Pa. congressional Republicans unanimous in support of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
The U.S. Capitol is pictured on Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
All ten Pennsylvania Republicans voted in support of the massive tax and spending bill that passed the U.S. House early Thursday morning, touting the tax relief, border security and support for working families they said it would provide.
Democrats, including seven in the state's delegation, unanimously opposed it. They decried the budget's cuts to Medicaid and food assistance, deficit spending and tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, which Rep. Summer Lee (D-12th District) described as dangerous, 'undemocratic and unjust.'
'I voted no. There's nothing beautiful about a bill that forces families to choose between taking their kids to the doctor or feeding them,' Lee said. 'We will continue organizing, pushing, and holding every policymaker accountable until the needs of working people are prioritized over profits.'
But one moderate Pennsylvania Republican said he would keep working to improve the bill.
'As this process proceeds, I will be working closely with the Senate to make constructive changes to this bill, specifically in the energy, workforce, and health portions of the bill so we can strengthen SNAP and Medicaid solvency for the long-term and ensure access for the most vulnerable that truly need assistance,' Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-1st District) said. 'This will be a red-line for me before supporting final passage.'
His office did not respond to the Capital-Star's request for additional details.
The budget reconciliation, dubbed the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' by Republican leaders, passed by a vote of 215-214, with two Republicans, Ohio's Warren Davidson and Kentucky's Thomas Massie, opposed. It will now go to the Senate, where Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said House Republicans will work with their Senate counterparts toward a goal of winning approval in the upper chamber and getting the bill to President Donald Trump's desk by July 4.
The 1,116-page omnibus combines 11 bills that GOP lawmakers voted out of committee this spring.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro said the budget, as it stands, would have a 'very real impact' on Pennsylvanians.
'This morning, every single Republican member of Pennsylvania's congressional delegation voted to cut healthcare and food assistance from hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians and speed up the closure of dozens of rural hospitals across our Commonwealth – all while increasing our national deficit by $2.3 trillion,' Shapiro said in a statement.
Other Democrats, including Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-4th District), said the deficit would balloon even higher. 'Today, House Republicans passed a bill that sacrifices critical programs for millions of everyday Americans to pay for another tax cut for the rich — blowing up the deficit by an estimated $5 trillion in service of the President's cruel, corrupt purposes,' Dean said in a statement.
Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would shift $1 billion in food assistance costs to the state, putting benefits for 140,000 people in question. More than 300,000 Pennsylvanians could lose Medicaid benefits, rolling back efforts to reduce the number of uninsured people and increasing the cost of health care for everyone, Shapiro's statement said.
And the cuts to Medicaid could hurt 25 rural hospitals across the state that are already financially struggling and rely on the medical assistance program, increasing the likelihood they could close.
'Any lawmaker in D.C. who thinks the commonwealth can backfill this massive hole they've created is wrong – and these cuts will have real life consequences for Pennsylvanians. As this heads to the Senate for a vote, I hope common sense and a concern for the people of Pennsylvania will prevail,' Shapiro said.
Republican members of Pennsylvania's congressional delegation highlighted the bill's provisions to advance the Trump administration's priorities.
'After years of wide-open borders, uncontrolled inflation, and government spending run amok, this budget finally addresses the needs of our community and our country,' Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R-7th District) said.
H.R. 1 would provide $69 billion to complete border barriers, hire more Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, expand deportation capacity and stop drug and human trafficking at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Although it includes deep cuts to Medicaid spending, reducing the program by $625 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Republicans including Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-8th District) said the bill would protect the program and ensure tax dollars are used prudently.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
'During this process, I fought to protect social safety net programs from the waste, fraud, and abuse that have threatened their long-term solvency. By ensuring states are not using Medicaid dollars on illegal aliens, conducting more frequent eligibility checks, and requiring work for able-bodied recipients … we are securing Medicaid for those who truly need it,' Bresnahan said in a statement.
He noted the Medicaid work requirements exempt children and seniors, pregnant women, students, disabled veterans and those with medical conditions including mental health and substance use disorders.
Rep. Dan Meuser (R-9th District) touted the bill's benefits for businesses and working families that would help improve the nation's economy.
'Passing this bill will increase production so supply better meets demand, thereby reducing inflation. And with lower inflation comes lower interest rates, which leads to greater investment and more American production,' he said in a statement.
The legislation would eliminate tax on tips and overtime – among Trump's populist campaign promises – expand the child tax credit from $2,000, and establish savings accounts for newborns.
It would also extend provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to benefit manufacturers and small businesses by allowing them to write off research and development costs and bonuses and expanding the small business deduction to 23%, Meuser's office said.
Hashtags

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


Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
US Close to High-Speed Rail Breakthrough
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When the great and the good of the American high speed rail industry gathered in Washington, D.C. over May 13-15 for the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's (USHSR) 2025 annual conference, there was tremendous excitement tinged with anxiety. Several attendees told Newsweek they believe the U.S. could be on the verge of a high-speed rail breakthrough, setting the stage for the kind of comprehensive national system enjoyed in the likes of China, Japan and Western Europe. Ray LaHood, a Republican who served as Transportation Secretary under President Obama from 2009 to 2013, said if one of the two high-speed rail lines currently under construction is completed, it will prove "wildly popular" and boost support for high-speed rail across the nation. Other insiders agreed, but argued permitting reform and more explicit federal support will be needed first. There has been concern over the Trump administration's attitude toward high-speed rail. The conference took place one month after Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy announced $63.9 million in funding for a proposed Dallas to Houston route had been scrapped, and amid rumors that the California High Speed Rail line under construction between Los Angeles and San Francisco could lose federal support. This week, Duffy said there is "no viable path" to complete California High Speed Rail on time or on budget and warned the federal government could pull billions in funding. State of U.S. High-Speed Rail At present there aren't any high-speed rail networks—defined by the International Union of Railways (UIC) as operating at a minimum of 250 kilometers per hour (155 miles per hour) along specially built tracks—that are operational in the U.S. This compares unfavorably with the likes of Spain, Japan and France, which have around 2,460 miles, 1,830 miles and 1,740 miles of track respectively currently in use. Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicted the first high-speed rail line in the U.S. will be "wildly popular." Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicted the first high-speed rail line in the U.S. will be "wildly popular." Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Most impressively, China, the chief geopolitical rival of the U.S., has gone from having virtually no high-speed rail lines to nearly 30,000 miles over the past couple of decades. Construction is currently underway on two high-speed rail lines in the U.S.—Brightline West, which will connect Las Vegas to Southern California, and California High Speed Rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco. A range of other projects have been proposed around the country, including plans to link Boston, New York and Washington, D.C. in the Northeast; Dallas, Houston and Fort Worth in Texas; and Chicago to East St. Louis in Illinois. Obstacles When asked why the U.S. had failed to build a high-speed network comparable to other advanced economies, industry experts told Newsweek there are major issues with permitting, financing and cross-party political support. California High Speed Rail has sparked particular controversy, with its cost ballooning from $34 billion to over $128 billion, while the completion date has been pushed back. Terry Hynes, an attorney specializing in rail infrastructure projects, argued planning issues in particular have bottled up capital investment. He is currently part of a team investigating how the permitting process could be sped up for USHSR. Addressing Newsweek, he said: "I've been in the business 46 years, making railroads, and I've been frustrated as hell representing the high-speed just takes forever. And there's private money that could be brought in. Wall Street's got a lot of money looking for infrastructure investments. "This is a wonderful infrastructure investment, the trouble is they see those permitting times. Eight years for environmental review, then you build for four years and in year 13 you're finally going to see some money. Nobody's going to invest in that." Former Obama era Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaking at the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference. Former Obama era Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaking at the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference. James Bickerton/Newsweek Hynes added: "The biggest issue to my mind is this permitting issue. The review period takes so long, the cost goes up and the more expensive it is for people doing a cost-benefit analysis, the analyses looks less beneficial." Brandon Wheeler, a senior program manager at the North Central Texas Council of Governments, a local government-based voluntary association, said a lack of national leadership has undermined high-speed rail construction across the U.S. Speaking to Newsweek, he said: "We don't have a national single point of leadership on that single point of leadership it really is a little bit hopscotch and we're making the best we can of it. "Until there is, like the interstate highway system, there's a national vision to create and you have a vision around the ability to move military and goods and those kinds of things. Until our airports get bad enough, until our roads get bad enough, until people have this massive outcry and we're able to concentrate them on something, we're going to have to find what that single vision is to rally around or we will fall behind the rest of the world." LaHood agreed, saying: "I think the success of these projects in Europe and Asia is largely due to the national government making investments but then encouraging the private sector. Once the national government makes a commitment, it's easier for the private sector then—they know it's going to be a stable project, they know their investment is going to be good." If You Build It They Will Come In 2023, Brightline, the first privately built rail line in the U.S. to open in nearly a century, began operations between Miami and Orlando in Florida and has since seen passenger numbers surge. While Brightline runs below the high-speed standard, LaHood said it showed Americans are ready to embrace new rail networks, and argued one successful project in the U.S. could turbocharge the whole industry. "If you look at the Brightline project in is wildly popular," he said. "They're putting more and more trains on that track every day because people like the idea that they don't have to get on the I95 and they don't have to travel on highways that are crowded with big trucks and cars... The U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference in Washington, D.C. The U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference in Washington, D.C. James Bickerton/Newsweek "If you build it they will come, if you build it it will be successful and I think that will be the case with Brightline West, Las Vegas to L.A., and I think it will be true San Francisco to L.A. I think they will be wildly popular. I really believe at this point if you build it they will come and the proof of that is Europe and Asia—their trains are wildly popular." Speaking to Newsweek, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, who is advocating for a "Cascadia" high-speed rail line linking the city to Seattle in Washington and Vancouver in British Columbia, said: "Our system continues to be compacted and stagnant. "The great cities from around the world are all tending to go towards high-speed rail and we need an opportunity to unlock our economic renaissance, which is what's missing in our country right now, and high-speed rail would move us forward and get us completing again with the world." Trust Fund A number of industry insiders told Newsweek the formation of a federal government trust fund could provide the financial muscle for a major U.S. high-speed rail expansion. Asked what one development would most speed up U.S. high-speed rail, Jim Derwinski, executive director of Chicago rail system Metra, replied: "A trust fund so it's national, it's bipartisan so it doesn't change from administration to administration and it can be supported through the states as a national effort. "If you're going to build something, to compare it to Europe and Asia right now, it's got to have a national campaign right now." Arthur Sohikian is executive director of High Desert Corridor, a proposed high-speed rail line that would link Brightline West to the California High Speed Rail line. He expressed a similar view to Derwinski, telling Newsweek: "We have to energize the public to make that been trying to get a trust fund for rail since I started my career, it seems. "For whatever reason why the politicians won't grab onto that and won't do that, especially when you realize the Highway Trust Fund keeps diminishing as cars get more efficient, we're paying less in gas taxes, that fund is have to invest in this infrastructure as a nation, and until that happens, seriously, we're all going to be trying to do our little pieces." The U.S. High Speed Rail Association paid travel and hotel expenses for Newsweek reporter James Bickerton to attend its 2025 annual conference.


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Patience With Putin Leaves Senate Sanctions Push on Hold
President Donald Trump's suggestion that he may let Russia and Ukraine keep fighting has left US lawmakers in an awkward spot over their plan to force a ceasefire with 'bone-crushing' sanctions against Moscow. The Senate bill has more than 80 co-sponsors, an all-but-unheard-of level of bipartisan support. Yet although that kind of veto-proof backing is enough for the Senate to press ahead without White House backing, supporters show no sign they're ready to challenge the president.

2 hours ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'