Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' stalls in House amid conservative mutiny threats
Plans for an early afternoon vote to begin debate on Trump's "big, beautiful bill" slipped away as both conservative concerns and weather delays led to issues in passing two procedural votes ahead of the critical measure.
It's not clear if the key vote will proceed today at this point. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., one of the bill's biggest critics, told reporters a vote was still "possible."
"No, not yet," he said when asked if he was getting what he needed from the White House to support the measure. "But the evening is so young."
House GOP leaders had hoped to vote to begin debate on the vast tax and immigration bill, a maneuver known as a "rule vote," with the goal of teeing up a vote on the legislation's final passage by late Wednesday or early Thursday at the latest.
The president has directed Republicans to get a bill to his desk for a signature by Fourth of July, though he's suggested in some recent comments that he would not mind a few days' delay.
The rule vote was meant to be the third in an early afternoon series of three votes. As of early evening Wednesday, that vote is still being held open – and the House floor effectively paralyzed.
Lawmakers who expected a vote were told to return to their offices to await further instructions.
Multiple House Freedom Caucus members who left a meeting next to the House floor declined to comment on what they discussed, but several had made clear in recent days that they have serious issues with the Senate's version of Trump's agenda bill.
The mammoth piece of legislation includes Trump's agenda on tax, the border, energy, defense, and the national debt.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought was seen briefly entering and exiting the room where the fiscal hawks were gathered.
He said little to reporters other than announcing they were "making good progress" on his way out of the room.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, suggested that conservatives were speaking with the Trump administration about how Republicans could make up for what they saw as deficiencies in the current version of the bill.
Fiscal hawks were angered by last-minute moves made to placate Senate GOP moderates who were uneasy about the bill's near-immediate phase-out of most green energy tax subsidies in former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
They've also argued the Senate's bill would add more to the federal deficit than the House's earlier version, though Senate Republicans have pushed back.
"We were not happy with what the Senate produced. We thought there was a path forward as of late last week, even though I had concerns in public about them, but then they jammed it through at the last minute in a way that, you know, we're not overly excited about," Roy said. "So now we're trying to understand what our options are from this point."
Others, like Reps. Keith Self, R-Texas, and Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., declined to comment about the meeting to reporters.
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., who is not a member of the Freedom Caucus but had some concerns about the bill, told reporters when leaving the meeting, "I'm just waiting to see what's going on honestly, everybody's just discussing what's going on and trying to get to some [resolution]."
Burchett told reporters earlier that he was leaning in favor of voting to debate the bill.
But Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., can afford just three defections to still pass the bill along party lines.
He told reporters, "We're going to get there tonight."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Making America militarized again': Use of military in U.S. erodes democracy, veteran advocates say
Spouses experiencing health emergencies alone, because their loved ones are serving on the streets of Los Angeles. Troops fatigued by a mission they weren't prepared for. Children of active-duty troops left without their parents, who were deployed on U.S. soil. Such incidents are happening because of the Trump administration's decision to send troops to Los Angeles, said Brandi Jones, organizing director for the Secure Families Initiative, a nonprofit that advocates for military spouses, children and veterans. "We've heard from families who have a concern that what their loved ones have sacrificed and served in protection of the Constitution, and all the rights it guarantees, are really under siege right now in a way they could never have expected," Jones said Thursday during a virtual news conference. On the eve of Independence Day, veterans, legal scholars and advocates for active-duty troops warned that sending troops to quell protests in California's largest city threatens democratic norms. Under a 147-year-old law, federal troops are barred from being used for civilian law enforcement. Dan Maurer, a retired lieutenant colonel who is now a law professor at Ohio Northern University, described this state of affairs during the news conference as "exactly the situation we fought for independence from," adding that President Trump is "making America militarized again." Though 150 National Guard troops were released from protest duty on Tuesday, according to a news release from U.S Northern Command, around 3,950 remain in Los Angeles alongside 700 Marines, who are protecting federal property from protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions. Read more: As Marines arrive in L.A., military experts raise concerns: 'This could spiral out of control' Trump has defended the deployment of troops in Los Angeles, saying on his social media platform that the city "would be burning to the ground right now" if they were not sent. He has suggested doing the same in other U.S. cities, calling the L.A. deployment "the first, perhaps of many," during an Oval Office news conference. Troops in L.A. were federalized under Title 10 of the United States code, and their purview is narrow. They do not have the authority to arrest, only to detain individuals before handing them over to police, and they are only obligated to protect federal property and personnel, according to the U.S Northern Command. Though Marines detained a U.S. Army veteran in early June, the most active involvement they and the National Guard have had in ICE's activity is providing security during arrests, according to reports from Reuters and the CBS show "Face the Nation." "The administration has unnecessarily and provocatively deployed the military in a way that reflects the very fears that our founding fathers had," Maurer said. "Using the military as a police force in all but name." "The closer they [the military] act to providing security around a perimeter ... the closer they act to detaining individuals, the closer they act to questioning individuals that are suspected of being illegal immigrants, the closer the military is pushed to that Posse Comitatus line," Maurer said, referring to the law that prohibits use of troops in a law enforcement capacity on American soil. "That is a very dangerous place to be." Other speakers argued that the use of troops in Los Angeles jeopardizes service members, placing them in a environment they were never trained for, and pitting them against American citizens. Read more: National Guard arrives in Los Angeles as fallout from immigration raids continues "Our Marines are our nation's shock troops, and it's entirely inappropriate that they're deployed in the streets of Los Angeles," said Joe Plenzler, a Marine combat veteran who served as platoon commander, weapons platoon commander and company executive officer for the 2nd Batallion 7th Marines, which is now deployed in downtown L.A. Plenzler recalled that more than half of the men he served with in 2nd Batallion came from Spanish-speaking families, and some were in this country as legal permanent residents with green cards and had yet to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship. "Think about what might be going through their heads right now, as they're being ordered to help ICE arrest and deport hardworking people who look a lot like people they would see at their own family reunions," Plenzler said. Plenzler also contrasted the training Marines receive with those of civilian law enforcement. "We are not cops," Plenzler said. "Marines aren't trained in de-escalatory tactics required in community policing. We don't deploy troops in civilian settings, typically because it increases the risk of excessive force, wrongful deaths and erosion of public trust." During the 1992 L.A. riots, Marines responded with the LAPD to a domestic dispute. One officer asked the Marines to cover him, and they, mistakenly believing he was asking them to open fire, fired 200 rounds into the home. "Our troops are under-prepared, overstretched and overwhelmed," said Christopher Purdy, founder of the nonprofit veteran advocacy group The Chamberlain Network and a veteran of the Army National Guard. Read more: Veterans' advocates warn of low morale amid L.A. deployment: 'This is not what we signed up for' "Guard units doing these missions are often doing them with minimal preparation," Purdy said, stating that many units are given a single civil unrest training block a year. "When I deployed to Iraq, we spent weeks of intense training on cultural competency, local laws and customs, how we should operate in a blend of civil and combat operations," Purdy said. "If we wouldn't accept that kind of shortcut for a combat deployment, why are we accepting it now when troops are being put out on the front line in American streets?" Each speaker reflected on the importance of holding the federal government accountable, not only for its treatment of active-duty troops, but also for how these men and women are being used on American soil. "I reflect this Fourth of July on both the promise and the responsibility of freedom. Military family readiness is force readiness," Jones said. "At Secure Families Initiative, we're hearing from active-duty families: You can't keep the force if families are stretched thin — or if troops are used against civilians." Added Maurer: "The rule of law means absolutely nothing if those that we democratically entrust to enforce it faithfully ignore it at will. And I think that's where we are." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump says economy will ‘rocket' after signing 'big beautiful bill': ‘It's going to be really great'
President Donald Trump on Thursday celebrated Congress' passage of his "big, beautiful bill," describing the sweeping measure as "the biggest bill of its kind ever signed" and promising, "it's going to make this country into a rocket ship. It's going to be really great." Earlier in the day, the House narrowly approved the package by a 218-214 vote after a marathon overnight session on Capitol Hill – the final hurdle after the Senate passed the measure earlier in the week. He noted that only two Republican lawmakers, Reps. Thomas Massie, of Kentucky, and Brian Fitzpatrick, of Pennsylvania, voted against the bill. Zero Democrats backed it. "Well, I was disappointed that [Fitzpatrick] did that. There were two of them that voted down, so I was disappointed that he voted no," Trump said. He hailed the outcome as a sign of GOP unity heading into the Independence Day weekend. "When you go over the bill it was very easy to get through the House," Trump URGES HOUSE REPUBLICANS TO IGNORE 'GRANDSTANDERS' AND DELIVER HIS 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' BY JULY 4 Trump touted the bill's broad scope, adding that it provides the "biggest tax cut in history" along with major investments in border security and the military. "Great for security, great on the southern border, immigration is covered, we covered just about everything. Again, it's the biggest bill ever signed of its kind," the president said. "We'll have growth in record numbers," he added. The White House stated that the bill will "create historic economic growth to usher in America's Golden Age." "The bill provides Americans with the largest tax cut in history, paired with a host of other pro-growth policies that will slash our deficits and debt. America is going to take off like a rocket ship!" White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital. The president also previewed a patriotic signing ceremony set for Independence Day. Trump said he will officially sign the bill at the White House on Friday around 5 p.m., with an array of U.S. Air Force jets soaring overhead in celebration. "We're signing at about 5:00 p.m., and at about 5:00 p.m. we're going to have B-2s and F-22s and F-35s flying right over the White House... so we'll be signing with those beautiful planes flying right over our heads," he told reporters on the tarmac.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How your income taxes will change after Trump signs the ‘big, beautiful bill' into law
With the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill' headed to President Trump's desk for signature Friday, wealthy Americans are poised to receive significant tax breaks partly offset by steep cuts to social welfare programs. The bill makes 2017 tax breaks from Trump's first term permanent, while adding some new tax breaks, like no taxes on tips up to $25,000 and a 'senior deduction' that will allow more people over 65 to avoid Social Security taxes. Some policy analyses show that the tax cuts for lower earners may be offset by the new costs they incur from lost support for health care and food assistance. Most households — about 85 percent — would get a tax cut in 2026, according to an analysis from the Tax Policy Center. But while many of the bill's changes are permanent, other provisions, such as the new deduction for seniors, are set to expire within a couple years. The center estimates that by 2030 only about 70 percent of households would continue to have a tax break. The center also estimates that nearly 60 percent of the tax benefits would go to those in the top quintile of annual incomes (about $217,000 or more). Those households would receive an average tax cut of $12,500. While other estimates of the bill's tax changes by income bracket vary, they largely agree that the tax breaks generally increase moving up the income ladder. Here's how the bill would impact your taxes. For taxes filed in 2026, households making between $217,000 and $318,000 would see their after-tax income raise 2.6 percent, a tax break of about $5,400. For Americans making $318,000 to $460,000 — in the 90th to 95th percentile — that cut would be about $8,900, or a 3.1 percent increase to their after-tax income. Those making between $460,000 and $1.1 million would receive the biggest break: a $21,000 change, increasing their after-tax income by 4.4 percent. The top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent — households making more than $1.1 million or $5 million — would see their after-tax incomes increase 3.5 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively. The tax breaks for the rest of Americans are far less substantial, according to the center's estimates. Households making between $100,000 and $200,000 a year would see their after-tax income increase by 2.5 percent, about a $3,000 tax break. For those making between $75,000 and $100,000, the tax cut as a percentage of income is similar — at about $1,700 or 2.3 percent. Americans earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will have a $1,000 tax break. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, that cut will be about $630. Those are after-tax boosts of 1.9 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. Those in the bottom quintile of incomes, making below $34,600 a year, would see their taxes decrease by about $150, or a 0.8 percent increase in their after-tax income. However, benefits that low-income Americans could see in tax breaks could be offset by the bill's sweeping cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. Federal Medicaid spending is estimated to decrease by about $1 trillion, resulting in about 12 million low-income Americans losing their health insurance by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The bill also includes work requirements for Medicaid and for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, also known as food stamps, which could disenroll millions from both programs. Many of the bill's tax deductions will start in 2025, and some of them will be permanent. That includes a permanent increase in the child tax credit to $2,200 and an increase in the standard deduction by $750. Other new tax cuts, especially those core to Trump's campaign promises, are set to expire in a couple of years. A new $6,000 deduction for Americans over 65 will last only through 2028. A $25,000 deduction designed to eliminate taxes on tips will also only last for three years. The same goes for another $12,500 deduction meant to curb taxes on overtime. The amount that households can deduct in state and local taxes on their federal returns, known as the SALT cap, will also increase to $40,000. Previously capped at $10,000, SALT deductions were a major sticking point among House Republicans during the first rounds of negotiations on the bill in May. All these cuts are expensive, although estimates vary. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the bill would add $3.4 trillion to the debt over 10 years while the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said it would add $4.1 trillion. The conservative Cato Institute put the figure as high as $6 trillion. Republicans who claim to be fiscal hawks railed against the bill's impact on the national debt, saying it would inflict pain on future generations, but many ultimately voted for it. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
