logo
Growing GOP fight over 'SALT' tax deduction complicates Trump agenda bill

Growing GOP fight over 'SALT' tax deduction complicates Trump agenda bill

NBC News01-05-2025

WASHINGTON — Republicans are at loggerheads over the fate of a controversial tax deduction that is critical to winning enough votes in the House to pass President Donald Trump's legislative agenda.
After a week of meetings and discussions, Republicans still haven't settled on how to handle the state and local tax deduction, also known as 'SALT,' which allows filers to deduct up to $10,000 in taxes paid to state and local governments. Before the House adjourned for the week on Thursday, GOP lawmakers on opposite ends of the spectrum continued to snipe over whether to raise that $10,000 maximum imposed by the 2017 Trump tax cuts.
Pro-SALT Republicans insist it's not enough to lift the cap to $15,000 for individuals and $30,000 for married couples. Party leaders are looking at a higher cap, nixing the 'marriage penalty' and potentially an income threshold to limit the deduction to the middle class, according to lawmakers and sources with knowledge of the talks.
There is no consensus in the GOP's narrow House majority. It is a sensitive topic after several Republicans in high-tax areas lost their re-election races in 2018 after backing the 2017 tax law that imposed the $10,000 cap. A new crop of GOP lawmakers has since won re-election by promising to raise that cap, but doing so would be expensive and complicate the rest of the bill, which also seeks to boost funding for immigration enforcement and the military, as well as raise the debt limit.
SALT is one of many contentious issues in the package, but it is the most unique. Many Republicans — across ideological lines — care little about the deduction and would be content to avoid expanding it. But there is no path to passing a bill without catering to the roughly dozen Republicans in New York, New Jersey and California who have made it a red line.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., the only 'SALT Caucus' member who serves on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said she had briefed her fellow committee members Thursday morning about negotiations following a SALT-focused meeting a day earlier with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.
While there is no deal on numbers yet, Malliotakis said discussions include limiting the SALT deduction to families making less than $400,000 per year. She said the new cap could be boosted to slightly higher than $25,000.
'There is general consensus that we have no interest in supporting millionaires and billionaires, and this needs to be targeted relief for middle class families,' Malliotakis, who represents Staten Island and part of Brooklyn, told reporters. 'That's what this comes down to — what number can provide the most relief for middle class families that is acceptable to other members of the conference.'
She said the issue wouldn't be resolved this week, but sounded optimistic that they will ultimately get 'something real approved by the committee.'
'We are going over all of the menu of options,' Malliotakis said, 'and eventually we will get to the right number.'
If Trump's tax cuts expire, the SALT cap would reset to infinity, at a cost of $1.2 trillion over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington research group that advocates for lower deficits. GOP leaders want to contain the price tag of any SALT policy to make room for other priorities.
The Ways and Means Committee still hasn't released the text of its bill or scheduled a hearing to vote on sending it to the floor, although House GOP leaders want it to happen next week to stick to their schedule of passing the entire package out of the chamber by Memorial Day.
Democrats are guaranteed to attack SALT limits imposed by Republicans as an attempt to raise taxes on residents of blue states, which hold enough swing districts to decide control of the House.
'I don't think there's any magic number where it's not a fertile attack line for Democrats, so at a certain point SALT members just have to take yes for an answer,' said Liam Donovan, a lobbyist and former GOP aide, who said the cap is likely to end up above $10,000 but well short of the $100,000 pro-SALT members appear to want.
'To me, the best way to indemnify yourself politically is to make the number as big as possible but with an income phase-out,' he said. 'Hard to attack Republicans if you can't claim it hurts middle class families. The poster child is ostensibly the cop or firefighter who has a big property tax bill, which is a relatively cheap and easy problem to fix.'
Conservative Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he opposes the SALT deduction and criticized his colleagues for pushing it.
'We shouldn't have such high local taxes and the federal government shouldn't subsidize it. So I'm not all that interested in hearing about my blue-state colleagues complaining about it,' Roy said, while adding that he's only willing to accept a higher SALT cap if it is offset with spending cuts.
'You have to figure out how to get a deal done. So if the math adds up and we're doing enough on the spending restraint side and the tax policy works out and SALT goes up a little, whatever, we'll work it out,' Roy told reporters. 'I just don't support that policy.'
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who represents a competitive district outside New York City, is demanding a higher SALT deduction, noting that his state gives more to the federal government than it takes, unlike many red states.
'It's an issue of fairness. For my colleagues that talk about bad blue-state policies, the fact is New York is a donor state. Many of my colleagues from red states actually get more money from the federal government than tax revenue that is sent to the federal government,' Lawler, who is considering a run for governor of New York, told reporters. 'So if we want to talk about subsidies, then we can talk about subsidies, but the fact is that New Yorkers need tax relief. That's what I'm fighting for in this bill.'
Lawler's colleague, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., is also weighing a run for governor and has been talking up SALT recently. That could make her another difficult vote for Johnson.
Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., who represents a Long Island district that was hit hard by the 2017 GOP law's SALT cap, said this week that boosting the deduction is essential to winning his support for the reconciliation package.
'I'm all in on the SALT provision,' LaLota told reporters. 'My folks didn't just send me here for my great good looks. They sent me here to fight for SALT, and I intend to win that fight.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

EXCLUSIVE ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What hypocritical AOC is shamelessly ignoring when she calls Trump's Iran strikes 'unconstitutional'
EXCLUSIVE ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What hypocritical AOC is shamelessly ignoring when she calls Trump's Iran strikes 'unconstitutional'

Daily Mail​

time21 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

EXCLUSIVE ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What hypocritical AOC is shamelessly ignoring when she calls Trump's Iran strikes 'unconstitutional'

Even as a tenuous cease-fire between Iran and Israel appears to hold, Democrats in the US Congress are falling over themselves to condemn President Donald Trump for the strikes that made this chance at peace possible. Trump's Iran attack is 'unauthorized and unconstitutional,' said the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Katherine Clark. 'Donald Trump's decision to launch direct military action against Iran without congressional approval is a clear violation of the Constitution,' added Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went further, claiming Trump's action 'is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' That's absurd. The framers of the Constitution understood the difference between Congress officially declaring war, on the one hand, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces taking military action in defense of our nation, in the other hand. The original draft of Article 1 allocated to Congress the power to 'make war.' But James Madison, the father of our Constitution, demanded that it be amended so that the president would have broader authority to take actions in defense of our country. During the subsequent two and a quarter centuries, various presidents and members of Congress have interpreted this division of authority differently, and many presidents have taken military action without declarations of war or even congressional authorization. In recent years, Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama authorized significant military actions without any complaints by Democratic members of Congress, including several who have now whined about Trump having acted unconstitutionally. This is hypocrisy on stilts and reflects the extreme partisan weaponization of the Constitution, even over foreign and military policies. What President Trump did is not different in kind or degree from what previous presidents – both Democrats and Republicans – have done without congressional authorization. The last time Congress declared war was shortly after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. There were no declarations of war over Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Granada or Panama. In fact, it is unlikely we will ever again see another declaration of war. Perhaps Congress will now do what it has done since the end of World War II: pass resolutions authorizing limited military action by the president. Though, these hybrid resolutions are not authorized by the Constitution either and it is unlikely that they carry any legal weight. Indeed, all this handwringing on the left will come to nothing. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, are reluctant to interfere with executive decisions involving military actions, even those that involve boots on the ground for considerable periods of time. So, by all means, let's continue to debate the wisdom of Trump's decision as a matter of policy, but let's not improperly weaponize a constitutional provision that was never intended to prevent presidents from taking actions deemed necessary to defend our nation, such as the surgical, one-off bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. As a matter of policy, a president should not be required to show his hand before ordering a surprise military attack of the kind. The consequences, both short and long term, of President Trump's bold decision remain to be seen, but he surely had the power to make that decision if he deemed it in the best interests of the country. Congress can now hold hearings, both open and closed, to assess the president's actions, but only hypocritical Democrats, and hard-left radicals afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome will argue that what Trump did was unconstitutional or unlawful. It was not.

US Treasury secretary says date for debt ceiling could change
US Treasury secretary says date for debt ceiling could change

Reuters

time43 minutes ago

  • Reuters

US Treasury secretary says date for debt ceiling could change

TORONTO, June 24 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday said the date for the nation to reach its debt ceiling could change if courts interfere with U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff policies. "We will never default on national debt," he told reporters at the U.S. Capitol after meeting with lawmakers. Bessent separately said the U.S. Senate could vote on Friday on Republicans' tax and spending measure and that he was confident the House would then pass that version.

BREAKING NEWS Democrat Al Green met with quick karma after filing articles of impeachment for Trump over Iran strikes
BREAKING NEWS Democrat Al Green met with quick karma after filing articles of impeachment for Trump over Iran strikes

Daily Mail​

time43 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

BREAKING NEWS Democrat Al Green met with quick karma after filing articles of impeachment for Trump over Iran strikes

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted against pursuing articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday. Texas Democrat Rep. Al Green, who for months has vowed to impeach the president, filed articles of impeachment against the president Tuesday morning. Since screaming and waving his cane to interrupt Trump's joint speech to Congress in March, Green has worked to get the Republican officially impeached for a third time. Green announced he filed a privileged resolution, meaning it had to be voted on quickly, accusing Trump of abusing his presidential powers and devolving the U.S. into an 'authoritarian government, usurping congressional power to declare war.' However, despite his whirlwind effort, Green's effort was an abysmal failure. In a vote to tee-up the impeachment vote, 128 Democrats voted against their colleague's push to remove Trump, siding with all 216 Republicans. Just 79 Democrats voted to advance the impeachment effort. Green's folly comes just hours after the president practically dared Congress to impeach him again.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store