. 'We can't afford it in Alabama. We can't afford to pick up the tab for a federal government agency that was started years ago by the federal government. We don't need it in the state.' Tuberville said he is looking to the future to make changes. 'Remember, we will do another reconciliation after this,' Tuberville said. 'We have two more in the next year and a half, so whatever we don't get done in this bill, hopefully we can get done in the next.' The president has given Republicans in the Senate a tight deadline to pass the spending bill, asking them to have it on his desk by July 4th. The Tax Foundation estimates the bill passed by the House of Representatives will add more than $2 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chris Hayes: Trump's 'secret police': Masked agents' sweeping immigration raids raise concern
This is an adapted excerpt from the June 5 episode of 'All In with Chris Hayes.' The term 'secret police' invokes a kind of haunting specter. When we see representations of it in movies or history, we immediately identify it with a certain kind of regime: One that tramples people's liberty with no accountability. We associate it with authoritarian governments and dictatorships like the former Soviet Union, where people, usually armed, could wield the authority of the state but were, themselves, totally unaccountable in the same way. Whatever issues there are with American policing — and there are many — at least our police officers have names on their uniforms and badge numbers. But now, in the era of immigration under Donald Trump, one cannot help but notice that in clip after clip, interaction after interaction, the people enforcing the president's policies have all the qualities that one would associate with the concept of 'secret police.' In videos, these individuals are usually masked and either wearing plain clothes or irregular uniforms. They won't give their names or say what agency they're with. Watching it feels wrong, weird, alien and menacing. It does not feel like these law enforcement officials are subject to the authority of a democratic government. It's so striking, in scene after scene, to see regular people asking masked agents, 'Who are you?' and 'What are you doing?' and not receiving an answer. That's what we saw play out in one of the first videos of this kind to be made public: The arrest of Columbia student and lawful resident Mahmoud Khalil. In that video, you can see plainclothes officers apprehending Khalil in the lobby of his building. The officers pointedly refused to identify themselves or what agency they were with. 'We don't give our name,' one man said, after handcuffing and detaining a legal resident of the United States. Not long after that, we got video of the arrest of Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was snatched off the street by masked agents and led away in handcuffs. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, there was the chilling scene from last month in which masked agents broke a car window and forcibly removed a man they say was in the country illegally. Just last weekend, in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, masked agents detained an apparently undocumented gardener at his place of work. In San Diego that same weekend, residents tried to hold back what appeared to be militarized agents who were reportedly executing an immigration raid on local businesses. We've also got allegations of all kinds of lies, manipulation and subterfuge. Eyewitnesses in Tucson, Arizona, allege agents posed as city utility workers as part of an arrest attempt. There have been reports of agents performing wellness checks on children, which critics say is a trap for immigration enforcement. All this feels like something distinct from the normal forms of policing and law enforcement that we're used to. As the writer M. Gessen, who was born in the then-Soviet Union, put it in a column for The New York Times: 'The United States has become a secret-police state. Trust me, I've seen it before.' 'The citizens of such a state live with a feeling of being constantly watched. They live with a sense of random danger,' Gessen wrote. 'Anyone — a passer-by, the man behind you in line at the deli, the woman who lives down the hall, your building's super, your own student, your child's teacher — can be a plainclothes agent or a self-appointed enforcer.' This administration is treating people as if they have no rights, as if they can be rounded up at whim without any due process. That is the legal theory of the Trump administration. It believes that immigrants in this country don't have rights, even though that's very clearly not true. The Constitution is clear on this, and precedent is clear on this: Immigrants have due process rights. But the Trump administration seems to believe the state can do whatever it wants to people. According to Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, the agents in these videos are wearing masks for their own safety. 'They wear a mask because they're trying to protect themselves and their families,' Homan said on Fox News. 'Agents are getting doxed every day, their pictures and phone numbers being put on telephone poles. These leftists are following and filming when they go home from work at night.' In a statement to NBC News about these recent immigration crackdowns, Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said, 'Under Secretary Noem, we are delivering on President Trump's and the American people's mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens and make America safe.' This article was originally published on
