Senate opens debate on Trump's bill estimated to add $3.3tn to US debt
The US Senate opened debate on Donald Trump's sprawling domestic policy legislation on Sunday, the package of tax cuts, increased spending on immigration enforcement, and drastic reductions in funding for healthcare and nutrition assistance that the president calls his 'big beautiful bill'.
Formal debate on the measure began after Democrats forced Senate clerks to read the entire 940-page bill aloud, to underscore their argument that the public is largely unaware of what the package Trump branded 'beautiful' actually contains, and to delay a final vote until Monday.
After the debate, amendments could be brought up for consideration in a marathon session colloquially known as a vote-a-rama.
The changes made to the bill in the Senate would pile trillions on to the nation's debt load while resulting in even steeper losses in healthcare coverage, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said in a new analysis, adding to the challenges for Republicans as they try to muscle the bill to passage.
The CBO estimates the Senate bill would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3tn from 2025 to 2034, a nearly $1tn increase over the House-passed bill, which CBO has projected would add $2.4tn to the debt over a decade.
The analysis also found that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law, an increase over the scoring for the House-passed version of the bill, which predicts 10.9 million more people would be without health coverage.
The stark numbers are yet another obstacle for Republican leaders as they labor to pass Trump's bill by his self-imposed 4 July deadline.
After the new cost of the bill was released, Trump used his social media platform, Truth Social, to cajole and threaten lawmakers from his own party. In a Sunday evening post, the president urged Republicans concerned about adding to the debt not to 'go too crazy', and reminded them that elected officials who cross him tend not to stay in office long. 'REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected', the president wrote.
Wavering Republicans probably understood Trump's comment loud and clear, coming just hours after one of their number, Thom Tillis, a North Carolina senator, voted against advancing the bill on Saturday and was subjected to a torrent of threats and attacks from the president. Tillis announced on Sunday that he would not stand for re-election in the 2026 midterms.
Even before the CBO's estimate, Republicans were at odds over the contours of the legislation, with some resisting the cost-saving proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid and food aid programs, even as other Republicans say those proposals don't go far enough. Republicans are slashing the programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8tn in Trump tax breaks put in place during his first term.
The push-pull was on vivid display on Saturday night as a routine procedural vote to take up the legislation in the Senate was held open for hours as Vice-President JD Vance and Republican leaders met with several holdouts. The bill ultimately advanced in a 51-49 vote, but the path ahead is fraught, with voting on amendments still to come.
Still, many Republicans are disputing the CBO estimates and the reliability of the office's work. To hoist the bill to passage, they are using a different budget baseline that assumes the Trump tax cuts expiring in December have already been extended, essentially making them cost-free in the budget.
The CBO on Saturday released a separate analysis of the GOP's preferred approach that found the Senate bill would reduce deficits by about $500bn.
Democrats and economists decry the GOP's approach as 'magic math' that obscures the true costs of the GOP tax breaks.
In addition, Democrats note that under the traditional scoring system, the Republican bill would violate the Senate's Byrd Rule that forbids the legislation from increasing deficits after 10 years.
In a Sunday letter to Jeff Merkley, an Oregon senator and the top Democrat on the Senate budget committee, CBO director Phillip Swagel said the office estimates that the finance committee's portion of the bill, also known as Title VII, 'increases the deficits in years after 2034' under traditional scoring.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
'I'm British but I can't live in my own country with my partner'
The UK government is facing calls to scrap an immigration policy which puts "untold stress" on British citizens who choose to marry or cohabit with someone from and settled residents wanting to sponsor their partner's visa application must earn a minimum income of £29,000 or have savings of £88, in Bristol and Stroud are urging the government to scrap the requirement which was brought in by the Conservatives to curb migration."What the government does next will make or break many families who just want to be together," said Caroline Coombs of the campaign group Reunite Families UK.A Home Office spokesperson said the minimum income policy "needs to balance a respect for family life while also maintaining the UK's economic stability" and it is considering findings from a Migration Advisory Committee review. For Rebecca Gray, 32, from Stroud in Gloucestershire, scrapping the policy would mean she could move back to the UK with her Turkish husband."I don't think people have any idea of how much harm the visa rules cause," she with a UK business but unable to meet the minimum income requirement, she has been living in Turkey for the past four with her husband, Baran, 31, they have been saving to apply for a visa through the savings said: "We're holding off having children because we've been so focused on saving money to get him a visa."Ms Gray said the couple has stronger family ties to the UK as her husband has lost both of his parents."We want to be close to family. Between us, we only have one parent left, that's my mum. "I'm forced to live thousands of miles away from my family if I want to be with my husband."Some countries, like the UK, set a minimum income requirement for a spouse while other countries, like France and the Netherlands, align it to their national minimum wage, the UK sets it at a higher Migration Observatory estimates that roughly half of the UK working population earn under £29,000. 'My kids think I'm the man in the phone' For a large number of applicants, the minimum income policy is not the only financial fees and NHS surcharges can cost more than £7,000 for a five-year route to settlement, excluding any legal fees."It's unfair that only the wealthy can bring their partner here," said Leighton Allen, from Worcester. Mr Allen, 30, works in retail and said he cannot meet the salary threshold to bring his Tanzanian fiancée and his two young children to the said he tries to see them as much as possible, which can be three weeks in a year."All I want is to be a father to my children but I feel that choice is taken away from me. I'm financially supporting them but they don't see me."He added: "They think I'm in the man in the phone."The minimum income requirement was first introduced in 2012 to ensure the British partner or settled resident earned enough to financially support their foreign partner in the UK without resorting to public funds. Last year, the salary threshold increased for the first time, from £18,600 to £29,000. 'I can't come home to care for my parents' Following Brexit and the end of free movement between the UK and EU countries, some British citizens who had been living abroad - like Sarah Douglas - are also finding it hard to return to the UK with their 42-year-old lives in Italy with her husband Matteo and their three wants to move back home to Scotland with her family to be close to her elderly parents, and help care for to follow the minimum income route, Ms Douglas would need to return without her Italian husband and accrue six months of UK payslips to apply for a spouse visa for him. "I could work as a teacher in the UK and my husband is a software engineer who would find work easily. "We're financially stable, we don't rely on any support, but we're able to do that because we're together," she avoid separation, they have been struggling to save £88,500 in order to apply via the savings route."Saving this much money is putting financial strain on us and it's taking years, but we feel it's our only option."She added: "If we were forced to separate, it would have a huge impact on us as a family. I've seen what that does to children and I don't want to put my children through that."A report by children's charity Coram found children in separated families showed signs of stress, anxiety and inability to focus in school. It also said that children living in families affected by the current minimum income requirement were likely to experience exacerbated challenges and poor mental report was commissioned by Reunite Families UK, a not-for-profit representing families affected by the UK family visa co-founder and executive director, Caroline Coombs, said: "We have nearly 6,000 couples and families who are suffering on a daily basis."People feel completely unheard by their own government and they can't understand why they can't be here with their loved ones," she added. Earlier this month, the Home Office said it would examine findings from a Migration Advisory Committee review and issue a response in due experts suggested lowering the current threshold and gave a number of possible said, for example, lowering it to £24,000 would help ease family reunification and increase net migration by roughly 1-3%.A Home Office spokesperson said: "We understand the Minimum Income Requirement for family visas needs to balance a respect for family life while also maintaining the UK's economic stability, which is why the Home Secretary commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to undertake a review."We are now considering its findings and will respond in due course." Migration is 'too high' Conservative MP for Kent, Katie Lam, who is opposition assistant whip, defended an increase in the minimum income requirement."Migration has been far too high for the last two decades and remains so," she said."The public has consistently asked successive governments to lower migration. "The last (Conservative) government promised to do exactly this, but like the governments before it, it did not deliver it."At a parliamentary debate about the family visa income requirement in January, she said: "The question is not should British citizens be able to bring their foreign spouses to the UK. "The question is, does it benefit the country as a whole for British citizens on lower salaries to bring foreign spouses here who are unable to get a visa any other way?"But co-leader of the Green Party and Bristol Central MP, Carla Denyer, who has called the minimum income requirement a 'tax on love', - and wants it scrapped."The Home Office is failing not just people who are moving to the UK but British people who already live here and just want to enjoy family life in peace," she said. "The minimum income requirement puts untold stress on couples and families and it should be scrapped entirely."Family doctor and Labour MP for Stroud, Simon Opher, sponsored an exhibition in the Houses of Parliament last week which showcased the human impact of the family visa rules. "We're splitting up people who love each other, splitting families who are the bedrock of our society, and I think it's the wrong policy," he said.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Benjamin Netanyahu corruption trial delayed on diplomatic and security grounds
An Israeli court has cancelled this week's hearings in Benjamin Netanyahu's long-running corruption trial, accepting a request made by the prime minister on classified diplomatic and security grounds. 'Following the explanations given … we partially accept the request and cancel at this stage Mr Netanyahu's hearings scheduled' for this week, the Jerusalem district court said in its ruling, published online by Netanyahu's Likud party. The ruling said that new reasons provided by Netanyahu, the head of Israel's spy agency the Mossad and the military intelligence chief justified cancelling the hearings. It comes after Donald Trump last week called for the case to be thrown out. In remarks on social media, the US president suggested the trial could interfere with Netanyahu's ability to join negotiations with the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran, adding that the US was 'not going to stand' for the continued prosecution, prompting Netanyahu to thank him in a message on X. In a social media post, Trump described the case against the Israeli premier as a 'witch hunt', saying the trial 'should be CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero'. Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust – all of which he denies. He has cast the trial against him as an orchestrated leftwing witch-hunt meant to topple a democratically elected rightwing leader. In one of the cases, he and his wife, Sara, are accused of accepting more than $260,000 worth of luxury goods such as cigars, jewellery and champagne from billionaires in exchange for political favours. In two others, Netanyahu is accused of attempting to negotiate more favourable coverage from two Israeli media outlets. The prime minister has requested multiple postponements to the trial since it began in May 2020. Netanyahu's lawyers had asked the court to excuse him from testifying over the next two weeks so he could focus on security issues after a ceasefire with Iran and amid ongoing fighting in Gaza where Israeli hostages are held. They submitted the prime minister's schedule to the court to demonstrate 'the national need for the prime minister to devote all his time and energy to the political, national and security issues at hand'. The court initially rejected the lawyers' request, but said in its ruling on Sunday that it had changed its judgment after hearing arguments from the prime minister and other senior officials. A spokesperson for the Israeli prosecution declined to comment on Trump's post. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said last week that Trump 'should not interfere in a judicial trial in an independent country'. Trump said Netanyahu was 'right now' negotiating a deal with Hamas, though neither leader provided details, and officials from both sides have voiced scepticism over prospects for a ceasefire soon. On Friday, the Republican president told reporters he believed a ceasefire was close. With Reuters and Agence France-Presse
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
US tariff relief for UK carmakers and aerospace comes into force
Car manufacturers exporting to the US will face a 10% tariff quota, down from 27.5%, while the aerospace sector will see a 10% levy removed entirely. Sir Keir hailed the 'historic trade deal' with the US, clinched after Donald Trump imposed the import taxes as part of his 'liberation day' tariffs on countries across the world. The Prime Minister and US president finalised the deal for those sectors at the G7 summit, but levies on steel have been left standing at 25% rather than falling to zero as originally agreed. Talks are ongoing to secure 0% tariffs on core steel products from the UK. The executive order signed by Mr Trump suggests the US wants assurances on the supply chains for UK steel intended for export, as well as on the 'nature of ownership' of production facilities. Sir Keir said: 'Our historic trade deal with the United States delivers for British businesses and protects UK jobs. 'From today, our world-class automotive and aerospace industries will see tariffs slashed, safeguarding key industries that are vital to our economy. 'We will always act in the national interest – backing British businesses and workers, delivering on our Plan for Change.' Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the deal would save hundreds of millions each year and safeguard thousands of jobs. 'We agreed this deal with the US to protect jobs and support growth in some of our most vital sectors – and today, we're delivering on that promise for the UK's world-class automotive and aerospace industries.' Kevin Craven, head of aerospace trade association ADS, said the sector 'hugely appreciated' the efforts to reach a deal. Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders chief executive Mike Hawes said the agreement was 'good news for US customers and a huge relief for the UK automotive companies that export to this critically important market'. The Government is also due to update Parliament on Monday on ethanol and quotas on US beef. Under the deal, it was agreed that a 20% tariff on US beef imports to the UK be removed and the quota for US beef raised to 13,000 metric tonnes. A 19% tariff on ethanol imports from the US is also due to be removed, with a tariff-free quota of 1.4 billion litres of US ethanol applied. The bioethanol industry says the deal has made it impossible to compete with heavily subsidised American products. The UK's largest bioethanol plant warned last week that it could be weeks from stopping production. Hull-based Vivergo Fuels said the start of talks with the Government was a 'positive signal' but that it was simultaneously beginning consultation with staff to wind down the plant.
