logo
House Republicans warn Senate GOP against watering down Trump agenda bill

House Republicans warn Senate GOP against watering down Trump agenda bill

Yahoo24-05-2025

House Republicans are sending a clear and early warning to their Senate allies as the bill encompassing President Trump's domestic priorities heads to the upper chamber: Don't water it down.
House GOP leaders spent weeks in delicate talks with Republican holdouts before cobbling together a fragile agreement that could thread the needle between conservatives' demands for more spending cuts and moderates' insistence on a controversial tax break.
As the massive package heads to the Senate, the critical voices of the House debate — blue-state Republicans, hardliners and party leaders — are cautioning their upper-chamber counterparts not to alter their design too severely, or it will never get through the House on its return.
The warnings forecast a coming clash between Republicans in the two chambers, since many senators are already saying they can't support the package without substantial changes.
House conservatives would be fine with some changes — if they shift the bill to the right with more spending cuts and deficit reduction. At the bare minimum, they're demanding that the Senate keep in place hard-fought provisions to limit Medicaid eligibility and roll back green-energy subsidies adopted by the Biden administration.
'They've got a lot they still need to do to make it better, and they can't unwind what we achieved. And those are going to be red lines,' said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas). 'If the SALT guys think they've got red lines, just wait until you see what's coming out of us.'
Blue-state Republicans have their own concerns. They went to the mats to lift the $10,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, and they don't want Senate Republicans to nibble away at their hard-earned victory.
Their agreement included not only an increase in the cap — to $40,000 for those making up to $500,000 — but also commitments on how to handle the threat of any Senate changes.
Unlike in the House, Senate Republicans do not represent regions where constituents are greatly impacted by the SALT deduction cap. For that reason alone, many Senate Republicans are cold to the notion of giving a bigger tax break to those who primarily have higher incomes and live in blue states.
Under the terms of the SALT Caucus deal, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) committed to holding the line against any Senate changes. And the SALT Caucus members agreed to go to the Senate, at the Speaker's request, to advocate for the higher deduction.
Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), one of those core SALT Caucus members, echoed conservatives' warnings to senators not to change the bill.
'House Members like me respect the Senate's prerogative to shape key aspects of the One Big Beautiful Bill, but we respectfully request that Senators preserve the interlocking provisions that were carefully negotiated through months of tough internal deliberation,' LaLota said. 'The bill's strength and viability depend on maintaining that hard-earned balance.'
The precarious nature of the agreement is very much on the radar of House leaders, who are delivering their own unsubtle message to the Senate as the upper chamber prepares to deliberate the bill.
Johnson huddled behind closed doors with Senate Republicans on Tuesday, during a traditional weekly lunch. Afterwards, he said he practically pleaded with the group not to make huge changes to the House design.
'I encouraged them to remember that we have a very delicate equilibrium that we've reached over here. A lot of work went into this to find exactly the right balance,' Johnson said.
'You saw how perilous that was over the last week as it developed,' he continued. 'And I encouraged our Senate colleagues to think of this as a one-team effort, as we have, and to modify this as little as possible, because it will make it easier for us to get it over the line, ultimately, and finished and get it to the president's desk by July 4.
'That's a big thing.'
House Republicans are quick to acknowledge that some Senate changes are inevitable — even welcome.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), for instance, said the House bill leaves some confusion about whether refugees in the country legally can qualify for food assistance benefits under the bill's reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and he hopes that the Senate clarifies. Major changes, though, would be more problematic.
In an early sign of trouble for House Republicans, a number of GOP senators are already rejecting parts of the lower chamber's bill — an indication that the package could return to the House in an entirely different form, which would likely spark a revolt from one wing or another.
'I think there will be considerable changes in the Senate,' Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Commerce Committee, said this week, specifying that the tweaks will likely be 'across the board' in the measure.
Republican senators are already voicing their dismay with the SALT provision included in the bill. New York, New Jersey and California — the three states most concerned by SALT — are completely represented by Democrats in the Senate, leaving the issue with no GOP champions in the upper chamber.
'There's not one Republican in the United States Senate who gives a s— about SALT,' Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. 'Having said that, what does matter is 218 votes in the House, and we want to be cognizant about that.'
Some senators are also eyeing changes to the Medicaid language in the House bill. The legislation beefs up work requirements for able-bodied individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 and institutes more frequent eligibility checks, among other provisions.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill would result in 10.3 million people losing Medicaid coverage by 2034 and 7.6 million people going uninsured, prompting concerns among some Senate Republicans. That review was released before the House expedited the implementation of the work requirements.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has been most vocal about the worries pertaining to Medicaid, writing in a New York Times op-ed earlier this month that Medicaid cuts are 'both morally wrong and politically suicidal.'
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) have also noted concerns about changes to the social safety net program, which further suggests the Senate is ready to shift the legislation to the center, not the right.
Trump, who intervened at the last minute to get the House bill passed, remains a wildcard in the Senate debate. But a source close to the White House noted that there's a short list of GOP senators — including Collins, Murkowski, Hawley and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who can steer the direction of the bill on behalf of others without feeling pressured by Trump.
'A group of them are going to say, 'Hey, we're not going to just bow down to these things, which we believe are draconian, right?'' the source said. 'They're going to be a problem for our constituency, but more importantly, our colleagues.'
Senate Republicans can afford to lose only three of their own and get the legislation over the finish line. And they are already down to two: Rep. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he is a hard no on the House bill unless it removes the $4 trillion debt limit hike — an unlikely scenario as a summer default looms.
'It's not conservative; I can't support it,' Paul said.
As House Republicans warn against changes to their preferred provisions in the bill, some of the same voices are holding out hope that whatever product returns from the Senate to the lower chamber will be more conservative — an aspiration that is sure to leave them disappointed as Senate Republicans push to bring the package more towards the middle.
Roy, for example, said he voted for the bill despite 'significant reservations,' noting that it needs 'massive improvements.'
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, echoed that sentiment, arguing that the Senate can make inroads in areas that the upper chamber is already looking to water down.
'I'm hoping the Senate can address the two issues that I think still are there,' Harris said. 'One, the early deficit increases in the 10-year window. And the other one is getting at more of the fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid.'
But if the Senate tries to weaken the legislation, he warned, all bets are off.
'We'll reconsider our support,' he told reporters of such a scenario.
Alex Gangitano and Al Weaver contributed reporting.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care
The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care

New York Post

time31 minutes ago

  • New York Post

The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care

The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. 7 The Supreme Court has 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. REUTERS Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 7 The oldest unresolved case stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law on transgender youth AP 7 The court is weighing the case amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, such as which bathrooms they can use, and pushes to keep transgender athletes from playing in girls' sports. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. 7 Protesters confront law enforcement outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Los Angeles. Getty Images These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. 7 A majority of the court last month expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. REUTERS The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. 7 LGBTQ+ veterans hold signs protesting the ban on transgender military members as they march in the World Pride parade in Washington, DC on June 7. Nathan Posner/Shutterstock The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. 7 The case about Louisiana congressional maps involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court. AP Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.

Trump told Putin U.S. is ready to resume nuclear talks with Iran, Kremlin says
Trump told Putin U.S. is ready to resume nuclear talks with Iran, Kremlin says

Axios

time32 minutes ago

  • Axios

Trump told Putin U.S. is ready to resume nuclear talks with Iran, Kremlin says

President Trump told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call on Saturday that White House envoy Steve Witkoff is ready to resume nuclear talks with Iran's foreign minister, the Russian president's foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov said. Why it matters: Putin, in previous phone calls, proposed that Trump help in the nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran. The current crisis between Israel and Iran will be a test case for Trump's strategy of mending relations between the U.S. and Russia in order to solve crisis around the world together. Driving the news: The nuclear talks planned for Sunday in Muscat have been cancelled due to the Israeli attack against Iran, the foreign minister of Oman Badr al-Busaidi said. "While there will be no meeting Sunday, we remain committed to talks and hope the Iranians will come to the table soon," a U.S. official said. Trump told Axios on Friday that he thinks the Israeli strikes on Iran might help in pushing Iran toward a nuclear deal. Trump and Putin both spoke on Friday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Putin spoke to Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian. Putin told both Netanyahu and Pezeshkian that he is ready to mediate between the parties to prevent further escalation of tensions, the Kremlin said. Behind the scenes: Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi told the EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas on Saturday that Iran will not continue its negotiations with the U.S. as long as the Israeli attack on Iran continues. He claimed the U.S. directly supports the Israeli strikes, the Iranian foreign ministry said. But two sources with direct knowledge said Araghchi told several foreign ministers in the last 36 hours that Iran will be willing to resume negotiations with the U.S. once its retaliation for the Israeli attack is over. What they're saying: Ushakov said in a briefing with reporters that Putin and Trump spoke for 50 minutes and discussed the war between Israel and Iran.

The Resistance 2.0 arrives with nationwide ‘No Kings' protests
The Resistance 2.0 arrives with nationwide ‘No Kings' protests

Politico

time33 minutes ago

  • Politico

The Resistance 2.0 arrives with nationwide ‘No Kings' protests

As President Donald Trump's military parade rolls through the nation's capital on Saturday, millions of Americans across the country are taking part in the largest coordinated protests against the president since the start of his second administration. But while Trump's parade aims to show America's military prowess in its new era — remade under the administration's anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policies — over 2,000 protests planned for major cities and small towns across the country are expected to outdo the president's parade in scale. The demonstrations, organized by an extensive list of progressive organizations including the ACLU, Indivisible and the Service Employees International Union, are dubbed 'No Kings' protests, aiming to highlight Americans' resistance to the Trump administration. 'No Kings is really about standing up for democracy, standing up for people's rights and liberties in this country and against the gross abuse of power that we've seen consistently from the Trump administration,' ACLU's chief political and advocacy officer Deirdre Schifeling said in an interview earlier this military parade and the nationwide counterprotest come at a time of heightened political tensions across the country. In the last week alone, Trump deployed the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles over the objection of state and local officials amid protests — and some unrest — over the president's extensive deportation agenda; Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was manhandled and briefly handcuffed at a press conference for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; and two Minnesota state lawmakers were shot, and one killed, early Saturday in what Minnesota Gov. Tim Waltz described it as a politically motivated assination. Over 100 of the protests were planned by volunteers in the past week alone, organizers said, popping up in response to the Trump administration's crackdown on anti-immigration detention protesters in California. 'The Trump administration's goal was to scare people, to make them afraid to stand up for their rights and afraid to protest and stand up for their immigrant neighbors. And it's backfired spectacularly,' Schifeling said. But Saturday's early morning shooting in Minnesota is already weighing on the events. A spokesperson to one prominent battleground Democratic Senate candidate with plans to participate in the demonstrations, granted anonymity to discuss security procedures, said that they are taking extra precautions after the attack in Minnesota. Walz recommended that people not attend events in the state in the aftermath of the killings. 'Out of an abundance of caution my Department of Public Safety is recommending that people do not attend any political rallies today in Minnesota until the suspect is apprehended,' he wrote on social media. But organizers elsewhere said the events will go on. Diane Morgan, a Cleveland-based mobilization coordinator with Our Revolution, said that in the wake of the shooting she's hearing from people on the ground who are saying that 'more than anything else, it makes people more determined, much like what happened with L.A.,' to attend a protest Saturday. Democratic governors in several states — including North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs — released statements on the eve of the planned demonstrations, emphasizing the right to peacefully protest but urging Americans taking to the streets to remain peaceful. 'The right to peacefully protest is sacred and enshrined in our First Amendment, and I will always work to protect that right,' Stein said. 'I urge everyone who wishes to be heard to do so peacefully and lawfully.' While No Kings demonstrations are planned across the nation in what organizers expect to be 'the largest single day of protest in recent American history,' no protests are slated to take place in Washington itself. 'Rather than give him the excuse to crack down on peaceful counterprotests in downtown D.C., or give him the narrative device to claim that we're protesting the military, we said, okay, you can have downtown D.C.,' Ezra Levin, the co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, said. 'Instead, we should organize it everywhere else.' The military parade — which is set to mark the army's 250th anniversary, but also happens to fall on Trump's 79th birthday — will include over 6,000 marching soldiers, battle tanks and other military vehicles, as well as military aircraft accompanying the procession overhead. Army estimates place the cost of the festivities somewhere between $25 and $45 million, an expense that 60 percent of Americans say is not a good use of funds. But Saturday's festivities may yet face obstacles, with thunderstorms predicted to hit the city in the evening. But Trump is unfazed. 'OUR GREAT MILITARY PARADE IS ON, RAIN OR SHINE. REMEMBER, A RAINY DAY PARADE BRINGS GOOD LUCK. I'LL SEE YOU ALL IN D.C.,' the president wrote in a post on Truth Social Saturday morning. Trump has maintained, in the face of the No Kings protests, that he does not view himself as a monarch. 'No, no. We're not a king,' Trump said at the White House on Thursday. 'We're not a king at all, thank you very much.' Schifeling said she finds Trump's objections 'laughable.' 'This is a person who violates the law at every turn, and is doing everything in his power to intimidate and crush — using the vast power of the presidency and also power that he doesn't even have — to crush anybody that he perceives as disagreeing with him or as his enemies. Those are the actions of a king,' she said. Adam Wren contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store