House GOP advances Trump megabill after Johnson calls conservative holdouts' bluff
The chamber voted 219-213 to adopt a rule governing debate on Trump's domestic agenda, opening up discussion on the megabill and teeing up a final vote on the package.
The vote was something of a gamble for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who has faced opposition to the legislation from various corners of his ideologically diverse conference. Heading into the rule vote, conservatives had warned that they would sink the procedural measure unless it was delayed beyond Wednesday.
Johnson called their bluff, held the vote open for more than five hours, and then adopted the rule after winning just enough support — an effort that got a big boost from Trump, who spoke with some of the holdouts during the long, midnight impasse.
Adoption of the rule sets the stage for Johnson and his leadership team to pass the legislation later Thursday morning, well ahead of their self-imposed July 4 deadline. The Senate had passed the same bill on Tuesday, so the legislation will head directly to Trump's desk, where he's expected to sign it with a ceremonial flourish on Independence Day.
The chamber adopted the rule after a whirlwind of an afternoon on Capitol Hill, which saw a different procedural vote stall for more than seven hours as holdouts huddled with Johnson and White House aides behind closed doors. It marked the longest vote in House history.
Hardline conservatives have hammered the 'big, beautiful bill,' wary that it cuts too little in federal spending and piles too much onto the national debt. Those concerns only grew after the package returned from the Senate, which had altered the initial House bill in ways that increased deficit spending.
On Wednesday morning, a number of hardline conservatives had vowed to vote against the rule if it came to the floor. By Wednesday evening, those warnings had softened slightly. But shortly before the House rule hit the floor, several spending hawks told reporters that if Johnson called the vote they would abstain, requesting more time to learn the details of the Senate-passed bill.
The Speaker called the vote anyway, successfully calling their bluff and allowing the tenuous process to move forward. Leadership called the vote minutes after Trump urged Republicans to approve the megabill Wednesday night.
'It looks like the House is ready to vote tonight. We had GREAT conversations all day, and the Republican House Majority is UNITED, for the Good of our Country, delivering the Biggest Tax Cuts in History and MASSIVE Growth. Let's go Republicans, and everyone else – MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' Trump wrote on Truth Social.
But then leaders were forced to again hold a vote open for more than five hours to solidify support.
For several hours, it stalled at four GOP 'no' votes and 10 Republicans withholding their vote.
Eventually, two of the holdouts voted to advance the measure, but Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) flipped his 'yes' vote to 'no,' putting the tally at 207 to 217.
Several hours later, the president spoke directly with some of the holdouts, including Reps. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Massie. Not long afterward, Johnson announced that he'd secured the votes to pass the rule.
The House will now proceed to debate on the 'big, beautiful bill' and then a vote on final passage, which Johnson said he expected around 8 or 8:30 a.m.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
Democrats frustrated over lack of a heads-up from Hakeem Jeffries on delaying Trump's spending bill
Democrats were flustered that they didn't get a heads-up that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would delay President Donald Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" on Thursday with an hours-long speech on the House floor. "No one is upset Hakeem wanted to do this, but to not tell members, 'be prepared, book multiple flights, be flexible,'" a House Democrat told Axios, who was reportedly upset about the challenge of rebooking flights so close to the Fourth of July. Another House Democrat told Axios that a "heads up would have been nice." On Thursday afternoon, Jeffries beat the record for a House floor speech, speaking for eight hours and 44 minutes, starting before 4 a.m. and ending around 1:30 p.m. Jeffries went over the record previously held by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., which was eight hours and 32 minutes. During his remarks, the minority leader read from a binder that he said had stories of people who could lose their Medicaid coverage under Trump's spending bill that were compiled from constituents of states that have Republican lawmakers. "I think it's important for the American people to process… SNAP on average provides $6 per day," Jeffries said. "At the same time, Elon Musk, his federal contracts, as we understand it, amount to $8 million per day. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans were really serious about targeting waste, fraud and abuse in the United States of America, start there – $8 million per day, start right there." Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill," which passed the House on Thursday afternoon after Jeffries yielded the floor and now awaits the president's signature, advances his border security measures and permanently extends the income tax brackets lowered by his 2017 Tax Cuts Jobs Act (TCJA).
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After House Republicans ignored her appeals, Lisa Murkowski's vote looks even worse
Three Senate Republicans balked at their party's domestic policy megabill — the inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act — but opponents of the far-right package needed a fourth. They thought Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska would rescue the nation from the consequences of the radical legislation, but GOP leaders offered a series of carve-outs and schemes that would help shield her home state from the effects of the party's agenda. But after Murkowski cast the deciding vote, she did something unexpected. In fact, she took two unexpected steps. First, the Alaskan trashed the reconciliation package shortly after voting for it, which was every bit as odd as it sounds. 'Do I like this bill? No,' she told NBC News. The senator added, by way of social media: '[L]et's not kid ourselves. ... While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska, it is not good enough for the rest of our nation — and we all know it.' Second, Murkowski effectively asked the Republican-led House not to pass the bill she had just voted for. 'My sincere hope is that this is not the final product,' she wrote online. 'This bill needs more work across chambers and is not ready for the president's desk. We need to work together to get this right.' That came on the heels of related comments the GOP senator made to reporters on Capitol Hill. 'We do not have a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination. My hope is that the House is going to look at this and recognize that we're not there yet.' Not only did House Republican leaders ignore Murkowski's appeals, they never even considered the possibility. Politico reported: House GOP holdouts who wanted a last-minute rewrite of President Donald Trump's megabill never had a chance, Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview Thursday. 'For a long time, there were members that really thought there was a chance the bill was going to get opened up again to amendment,' the Louisiana Republican said as the House neared a final vote on the bill. 'It became clear from the president's meeting at the White House to further conversations later that, for all the back and forth, you know, the bill's closed, there's going to be no more amendments to the bill.' And that, of course, makes Murkowski's decision look even worse. The Alaska Republican not only had an opportunity to derail the most regressive proposal in at least a generation, she also had an opportunity to use her considerable leverage to make it better. Instead, Murkowski passed the buck, hoping the House might help clean up the mess. These misguided wishes led her to vote for a bill that, by her own admission, 'is not good enough' for the nation and 'not ready' to be signed into law. Too many GOP lawmakers somehow convinced themselves that the party's megabill had real merit and would deliver great results. Murkowski, however, knew better — and she chose to advance it anyway. History will not be kind. This article was originally published on
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
Judges are still broadly blocking Trump policies despite the Supreme Court's injunction ruling
Moss, an Obama appointee, emphasized that his decision was not one of the now-verboten injunctions. Instead, it relied on two alternative routes the Supreme Court acknowledged remained available for those challenging Trump's policies: class actions, which allow large groups to band together and sue over a common problem, and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that permits courts to 'set aside' federal agency actions that violate the law, including rules, regulations and memos laying out new procedures. The ruling by Moss drew intense outrage from the Trump administration, which accused the judge of going 'rogue' and violating the Supreme Court's intentions. Hours later, U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ordered federal health officials to restore hundreds of web pages containing gender-related data that officials took down pursuant to a Trump executive order cracking down on 'gender ideology.' He described the move as an example of federal officials 'acting first and thinking later.' Despite the nationwide implications of his ruling, Bates emphasized that the APA allows courts to effectively undo unjustified agency action, adding that even the Justice Department did 'not argue that more tailored relief is even possible here, let alone appropriate.' The judge also left open the possibility that officials could go back to the drawing board and find a lawful way to restrict content related to so-called 'gender ideology.' And in Massachusetts, Reagan-appointed U.S. District Judge William Young was careful to emphasize that his expansive ruling restoring health research grants — cut following the same executive order cited by Bates — was nonetheless tailored only to provide relief to the organizations that sued. Like Bates, Young's ruling relied on the APA. 'Public officials, in their haste to appease the Executive, simply moved too fast and broke things,' Young wrote. In short, the Supreme Court's ruling on nationwide injunctions may be the tectonic shift that wasn't. Despite the extraordinary potential to reshape the judiciary, its immediate impact — particularly in the innumerable challenges to Trump's effort to single-handedly slash and reshape the federal government — may be limited.
