Trump Presses Reluctant GOP Senators to Embrace House's Tax Bill
President Donald Trump worked the phones Monday and took to social media to try to sway Republican holdouts on his multi-trillion dollar tax bill, encountering conflicting demands from GOP senators even as he urged them to move swiftly.
The legislation, which last month passed the House by one vote, faces opposition from both moderates and ultra-conservatives in the Senate, where Trump can afford to lose no more than three votes.
'With the Senate coming back to Washington today, I call on all of my Republican friends in the Senate and House to work as fast as they can to get this Bill to MY DESK before the Fourth of JULY,' Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The president gave lawmakers at odds with one another the feeling that he was on their side.
Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who wants more deficit reduction and also opposes clean energy cuts in the House bill, said he expected Senate leaders to present Trump with a draft of tax and Medicaid revisions by this weekend. But he acknowledged that the process could take much longer.
Republicans, Tillis said, have to put ideas from senators 'in the funnel and get a work product, I'd say over the next ten days, ten-to-fifteen days.'
That tight timeframe would be needed to get the legislation to Trump's desk by his July 4 deadline but would be hard to meet.
Earlier: Trump Tax Bill Narrowly Passes House, Overcoming Infighting
If the Senate passes a revised bill, the House must then take it up again. And any changes risk undoing the fragile coalition that narrowly supported the measure in that chamber.
Senate Republican leaders intend to make permanent many of the temporary tax cuts in the House bill, a move that would increase the bill's more than $2.5 trillion deficit impact. Yet doing so risks alienating fiscal hawks already at war with party moderates over the bill's safety-net cuts.
The biggest of those is the House bill's cuts to Medicaid, which are projected to end health care coverage for about 7.7 million people by changing eligibility requirements.
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said in a mid-afternoon social media post that he 'just had a great talk' with the president on the legislation and they agreed no Medicaid benefits would be cut.
Hawley later said he supports the House bill's work requirements, as well as efforts to go after fraud, but opposes that measure's changes to the Medicaid provider tax and cost sharing. The House legislation seeks to limit a practice whereby states tax hospitals and other Medicaid providers in order to bolster their federal reimbursement levels, a move critics call an accounting gimmick. It also imposes new copays on Medicaid beneficiaries.
The senator added that the president made clear to him he didn't support making even deeper cuts to Medicaid than in the House bill that some Senate Republicans are demanding.
Trump also spoke with Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a GOP holdout who has demanded $5.5 trillion to $6.5 trillion in cuts over the next decade, and pressed him to support the bill, he told reporters. He said Trump was receptive to his ideas.
Johnson said he'd sit down with Trump's economic team to review the numbers and would be open to something similar to the House bill with assurances of legislation later that makes deeper cuts.
'I want to work with the president,' Johnson said.
Trump also met Monday with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, whose said they discussed many subjects including 'a lot about the big beautiful bill.'
With assistance from Chris Cioffi.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
A new framework to govern Ladakh
The regulations regarding Ladakh notified by the Centre on Tuesday are significant for multiple reasons. One, it suggests a direction for addressing governance concerns in the Union territory (UT), a first since 2019, when Article 370 was abrogated and Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two UTs. Two, it provides partial redress to concerns that local communities raised, and highlighted in their 2023 protests, regarding safeguards for their unique regional identity, culture, and material resources. Three, a stable Ladakh with a robust governance structure and infrastructure is essential since the UT shares a restive border with China: Indian and Chinese troops clashed in the Galwan Valley in 2020 and the stand-off continued till October last year. The new rules address matters related to domicile status and job quotas (85% reservation for Ladakhis excluding economically weaker section quota), which, hopefully, will assuage the fears about large-scale settlement of 'outsiders' in this ecologically sensitive terrain. The rules concerning domicile status are similar to those in Jammu and Kashmir, though Ladakh has no elected legislature. This means regulations governing Ladakh are executive decisions made by the Centre — in this case in consultation with local representatives — and not the outcome of deliberations in an elected House. It would also mean that these regulations can be changed, withdrawn or amended through executive orders and without the approval of local stakeholders. Though such fears seem unwarranted, the Centre must have a conversation with the broader segment of Ladakhi voices if necessary, and ensure that the regulations, say for the protection of local languages, become enabling provisions. After all, the call in Ladakh has been for statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides legislative, executive, judicial and financial powers, and the current initiative falls short of that demand.
Mint
29 minutes ago
- Mint
Why Elon Musk turned against Donald Trump and his ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' - Here are the 5 reasons
Once close allies, now at odds: Elon Musk's once-robust relationship with Donald Trump appears to be crumbling amid growing policy clashes, public criticism, and mounting fallout for Musk's companies. The turning point seems to be Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a sweeping Republican legislative package that Musk claims undermines innovation and economic discipline. Here's a breakdown of the key reasons behind the falling out: Elon Musk's sharp break from Donald Trump finds its most immediate pain point in Tesla's bottom line: the proposed elimination of federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credits. Under current policy, buyers of new EVs are eligible for up to $7,500 in federal tax credits, with an additional $4,000 available for used EVs. These credits, part of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, have been a critical incentive driving EV adoption—and by extension, Tesla's sales. But Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' backed by GOP lawmakers, aims to gut those incentives entirely for manufacturers that have already sold over 200,000 qualifying vehicles between 2009 and 2025. Tesla, by far the EV market leader, is directly in the firing line: the company sold over 336,000 vehicles in just Q1 of 2025 alone. According to JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman, the removal of these credits could represent a $1.2 billion headwind for Tesla—a significant blow as the company battles slumping demand, falling profits, and political backlash from Musk's government role. So, Musk became increasingly vocal in criticising Trump's massive federal spending bill—nicknamed the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Musk called the bill 'a disgusting abomination' and accused GOP lawmakers of abandoning fiscal responsibility. 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly… which increases the budget deficit… I don't know if a bill can be big and beautiful,' Musk told CBS previously. Musk's discontent escalated after Trump abruptly withdrew the nomination of private astronuat and his ally Jared Isaacman—as NASA Administrator. Trump cited 'prior associations' in his decision, which Musk might have seen as a betrayal. Isaacman had broad support in the space community and was seen as Musk's pick to align NASA policy with SpaceX's interests. His removal coincided with Musk's own exit as a 'special government employee' running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk said in support of Isaacman, signaling the depth of his frustration. Elon Musk's foray into federal governance as a 'special government employee' under the Trump administration has left a lasting dent in his personal and public image. What began as a high-profile effort to 'streamline government efficiency' quickly turned into a political and reputational minefield for the billionaire CEO. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk was tasked with cutting what the Trump administration called 'wasteful spending.' But the resulting actions—including mass layoffs in federal departments, rumored threats to Social Security and Medicare programs, and abrupt budget slashes—sparked widespread backlash. Despite Musk's repeated clarifications that DOGE had no authority over entitlement programs, public anger snowballed. 'It's a bit unfair because DOGE became the whipping boy for everything,' Musk told CBS. 'I've had people think DOGE is going to stop them from getting their Social Security check, which is completely untrue.' The political blowback triggered a sharp decline in Musk's public approval. Protests, online campaigns, and lawsuits followed, along with a string of death threats and acts of violence targeting both Musk and Tesla facilities. As public anger grew, Tesla became a target: Showrooms were vandalised Tesla vehicle sales plummeted Shares fell 50% from record highs Net worth dropped by $100 billion Musk lamented being made the scapegoat: 'DOGE became the whipping boy for everything... People thought it would stop their Social Security checks.' His candid remarks reflect a man caught between two identities—visionary entrepreneur and political appointee. 'I don't want to speak up against the administration,' he said, 'but I also don't want to take responsibility for everything this administration is doing.' Musk recently escalated pressure on the FAA to drop Verizon's $2.4 billion contract for air traffic control upgrades, claiming the system is failing. He offered Starlink as an emergency solution, suggesting the FAA should shift the contract to SpaceX. But critics flagged this as a possible conflict of interest—especially since Musk had been advising on federal spending.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
GOP Plan to Raise Retirement Age to 69 Will Cost 257 Million Americans $420K in Benefits for Just 1-Year Fix
The Republican Study Committee wants to raise the full retirement age to 69 by the year 2033. This would affect people who are currently between 30 and 55 years old the most. The Congressional Budget Office says this change would cause people to lose $420,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits. That means people would lose about $3,500 every year during retirement, which usually lasts around 30 years. This is a 13% cut per year, and will impact 257 million Americans, as per reports. The new plan would start in 2026 and end by 2033, in just 8 years. But in 1983, the retirement age went from 65 to 67 very slowly, over 35 years. People in hard jobs like construction, healthcare, and service work will suffer more because they have shorter life spans, they rely heavily on Social Security, and they can't work into their late 60s due to physical demands, as per the World Day report. Experts say many older workers won't be able to keep working, so they'll try to get disability benefits instead. That could overload the Social Security disability system, causing a new crisis. The plan doesn't think about different jobs and how hard they are on people's bodies. Even with all these cuts, the CBO says the plan would only delay Social Security's money problems by 1 year, from 2034 to 2035. That means this plan won't fix Social Security long-term, and more changes would still be needed. Other countries like Sweden and Denmark tie retirement age to life expectancy, so it adjusts automatically and slowly. The U.S. could remove the $160,200 income cap on payroll taxes. That would make wealthy people pay Social Security tax on all their income, not just up to that limit. These ideas would raise money without cutting benefits for regular people, as per reports. Live Events People should recalculate their retirement savings assuming Social Security benefits will be lower. Financial planners suggest increasing your 401 (k) savings by 2-3% to make up for the cuts. Also think about saving money through Roth IRAs, Health Savings Accounts, and other investments, not just depending on Social Security, as stated in the report by World Day. This whole situation shows a big problem, most Americans depend on Social Security as their main retirement income. Because of the aging population and math, the government must either cut benefits, raise taxes, or both. Politicians might compromise later with a mix of ideas, but you shouldn't wait, it's up to individuals to prepare now. FAQs Q1. What is the GOP's new retirement plan? They want people to retire at age 69 starting in 2033. This means many workers may get less money from Social Security. Q2. How much money could people lose from the GOP's new plan? People aged 30-55 today may lose up to $420,000 in lifetime Social Security payments, says the CBO. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
