The most divisive part of the GOP's big bill, explained
House Speaker Mike Johnson speaks to reporters as he departs for the White House as ongoing negotiations on the 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' continue at the US Capitol Building on May 21, 2025.The Republican Party is trying to get a major tax and spending bill done before Memorial Day. It's chock full of President Donald Trump's legislative priorities, and has many provisions the GOP has long been agitating for. But it's nevertheless been a massive struggle to get the bill to the House floor for a vote. One big reason is a tax provision known as SALT — the state and local tax deduction.
I asked Today, Explained's Devan Schwartz — who just produced the below podcast about this bill — to explain what SALT is, why it's important, and why it's roiled the GOP. Here's what he had to say:
What is SALT?
SALT is an acronym that stands for 'state and local taxes' — it allows Americans to deduct some of what they pay, right now up to $10,000, in state and local taxes (like property taxes and sales taxes) from their federal taxes.
Once, there wasn't a cap to how much you could deduct, but that changed with Trump's tax cuts in 2017; those brought in the $10,000 cap.
Removing the SALT cap is seen as benefiting mostly wealthy earners in high-tax states like California or New York: people who might make $500,000 a year or $10 million a year and pay tens or hundreds of thousands in state and local taxes, the sort of people who don't take the standard deduction.
Related What proposed SALT changes could mean for your next tax bill
It's not April; why has a tax deduction caused such a stir this week?
The SALT cap hasn't been too popular with constituents in these high-tax states; they have been putting pressure on their lawmakers to make changes.
Trump initially expressed support for those changes, and many House GOP lawmakers from blue states ran on making changes when Republicans got back in power.
Now, House Republican lawmakers are in the middle of putting together a big spending and tax bill, and there was a push to get SALT changes in there. Those that ran on upping the SALT cap said, We're trying to get reelected in the next year, we need a win to go back to our voters with.
The GOP leadership in the House set up a somewhat arbitrary deadline to get the bill passed from the House to the Senate by Memorial Day — that's next week.
That puts lawmakers in a time crunch, but there's also a numerical problem: the House GOP has very narrow margins. Depending on attendance, they can afford to lose roughly three votes on any one bill.
That gives the blue-state GOP lawmakers who want to see changes to SALT a lot of power. If you're one of a small group, and you said, Hey, we're holdouts, we're not voting for this until you give us our SALT reform, you're sinking Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' And that's what happened this week.
That small group of lawmakers got their way, right?
Yes. The final details could still change, but a deal was made to raise the cap.
Which set off other small groups of lawmakers who want their priorities fulfilled in the bill, and yesterday's scramble by the White House to try to get everyone in line.
Right. Trump's stance throughout this has been, stop whining. Don't grandstand. It's more important to get a deal done. So if you don't get a SALT increase, tough luck. If they get their SALT increase, but you don't get your thing, tough luck.
The Senate hasn't even weighed in on the bill yet, so we're a long way from getting changes to SALT enshrined in law. But at this point, what should we take away from the SALT saga?
SALT is inherently interesting because it's a microcosm of the fragile political process in Congress at this time in which we often see parties with tiny minorities. Congressional leadership is more centralized than ever, but at the same time, small groups of people can really gum up the works.
It also shows how complex the Republican coalition is — the fight over SALT is really a battle between lawmakers from high-income states and those from lower-income states. We've seen pro-SALT lawmakers make the claim that their states' tax base makes up a disproportionate amount of revenues, and that their constituents deserve a break because of that.
And smaller states or states with lower incomes might say, in response, we have our own needs, and we provide a lot, from farming to the numbers that power our GOP coalition.
I wouldn't say that the fight over SALT is a fight for the soul of the Republican Party, but it's definitely a factional fight for power.
And overall, it really shows how hard it is to actually legislate right now, in a divided Republican caucus, in a divided America.
This piece originally ran in the Today, Explained newsletter. For more stories like this, sign up here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: What exactly is Trump's new travel ban about? Not national security
Any reasonable American could objectively ask what exactly President Donald Trump's new travel ban, which affects a dozen countries, is about. Is it about protecting Americans from 'murderers,' as Trump said Thursday, or punishing small countries for a modest number of students who overstayed their visas? The drive for Trump's first-term travel ban in 2017 and 2018 was clear. He was seeking to deliver on an ugly campaign promise to ban all Muslims from entering the US. That morphed, over the course of years as the administration adapted to court cases, into a ban on travel to the US by people from certain countries, most of which were majority-Muslim. It was only by agreeing to ignore Trump's anti-Muslim 2016 campaign statements and focus solely on the security-related language in his third attempt at a travel ban that the US Supreme Court ultimately gave its blessing to that ban. '… We must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself,' wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion. Trump is using that authority again in his second term. But this time, as he said Thursday in the Oval Office, the ban is about removing 'horrendous' people who are in the country now and about keeping murderers out. The data suggest the travel ban will primarily affect students and businesspeople from countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean as well as the Middle East. It was an attack on Jewish community members in Colorado by an Egyptian national that convinced Trump to speed up plans to ban people from a dozen countries from entering the US, restarting the travel ban policy he pioneered during his first term. But Egypt is not on the travel ban list. Neither is Kuwait, the country where Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the suspect in the Boulder attack, lived before coming to the US. 'Egypt has been a country we deal with very closely. They have things under control,' Trump told reporters Thursday. Instead, the travel ban includes countries that Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who assembled the list, feel don't have things under control. That includes places like Equatorial Guinea in Africa and Burma, also known as Myanmar, in Asia. Neither is a nexus of terror threatening the American homeland. Trump's order announcing the travel ban explains that these countries have high rates of students and other travelers overstaying their visas in the US. It points to a report of DHS 'overstay' data from 2023 to argue that for more than 70% of people from Equatorial Guinea with US student visas, there is no record of them leaving the US when their visa ended. In real numbers, that equals 233 people with student visas. The numbers are similarly small for other African countries. 'They're just throwing things at the wall,' said David Bier, an immigration expert at the libertarian-leaning Cato institute and a Trump immigration policy critic. 'There's not really a coherent philosophy behind any of this,' Bier added. The reinstated travel ban does include countries associated with terrorism, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, all of which were also included in Trump's first-term travel ban. But it's worth noting that no immigrant or traveler from one of these countries has launched a terror attack on the US in recent years, according to a review by the Washington Post during Trump's first term. A man from Sudan killed one person at a Tennessee church in 2017. 'The president claims that there is no way to vet these nationals, yet that is exactly what his consular officers and border officials have successfully done for decades,' Bier said. The man responsible for the ISIS-inspired truck bomb in New Orleans in January, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, was a Texas-born Army veteran and US citizen. The new travel ban also includes Afghanistan, which could jeopardize many Afghans related to those who aided the US during its war there, as Shawn VanDiver, president of the aid organization #AfghanEvac, told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Thursday. 'There are 12,000 people who have been separated through the actions of our government, who have been waiting for more than three and a half years,' he said. The Trump administration recently paused the processing of student visas, interrupting the plans of thousands of people to study in the US. In the Oval Office, Trump said he was not interested in banning students from China. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly, we want to have foreign students, but we want them to be checked,' Trump said, suggesting there will be even more strenuous background checks in the future. The existence of the travel ban list could also factor into tariff negotiations the Trump administration has taken on with nations across the world, as well as its effort to countries nations to take back migrants it wants to deport. 'It's about power and control and manipulating both the US population to suppress dissent as well as trying to manipulate foreign relations with these countries by getting them to do whatever he wants in order to get off the disfavored nation list,' Bier said.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Carmakers Use Stealth Price Hikes to Cope With Trump's Tariffs
(Bloomberg) — Car buyers racing to get ahead of President Donald Trump's tariffs face an uncomfortable truth — the trade war is already boosting US auto prices, often in ways nearly invisible to consumers. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars The sticker price on a particular make and model may not have changed, at least not yet. But automakers have been quietly cutting rebates and limiting cheap financing deals, adding hundreds of dollars to buyers' monthly payments even as the companies say they're holding the line on pricing. Several have boosted delivery charges — a fee everyone must pay when buying a new vehicle — by $40 to $400 dollars, according to automotive researcher Inc. Some dealers, meanwhile, have decided to charge more for the cars already on their lots, knowing it will cost more to replace them. These stealth increases could help automakers cope with Trump's 25% levies on imported vehicles without risking his wrath, particularly once cars that landed in American ports after the tariffs were imposed finally start reaching showrooms this month. They'd all like to avoid the social-media fury he unleashed on Walmart Inc. (WMT) after the retail giant said the trade war had forced it to raise prices. But the auto industry's subtle price hikes are already having an effect. The average sale price for a new car jumped 2.5% in April, the steepest monthly increase in five years, according to the Kelley Blue Book car buying guide. The average reached $48,699, almost a record. Incentives, which once knocked 10% off the price, fell to 6.7%. Zero-percent financing deals — a key come-on in this age of high interest rates — dropped in April to their lowest rate since 2019, according to researcher Cox Automotive. And at some point, car buyers may balk. 'On the consumer side, they're seeing several thousand dollars of actual-experience price increase, whereas the factory is saying, 'No man, we didn't raise prices at all,'' said Morris Smith III, a Ford (F) dealer in Kansas. 'Stealth is a good word for it.' While the steps have helped car companies avoid outright price hikes until now, those are coming. Ford Motor Co. told dealers it will raise sticker prices as much as $2,000 on three models it builds in Mexico — the Maverick pickup, the Bronco Sport and the electric Mustang Mach-E. Japan's Subaru Corp. (FUJHY) is boosting prices $1,000 to $2,000 to help offset tariff costs, according to people familiar with the matter. Hyundai Motor Co. (HYMLF) is considering a 1% increase to the suggested retail price of every model in its lineup, a hike of at least several hundred dollars, Bloomberg reported last week. The Korean company also is likely to jack up shipping charges and fees for options such as floor mats and roof rails, which could turn off some inflation-weary consumers. Other automakers are hiking prices on their new 2026 models coming this summer and fall, but attributing the increases to the model-year changeover rather than tariffs. 'With a new product, having a higher price is not 'raising price' in the game of semantics,' said John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Corp. (BAC), at an event in Detroit Wednesday. 'So they don't really enrage certain folks that might come down on them for raising price.' All of these changes — the sticker price increases, reduced incentives and higher fees — will become more visible to car shoppers in the coming weeks. Since the 25% levies went into effect on April 3, dealers have been selling from a shrinking stockpile of pre-tariff cars. (There's an exemption for cars that comply with the terms of the US, Mexico and Canada free trade agreement, which only face an import tax on their non-American content.) That process is nearly done, and by late June, dealers will face the new reality of lots filled with cars that cost more to bring into the country. 'There's nothing they can do to prevent this from having an impact,' said Sean Tucker, editor of Kelley Blue Book. 'There's not a single cliff, but the date they run out of those pre-tariff cars, that's when you're going to see the most dramatic change.' Sales may suffer as a result. A recent survey from found that 65% of new car buyers would walk away if monthly payments rose just 5% in a market where car prices are already near historic highs. An Edmunds survey released Thursday found three-quarters of car buyers said tariffs would be a factor in their purchasing decisions. Shoppers are already not getting the deals that were commonplace just months ago. Take the Ford F-150 pickup, America's top-selling vehicle. Earlier this year, an F-150 could be had with a 1.9% interest rate on a 6-year loan, Smith, the Kansas dealer, said. Then, Ford only offered that rate for certain, higher-priced trim levels of the truck. Now, 1.9% financing is offered only on three-year loans, which are rare.'The dealers I'm talking to have every expectation that in the next 90 days to six months, there will be pretty significant price increases across the board,' Smith said, 'assuming something doesn't happen with the tariffs.' Some dealers are preparing for that day of reckoning by making as much money off their pre-tariff inventory as they can, charging over the sticker price. 'Dealers set final prices, and they're dealing with the knowledge that for every car they sell, it's going to cost them more to replace it than it used to,' Tucker said. Automakers might not just raise prices on the cars they import. They may choose to increase the costs of their more expensive, US-made models so the full weight of the tariffs doesn't fall on some of the cheaper vehicles they make overseas. General Motors Co. (GM), for example, imports more than 400,000 cars each year from its factories in South Korea, including the $20,500 Chevrolet Trax. 'GM doesn't necessarily have to raise the price of the Chevy Trax by 25% in order to pay a 25% tariff on the Chevy Trax, because those buyers are the most price-sensitive,' Tucker said. 'So maybe instead, you bump up the price of the Silverado pickup in order to pay the tariff on the Trax. But GM isn't going to put that on a window sticker.' Automakers may also drop the most affordable trims of their vehicles. Stellantis NV (STLA (STLA) decided to pause making the entry-level version of its electric muscle car, the Charger Daytona R/T, because of tariff risks, the company confirmed in May. The R/T, built at an assembly plant in Windsor, Canada, currently starts at $59,595, while the more powerful Scat Pack trim starts at $73,190. Cox forecasts tariffs could raise the price on imported cars by 10% to 15%, further exacerbating an affordability crisis. But those increases aren't likely to come in big chunks, instead phasing in slowly and quietly so as not to scare off customers, said Erin Keating, Cox's senior director of economics and industry insights. Still, some potential buyers will walk away. Domestic sales could fall from 16 million in 2024 to 15.6 million this year, according to Cox. The outlook from consumer analysis company J.D. Power is even bleaker, with tariffs predicted to cut US auto sales by about 1.1 million vehicles annually, or roughly 8%. Automakers are scaling back production in anticipation. More than a half-million fewer cars will be built in North America this year than in 2024, according to researcher AutoForecast Solutions. 'By enacting tariffs on Canadian and Mexican parts and vehicles, it slows the whole workings of this North American machine making vehicles,' said Sam Fiorani, AutoForecast's vice president of global vehicle forecasting. 'The vehicles that are being built will cost more, raising the price of vehicles and lowering the demand for them. It's all interconnected.' —With assistance from Chester Dawson. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Sign in to access your portfolio
Bloomberg
24 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump, Musk's Public Feud
The Pulse with Francine Lacqua Elon Musk signaled he would move to cool tensions with US President Donald Trump, after differences between the two exploded Thursday into an all-out public feud. Earlier in the day, Musk called for Trump's impeachment and insinuated he was withholding the release of files related to disgraced New York financier Jeffrey Epstein because of his own presence in them. Trump, in turn, proposed cutting off the billionaire's government contracts, following his onetime adviser's repeated exhortations for Republicans to vote against the president's signature tax legislation. Musk's olive branch came after Tesla Inc. shares tanked 14% and his personal wealth dropped by $34 billion. Today's guests: Emmanuel Cau, Barclays European Equity Strategy Head, Gregory Peters, PGIM Fixed Income Co-CIO, Maria Demertzis, The Conference Board Economy, Strategy & Finance Center Europe Lead. (Source: Bloomberg)
