logo
How Mike Johnson doused a GOP dumpster fire

How Mike Johnson doused a GOP dumpster fire

Yahoo23-05-2025

Speaker Mike Johnson bet it all on 'one big, beautiful bill.' With a heavy assist from President Donald Trump in the final hours, he delivered.
The bill's House passage early Thursday morning was at least temporary vindication for a series of strategic decisions championed by the Louisiana Republican — chiefly, that packaging a massive suite of tax cuts together with other sundry GOP priorities would make it easier to move ambitious legislation with his tiny governing majority.
Johnson had to battle for months with factions of his own conference, and with the Senate, at multiple key junctures. But he plowed through and moved a host of Trump's campaign promises closer to the president's desk after a final flurry of negotiations and a rare, overnight session on the House floor.
'There was a few moments over the last week when it looked like the thing might fall apart,' Johnson told reporters shortly after the vote, adding he visited the House chapel to pray on it.
In essence, Johnson spent months fighting fires. His job, in conjunction with other GOP leaders, was to manage flare-up after flare-up as various groups inside the House ranks battled over trillions in tax cuts and politically explosive reductions to social safety-net spending.
Johnson might not have succeeded in putting out every blaze, but he kept them from growing into a conflagration that even Trump couldn't extinguish. He'll probably have to do it again later this year after the Senate sends back revisions to the megabill.
The outlook for the legislation looked bleak throughout the past week, as various bands of holdouts resisted coming aboard.
On Wednesday night, for instance, Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) — a conservative hard-liner — suggested the bill would potentially 'have to fail' on the floor for leaders to realize it should be reworked. Moderate Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) said he was 'not happy' with changes the conservatives had secured to more quickly eliminate clean-energy tax credits he'd been working to defend.
Neither ended up voting for the bill. Davidson was one of two House Republicans who voted 'no' Thursday, and Garbarino missed the vote.
But Johnson had spent the week peeling off almost every other member — moving methodically between holdout groups, patiently working through a seemingly endless litany of issues.
On Monday night, after tentatively approving some key demands from fiscal hawks who had delayed a key Budget Committee vote, Johnson faced ire from the other side of the conference in a closed-door meeting.
Several Republicans in the Main Street Caucus told Johnson they were frustrated that he was once again appearing to entertain politically explosive cuts to Medicaid — cutting the federal share of funding to states, known as FMAP — after the speaker had seemed to rule them out.
Some of the centrist-leaning Republicans in the room pressed the speaker to publicly take the proposal off the table for good this time — and send a message to the hard right not to push further.
Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio), a former Trump aide, spoke up to air his own irritation with how Johnson had managed the whole megabill process.
Indeed, the speaker and his team's tactics had grated on many GOP members. They believed he had unwisely delayed settling the biggest battles until the final hours and had given disingenuous assurances to some at-risk Republicans that the Senate would intervene and block some of the bill's most unpalatable provisions.
Johnson jotted down notes as members spoke. A few minutes later, as he walked back to his office, he told reporters, 'FMAP has not been on the table — it's been off the table for quite some time.'
He had extinguished another fire. But it was time for Johnson to call in backup.
The next morning, Trump made a rare journey to the drab, poorly-lit Capitol basement to make his wishes clear. It was uncertain if he'd stanch the disputes or toss more fuel onto them.
The visit came just a few days after the hard-liner rebellion had blocked the bill in the Budget Committee vote over concerns that the megabill would add trillions of dollars to the national debt.
Before he even walked into the meeting, Trump appeared to be looking to stoke conflict — dismissing the hard-liners' deeply held beliefs.
'I'm a bigger fiscal hawk — there's nobody like me,' he told reporters alongside Johnson, in response to a question about some of the hard-right concerns.
Inside the meeting, the president took on a kind of Rodney Dangerfield persona, House Republicans said — telling barbed jokes at lawmakers' expense.
He laced into the fiscal hawks and 'SALT Republicans' pushing for the expansion of a key tax break — calling out 'grandstanders' by name who sought to stand in the way of his 'one big, beautiful bill.'
'He insulted several people with a great intensity,' said one bewildered House Republican, who like others was granted anonymity to speak candidly about private meetings and conversations.
Trump's tongue lashings and Johnson's hardball approach to muscling the bill through this week rattled some even long-time GOP lawmakers. It was clear there was no room for dissent.
'I could never have imagined when I started in politics that we would have this kind of a scenario,' one House Republican said of the our-way-or-the-highway approach. 'But who else do we turn to, besides Johnson?'
Near the end, the speaker needed to douse one last blaze: The hard-line House Freedom Caucus was balking and pushing for concessions on Medicaid that other Republicans simply would not accept.
A White House meeting was arranged with the holdouts, and Johnson sat in with top lieutenants as Trump unleashed the fire hose — pressing Reps. Chip Roy of Texas, Andy Harris of Maryland and other hard-liners to vote for the bill.
'It was tough. There was no back and forth,' said one Republican briefed on the meeting. 'He let them have it.'
Johnson returned to the Capitol triumphant. 'The plan is to move forward as we expected,' he told reporters.
Roy and Harris then huddled through the night with White House officials including Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair and Legislative Affairs Director James Braid. The hard-liners pushed for, and said they secured, promises for executive orders to address Medicaid and other items on their wish list.
Meanwhile, as night turned to morning over the course of a nine-hour vote series, Johnson huddled one-on-one with several previously balking members on the floor.
Rep. Michael Cloud of Texas, a fiscal hawk who a few days earlier had said the bill 'fell short,' spoke to Johnson around 3 a.m. Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia, who won a key concession ending the taxation of gun silencers, sat with the speaker later in the morning.
And just before Republicans passed the massive bill a little before 7 a.m., the speaker and Miller spoke for several minutes, ending their conversation with a handshake.
Unlike several prior high-stakes votes during Johnson's speakership and predecessor Kevin McCarthy's, there were no dramatic scenes wrangling last-minute votes from the assembled hard-liners.
His team was confident the tough tactics had worked. 'They always fold,' one senior GOP aide said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Top US universities raced to become global campuses. Under Trump, it's becoming a liability
Top US universities raced to become global campuses. Under Trump, it's becoming a liability

Washington Post

time26 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Top US universities raced to become global campuses. Under Trump, it's becoming a liability

WASHINGTON — Three decades ago, foreign students at Harvard University accounted for just 11% of the total student body. Today, they account for 26%. Like other prestigious U.S. universities, Harvard for years has been cashing in on its global cache to recruit the world's best students. Now, the booming international enrollment has left colleges vulnerable to a new line of attack from President Donald Trump. The president has begun to use his control over the nation's borders as leverage in his fight to reshape American higher education. Trump's latest salvo against Harvard uses a broad federal law to bar foreign students from entering the country to attend the campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His order applies only to Harvard, but it poses a threat to other universities his administration has targeted as hotbeds of liberalism in need of reform. It's rattling campuses under federal scrutiny, including Columbia University , where foreign students make up 40% of the campus. As the Trump administration stepped up reviews of new student visas last week, a group of Columbia faculty and alumni raised concerns over Trump's gatekeeping powers. 'Columbia's exposure to this 'stroke of pen' risk is uniquely high,' the Stand Columbia Society wrote in a newsletter. People from other countries made up about 6% of all college students in the U.S. in 2023, but they accounted for 27% of the eight schools in the Ivy League, according to an Associated Press analysis of Education Department data. Columbia's 40% was the largest concentration, followed by Harvard and Cornell at about 25%. Brown University had the smallest share at 20%. Other highly selective private universities have seen similar trends, including at Northeastern University and New York University, which each saw foreign enrollment double between 2013 and 2023. Growth at public universities has been more muted. Even at the 50 most selective public schools, foreign students account for about 11% of the student body. America's universities have been widening their doors to foreign students for decades, but the numbers shot upward starting around 2008, as Chinese students came to U.S. universities in rising numbers. It was part of a 'gold rush' in higher education, said William Brustein, who orchestrated the international expansion of several universities. 'Whether you were private or you were public, you had to be out in front in terms of being able to claim you were the most global university,' said Brustein, who led efforts at Ohio State University and West Virginia University. The race was driven in part by economics, he said. Foreign students typically aren't eligible for financial aid, and at some schools they pay two or three times the tuition rate charged to U.S. students. Colleges also were eyeing global rankings that gave schools a boost if they recruited larger numbers of foreign students and scholars, he said. But the expansion wasn't equal across all types of colleges — public universities often face pressure from state lawmakers to limit foreign enrollment and keep more seats open for state residents. Private universities don't face that pressure, and many aggressively recruited foreign students as their numbers of U.S. students stayed flat. The college-going rate among American students has changed little for decades, and some have been turned off on college by the rising costs and student debt loads. Proponents of international exchange say foreign students pour billions of dollars into the U.S. economy, and many go on to support the nation's tech industry and other fields in need of skilled workers. Most international students study the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and math. In the Ivy League, most international growth has been at the graduate level, while undergraduate numbers have seen more modest increases. Foreign graduate students make up more than half the students at Harvard's government and design schools, along with five of Columbia's schools. The Ivy League has been able to outpace other schools in large part because of its reputation, Brustein said. He recalls trips to China and India, where he spoke with families that could recite where each Ivy League school sat in world rankings. 'That was the golden calf for these families. They really thought, 'If we could just get into these schools, the rest of our lives would be on easy street,'' he said. Last week, Trump said he thought Harvard should cap its foreign students to about 15%. 'We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can't get in because we have foreign students there,' Trump said at a news conference. The university called Trump's latest action banning entry into the country to attend Harvard 'yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights.' In a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's previous attempt to block international students at Harvard, the university said its foreign student population was the result of 'a painstaking, decades-long project' to attract the most qualified international students. Losing access to student visas would immediately harm the school's mission and reputation, it said. 'In our interconnected global economy,' the school said, 'a university that cannot welcome students from all corners of the world is at a competitive disadvantage.' ___ 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

What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it

Business Insider

time27 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it

Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."

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