6 Senate Republicans who could hold up Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Senate Republicans will take control of the party's mammoth tax and domestic policy bill when they return to Washington on Monday — and seek to win over a diverse group of GOP lawmakers agitating for changes to the legislation.
Members are staring down a key four-week stretch to hammer out provisions of the bill, with their Fourth of July goal in sight and pressure mounting to complete President Trump's top domestic agenda priority.
The bill narrowly passed the House last month after Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) struck a fragile compromise with different factions of his conference.
But there are still Senate Republicans who could gum up the works as Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) works to shepherd the legislation through the upper chamber with only three votes to spare.
Here's a look at a half-dozen of those lawmakers to watch in the coming weeks.
Murkowski, one of the foremost Senate GOP moderates, is atop the list of the members Thune and his leadership team will have to win over, and she has already indicated she has a number of concerns.
Although Murkowski voted for the Senate GOP's budget resolution — which served as the blueprint for the bill — in early April, she told reporters she was worried about three items.
Among those is the impact of potential Medicaid work requirements, as she believes her state will have trouble implementing them due to its outdated payment systems for the program.
'There are provisions in there that are very, very, very challenging if not impossible for us to implement,' Murkowski said.
She has also expressed worries about what the Medicaid changes could mean for tribal communities in her state, which are heavily reliant on Medicaid for health coverage.
On top of that, she and three of her colleagues have expressed concerns with language in the House bill that would nix wind, solar and geothermal energy tax credits that were put in place by the Inflation Reduction Act.
He's not a name that usually ends up on these lists, but Hawley has been perhaps the most vocal member of the Senate GOP conference about potential cuts to Medicaid benefits.
He has maintained that the Medicaid cuts are a red line for him in backing the final package — even as conservatives in the House have shown an interest in taking a hatchet to the health care program.
And he has a key player in the entire effort seemingly on his side.
'We ought to just do what the president says,' Hawley told reporters last month after the House passed the bill.
Two days earlier, Trump had told House Republicans in a closed-door meeting to 'leave Medicaid alone.'
Hawley added that he spoke with Trump about the state of play.
'His exact words were, 'Don't touch it, Josh,'' Hawley told reporters. 'I said, 'Hey, we're on the same page.''
Hawley has also shown a willingness to take that stand on the floor. During the chamber's first vote-a-rama in February, Hawley sided with Democrats on an amendment that would have prevented tax cuts for wealthy Americans if Medicaid funding is slashed.
Any cuts to Medicaid beneficiaries would hit the Show Me State hard in particular given that 21 percent of Missourians rely on the program or the Children's Health Insurance Program, the companion insurance program for lower-income children.
Collins stands out as one of only two Republicans — along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — to vote against the party's budget resolution in April, though she is the far more likely of the two to vote 'aye' when push comes to shove on final passage.
The Maine Republican has continuously expressed opposition to reductions in federal Medicaid funding and shifting costs to the states, sounding the alarm on the effect doing so would have on her state's rural hospitals. Maine's rural hospitals intensely rely on the health care program, and cuts could deal a crippling blow, she argues.
Collins cited that issue in her vote against the budget blueprint, and she has kept up the drumbeat.
'Medicaid is a critically important program for Maine's health care system and a vital resource for many seniors, low-income families, disabled patients, and those who cannot work,' Collins said in a statement at the time. 'I cannot support proposals that would create more duress for our hospitals and providers that are already teetering on the edge of insolvency.'
She said last week, on the eve of the House passing the measure, that 'we're still trying to figure out what the provider tax reforms are, but I'm very worried about our rural hospitals in Maine.'
Collins was also the only other Senate Republican to vote with Hawley and Democrats for the vote-a-rama Medicaid amendment in February.
Her up-in-the-air standing is nothing new for the GOP, especially on a single-party effort. Eight years ago, Collins was a split decision on the GOP's two reconciliation bills.
She voted alongside Murkowski and the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) against the party's plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Months later, though, she backed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The GOP's current tax agenda would likely make those 2017 cuts permanent.
If there's one Republican senator who is the most likely to oppose the package at the end of the day, it's Paul.
The Kentucky Republican has been a loud critic of the bill over its inclusion of a debt ceiling hike and lack of deficit reduction.
Paul has made clear that his red line for any bill is a debt ceiling increase. But Republicans on both sides of the Capitol are seemingly intent on following through on Trump's wishes to include it and help the party avoid giving Democratic concessions in any possible negotiation.
This means that without any changes, Paul will be a 'no,' and Senate GOP leaders have less breathing room than they had hoped, capping their votes at 52 in the process.
'I've told them if they'll take the debt ceiling off of it, I'll consider voting for it,' Paul said last week after the House vote about his talks with GOP leadership. 'It's not conservative; I can't support it.'
'The spending reductions are imperfect, and I think wimpy, but I'd still vote for the package if I didn't have to vote to raise the debt ceiling,' he added.
Senate GOP leaders have long had to worry about the concerns of moderates, but it's Johnson and his fellow conservatives who are making their complaints known over what they view as unacceptable levels of cuts.
Johnson has not gone nearly as far as Paul in saying he is prepared to oppose a final bill, but he has hinted that conservatives may throw their weight around.
'We need to be responsible, and the first goal of our budget reconciliation process should be to reduce the deficit,' Johnson told CNN last weekend. 'This actually increases it.'
'I think we have enough [senators] to stop the process until the president gets serious about the spending reduction and reducing the deficit,' Johnson added.
Johnson has been vocal about his desire to see greater spending reductions, pointing to the roughly $4 trillion the bill would add to the deficit in its current form.
He has voiced a preference to move toward pre-COVID spending levels, arguing that this is the U.S.'s last chance to do so.
Tillis, a moderate-leaning senator eyeing what could be a close reelection race in 2026, has aired multiple points of concern, headlined by the axing of energy tax incentives in the bill.
He has told colleagues that the swift termination of the credits enacted by the Inflation Reduction Act will cause major harm to numerous companies in North Carolina and force them to scramble after years of planning.
He pointed specifically to former President Biden's abrupt killing of the Keystone XL Pipeline four years ago and how it has left investors second-guessing whether to back similar projects.
'A wholesale repeal, or the termination of certain individual credits, would create uncertainty, jeopardizing capital allocation, long-term project planning, and job creation in the energy sector and across our broader economy,' Tillis, Murkowski and Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) wrote to Thune back in early April.
Adding to the drama for Tillis, he is staring down one of the two most contentious Senate races on the 2026 map, forcing him to shore up potential weak points as Democrats look to pounce — and giving leadership an incentive to hand him a win for his voters back home.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
9 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump, DOJ threaten Calif. with legal action, fines after trans athlete's win
Days after a 16-year-old transgender athlete placed first in two events at the California state track-and-field championship, the Trump administration is threatening legal action and 'large scale' fines over the state's policy allowing trans athletes to compete in high school sports. In a letter addressed to the state's public school districts, Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, said on Monday that the California Interscholastic Federation violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause with its bylaw stating that all students 'should have the opportunity to participate in CIF activities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on a student's records.' The letter directed school districts to certify in writing by June 9 that they wouldn't follow the bylaw.


Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Cities Consider Using Eminent Domain For Unholy Property Seizures
A person takes a picture of the childhood home of the new Pope Leo XIV in Dolton, Illinois, (Photo ... More by KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images) Robert Prevost grew up in a modest home in the south Chicago suburb of Dolton, Illinois. Recently, a realty company purchased that old home, fixed it up, and put it up for sale. Then a few weeks ago, Robert Prevost became Pope Leo XIV. Now that modest home is in demand. The house is supposed to be auctioned off, with bidding starting at $250,000. How much of a premium will people pay for the childhood home of a Pope? Ten percent? Twenty? Nobody knows because this hasn't happened before—we can't make a guess based on past sales of 'childhood Pope homes.' And we may never find out. Dolton officials are threatening to use eminent domain to force a sale so the home can become a publicly accessible historic site. But while taking the home for a public use meets the constitution's requirements to take property, the price the city ends up paying could be less than divine. When the government takes property through eminent domain, the constitution says it must pay 'just compensation' for the property, which courts say is whatever price the property would fetch on the open market. But figuring out what that price is can be tricky, and the government often stiffs property owners when it can get away with it. ProPublica had a series of articles several years ago showing how the federal government paid very different prices for property depending on whether owners could afford attorneys. That's where the planned auction would have been helpful. After all, the best evidence of how big a 'Pope premium' the house commands on the open market would be an auction on the open market. And that may well be why the city moved so quickly: In May, city officials darkly warned the current owner to make sure bidders knew 'their 'purchase' may be only temporary since the Village intends to begin the eminent domain process very shortly.' If the city can suppress bids at the auction, it leaves itself the option of arguing that the real value of the property is what the home was on sale for before the Pope's elevation: $199,900. It could even argue it should be lower than that. The Pope himself has been quite busy and hasn't commented specifically on what should happen with his old family home, but Christian Britschgi writing for Reason noted that his first included the line: "[Saint] Peter must shepherd the flock without ever yielding to the temptation to be an autocrat.' The actual 'fair market' price for a Pope's childhood home may be high or it may be low, but Dolton shouldn't be afraid of the truth. And it shouldn't be using public power to try to stop the current owners' efforts to find out exactly what their property is worth in the real world. Meanwhile, a city in New Jersey is considering another unholy use of eminent domain, except here it is directed squarely at a church. In Toms River, the Christ Episcopal Church wants to open a small homeless shelter on its property. But the town has a different plan for the church's property: pickleball courts and a skate park. Christ Episcopal hosts a number of community programs, including an affordable housing nonprofit. That nonprofit recently submitted plans to the zoning board for a 17-bed overnight shelter on the church property. Like many areas across America, rising home prices have contributed to rising homelessness across New Jersey. One group estimates that the number of homeless residents in the region has doubled in recent years. But for the mayor of Toms River, a new park complex along the city's eponymous river is a priority. He said the church's property is, 'a great opportunity for parking, for recreation.' Broader plans for the area include taking nearby waterfront property to build a tiki bar and jet ski rentals. The church found out about the effort to seize its property a mere 24 hours before the city council first considered a measure. It passed by a 4-3 vote in a contentious meeting where council members yelled at each other. A second approval may come this week. That the vote to take the property came just three weeks before the zoning board considered the application for the shelter is far too convenient. The Fifth Amendment allows government to take property for public use and parks usually fit that definition. But the town doesn't want a park so much as it doesn't want a homeless shelter. Whether or not this kind of bad faith use of eminent domain is constitutional is a somewhat open question. For instance, in nearby Connecticut the state supreme court rejected an attempt to stop an affordable housing development with sham playing fields. Massachusetts, Georgia, and Rhode Island similarly prohibit these so-called pre-textual takings. Last fall, the Supreme Court almost took up the case of a Long Island hardware store chain that lost its property to a town for a 'passive park' (the town had no plan to develop the land). Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito said they would have granted the case but four votes are needed to achieve Supreme Court review. Pretextual takings are an incredible threat to private property. As long as the government is willing to pay the 'fair market' price practically any property can be seized. That market price doesn't include whatever an owner might spend in court trying to keep their property. Challenging even the most outlandish use of eminent domain could mean coming out the other end of the process without a home or business and poorer for it. The Asbury Park Press speculated that the New Jersey episcopal diocese's poor financial situation may be a consideration in whether it negotiates or resists. For now though, the church has indicated it will fight and it has support from other area houses of worship. The mayor has talked about the need to 'balance the hardships' of a community without a park and speculated that the church congregants could simply 'drive to a different location every Sunday.' This is a grim view of governing that is fundamentally at odds with America's traditions of property and religious rights. Christ Episcopal has been in Toms River since 1865 and it wants to use its property to fulfill its religious mission to care for the poor at no expense to the town. The mayor wants to provide convenient recreation at cost to the taxpayers. The U.S. Constitution gave government the power of eminent domain but courts shouldn't merely roll over whenever government presents a plan to take private property. The Fifth Amendment also says that no one should be deprived of their property without due process of law. When the government presents an unholy use of eminent domain, judges should consider all the facts and uphold justice.


Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
Pamela Bach-Hasselhoff's last call to daughter came shortly before her death
This story discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Details on Pamela Bach-Hasselhoff's sudden death have been revealed. According to the Los Angeles Medical Examiner's report obtained by Fox News Digital, Bach-Hasselhoff died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound on March 5. The report also stated that the benzodiazepines clonazepam and 7-aminoclonazepam were in her system at the time of her death. According to the Mayo Clinic, clonazepam and 7-aminoclonazepam can be used to treat panic disorders. Bach-Hasselhoff's final words were revealed in the medical examiner's report. At approximately 7:45 am on March 5, Bach-Hasselhoff called her daughter and said that she "loved her very much." After the call, her daughter called and texted her throughout the day and "never" received a response, the report stated. Bach-Hasselhoff's daughter went to her mother's house to perform a wellness check and found her "unresponsive" on her bed. The report alleges that Bach-Hasselhoff "mentioned suicide last year, but there were never any attempts" and that she was "depressed." The report did not name Bach-Hasselhoff's daughter. Pamela and her ex-husband, David Hasselhoff, met on the set of "Knight Rider" and married in 1989. They welcomed their two daughters, Taylor and Hayley, in 1990 and 1992 and divorced in 2006. "Our family is deeply saddened by the recent passing of Pamela Hasselhoff," David shared on social media at the time of Pamela's death. "We are grateful for the outpouring of love and support during this difficult period but kindly request privacy as we grieve and navigate through this challenging time." Pamela and David appeared alongside each other in "Baywatch" for 10 seasons. She also landed roles in "The Young and the Restless," "The Fall Guy" and "Sirens." Pamela celebrated her family in the last post she shared on Instagram. "As we step into 2025, my heart is full of gratitude, especially for my precious grandbaby, London," the actress wrote on New Year's Eve. "Watching her grow and seeing her smile light up my world is truly the greatest blessing. My wish for all of you this year is health, happiness, and an abundance of love. May 2025 be filled with beautiful moments, laughter, and all the blessings your hearts can hold." "Here's to a year of making cherished memories, spreading joy, and embracing every precious moment!" After a 16-year marriage, David filed for divorce from Pamela, citing irreconcilable differences. The divorce was finalized in 2006, and the court awarded joint custody of their daughters. "I've always loved him and always will, and have love and compassion for him," Pamela told The Associated Press at the time. "It's a very, very sad day, but a day to move on."