
How Scold-and-Fold Became the GOP's Calling Card
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) likewise slammed the Senate amendments as a 'travesty' that undermined 'the good things' in the House bill. He, too, joined Self in finally supporting the legislation in the wee hours Thursday morning. Both held out longer than their moderate colleague Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), who said in a post on X last week that he could not vote for any Senate changes to the Medicaid provisions in the House version of the bill.
These reversals may be surprising, but they were not remarkable. It was par for the course for congressional Republicans who, in recent years, have shown a proclivity for taking bold, theatrical stands before meekly capitulating in the face of political pressure — particularly from President Donald Trump.
In just the past six months, hardline conservatives have expressed concerns about backing a continuing resolution, two different budget resolutions and the initial House version of the Republican megabill before caving in to pressure from Trump. In May, conservatives originally threatened to withhold their vote for the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' because it provided a tax deduction targeted at residents of blue states. The head of the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), even insisted it might take weeks to appease hard-right concerns on May 21.
It passed early in the morning the next day after hard right conservatives yielded overnight.
It was no different this week when they loudly and repeatedly expressed horror and dismay at the version of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' passed by the Senate. There was outrage that it increased the deficit. Complaints that it didn't do enough to roll back efforts to encourage clean energy were abundant.
Conservatives wanted changes to the bill to address these concerns. The problem is that it would have required the bill to be sent back to the Senate, either through legislative 'ping pong' or through the traditional expedient of a conference committee. That would have been time consuming — and prevented Republicans from passing the legislation by Trump's self-imposed July 4 deadline. Republicans had until the end of the year to do the most urgent part of the legislation, the extension of the 2017 tax cuts, but the decision was made to treat Trump's deadline as a firm time limit in the same way Congress might handle the looming debt crisis or the expiration of government funding.
On Wednesday morning, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who railed against the imposition of 'arbitrary deadlines,' told POLITICO those kinds of deadlines led to 'panicking' and it wasn't going to work.
Needless to say, Burchett eventually voted for the bill, too.
The truth is that there really wasn't any other option but to stick to an arbitrary deadline, because it's what Trump wanted. Steve Scalise, the number two House Republican, bluntly explained that extending the deadline to make last-minute alterations wasn't going to happen because Trump didn't want it. 'It became clear from the president's meeting at the White House to further conversations later, that there's going to be no more amendments to the bill,' he said.
Republican Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) analogized the situation to a restive football team that occasionally forgets who is calling the plays and needs a reminder. 'You may be a good receiver, you may be an all star running back, but the quarterback is still Donald J. Trump.'
When it was all over, the holdouts justified the Big Fold in predictable fashion, claiming to have won valuable concessions even if none of those would be enacted into law.
Burchett, one of the holdouts who eventually capitulated, said that he had 'a very good conversation with President Trump and Vice President Vance.' That discussion gave him confidence that the administration would 'go after fraud and get rid of a lot of the nonsense in our energy policies.'
Harris, another holdout, told reporters, 'we came to significant agreements with the administration overnight on executive actions that will make America great again.'
Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), who long expressed concern about the deficit implications of the legislation — which by a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimate will add at least $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade — the process represented a combination of policy negotiation and airing of grievances. 'It was a little bit of hearing people out,' said the ardent fiscal hawk. But there were also policy issues as 'everyone became convinced it just didn't make sense to send it back to the Senate.'
A more jaundiced and skeptical view was taken by Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.), who described the dramatic scold-and-fold as a venting exercise by the usual suspects who always 'cry wolf.'
'There's just a couple people that really want to talk a lot about things that are important to them, and they use these pressure points as opportunities to force people to listen to them,' said the four-term incumbent. 'I don't think you accomplish much, but we got it done.'
In the final hours before the House narrowly passed the sweeping legislation, despite all the apocalyptic rhetoric about the bill's drawback, all was forgotten and forgiven. The group of conservative holdouts, including Self and Roy, gathered in the center aisle of the House at about 3:15 in the morning. The dozen hardliners, who did not want to support the Senate bill as written, joined together for a smiling group picture just before they all cast their votes to help make that text the law of land.
The photographer, using a cell phone camera, was Speaker Mike Johnson himself.
'He just pulled out his camera and we took the picture,' said Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.), one of the hardliners who yielded. 'It was awesome.'
The Republican holdouts had ended their fight by getting together to strike a pose. It wasn't difficult. After all, they had been posing all week.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Proposes UFC Event in Wild Location
Trump Proposes UFC Event in Wild Location originally appeared on Athlon Sports. President Donald Trump's relationship with the UFC is well-documented. He has attended multiple events, and fighters like Conor McGregor have visited him at the White House, reinforcing the alliance between the MMA promotion and his political brand. The UFC's massive popularity, especially among younger male demographics, makes it a centerpiece for Trump and his supporters, who include the UFC's CEO and President, Dana White. Advertisement Now, Trump has floated a bold and unconventional idea to celebrate America's upcoming 250th anniversary: a UFC championship fight on the White House grounds. Donald Trump and Dana WhiteEd Mulholland-GettyImages During a speech at the Iowa State Fairgrounds, Trump revealed his desire for a large-scale event featuring a UFC fight with up to 25,000 spectators as part of the "America250" festivities. 'Does anybody watch UFC? The great Dana White? We're going to have a UFC fight. We're going to have a UFC fight, think of this, on the grounds of the White House. We have a lot of land there,' Trump said. While the announcement energized Trump's supporters, the feasibility and appropriateness of hosting a violent combat sport on White House property were clearly not in the president's consideration. The White House has never before been used as a venue for a pay-per-view sporting event, let alone a sport with a fan base as rowdy as MMA. Advertisement Overlooked in his proclamation were the logistical hurdles, including Secret Service approvals and crowd control, that could make the plan more aspirational than practical. The UFC's involvement adds another layer of controversy. While the organization has grown into a mainstream sports powerhouse, it has also faced criticism over fighter pay, benefits, and overall dwindling quality. As of now, the proposal lacks concrete details, and the idea is likely nothing more than mere political theater. Given Trump's history of controversy, however, the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. Related: The UFC Could Be On The Verge Of A Huge Partnership Related: Dana White & Mark Zuckerberg Announce UFC-Meta Partnership: Enhanced Fan Experience, But at What Cost to Fighters? This story was originally reported by Athlon Sports on Jul 4, 2025, where it first appeared.

Business Insider
33 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump's tax plan won't help Tesla, but 2 other EV companies got a stock boost
President Donald Trump's tax bill led to a big stock boost for two Tesla rivals. American electric vehicle makers Rivian and Lucid rose as much as 4.6% and 8.8%, respectively, on Thursday. The gains came after an analyst note from BNP Paribas said that the two companies stand to benefit from Trump's tax bill ending EV tax credits. On Thursday, the House passed the final version of the bill, which would extend the president's 2017 tax cuts and make key changes to the tax system. The bill would also end the $7,500 EV tax credit awarded to buyers on September 30. The tax credit removal is expected to lower demand for EVs, and bigger automakers could be hit harder. Per the new bill, cars made by companies that sold more than 200,000 accepted EVs between December 31, 2009, and December 31, 2025, do not qualify for the tax credit. Tesla delivered more than 336,000 vehicles in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Rivian delivered 8,000 vehicles in the same quarter, while Lucid delivered 3,109 vehicles. Like Tesla, Rivian has been struggling with cars don't qualify for the tax credit, but the company has relied on a leasing loophole for customers to use it. Rivian does not qualify because a requirement mandates that a significant portion of the car battery's materials should be sourced from the US or its trade partners. Lucid vehicles qualify for the $7,500 federal EV tax credit. Tesla and Lucid are down 22% and 28.5% so far this year. Rivian's stock is down 2% in the same time period. Big hit to Tesla The loss of the EV tax credit could be a big hit to Tesla, analysts say. Last month, Seth Goldstein, an equity strategist at Morningstar, told Business Insider that the expedited elimination of the EV tax credit would be "the biggest area that could impact Tesla." "Consumers have increased long-range EV choices at similar price points as Tesla," Goldstein said. "It's on Tesla to make the case for consumers to even slightly pay up today versus some other EVs." Goldstein added that tax credit elimination could decrease sales volume, which the automaker has been struggling with. JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman wrote in a note last month that Trump's bill, combined with other proposed legislation, including ending the California Air Resources Board Program, threatened more than half of Tesla's 2025 profits. Brinkman said that the $7,500 consumer tax made up 19% of Tesla's 2024 earnings before interest and tax.

Business Insider
38 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Europe's top negotiator says it's impossible to get a trade deal done by Trump's July deadline
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said it was "impossible" to reach a detailed trade deal by President Donald Trump's July 9 deadline. Von der Leyen said the US and European Union were aiming for a July 9 "agreement in principle" trade deal, which would be light on details. She was speaking at a press conference in the Danish city of Aarhus on Thursday, at a European Union summit to mark the start of Denmark's six-month-long EU presidency. "It's a huge task because we have the largest trade volume globally between the European Union and the United States, 1.5 trillion euros, very complex and a huge quantity," she said. She added, "Indeed, what we are aiming at is an agreement in principle. Because I mean, such a volume in 90 days, an agreement in detail, impossible." The European Union was one of the hardest hit by the slew of tariffs Trump announced on April 2, seeing a tariff rate of 20%. Responding to the tariffs, Von der Leyen said in an April statement on X that Trump's tariffs were a "major blow to the world economy" with "dire" consequences for millions of people. Trump later issued a 90-day pause to allow for trade negotiations, and all of the US's trade partners were subject to an interim 10% tariff rate. In February, months before the April 2 tariffs, Trump ordered a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, and the EU retaliated with tariffs on 26 billion euros, or $28.4 billion, worth of US goods. In May, he floated raising the EU's tariff rate to 50% from June 1, saying the group was "very difficult to deal with" and the US's trade negotiations with the EU were "going nowhere." However, Trump retracted the threat after a call with Von der Leyen. He said she had requested an extension on the June 1 deadline. "I agreed to the extension — July 9, 2025 — It was my privilege to do so," Trump wrote on Truth Social on May 25. On May 26, Paula Pinho, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said in a press conference that Von der Leyen and Trump had "agreed both to fast-track the trade negotiations and to stay in close contact." Representatives of the European Commission and the White House did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.