Senate GOP Sorts Out Which Poison Pills It Can Swallow To Pass House's ‘Big Beautiful' Bill
Senate Republicans began the work this week of deciphering what exactly House Republicans' have stuffed into President Trump's massive spending package — and what elements of it they can live with.
One thing is clear: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Republican leadership have their work cut out for them. And in a few key cases, senators might soon find themselves caught between what Trump demands of them, and what's good for their reelection prospects.
Similar to the competing pain points that surfaced among members of the House Republican conference, several Senate Republicans have gone on the record to object in various ways to either the bill's extensive gutting of social safety net programs or — on the other end of the spectrum — the extent to which it will add to the deficit, a Republican sin many in the party have built their brands opposing.
At this point, it looks almost inevitable that senators will make changes to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which House Republicans drafted after weeks of intraparty quarrels. That means the House will have to vote on the bill again. Any major shifts could backfire, breaking the delicate balance on which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) built the bill.
Thune can only lose three votes from his caucus and still pass the legislation.
Here are four places in which Republicans are likely to have to cut a deal, potentially tweaking just how destructive the final bill is.
Several Senate Republicans have been publicly declaring that they are opposed to the ways in which the bill currently cuts social safety net programs, while, in most cases, still suggesting there are some cuts they'd support.
Several Republican senators, including Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), have already indicated they won't get behind certain kinds of cuts to Medicaid and other programs, which are widely utilized by their constituents.
'I am not going to vote for Medicaid benefit cuts,' Hawley told reporters in the Senate basement in March. 'Work requirements, I'm totally fine with. But 21% of Missourians either get Medicaid or CHIP so I am not going to vote for benefit cuts for people who I think are qualified.'
Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) has made similar statements, telling reporters on Wednesday that he is ok with freezing the provider taxes House Republicans took up in their bill but not cutting them back.
Meanwhile Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), who recently announced a gubernatorial bid in his state, has said he is opposed to the way in which the legislation cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The House bill includes deep cuts to that program, including a cost-sharing plan that would require states to cover a portion of SNAP benefit costs; the benefits are currently completely covered by the federal government.
'Everybody that's going to be in state government is going to be concerned about it,' Tuberville said, according to Politico. 'I don't know whether we can afford it or not.'
In recent days, some Senate Republicans have also indicated that they are exploring ideas to slash what they claim is 'waste, fraud and abuse' in Medicare —- despite President Donald Trump's previous vows to 'love and cherish' the program and promises not to touch it.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Thursday said that Republicans are looking at changes to Medicare, telling The Hill there are 'a number' of reforms he'd like to see to programs maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
'I think anything that can be — that's waste, fraud and abuse are open to, obviously, discussions,' Thune also told reporters of Medicare.
Meanwhile Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) took a stronger stance, saying Republicans shouldn't be afraid of cutting waste from the program.
'Why don't we go after that? I think we should,' Cramer told NBC.
'Some people are afraid of the topics; I'm not,' he added, noting that they would focus on waste, fraud and abuse.
That phrase — 'waste, fraud and abuse' — has, of course, become the go-to terminology for Republicans who want to justify their cuts to largely popular programs, despite the fact that rooting out supposed 'waste, fraud and abuse' roughly translates to hidden, hard-for-the-public-to-understand cuts.
This new proposal, too, is already stirring some pushback. 'What a terrible idea. We should not be touching Medicare,' Hawley told NBC.
Sens. John Curtis (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Tillis and Murkowski have warned leadership about provisions of the bill that would gut Biden-era clean energy tax credits passed in the Inflation Reduction Act.
The House bill's cuts were largely added to the House bill at the last minute in order to appease House Freedom Caucus members who were threatening to sink the bill on the House floor unless leadership made more cuts. They include plans to repeal residential energy-focused credits and several electric vehicle-related credits — both used by individual taxpayers — as well as almost immediately phasing out the clean electricity production and investment tax credit that aims to boost zero-emission electricity production from industry, utilities and manufacturing.
'I want to make sure that we are making good on the investments that we have made with those tax credits,' Murkowski told reporters in the Senate basement on Wednesday when asked about the tax credits.
Meanwhile, Tillis — one of the most vulnerable Republicans in 2026 — on Wednesday indicated he wanted to see negotiations around the requirements and duration for the programs in question.
He also specifically called out the foreign entity restrictions House Republicans put in the bill, which experts described to TPM as a 'bad faith' and 'unworkable' provision that Republicans say will prevent nations like China, Iran, North Korea and Russia from having access to the tax subsidies. Tillis described them as 'a big problem.'
'As I understand it, the level of granularity proposed by the House renders the programs inoperative,' Tillis told reporters on his way up to a floor vote.
While several Senate Republicans are opposing cuts to programs that are crucial for their states, others, on the other end of the spectrum, are calling for more spending cuts than what are included in the House Republican package. (These Republicans have, lately, found a surprising ally in the president's erstwhile advisor, Elon Musk.)
Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) are loudly asking for deeper cuts, saying they are worried about the impact of the megabill on the deficit.
'I refuse to accept $2 trillion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see as the new normal. We have to address that problem, and unfortunately this bill doesn't do so,' Johnson, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said Wednesday during an ABC News interview.
Paul has made a career of libertarian budget hawkery, and is objecting, in particular, to a provision of the bill that raises the debt ceiling, something that must happen this summer in order for the U.S. to avoid default. He has previously indicated he does not believe 'expanding the debt ceiling more than we've ever done it before' is fiscally conservative.
'This will be the greatest increase in the debt ceiling ever, and the GOP owns this now,' Paul told reporters after the House passed their version of the bill.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ThinkCareBelieve: Week 20 of America's Comeback Led by President Trump
Washington, DC, June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Link to ThinkCareBelieve's Article: has published an article on Week 20 of America's Amazing Comeback under the Trump Administration. New investment in America manufacturing and business is bringing jobs roaring back. These are all positive indicators of solid work to put America in a good position. Despite criticism, America is getting stronger and the American people are more hopeful than they have been in a very long time. The Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that President Trump's tariffs would decrease the U.S. budget deficit by $2.8 Trillion and the trade deficit has been reduced to half. The price of eggs are 61% less, the price of gas fell again, and the stock market is strong. The border is secure and the murder rate is dropping. Inflation has evaporated, and companies are flocking to come and invest in America. The article has the latest on the return of El Salvadoran criminal Kilmar Abrego Garcia who will stand trial for heinous crimes of human trafficking and crimes against women and children. The article also has an extensive explanation of the One Big Beautiful Bill and how it will help Americans. It covers the codifying of three of President Trump's Executive Orders and DOGE being given access to the Social Security database. The article also covers the Remove Act and the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act introduced by Senator Marsha Blackburn. The extensive work of ICE hunting down criminal aliens and taking down trafficking networks is explained. Many criminal aliens came to America to commit crimes and terrorist acts, so ICE is focused on finding them and removing them. Also covered in ThinkCareBelieve's article is President Trump's travel ban, which countries are on it and how it will be used. Also covered is the visit from recently elected German Chancellor Merz, the D-Day Celebration and the autopen investigation. is an outlook. ThinkCareBelieve's mission for Peace advocacy facilitates positive outcomes and expanded possibilities. To achieve Peace, we will find the commonalities between diverse groups and bring the focus on common needs, working together toward shared goals. Activism is an important aspect of ThinkCareBelieve, because public participation and awareness to issues needing exposure to light leads to justice. Improved transparency in government can lead to changes in policy and procedure resulting in more fluid communication between the public and the government that serves them. America needs hope right now, and Americans need to be more involved in their government. ### CONTACT: CONTACT: Joanne COMPANY: ThinkCareBelieve EMAIL: joanne@ WEB: in to access your portfolio

Wall Street Journal
37 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
How the Cybertruck Came to Embody Tesla's Problems
The bromance between Elon Musk and President Trump is ending at a difficult time for Tesla TSLA 3.67%increase; green up pointing triangle. The electric-vehicle maker lost roughly $150 billion of market value Thursday—its biggest ever drop—after the Tesla CEO and Trump traded insults. Sales of Teslas have slumped this year. Tariffs could disrupt the supply of key components. The sprawling Republican tax-and-spending bill would end tax credits for EV buyers. And Tesla's Cybertruck has been a disappointment. Musk set high expectations for the Cybertruck, telling investors it would be Tesla's 'best product ever.' The angular, stainless steel pickup was supposed to generate buzz for Tesla by showcasing new technology and unlocking the lucrative truck market. Instead, it has become synonymous with Musk's polarizing stint in politics, exposing some owners to graffiti or middle fingers from other drivers. And its reputation has been tarnished among Tesla fans because of a spate of recalls and manufacturing issues that have resulted in cycles of repairs. In the U.S., the company sold fewer than 40,000 Cybertrucks in 2024—well below Musk's ultimate goal of 250,000 a year. In the first quarter of 2025, Tesla sold around 7,100 Cybertrucks in the U.S., according to registration data from S&P Global Mobility. Ford's F-150 Lightning pickup outsold it. In an effort to boost sales, Tesla has rolled out lower-price versions of the truck and started offering buyers incentives such as 0% financing and free upgrades. Almost as soon as the $100,000 Cybertruck hit the road, quality problems began to multiply. Reports on social media cited cracked windshields and spotting from so-called rail dust, orange discoloration similar to rust. In its first year, Tesla recalled the truck seven times to fix dangerous defects. In March, with large metal panels falling off the trucks, the tally rose to eight. Some of the quality problems were known and documented internally before the truck went on sale, including issues with the accelerator pad and windshield wiper that later triggered recalls, said former employees who worked on the Cybertruck. But there was pressure inside Tesla to get the truck to market quickly, according to these employees. Tesla didn't respond to requests for comment. 'Elon Musk will tell you the biggest professional mistake was the falcon doors on the Model X,' said David Fick, a longtime Tesla owner who got his Cybertruck in March. He referred to the complex door design that opens upward and hinges at the roof. 'I believe that the Cybertruck is going to go down as an even bigger corporate stumble.' The retired banker in Boynton Beach, Fla., chose to wait more than a year to buy his Cybertruck, hopeful that many of the biggest issues would be identified before he drove his off the lot. 'They do a lot of bleeding-edge stuff where they rush to the market and then you're a beta tester as an owner,' Fick said. He paid about $72,000 for the car, plus $7,300 for window tinting and a custom wrap for exterior trim panels known as cant rails, covering his new car in a metallic maroon color. Soon after, Tesla recalled cant rails because they could become unglued. 'I've had tons of recalls on my Teslas over the years,' said Fick, who added that the cars are worth the hassle. 'Eighty percent were fixed by [software] updates, but these are physical things we are dealing with now.' Musk unveiled the prototype for the Cybertruck in 2019. At the time, he said it would cost $39,900, with a battery range of up to 500 miles—an ambitious combination that would be a stretch for any EV maker. Work on the vehicle was delayed a couple of years, leaving engineering and manufacturing teams with only a few months to do final testing before the trucks went to customers, former employees said. Musk tried to temper expectations around how quickly Tesla could increase production, given its unique design. 'There is always some chance that Cybertruck will flop, because it is so unlike anything else,' he wrote on social media in July 2021. Still, he promoted some of its most unusual features, including his dream of making the car amphibious. Former employees said they took Musk's social posts as orders, but the engineering proved difficult. By 2022, it was clear internally that Cybertruck wouldn't be able to meet all Musk's criteria, so engineers scrapped an early design and started over—developing a smaller, landlocked version of the truck, the people said. After about a year and a half of testing, Tesla delivered the first Cybertrucks to a dozen or so customers in late November 2023. An early version of the truck started at $100,000 and had an estimated range of 318 miles. Two months later, Tesla issued its first recall on the vehicle: a software update that required the company to increase the size of the font on a warning system used across its fleet. It was the first of three recalls that Tesla addressed on the Cybertruck through over-the-air updates to its software. Cybertruck's problems couldn't be fixed by software updates alone. In April 2024, Tesla issued a recall for the accelerator pedal. The company had received a notice from a customer complaining that the accelerator had gotten stuck. Tesla found that the pad attached to the long pedal could dislodge and get stuck in the trim above the pedal, causing the car to accelerate. An internal investigation found the issue was the result of an 'unapproved change,' in which Tesla employees used soap as a lubricant to attach the pad, according to the recall notice. Inside Tesla, the accelerator pad had been a known issue starting with the prototype, according to an employee who worked on the part. The manufacturing team also identified the part as problematic, this person said. Tesla also had problems with the Cybertruck's expansive windshield, which measured nearly 6 square feet. Sometimes the heavy glass would break, two employees said. The glass either arrived cracked from the supplier in Mexico or from handling at the Austin, Texas, facility, they said. Some owners took to social media to describe the glass cracking as soon as they drove off the lot, or while they wiped the inside of their windshield. The windshield required a large windshield wiper measuring 50 inches long. In June 2024, Tesla issued a recall on the wipers, whose motors Tesla found had been overstressed by testing. The wiper had been flagged nearly a year before, two people who worked on the Cybertruck said. It was one of the first issues identified on the vehicles, at which point it was classified as a 'gating issue,' which meant that it needed to be resolved before production could move forward. Reid Tomasko, a 25-year-old YouTube creator, took his Cybertruck on a cross-country trip, during which it performed perfectly, he said. Then came winter in New Hampshire. He was driving near his home in Lebanon, N.H., in February when a metal panel flew off the side of his truck. In March, Tesla issued a recall affecting most of the Cybertrucks it had produced—more than 46,000. The problem involved adhesive that could become brittle in extreme weather, causing exterior trim panels called cant rails to dislodge. Inspecting his truck, Tomasko said he found loose connections on almost every panel that used the adhesive, including the large pieces of stainless steel over the rear wheels, the front fender and the front doors. 'I was wondering, why are they not recalling the other panels?' Tomasko said. After replacing several panels, Tesla offered to buy back Tomasko's truck for nearly all of the $102,000 that he paid, he said. He accepted. 'I am planning on getting a newer one for cheaper soon,' he said. Write to Becky Peterson at
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.