logo
Winners and losers as House approves Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'

Winners and losers as House approves Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'

Yahoo22-05-2025

House Republicans on Thursday approved a massive legislative package comprising the major pieces of President Trump's domestic agenda, including tax cuts, an immigration crackdown and sharp cuts in Medicaid.
The vote defied the skeptics who thought it impossible to unite the feuding factions of the House GOP behind so large a bill. And it marked a huge political victory for Trump, whose approval rating is well underwater, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who has faced internal criticisms for his handling of major legislative debates since he took the gavel in 2023.
Here are the winners and losers from the hard-fought debate.
For a president who made campaign promises to extend tax cuts, clamp down on immigration and unleash domestic energy production, Thursday's vote marked a major victory for a simple reason: All of those policies are in the bill.
But the political implications of the vote might be even more significant, demonstrating that Trump has a firm grip over even the conservative, rabble-rousing wing of the House Republican Conference, whose members have frequently defied the legislative wishes of their own GOP leaders.
Indeed, ask any Republican in the Capitol who gets credit for nudging the package over the finish line and the answer is clear: President Trump.
'He's the one that's responsible for this,' Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a prominent Freedom Caucus member, said just after Thursday's vote. 'It would've never happened if he hadn't gotten involved.'
After remaining largely on the sidelines during the early stages of the debate, Trump dove in head-first during the final days leading up to the vote.
On Tuesday, he visited the Capitol to urge the GOP holdouts to quit their 'grandstanding' and back the bill. When that didn't work, he called members of the House Freedom Caucus to the White House on Wednesday, when he offered just enough to win the support of even the loudest critics.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) was one of them. He said he was swayed to support the bill largely after GOP leaders agreed to increase incentives to states that did not expand Medicaid under ObamaCare to stay the course. That, he said, 'came out of our meeting yesterday in the White House.'
Even Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), one of just two Republicans to vote against the package on Thursday, credited Trump's lobbying as the decisive factor in passing the bill.
'He was very persuasive,' Massie said. 'He made a decent effort at convincing me.'
Heading into the week, there were plenty of skeptics saying that Johnson's push to pass the legislation through the House by Memorial Day was a pipe dream. And there were points in the debate, the Speaker conceded, when he was almost forced to agree.
'There [were] a few moments over the last week when it looked like the thing might fall apart,' Johnson said Thursday morning.
Still, Johnson was relentless in his pursuit of meeting his own deadline, staging countless discussions with the two groups of holdouts — conservative spending hawks fighting for steeper Medicaid cuts and moderate blue-state Republicans vying to secure tax relief for their high-income districts — in search of an elusive deal.
In the process, he made a few bold gambles.
When the conservatives blocked the bill in the Budget Committee last Friday, he quickly staged a second vote on the same proposal late Sunday night, all but daring them to sink it again. (They didn't.)
And when Trump's warning for both groups to drop their demands didn't bear fruit, Johnson brought both camps back to his office with new offers that ultimately helped to win their approval.
'It was a tough process, it was a competitive process, but one that resulted in everyone being able to go back to their constituencies and say they have a win,' said Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), a Long Island centrist who was fighting to hike the cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction.
The debate, for now, seems to have put Johnson in the good graces of the competing wings of his diverse conference heading into negotiations with Senate Republicans over a final version of the party's domestic agenda. The Speaker gave plenty of credit to Trump and the many committee chairs who cobbled the package together. But he also leaned heavily on divine intervention.
'There's a lot of prayer that brought this together,' Johnson said after the vote.
Moderate Republicans from high-tax blue states made it clear from the start that they would go to the mat for a significant increase to the SALT deduction cap, threatening to tank the entire package if they did not get substantial relief.
In the end, they held the line — and it paid off.
The Trump agenda bill includes a $40,000 SALT deduction cap for individuals making $500,000 or less — quadruple the current $10,000 deduction cap adopted as part of the 2017 Trump tax law. The deduction cap and income limits would increase 1 percent per year over 10 years.
The final deal came after days of intense — and sometimes contentious — negotiations between leadership and members of the SALT Caucus, with the moderate Republicans digging in on their demands, a political gamble when working with such a sprawling package.
First, top lawmakers proposed a $30,000 deduction cap with a $400,000 income limit, which the group vocally rejected. The group then floated a $62,000 deduction cap for individual filers and a $124,000 deduction cap for joint filers — highlighting the gulf between the two groups. When leadership returned to the table with an offer that would decrease the deduction cap from $40,000 to $30,000 after four years, they demurred. Finally, a palatable offer arrived.
The group is claiming victory, already looking to use the provision to their advantage when seeking reelection in their purple districts. LaLota, a vocal supporter of increasing the SALT cap, said he 'agreed to a number that I can sell back at home.'
'A number that makes 92 percent of my constituents completely whole,' he added. 'This is going to lead to welcome tax relief for Long Island middle-class families.'
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), who is eyeing a gubernatorial bid, was pithier: 'Promises made, promises kept,' he wrote on the social platform X.
Conservative spending hawks drew a sharp red line at the launch of the debate, warning that they wouldn't support a package that added to deficit spending.
Then they crossed it.
The package approved by the House on Thursday is estimated to increase deficits by trillions of dollars over the next decade. And while some Republicans have dismissed those projections as wildly off base, others — including some of Congress's most vocal spending hawks — are readily acknowledging that the package falls far short of their fiscal goals.
'The consequences of this bill will add to the debt, and if we don't get the bond market under control, then we're going to be paying a whole lot of money,' Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas), a Freedom Caucus member, said after the vote. 'We're already close to a trillion dollars in debt payments now. That is a real concern. It ought to be a concern of more people in Washington that this is an unsustainable path. We've got to get that under control.'
Norman agreed, saying conservatives fought their best fight for more savings but in the end were forced to give in to the inertia of the massive bill.
'That's what bothers me. We just don't have the courage to handle it,' he said. 'It's going to hit, and I hate it when it hits.'
Massie opposed the bill for that very reason, warning colleagues before the vote that the package is 'a debt bomb ticking.'
'I'd love to stand here and tell the American people, we can cut your taxes and we can increase spending and everything's going to be just fine,' he said. 'But I can't do that because I'm here to deliver a dose of reality.'
A central feature of the Republican bill is a gutting of the green-energy agenda adopted under former President Biden.
Under the proposal, tax credits offered to climate-friendly energy projects will end altogether beginning in 2029, and companies hoping to take advantage of those benefits before then will have to begin construction within 60 days of the legislation becoming law.
Roy said the expedited rollback of those credits will save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars — and was a major factor in securing his vote.
'The solidification of the Inflation Reduction Act tightening … was massive,' he said. 'By that, we're constraining the hell out of wind and solar, which is good.'
The GOP bill would also slash federal programs designed to fight pollution, allocate billions of dollars to the strategic petroleum reserve and eliminate a $7,500 tax credit for the purchase of electric vehicles.
The proposal drew howls from Democrats and environmental activists, who are warning that the effects on the climate will be far-reaching.
Trump, during his visit to the Capitol, was adamant that Republicans should not touch Medicaid benefits and should focus instead on 'waste, fraud and abuse' under the low-income health care program.
Conservative hard-liners, however, weren't convinced. And much of the last-minute wrangling centered on their demands to expedite the timeline for implementing new Medicaid eligibility restrictions.
Those proposed changes, including new proof-of-employment requirements for certain adult beneficiaries, are estimated to cause more than 7 million people to become uninsured over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Democrats have pounced on the projections, accusing Republicans of slashing health care benefits for the poorest Americans in order to underwrite tax cuts for the wealthiest.
It's unclear if the Medicaid cuts will survive in the Senate, where a handful of GOP senators — including conservative Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) — have warned that they'll oppose any package that cuts health benefits under the program.
Scaling back the Medicaid cuts, however, would complicate passage when the bill returns to the House, where conservatives are already warning that they won't swallow an erosion of their hard-fought, deficit-cutting victories.
'They've got a lot they still need to do to make it better, and they can't unwind what we achieved,' Roy said. 'Those are going to be red lines. If the SALT guys think they've got red lines, just wait until you see what's coming out of us.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's high-speed silver lining
Trump's high-speed silver lining

Politico

time10 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump's high-speed silver lining

Presented by the Stop the Oil Shakedown Coalition. With help from Camille von Kaenel UNLIKELY ALLY: President Donald Trump is about to snatch $4 billion away from California's high-speed rail project — and all that's doing is reinforcing Democrats' iron-willed support for the beleaguered venture. The Trump administration said Wednesday — in the form of a 300-page report — that it's on the verge of nixing Biden-era grants for the planned rail line from Los Angeles to the Bay Area, a conclusion state officials have feared since the president put the project in his crosshairs in February. Rather than being a death knell for a project that's years behind schedule and has a price tag that's ballooned from $33 billion to as much as $128 billion, Trump's attacks are fortifying state Democrats who hold the purse strings to its largest funding source — cap-and-trade revenues. 'We've seen this coming and we're going to do everything we can to prevent it,' said Senate Budget Committee Chair Scott Wiener. 'Regardless of what happens here, we're committed to making this project a reality.' It's been a question just how much Democratic support the project would garner during negotiations to reauthorize the state's emissions trading system, as several lawmakers made it clear coming into session that high-speed rail isn't their priority amid finite climate funding. That uncertainty made its way into the Federal Railroad Administration's report, which, among other arguments, points to the lack of 'long-term stability of cap-and-trade proceeds' as a reason to cancel grants. But Trump's dual assaults on high-speed rail and cap-and-trade itself lit a fire under Gov. Gavin Newsom, who committed to reauthorizing the program this year after initially waffling on timing and championed a proposal to guarantee the rail line at least $1 billion in funding annually in his budget proposal last month. Republican lawmakers who've long blasted the project as a waste of taxpayer dollars are taking a victory lap. 'Hopefully, this will be the beginning of the end for high-speed rail,' Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) said during a press conference. 'This project needs to be over. It has been the biggest public infrastructure failure in American history.' Newsom spokesperson Daniel Villaseñor, when asked about Wednesday's news, pointed to the governor's budget press conference, where he doubled down on his support. 'I want to get it done, and that's our commitment. That's why it's still reflected in the cap-and-trade extension,' Newsom said. Carol Dahmen, the High-Speed Rail Authority's chief of strategic communications, said in a statement that the agency will 'correct the record' on the Trump administration's 'misguided' decision. But she also highlighted Newsom's proposal, saying $1 billion annually will be enough to 'complete the project's initial operating segment' from Bakersfield to Merced. Democrats' continued backing of high-speed rail also reflects an important reality of California politics: Labor unions can still make or break you. That's a lesson former Rep. and gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter learned last month, after she bashed the project in a TV appearance before recalibrating at a labor event and saying she wants to 'put people to work, and I want to get it done for Californians.' A coalition of powerful labor and public government interests announced its cap-and-trade priorities last month, a list of infrastructure projects including high-speed rail. The project has employed nearly 15,000 union workers since construction started in 2015, more than any other infrastructure undertaking in the country. 'The time to double down is now,' said Michael Quigley, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, which represents carpenters, laborers, contractors and other construction unions. — AN Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! BUZZWORD OF THE DAY: Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire put up an impassioned defense of Sen. Josh Becker's big energy bill during a Senate floor debate on Wednesday, calling SB 254 the 'most significant reform we've had on utility profit return that we've seen in decades.' The bill advanced to the Assembly on a party-line vote of 29-10, but not before heated pushback from Republicans, who pivoted to familiar targets: California's (now-zombie) electric vehicle mandate and other climate rules they say raise prices. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones brought up his bill to repeal regulators' changes to the low carbon fuel standard, which he said would raise gas prices but which the Senate declined to advance Wednesday morning. Becker's sprawling bill is supported by environmental, renewable energy and agricultural groups, but opposed by the Chamber of Commerce and the investor-owned utilities. — CvK SOLAR FLARE-UPS: The Assembly left rooftop solar advocates fuming after suspending a procedural waiting period for amendments to pass a proposal limiting subsidies to legacy rooftop solar customers Tuesday night. 'My sense is that the momentum was on our side, so why are they rushing this?' said Walker Wright, the vice president of public policy for Sunrun. The skirmish unfolded after Assemblymember Lisa Calderon amended her AB 942 on Monday to exempt farms and schools, kicking off a procedural one-day notice minimum. Lawmakers approved waiving that procedural rule Tuesday night before sending the measure to the Senate on a 46-14 vote. Spokespeople for Calderon and Speaker Robert Rivas cast the move as procedural. Arnell Rusanganwa, a top Calderon aide, called the move 'common, especially during major legislative deadlines' in an email. He said the late amendments had been made in the 'spirit of compromise.' That's not the only solar flare-up this week. On Wednesday morning, the California Supreme Court's seven justices heard arguments from environmental groups who want to overturn the California Public Utilities Commission's 2022 decision to slash payments to new rooftop solar customers, as well as a defense from energy regulators and investor-owned utilities. They asked the most questions about the CPUC's authority to make decisions — suggesting a possible ruling that could have implications beyond just rooftop solar. — CvK DON'T LEAVE US: EPA's new West Coast administrator isn't happy with Valero's decision to close its Benicia refinery. Josh F.W. Cook, whom Trump named Region 9 administrator in March, aired his concerns in an announcement that EPA had reached a $270,437 settlement with the company's Wilmington refinery over federal chemical safety laws, like underestimating the impact a chemical leak could have on neighboring homes and schools. 'I had hoped that Valero would invest in upgrades to their California facilities and stay in business in our state,' Cook said in a statement. 'They will soon shut down at least one California refinery and leave. This will be a huge hit to gas prices in California, Nevada and Arizona.' Valero hasn't said why it plans to close the Benicia facility. It was the second announced refinery closure in a six-month period, after Phillips 66 said in October that it would close its Los Angeles oil refinery by the end of 2025 due to 'long-term uncertainty.' But the state's Democratic officials have taken heat over ABX 1-2, a law Newsom signed last year to tamp down gasoline price spikes by requiring refineries to submit fuel resupply plans when they go offline for maintenance. — AN SABLE RESPONDS: The Texas-based oil company restarting offshore crude oil production in Santa Barbara is a little on the back foot — but not backing down. Sable got hit with two court injunctions in the past two weeks aimed at stopping its work to revive a pipeline that led to a massive oil spill ten years ago (see our past coverage for more), but doesn't think they'll slow its plans. 'This court decision does not impede Sable's preparations for restarting the flow of oil critical to lowering California's gas prices and stabilizing supply,' said Steve Rusch, Sable's vice president of environmental and governmental affairs, in a statement. He said that the company is in 'full compliance' with a federal consent decree to restart the pipeline approved by a federal judge and 10 state and federal agencies. At the same time, Santa Barbara lawmakers are making progress in their efforts to block the restart through legislation, though the clock is ticking for them to finalize the bills before Sable's restart is complete. The Assembly on Wednesday narrowly passed Assemblymember Gregg Hart's AB 1448, which would prohibit the California State Lands Commission from approving new leases for the construction of oil and gas infrastructure and block revisions to existing leases. The vote to send the bill to the Senate: 42-21, just above the 41 minimum. — CvK APPOINTMENT TIME: Newsom appointed Alana Mathews as deputy secretary of law enforcement and general counsel at the California Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday. Mathews previously worked for the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office. And Edward Fenn was named chief of construction at the California High Speed Rail Authority. Fenn was previously vice president of construction management at Brightline West Trains, which is building a high-speed rail line from Southern California to Las Vegas. — Calistoga is moving off diesel generators to a first-of-its-kind mix of hydrogen fuel cells and batteries for back-up power. — Climate advocates aren't the only ones trying to bend Hollywood to their message: Enter Leonard Leo. — Get ready: The South Coast Air Quality Management District is scheduled to vote Friday on whether to phase out gas-powered furnaces and water heaters.

Trump, Senate GOP grapple with the House's SALT math
Trump, Senate GOP grapple with the House's SALT math

Politico

time10 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump, Senate GOP grapple with the House's SALT math

Top Senate GOP tax writers are doubling down on their interest in scaling back the House's deal on the contentious state and local tax deduction, even as they emerged Wednesday from a meeting with President Donald Trump without an agreement on the politically sensitive issue. Speaking to reporters outside the White House, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he and his colleagues 'start from a position that there really isn't a single Republican senator who cares much about the SALT issue.' Thune was reiterating a sentiment he shared in an exclusive interview the day before, where he indicated that the House's SALT deal — on which moderate Republicans from high-tax blue states conditioned their votes on the megabill in the House — would need to change in order to get the votes in the Senate. Back at the Capitol, Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) also told reporters Wednesday that because 'there's not a single [Republican] senator from New York or New Jersey or California,' there's not a lot of appetite 'to do $353 billion for states that, basically, the other states subsidize.' But Senate Republicans are also acknowledging that they want to be responsive to the House's own math challenges: If they change the hard-fought deal Speaker Mike Johnson cut with his members to cap the SALT deduction to $40,000, it could present a major vote count dilemma for the Louisiana Republican. 'We are sensitive to the fact that, you know, the speaker has pretty narrow margins, and there's only so much that he can do to keep his coalition together. At the same time it wouldn't surprise people that the Senate would like to improve on their handiwork,' Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) told reporters. This was something that came up during the meeting with Trump, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) recalling that while the president didn't directly tell lawmakers not to meddle with the House's SALT deal, he said, 'you do this, do we lose three votes here? If you do that, do you lose three votes here?'' Even Thune ultimately conceded, 'we understand that it's about 51 and 218,' referring to the numbers each chamber must meet in order to advance the megabill, 'so we will work with our House counterparts and with the White House.' Yet the tricky tax decision wasn't the focus of the White House meeting, according to Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), who estimated that topic took up only three minutes of the conversation. Instead, Senate Republicans on the Finance Committee wanted to use their audience with Trump to push for their top priority in the massive domestic policy package: How to make the business tax cuts permanent, with Thune warning in an interview earlier this week that it was a red-line for several of his members. 'We're working through the options. We had a very constructive conversation about that. And our members will sit down and figure out the path forward. But there is a path forward,' Thune said after the White House meeting. The typically tight-lipped Crapo also cautioned that he wouldn't 'say anything is settled,' but hinted at the behind-the-scenes push by GOP senators to ensure it's in the final party-line tax and spending legislation. 'We're going to do permanence if I have anything to do with it,' Crapo reiterated. The meeting at the White House came as Senate Republicans have been ramping up their closed-door discussions in a race to get a bill through the chamber and to Trump's desk by their July 4 deadline. Trump in the meeting 'made a pitch' to senators about the importance of getting the bill done, according to Thune. Republicans are also up against the clock amid increasing public pressure from Elon Musk, a Trump ally with a huge megaphone who this week called the bill an 'abomination.' Musk's commentary came up briefly during the White House meeting with Trump, with Thune saying Trump made a 'passing reference' and Marshall suggesting the former DOGE chief was brought up as a joke. 'It was a conversation for 30 seconds,' Marshall said, adding that the comment 'was very much in jest, in laughing.' Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Trump moves to block US entry for foreign students planning to study at Harvard University
Trump moves to block US entry for foreign students planning to study at Harvard University

Hamilton Spectator

time16 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Trump moves to block US entry for foreign students planning to study at Harvard University

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is moving to block nearly all foreign students from entering the country to attend Harvard University, his latest attempt to choke the Ivy League school from an international pipeline that accounts for a quarter of the student body. In an executive order signed Wednesday, Trump declared that it would jeopardize national security to allow Harvard to continue hosting foreign students on its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 'I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' Trump wrote in the order. It's a further escalation in the White House's fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. A federal court in Boston blocked the Department of Homeland Security from barring international students at Harvard last week. Trump's order invokes a different legal authority. It stems from Harvard's refusal to submit to a series of demands made by the federal government. It has escalated recently after the Department of Homeland Security said Harvard refused to provide records related to misconduct by foreign students. Harvard says it has complied with the request, but the government said the school's response was insufficient. The dispute has been building for months after the Trump administration demanded a series of policy and governance changes at Harvard, calling it a hotbed of liberalism and accusing it of tolerating anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard defied the demands , saying they encroached on the university's autonomy and represented a threat to the freedom of all U.S. universities. Trump officials have repeatedly raised the stakes and sought new fronts to pressure Harvard, cutting more than $2.6 billion in research grants and moving to end all federal contracts with the university. The latest threat has targeted Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students, who account for half the enrollment at some Harvard graduate schools. The order applies to all students attempting to enter the United States to attend Harvard after the date of the executive order. It provides a loophole to allow students whose entry would 'benefit the national interest,' as determined by federal officials. Trump's order alleges that Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students in response to the Homeland Security request, and it lacked the detail to gauge if federal action was needed. Trump concluded that Harvard is either 'not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.' 'These actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government's ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law,' the order said. For foreign students already at Harvard, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will determine if visas should be revoked, Trump wrote. The order is scheduled to last six months. Within 90 days, the administration will determine if it should be renewed, the order said. A State Department cable sent last week to U.S. embassies and consulates said federal officials will begin reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism. In a court filing last week, Harvard officials said the Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion.' Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said in the filing. ___ ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at . Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store