logo
Trump wants his ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill' to sail through the Senate. These five factions stand in the way

Trump wants his ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill' to sail through the Senate. These five factions stand in the way

Yahoo4 days ago

On Monday evening, the U.S. Senate returns from a week-long recess to take up President Donald Trump's proposed domestic spending bill, which he's dubbed the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.'
The House of Representatives barely passed the bill last month in the wee hours of May 22. It was a coup for House Speaker Mike Johnson.
But passing it through the House was only halftime. And while House Republicans were just as divided as Senate Republicans, the upper chamber GOP has to navigate stricter and more arcane rules.
Senate Republicans have only 53 votes, which is not enough to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Thus, they plan to use a process called budget reconciliation, wherein they can pass legislation with only 51 votes as long as it is tied to the budget.
Trump has also said he understands the Senate will inevitably change the bill.
'I want the Senate and the senators to make the changes they want,' he told reporters. 'It will go back to the House and we'll see if we can get them. In some cases, the changes may be something I'd agree with, to be honest.'
The bill also represents Senate Majority Leader John Thune's first major challenge. Thune inherited the mantle from his mentor Mitch McConnell after serving as the whip for Republicans since 2019. But to get this bill across the finish line, he will need to satisfy multiple factions and leaders in the Senate.
Here are the five groups that Thune will need to navigate.
The Fiscal Hawks
The Senate does not have a formal group of conservatives who want to slash spending the way that the House does with the Freedom Caucus. But they still have a bevy of fiscal conservatives.
Chief among them is Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who last month told The Independent that reductions in spending were 'fake cuts.' Other senators in this faction include Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who challenged Thune for the top job in the Senate last year, told Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk that he is a 'no' on the bill in its current form. To win them over, Thune will need to probably exact some kind of spending cuts. But that might infuriate the next group.
The MAGA populists
No part of the bill has received more attention than the changes to Medicaid. Specifically, the legislation would require able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, participate in community service or education for at least 80 hours a month.
In a last-minute deal to appease conservatives, House Republican leaders moved up the work requirements to begin at the end of 2026 rather than in 2029. Republicans who hail from states that expanded Medicaid might also fret about this.
Chief among these Republicans is Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who has sought to reorient the GOP to become the party of working-class voters and has adopted a more populist tone compared to other Republicans. Hawley has said he would oppose major changes to Medicaid because of how many people in his state depend on it and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
If the Senate keeps the changes to Medicaid made in the House or goes even further on Medicaid, expect Hawley to stand up.
The Moderates and the front-liners
Republicans have a pretty favorable map in the coming midterms. With 53 seats, they only truly face risks in two swing state races: Thom Tillis' re-election campaign in North Carolina and Susan Collins' campaign in Michigan.
Tillis for the most part has focused on renewing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the 2017 tax cuts that Trump signed in his first presidency. But Tillis also joined Sens. John Curtis of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, the most moderate Republican senator, on a letter calling to preserve renewable energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act, former president Joe Biden's signature climate legislation.
The House legislation phases out many of the credits and some conservatives, such as the aforementioned Lee and Scott, want a rollback in those credits.
Historically, Republican moderates and swing-state incumbents have to eat the provisions conservatives insert into legislation. But if a handful of them break, there is a chance they might have leverage.
The Senate Parliamentarian
The most important person that Thune may have to convince is not even a senator, but rather a mostly anonymous rule keeper — the Senate parliamentarian.
Consider the parliamentarian as the Senate's referee who polices the rules. The current parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, is seen by most as an impartial arbiter of the rules. MacDonough will be responsible for subjecting the bill to what is called the 'Byrd Bath,' the strict criteria for what can be included in budget reconciliation, named for the late majority leader Robert Byrd.
Perhaps the biggest peril for Republicans will be if she rules that the revenue and spending parts of the bill are 'merely incidental' to the parts that do not relate directly to the budget.
MacDonough infuriated progressive Democrats twice during Biden's presidency: once when she advised against allowing a minimum wage increase in the American Rescue Plan, Democrats' Covid relief legislation; and a second time when during the deliberations for Build Back Better when she advised against allowing immigration reform.
Already, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats plan to challenge the provision in the bill to restrict the ability of courts to hold government officials in contempt. Also expect other provisions on immigration and the ban on using Medicaid dollars to pay for gender-affirming care to be challenged.
Donald Trump
Yes, the president could become a stumbling block to his own bill.
Even if Thune satisfies all members of his conference and gets most of the bill through the so-called Byrd Bath, Trump's approval matters most. While the president has never cared much about the intricacies of policies, he responds to public perception and opinion.
If he thinks the bill will cause backlash as modified in the Senate because of spending or Medicaid cuts, he might send Thune back to the drawing board.
Also, if it does not go far enough on beefing up immigration enforcement, he could balk and send it back.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump asks Supreme Court to green light Education Department firings
Trump asks Supreme Court to green light Education Department firings

Politico

time8 minutes ago

  • Politico

Trump asks Supreme Court to green light Education Department firings

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to give the go-ahead to carry out a plan to fire almost 40 percent of the Education Department's workforce. In an emergency appeal filed Friday morning, Solicitor General John Sauer asked the high court to lift a preliminary injunction a federal judge in Boston issued last month after determining that such sweeping staffing cuts would cripple the agency's ability to carry out functions assigned to it by Congress. While Trump has vowed to eliminate the Education Department, Sauer insisted that the proposed, wide-ranging reductions in force target 'inefficiency' and are not an attempt to kneecap the agency as the president advocates for its demise. Sauer said Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's order was part of a pattern of federal judges overstepping their proper role and second-guessing executive branch decisions. The Constitution 'does not empower district courts to presume that all 1,400 employees must be reinstated to their previous jobs and functions based on anecdotal speculation about impairment of some of the Department's services,' Sauer wrote, adding: 'The Department remains committed to implementing its statutorily mandated functions.' Joun issued the injunction May 22 in connection with lawsuits brought by Democratic-led states, the Somerville, Massachusetts, public school system and several labor unions. Noting that Trump has repeatedly vowed to shutter the Education Department 'immediately,' the Biden appointee concluded that the layoffs amounted to 'an attempt … to shut down the Department without Congressional approval.' The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Joun's order, although the administration's appeal remains pending. In April, the Supreme Court stepped in at the administration's request to block an order Joun issued in a separate lawsuit involving the Education Department. That directive required the agency to keep funding certain teaching-related grants that Trump appointees had sought to terminate. Four of the high court's nine justices dissented from the stay blocking Joun's order in that case. In an emergency appeal already pending at the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is trying to lift a block a federal judge in San Francisco issued on tens of thousands of layoffs at all major federal agencies except for the Education Department.

Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump
Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump

The Hill

time8 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Jeffries declines to embrace Musk amid the billionaire's feud with Trump

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is keeping his distance from Elon Musk even after the billionaire's extraordinary public rebuke of President Trump and the GOP's domestic agenda. Asked Friday if Musk's bitter break from Trump presents Democrats with an opportunity to form a strange-bedfellows alliance with the tech titan, Jeffries shifted the conversation immediately to the Democrats' efforts to kill Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' 'The opportunity that exists right now is to kill the GOP tax scam,' Jeffries told reporters in the Capitol. 'It's legislation that we have been strongly opposed to, and uniformly opposed to, from the very beginning. … It rips health care away from millions of people. It snatches food out of the mouths of hungry children. And it rewards billionaires and [GOP] donors in ways that are fiscally irresponsible.' Pressed on whether Musk should be 'welcomed back' to the Democratic Party after the high-profile split from Trump, Jeffries punted again. 'Same answer,' he said. Jeffries cautious remarks demonstrate the limits of the old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They also highlight the potential difficulties Democrats would face if they embraced a polarizing and nationally unpopular figure in Musk — one they've spent most of the last year bashing for heavy spending on Trump's campaign and, more recently, for his role in heading Trump's efforts to gut the federal government. Still, some Democrats say Musk's influence is significant enough that Democrats should make the effort to try to court him to their side amid the Trump feud. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents parts of Silicon Valley, is leading the charge. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' Khanna posted Thursday on X, which is owned by Musk. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.' Jeffries isn't going nearly so far. But he has welcomed Musk's attacks on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and the Republicans who voted for it. And he aligned Democrats with Musk's sentiments that the package piles too much money onto the federal debt, a figure the Congressional Budget Office estimated to be $2.4 trillion. 'To the extent that Elon Musk has made the same point that everyone who has voted for this bill up until this moment should be ashamed of themselves, we agree,' Jeffries said. 'And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the point that the bill is a 'disgusting abomination,' we agree. And to the extent that Elon Musk has made the observation about the GOP tax scam — that it is reckless and irresponsible to explode the deficit by more than $3 trillion, and that potentially could set our country on a path toward bankruptcy — we agree.' 'These are arguments that Democrats have been making now for months.'

Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules
Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules

The Hill

time8 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump administration issues rule undermining Biden car fuel efficiency rules

The Trump administration on Friday took a step to undermine Biden-era rules that tightened fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks. The Transportation Department published an interpretive rule that says that the Biden administration improperly considered electric vehicles as a way to make vehicle fleets more efficient While this determination does not formally end the Biden-era rule, the Trump administration indicated that while the rulemaking process plays out it may not enforce the Biden-era standards. 'Pending the rulemaking process for the establishment of replacement standards, [the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] will exercise its enforcement authority with regard to all existing… standards in accordance with the interpretation set forth in this rule,' it stated. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, in a written statement, accused the previous administration of trying to push an electric vehicle 'mandate.' 'Under President Trump's leadership, we are making vehicles more affordable and easier to manufacture in the United States,' Duffy said. 'The previous administration illegally used [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards as an electric vehicle mandate.' The Biden administration issued a rule requiring cars to be about 2 percent more fuel efficient each year while heavy duty pickup trucks and vans would have to be 10 percent more efficient each year from 2030 to 2032 and 8 percent more efficient in the years after. President Trump has long talked about getting rid of the Biden administration's efforts to promote electric vehicles. He has argued that these efforts harm consumers' freedom to choose what kinds of cars they want to drive and could lead to strife for autoworkers. Democrats, meanwhile, have argued that shifting toward more electric vehicles would mitigate air pollution and climate change – and put the U.S. at the forefront of an emerging market. While Trump has long lamented the previous administration's electric vehicle policy, the release of the administration's determination comes just one day after an explosive feud emerged between the president and Tesla mogul Elon Musk. The Transportation Department rules came alongside a separate, more stringent regulation for vehicle tailpipe emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that in practice has a greater effect on the vehicle market's fuel efficiency and is not impacted by the Trump administration's latest maneuver. However, the department's fuel economy rules would act as a backstop if the EPA rule was to be overturned. Republicans are attempting to eliminate that rule through their 'big, beautiful bill.'

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