Senate releases latest version on Trump's big bill. Next step: Weekend votes?
Senate Republicans have sparred with each other and the parliamentarian over a variety of provisions in the sweeping legislation.
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump's sweeping tax, spending and policy bill is heading for a climatic weekend showdown on the Senate floor after Republicans near midnight on June 28 released more text of a plan that calls for cuts to Medicaid, increases in immigration spending and the end of taxes on tips and overtime wages.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has been working to deliver Trump a major legislative win, while navigating conflicting concerns from some of his fellow Republicans about how the bill could impact the federal deficit, health care coverage for low-income constituents and their own political popularity.
The South Dakota senator told reporters as he left the U.S. Capitol on June 27 that he hopes to begin a marathon floor debate on June 28 but also acknowledged he may not have yet cobbled together the necessary support from inside his GOP ranks to officially begin the process.
Thune and Trump face complications after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough's rulings on what was and was not within the scope of legislation that the president and Republicans have dubbed the "big, beautiful bill." MacDonough over the last several days has found several Senate GOP provisions in violation, including attempts to repeal federal food aid for noncitizens, multiple measures softening environmental regulations and restrictions on federal judges' ability to block government policies.
Addressing many of those rulings, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham released significant portions of the new bill near midnight. "If you like higher taxes, open borders, a weak military and unchecked government spending, this bill is your nightmare," the South Carolina Republican said, adding that the legislation "contains all of President Trump's domestic economic priorities."
Thune's next hurdle will be rounding up enough support to meet the 51-yes-vote threshold to begin debate, with numerous members of his Republican conference expressing reservations as of late June 27 and no Democrats signaling he'll have their support. In the Capitol heading into the weekend, several Republicans said they were itching to get going with the debate.
"We're gradually going from thoughtful, rational deliberation into the foothills of jackassery," Sen. John Kennedy, R-Lousiana, told reporters on June 27. "We're talking about the same things over and over and over. It's clear we're not going to (have) unanimity on some of this. That's why God made votes."
For now, the timing of the first vote remains unclear but the Senate is scheduled to convene at 2 p.m. ET for a rare Saturday session on June 28. If and when the Senate does approve the legislation, it will need to be reconciled with the House, which narrowly passed a first version in May.
Trump has pressed Senate Republicans to stay on his ambitious timeline to complete their work and get it back through the House in time for the measure to be on his desk for signature into law by July 4.
But the president and House Speaker Mike Johnson also are acknowledging their immediate ambitions might not become reality amid deep internal GOP policy disputes and complex Senate rules that have sent the mega bill through the legislative shredder.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Decision On Birthright Citizenship Could Cause Social Security Number 'Chaos'
WASHINGTON – The federal government could have to change how it issues Social Security numbers now that the Supreme Court has said President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship can take effect outside of specific cases where it's been blocked by a lower court. For decades, whenever a baby is born in the U.S., hospitals have notified state vital records agencies, which have in turn notified the Social Security Administration, that a new person needs a Social Security number. The so-called 'enumeration at birth' policy is automatic for the government and simple for parents, who merely check a box on a hospital form. Trump's order, if it takes effect in 30 days, could make the process more complicated, though neither the Social Security Administration nor the White House responded to requests for comment Friday about how it could change. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, a liberal advocacy group that opposes benefit cuts, said the Supreme Court decision, allowing at least partial implementation of Trump's birthright directive, could create 'widespread chaos' and require more Americans to visit Social Security field offices in order to get Social Security numbers for their babies. The order forbids federal agencies to accept or issue documents recognizing citizenship to babies whose mothers are not lawfully present in the United States. The text describes exactly the sort of sending and receiving of documents that occurs through the enumeration at birth process. 'It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' The order specifically mentions Social Security and gives agencies 30 days to issue public guidance about how it would be implemented. The Supreme Court's decision did not address the constitutionality of the order, which is plainly contrary to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, but rather the practice of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, like the ones several federal judges imposed blocking the birthright order from taking effect. The court said the injunctions can remain, but only to the extent they 'provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' It's likely there will be lots more plaintiffs, class action cases and additional injunctions that could cover wide geographic areas. To the extent the order takes effect, in Altman's telling, the Social Security Administration will have to track court cases and devise some way of determining which babies are eligible for enumeration and which aren't, and that doing so could be extremely difficult. 'It might mean that SSA simply ends its enumeration at birth program, costing huge amounts of money, causing huge inconvenience, and swamping already overwhelmed field offices,' Altman said. Canceling or curtailing Social Security's enumeration at birth program would likely cause a public backlash, one that the Trump administration might like to avoid, since it's the way 99% of babies have received their Social Security numbers since the 1990s. In March, the Social Security Administration canceled vital records contracts with the state of Maine in an act of political retaliation against Maine's Democratic governor. The state notified parents they would have to visit Social Security field offices to get their kids' Social Security numbers, prompting an outcry that forced Social Security to quickly reinstate the contracts. Supreme Court Rules With Trump On Birthright Citizenship — And Chaos May Be Coming Trump Administration Forces Maine Parents To Visit Social Security Offices To Register Newborns (UPDATE) Trump's Victory In Birthright Citizenship Puts Him 1 Step Closer To Being A King
Politico
35 minutes ago
- Politico
Alaskan whaling captains score special tax cut in GOP megabill
Senate Republicans have included compromises on key Medicaid and tax issues in updated text for their sweeping domestic policy bill. In an effort to placate GOP moderates on the fence on the legislation, Senate Republicans are planning to provide a $25 billion stabilization fund for rural hospitals over five years. It's a significant bump up from the $15 billion offer Senate Republican leadership had made to a group of Medicaid moderates, who have balked at the steep cuts to the health program contained in the marque legislation. Senate Republicans would also delay planned cuts to provider taxes that fund state obligations to Medicaid. The changes would still incrementally lower the allowable provider tax in Medicaid expansion states from 6 percent down to 3.5 percent. But the drawdown would begin in 2028, one year later than planned — in a nod to concerns from senators like Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who warned this week that resulting cuts to Medicaid could have disastrous electoral consequences in the midterms. The changes come as Senate Republicans are racing ahead with plans to hold a vote on their legislation Saturday. President Donald Trump still wants the bill on his desk by July 4, though Republicans, as of Friday evening, did not have the votes to start debate . The language also reflects changes to the state and local tax deduction sought by blue state House Republicans. The New York, New Jersey and California Republicans have been in prolonged negotiations with Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent over a boost to the deduction, which Senate Republicans universally want lowered. The new Senate text keeps House Republicans' plan to increase the deduction from $10,000 to $40,000, but it would snap back to current levels after 2029. The new language likely shaves off at least $100 billion from the approximately $350 billion price tag of the House plan. It's still unclear, though, if the compromise would get all of the hardcore SALT Republicans to 'yes.' In a Friday lunch with Senate Republicans, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he still had one holdout on the SALT deal -— a likely reference to Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who indicated on Friday that, if there had been a deal, he was not part of it. The text for the Finance committee, which has jurisdiction over tax policy and Medicaid, could still see major changes. That's because the language still hasn't been fully updated to reflect rulings from the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, on whether the contained provisions comply with strict budget rules. The tax panel had their final meetings with MacDonough Friday night, but it's unclear how she would weigh in, if at all, on tax provisions enacted under a novel accounting tactic called 'current policy baseline. That tactic takes the unprecedented step of zeroing out trillions of tax cut extensions. Senate Republicans are relying on it to make a slew of provisions, from individual to business tax cuts, permanent. David Lim contributed to this report.
Politico
35 minutes ago
- Politico
DHS terminates temporary protected status for Haitians in the US
The Department of Homeland Security on Friday announced that it would terminate temporary protected status for Haiti, setting the groundwork for hundreds of thousands of Haitians to potentially be deported from the United States once the designation expires later this summer. The termination of temporary protected status — a designation that shields from deportation people who have traveled to the U.S. from countries that are deemed unsafe because of natural disasters, armed conflict or other extraordinary conditions — would put up to 500,000 Haitians at risk of deportation, as gang violence continues to roil the country. According to a DHS release, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem 'determined that conditions in Haiti no longer meet the TPS statutory requirements,' after concluding that conditions in the country have improved sufficiently for Haitians in the U.S. to return. The DHS plans to terminate the designation effective on Sept. 2. 'This decision restores integrity in our immigration system and ensures that Temporary Protective Status is actually temporary,' an unnamed DHS spokesperson said in the release. 'Haitian nationals may pursue lawful status through other immigration benefit requests, if eligible.' But while DHS said Haiti is 'safe for Haitian citizens to return home,' the country still remains at a 'level four' designation by the State Department, which has advised Americans not to travel there due to risk of 'kidnapping, crime, civil unrest, and limited health care.' Haiti was also included in President Donald Trump's new travel ban. Trump has threatened mass deportation for Haitians since his presidential campaign, when he began attacking Haitian immigrants, zeroing in on migrants in Springfield, Ohio, that he said were 'destroying' the town's 'way of life.' Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance at the time boosted conspiracy theories about Haitians in Springfield eating a slew of local wildlife, including cats, dogs and geese, sparking outcry from Democrats. 'It's simply wrong,' then-President Joe Biden said of Trump and Vance's comments, adding that the Haitian American community was 'under attack.' The decision is the latest in the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration and follows a February move by the DHS rescinding temporary legal protections for Haitians in the U.S. that had been granted under the Biden administration, which cited at the time the dangerous conditions in Haiti that made their return unsafe. The Trump administration has also made similar moves terminating protections for Afghans, Venezuelans and Cameroonians in the country, and won a legal battle in the Supreme Court in May after justices cleared the way for the administration to immediately end deportation protections for roughly 350,000 Venezuelans in the U.S.
