What to know as the Senate tries to pass Trump's agenda bill next week
After months of negotiations, Senate Republicans are gearing up for a potential vote next week on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. It will be a major test for Republican Leader John Thune and Trump's own hold on the upper chamber that aides say will be cast as a binary choice for the rank-and-file: you either are with the president or you aren't.
Thune has predicted the Senate could begin consideration on the bill as early as the middle of next week. That would mean a massive sprint starting this weekend to draft final text, whip votes and iron out a series of major sticking points that will satisfy holdouts – without pushing the bill in such a different direction that it stalls out in the House of Representatives where it passed by a single vote.
The bottom line is next week is crunch time and all the hard decisions that have been punted will need to be made in the next several days.
Aides and members say that if everything goes according to plan (and that's far from certain), the 20-hour clock to debate the bill could start as soon as Wednesday.
Republicans would yield a big part of their time back and vote-a-rama – an hours-long voting marathon – could begin Thursday evening into Friday. That could always get pushed into Friday evening, but right now the goal is to have this finished by the end of next week.
Over the next several days, a myriad of technical work and hard-fought negotiations have to unfold in order to get the bill to a place where it is even ready for the floor. Some of these negotiations will be substantial, others will be a way to give members an off-ramp to vote 'yes' because members really do want to back the president here.
One of those tasks is already underway and will continue this weekend: the Byrd Bath.
Simply put, the Byrd bath is a critical process led by the Senate parliamentarian that ensures all the provisions of the bill comply with special Senate rules that allow Republicans to move this bill with a simple majority rather than being subject to the normal 60-vote threshold.
Those rules are specific and nuanced, but the Budget Control Act set parameters that required provisions within a bill that is going to pass with a simple majority to have more than just an 'incidental' budget impact. The parliamentarian traditionally makes a call on whether a provision qualifies.
It's named after the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who came up with the rule to stop either side from abusing the reconciliation process and trying to use it to just pass legislation that bypassed a filibuster.
The way it works is Democrats and Republican staffers of each committee with jurisdiction in the bill privately meet with the parliamentarian and make their arguments for whether provisions meet the confines of the process. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to undertake this process Sunday evening, a critical step in moving forward because so many of the tax and health care provisions that are the heart of this bill are in Finance's purview.
Several other committees have already begun, including the Senate Banking Committee, which Democrats say led to some of the provisions in that committee's jurisdiction from being ruled out of compliance with reconciliation.
'The Parliamentarian agreed that the funding cap for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), elimination of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), gutting of the Office of Financial Research and Financial Stability Oversight Council, and slashing Federal Reserve staff salaries violate the Senate's Byrd Rule,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office announced in a statement.
State and local tax deductions: This may be the biggest hurdle right now. Unlike in the House, where a number of swing district members hail from high-tax states, there is absolutely no interest in the Senate in investing hundreds of billions of dollars to raise the cap on how much constituents in New York, California, New Jersey and Illinois can deduct in state and local taxes on their federal taxes. The Senate bill currently keeps the cap frozen at $10,000, a placeholder that Senate leaders have indicated they may be willing to negotiate on. But the coalition of House Republicans who raised the cap to $40,000 for certain income thresholds under $500,000 aren't interested in renegotiating the hard-fought deal they cemented in the House.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma and former House member, has been leading the talks over the issue, but so far there is no deal. There is some discussion, two sources say, over dialing back the income threshold for who qualifies for the $40,000 deduction but so far that's been a nonstarter for the group of House Republicans who got this concession in the House bill a few weeks ago.
To say there is palpable frustration in the Senate with a handful of House members dictating the future of a provision in the Senate bill that no one in that chamber cares much about is putting it mildly.
Medicaid: A number of Senate Republicans have made clear they could vote against the Senate bill if there aren't protections to ensure rural hospitals are protected from some of the changes to Medicaid in the bill, like the slash to how much hospitals can be held harmless when it comes to the provider tax. Led by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a group of these Republicans are pushing leadership to create a kind of stabilization fund that states could use. Aides close to the process say that it could go a long way to win over some skeptical Republicans, including people like Sen. Jim Justice of West Virginia and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley. The particulars of how the fund would be structured and how much it would cost are still being considered and it's important to note that the fund helps hospital but wouldn't do much for others who could lose coverage because of other changes to Medicaid, including new work requirements.
Green energy tax credits: While the Senate bill takes a slower approach to phasing out some of the clean energy tax credits that were a key part of the Biden administration's environmental legacy, there are still some Republicans who have warned that some of the phaseouts may happen too quickly. Other conservatives have warned that they need to be eradicated more expeditiously, setting up a massive clash and one that could rear its head again if the Senate passes a bill that ultimately doesn't go as far as the House did. A last-minute negotiation is ultimately what got House conservatives to vote for the bill so any changes to the timeline could be an issue when the bill goes back to the House.
Once the Senate passes its version of Trump's bill, it will go over to the House. There, Speaker Mike Johnson and his GOP conference will have to decide whether to back the new bill – or begin the drawn-out process of trying to negotiate. Do they swallow the Senate's big changes and allow the bill to move quickly to Trump's desk for a huge policy win? Or do they fight for their own version and begin the rigorous, and time-consuming, process of a conference committee, where both chambers will formally iron out their differences? Johnson and Trump are both hoping to avoid the latter option – but will the fractious House GOP conference agree?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump's recently signed tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in CBP facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
Boston Globe
5 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Ukraine tries to understand why Trump suddenly abandoned idea of cease-fire
Trump called on social media for a direct peace agreement without securing a cease-fire first, claiming that Zelenskyy and European leaders had agreed on the point. His statement was a stark shift from the 'principles' agreed upon earlier in the week by Trump, Zelenskyy and his European allies, which called for refusing to discuss peace terms until a cease-fire was in place. Advertisement Russia has long pushed for a direct peace deal that would address a broad range of issues and impose onerous demands on Ukraine, including territorial concessions. Avoiding a cease-fire would allow Russia to continue pressing its advantage on the battlefield in the meantime. Advertisement An official briefed on the call between Trump and Zelenskyy said the Ukrainian leader's trip to Washington would aim to seek clarity from Trump. Kyiv does not understand why the American president suddenly dropped the demand that a cease-fire precede negotiations. In a statement, Zelenskyy seemed to tread carefully, trying not to openly contradict Trump. 'We need to achieve a real peace that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions,' Zelenskyy said. But he added that 'the killings must stop as soon as possible, and the fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the air, as well as against our port infrastructure,' suggesting that he was still prioritizing a cease-fire. In statements of their own, European leaders made no mention of having agreed to abandon their demand for a cease-fire. At the same time, the fact that the statements did not include a demand for a cease-fire, as in previous remarks, suggests at the very least an attempt not to antagonize Trump. Trump's move to aim for a direct peace deal could bring to failure a week of frantic diplomacy in which Kyiv, with European support, had lobbied the U.S. administration to insist that a cease-fire should come first and that Ukraine should not be undercut in the negotiations. Trump's social media post caused a feeling of whiplash among some Ukrainians, who quickly reversed their early assessments of the Alaska summit. Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the foreign affairs committee in the Ukrainian parliament, had initially expressed some relief, saying that 'the situation could have been worse' if Trump and Putin had struck a deal behind Ukraine's back. Advertisement He said that a scenario in which 'Trump and Putin started together to pressure Ukraine into surrender' could not have been ruled out given Trump's history of deference to Putin. But after Trump's post on Truth Social, Merezhko changed his view. 'In fact, Putin and Trump are starting to force us into surrender,' he said. Trump also proposed security guarantees for Ukraine inspired by the collective defense agreement between NATO member countries, which states that any attack on a member is an attack against all, according to Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister. Under such guarantees, Ukraine's NATO allies would be 'ready to take action' if Russia attacked again. But Merezhko and other Ukrainian allies said such a formulation was too vague. 'Which countries will agree to consider an attack against Ukraine as an attack against themselves?' Merezhko asked. 'I'd like to believe that we will find such countries, but I'm not sure.' Trump, in an interview with Fox News after the meeting with Putin, also addressed the idea of territorial swaps, saying they were among the points 'that we largely have agreed on.' Trump had said several times over the past week that territorial concessions would be part of a peace agreement, drawing pushback from Zelenskyy. Zelensky, however, has not entirely ruled out possible land swaps, telling reporters this past week that this is 'a very complex issue that cannot be separated from security guarantees for Ukraine.' Merezhko, who like many Ukrainian officials was left on tenterhooks by the Alaska meeting, watched the post-meeting news conference live from Kyiv at around 2 a.m. local time. As both Trump and Putin offered only vague statements, Merezhko said it had become clear that no concrete deal had been reached. Advertisement He noted that Putin had again said that any end to the fighting must address the 'root causes' of the war, which is Kremlin parlance for a range of issues that include the existence of Ukraine as a fully independent and sovereign nation aligned with the West. 'I think it's a failure because Putin was again talking about security concerns and used his usual rhetoric,' Merezhko said as the press conference came to an end. 'I don't see any changes.' In Kyiv, some emerged Saturday morning from a sleepless night following the news with the sense that the war was likely to continue unabated. After the Alaska summit wrapped up, the Ukrainian air force said Russia had continued its assault on Ukraine, launching 85 drones and one ballistic missile overnight. These figures could not be independently verified. Tetiana Chamlai, a 66-year-old retiree in Kyiv, said the situation with the war would change only if Ukraine was given more military support, to push Russian forces back enough to force Moscow to the negotiating table. 'That's the only way everything will stop,' she said. 'I personally do not see any other way out.' But Vice President JD Vance made clear this past week that the United States was 'done' funding Ukraine's defense against the Russian invasion. The Trump administration, however, is fine with Ukraine buying American weapons from U.S. companies, and Zelenskyy announced this past week that Kyiv had secured $1.5 billion in European funding to purchase U.S. arms. This article originally appeared in
