logo
These 6 Republican ‘red lines' could complicate Trump's policy plans

These 6 Republican ‘red lines' could complicate Trump's policy plans

Boston Globe05-05-2025

Advertisement
'Some of these are clearly in conflict,' said Rohit Kumar, the coleader of PricewaterhouseCoopers' national tax office and a former aide to Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Avoiding Medicaid cuts, for instance, would make it almost impossible to slash spending enough to return to 2019 levels, he said: 'It's hard to imagine how those happen in the same bill.'
Other Republicans are more sanguine. 'It's called legislating - or sausage-making,' said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and senior member of the Finance Committee, which is playing a central role in drafting the bill. 'It's hard. I'm not surprised it's hard because there's so many competing demands.'
Medicaid
House Republicans have asked the Energy and Commerce Committee to find at least $880 billion in cuts as part of the bill, which the Congressional Budget Office said will be impossible without cutting Medicaid, Medicare, or the Children's Health Insurance Program. Trump and Johnson have
pledged not to end benefits.
Advertisement
Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, voted against a budget framework last month because of concerns that it would clear the way for Medicaid cuts. Senators Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, and Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, have said they are open to adding work requirements to Medicaid but will not vote to cut Medicaid benefits.
A dozen House Republicans warned Johnson in a letter
last month that they 'cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations.'
'There's about 25 people that have real concerns, but I know there's eight to 10 that are serious as a heart attack about this,' said Representative Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey Republican, who signed the letter.
Van Drew warned Thursday that cutting Medicaid could lead Republicans to lose the House. 'If we're not careful, we're going to ensure we lose the midterms,' he told reporters.
The state and local tax deduction cap
To help pay for their 2017 tax bill, Republicans limited how much Americans could deduct in state and local taxes on their federal returns. Now five House Republicans who represent suburban districts in high-tax states - Representatives Nick LaLota, Andrew R. Garbarino f, Michael Lawler, Young Kim, and Tom Kean Jr. - say they will not vote for legislation to extend the 2017 tax cuts unless the $10,000
cap is lifted.
'The levels for each of the five of us are a little bit different on what solves the day for as many middle-class families as possible, but we're going to stick together to get as much progress as possible,' LaLota told reporters.
Advertisement
But members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus do not want to raise the cap unless the 'math adds up,' Representative Chip Roy, a Texas Republican,said.
Taxes and fees
The House Transportation Committee has proposed a new $250 electric vehicle registration fee and a $100 registration fee for hybrid vehicles to help pay for the bill. That's a dealbreaker for Senator Rick Scott, a Florida Republican, who said he won't vote for legislation that includes any fee increases.
'I'm not voting for tax increases,' Scott told reporters, 'I'm not voting for fee increases. Period.'
A return to 2019 spending levels
Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, said last week he would not vote for the bill unless it reduces spending to 2019 levels - which he acknowledged was unlikely to happen. 'There's a growing group of us that are insisting on returning to a prepandemic level of spending, which is much lower than what anybody is working on in either the House or the Senate,' Johnson said.
Republicans just aren't considering deep enough spending cuts right now, he said: 'As a result, I'm not going to vote for it.'
The debt limit
Senator Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, voted against the framework underlying the bill because he objected to Republicans' plan to use the bill to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion.
Asked last week whether including such an increase in the bill would lead him to oppose it, Paul said, 'I'm not for raising the debt ceiling $5 trillion, so I'm not for it.'
Advertisement
The deficit
Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, who also voted against the budget framework last month, said he has a different red line: He can't vote for a bill that increases the deficit.
In theory, the Republican bill could meet Massie's test
if he accepted the argument - which Senate Republicans have embraced - that it costs nothing to make permanent the 2017 tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. But Massie appears to be taking the view that making the cuts permanent
isn't free. 'I'm looking at what is the debt 10 years from now compared to what is it now,' Massie said.
The Center for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that making the cuts permanent will add more than $4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, including interest.
'There's actually almost no chance in hell I'm going to vote for this, because there's no chance in hell they're going to be fiscally responsible,' Massie said.
Representative Jason T. Smith, a Missouri Republican, who's deeply involved in writing the bill as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged Sunday that House Republicans were still struggling to reach agreement on the details of the legislation.
'Will it be bumpy, Shannon?' Smith told Fox News's Shannon Bream. 'It absolutely is. This is the House of Representatives. But will we get the job done? We absolutely will.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

USA Today

time21 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno

Standoff over red flag hearing continues in Maine Legislature, may go to court
Standoff over red flag hearing continues in Maine Legislature, may go to court

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Standoff over red flag hearing continues in Maine Legislature, may go to court

Jun. 6—A partisan standoff over whether to hold a public hearing on a citizen-initiated red flag referendum is likely to stretch into next week's legislative sessions and could wind up in court. Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, tried late Thursday to force Democrats to schedule a public hearing on the referendum, proposing a series of floor motions in the Senate, all of which were rejected. He said Friday that he intends to introduce additional motions next week if Democrats still haven't agreed to hold a hearing on the initiative. "I don't think this thing is over yet," Stewart said. "If I had to wager a bet, there are some other motions I'm intending to make when we get back next week, assuming they still haven't done the right thing." The red flag proposal, if passed by voters, would make it easier to confiscate the guns of a person in crisis by allowing family members to initiate the process and by removing a required mental health evaluation. The proposal came forward in the wake of the mass shooting in Lewiston in October 2023 and is certain to generate intense debate over gun rights and restrictions ahead of the November vote. Meanwhile, the impasse over a public hearing on the proposal has added to tensions at the State House as lawmakers are in the busy final days of the legislative session. Republicans point to a 2019 law that requires public hearings for citizen initiatives that are headed toward statewide referendum votes, unless lawmakers formally vote to waive the requirement. Such hearings have been held on other citizen proposals, but not all: A 2021 citizen initiative never received a hearing or the required waiver and was still sent to referendum and passed by voters. Democrats have so far not backed down, arguing in part that the Maine Constitution does not require the hearing and also citing legislative rules. Gun rights supporters who are opposed to the referendum proposal are pointing to the state law and threatening legal action against Democratic leaders, with one top advocate saying Friday that they have attorneys drafting a lawsuit. "When there's a state law on the books the Legislature can't just ignore it, so that will be the basis for the challenge," said David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, an advocacy group for gun owners and sportsmen that is working on the lawsuit. Nacole Palmer, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, which initiated the citizen's referendum, said in a written statement Friday that the group is "happy to debate this issue any time" and accused Republicans of playing "political tricks" by waiting until the end of the session to raise questions. "Now the National Rifle Association has joined them, parachuting into our state to muddy our Democratic process," Palmer said. "While they are doing that, we are focusing on the next five months, where we will be having this conversation publicly, talking to voters throughout the state, and in November every Maine voter will have the chance to make their voices heard." Citizens initiatives are brought forward by voters though a signature-gathering and application process. While the Legislature can choose to enact the proposals, they typically send them to statewide referendum votes. Maine's Legislature held a public hearing last month on the only other citizen initiative currently pending. That proposal would require photo identification prior to voting in Maine and put new restrictions on absentee voting. It also is headed for a fall referendum vote. Lawmakers also held a public hearing last year on the only citizen-initiated referendum they received in 2024, LD 2232, to limit contributions to political action committees that make independent expenditures. All four citizen initiatives in 2023 also received hearings. Legislative records, however, show that no public hearing or vote to waive the hearing was held for an initiative in 2021 that was aimed at stopping the New England Clean Energy Connect transmission line through western Maine. At a committee work session on that initiative, a legislative analyst did not address whether lawmakers needed to hold a public hearing but did note some unique circumstances. Two weeks after the initiative was handed to the Legislature, lawmakers adjourned and the bill was carried over to a special session. Sen. Dick Bradstreet, R-Vassalboro, the sponsor of the 2019 law to require public hearings, said Friday that the circumstances of the 2021 case were different because lawmakers are supposed to hold the hearing in the same session in which they receive it and in that case they had just received the proposal when they ended up adjourning. He said the reason no hearing was held in 2021 was "kind of a technicality." LD 1378, the bill resulting from the red flag citizen initiative, was transmitted to the Legislature on March 27, during the current session that's scheduled to end June 18. "You really can't compare the two because in this case they're choosing not to have the hearing, even though the legal requirements are there," Bradstreet said. "Before, they could say they weren't in the same session. ... Now they're kind of flouting the law." Bradstreet said he didn't recall any outcry over the lack of a public hearing on the 2021 measure, but said there was less knowledge of the relatively new law at the time. He said he put forward the bill in 2019 because of a handful of initiatives that had been put forward around that time that were generating a lot of advertising. DISCERNING FACT FROM FICTION "I thought, 'How can people discern fact from fiction?'" Bradstreet said. "The only way to do that would be some type of hearing where people could question what the initiative does and what some repercussions would be, and where both sides would have a chance to present their arguments without the propaganda." In a late-night session Thursday, Senate President Mattie Daughtry, D-Brunswick, rejected a proposal from Stewart to consider a formal waiver of the public hearing requirement to comply with state law, saying that his proposal was "not properly before the body." Daughtry said the Legislature's rules take precedence over statutes passed by prior groups of lawmakers regarding legislative proceedings and that Stewart's motion was asking for lawmakers to take an "unnecessary vote" on the citizens initiative. Daughtry also noted that the initiative was still before the Judiciary Committee, where she said it could have further action. A spokesperson for Daughtry and Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, the Senate chair of the committee, said Friday that they would not comment on the calls for a public hearing. Rep. Amy Kuhn, D-Falmouth, the House chair of the committee, did not respond to a voicemail message or email. Trahan, from the Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine, said his group in conjunction with Gun Owners of Maine and the National Rifle Association will focus their lawsuit on the 2019 law and argue that lawmakers need to either hold the hearing or vote by a two-thirds majority to waive it. The group is also fundraising to support the effort. Trahan said that just because lawmakers "got away with" not holding a hearing on the 2021 initiative, it does not mean it's not required in the law. "Why don't they just make this easy and hold the public hearing?" he said. "There's nothing to hide. Good public discourse adds to the debate." Copy the Story Link

US Close to High-Speed Rail Breakthrough
US Close to High-Speed Rail Breakthrough

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

US Close to High-Speed Rail Breakthrough

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. When the great and the good of the American high speed rail industry gathered in Washington, D.C. over May 13-15 for the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's (USHSR) 2025 annual conference, there was tremendous excitement tinged with anxiety. Several attendees told Newsweek they believe the U.S. could be on the verge of a high-speed rail breakthrough, setting the stage for the kind of comprehensive national system enjoyed in the likes of China, Japan and Western Europe. Ray LaHood, a Republican who served as Transportation Secretary under President Obama from 2009 to 2013, said if one of the two high-speed rail lines currently under construction is completed, it will prove "wildly popular" and boost support for high-speed rail across the nation. Other insiders agreed, but argued permitting reform and more explicit federal support will be needed first. There has been concern over the Trump administration's attitude toward high-speed rail. The conference took place one month after Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy announced $63.9 million in funding for a proposed Dallas to Houston route had been scrapped, and amid rumors that the California High Speed Rail line under construction between Los Angeles and San Francisco could lose federal support. This week, Duffy said there is "no viable path" to complete California High Speed Rail on time or on budget and warned the federal government could pull billions in funding. State of U.S. High-Speed Rail At present there aren't any high-speed rail networks—defined by the International Union of Railways (UIC) as operating at a minimum of 250 kilometers per hour (155 miles per hour) along specially built tracks—that are operational in the U.S. This compares unfavorably with the likes of Spain, Japan and France, which have around 2,460 miles, 1,830 miles and 1,740 miles of track respectively currently in use. Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicted the first high-speed rail line in the U.S. will be "wildly popular." Former Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicted the first high-speed rail line in the U.S. will be "wildly popular." Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Most impressively, China, the chief geopolitical rival of the U.S., has gone from having virtually no high-speed rail lines to nearly 30,000 miles over the past couple of decades. Construction is currently underway on two high-speed rail lines in the U.S.—Brightline West, which will connect Las Vegas to Southern California, and California High Speed Rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco. A range of other projects have been proposed around the country, including plans to link Boston, New York and Washington, D.C. in the Northeast; Dallas, Houston and Fort Worth in Texas; and Chicago to East St. Louis in Illinois. Obstacles When asked why the U.S. had failed to build a high-speed network comparable to other advanced economies, industry experts told Newsweek there are major issues with permitting, financing and cross-party political support. California High Speed Rail has sparked particular controversy, with its cost ballooning from $34 billion to over $128 billion, while the completion date has been pushed back. Terry Hynes, an attorney specializing in rail infrastructure projects, argued planning issues in particular have bottled up capital investment. He is currently part of a team investigating how the permitting process could be sped up for USHSR. Addressing Newsweek, he said: "I've been in the business 46 years, making railroads, and I've been frustrated as hell representing the high-speed just takes forever. And there's private money that could be brought in. Wall Street's got a lot of money looking for infrastructure investments. "This is a wonderful infrastructure investment, the trouble is they see those permitting times. Eight years for environmental review, then you build for four years and in year 13 you're finally going to see some money. Nobody's going to invest in that." Former Obama era Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaking at the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference. Former Obama era Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaking at the U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference. James Bickerton/Newsweek Hynes added: "The biggest issue to my mind is this permitting issue. The review period takes so long, the cost goes up and the more expensive it is for people doing a cost-benefit analysis, the analyses looks less beneficial." Brandon Wheeler, a senior program manager at the North Central Texas Council of Governments, a local government-based voluntary association, said a lack of national leadership has undermined high-speed rail construction across the U.S. Speaking to Newsweek, he said: "We don't have a national single point of leadership on that single point of leadership it really is a little bit hopscotch and we're making the best we can of it. "Until there is, like the interstate highway system, there's a national vision to create and you have a vision around the ability to move military and goods and those kinds of things. Until our airports get bad enough, until our roads get bad enough, until people have this massive outcry and we're able to concentrate them on something, we're going to have to find what that single vision is to rally around or we will fall behind the rest of the world." LaHood agreed, saying: "I think the success of these projects in Europe and Asia is largely due to the national government making investments but then encouraging the private sector. Once the national government makes a commitment, it's easier for the private sector then—they know it's going to be a stable project, they know their investment is going to be good." If You Build It They Will Come In 2023, Brightline, the first privately built rail line in the U.S. to open in nearly a century, began operations between Miami and Orlando in Florida and has since seen passenger numbers surge. While Brightline runs below the high-speed standard, LaHood said it showed Americans are ready to embrace new rail networks, and argued one successful project in the U.S. could turbocharge the whole industry. "If you look at the Brightline project in is wildly popular," he said. "They're putting more and more trains on that track every day because people like the idea that they don't have to get on the I95 and they don't have to travel on highways that are crowded with big trucks and cars... The U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference in Washington, D.C. The U.S. High Speed Rail Association's 2025 annual conference in Washington, D.C. James Bickerton/Newsweek "If you build it they will come, if you build it it will be successful and I think that will be the case with Brightline West, Las Vegas to L.A., and I think it will be true San Francisco to L.A. I think they will be wildly popular. I really believe at this point if you build it they will come and the proof of that is Europe and Asia—their trains are wildly popular." Speaking to Newsweek, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, who is advocating for a "Cascadia" high-speed rail line linking the city to Seattle in Washington and Vancouver in British Columbia, said: "Our system continues to be compacted and stagnant. "The great cities from around the world are all tending to go towards high-speed rail and we need an opportunity to unlock our economic renaissance, which is what's missing in our country right now, and high-speed rail would move us forward and get us completing again with the world." Trust Fund A number of industry insiders told Newsweek the formation of a federal government trust fund could provide the financial muscle for a major U.S. high-speed rail expansion. Asked what one development would most speed up U.S. high-speed rail, Jim Derwinski, executive director of Chicago rail system Metra, replied: "A trust fund so it's national, it's bipartisan so it doesn't change from administration to administration and it can be supported through the states as a national effort. "If you're going to build something, to compare it to Europe and Asia right now, it's got to have a national campaign right now." Arthur Sohikian is executive director of High Desert Corridor, a proposed high-speed rail line that would link Brightline West to the California High Speed Rail line. He expressed a similar view to Derwinski, telling Newsweek: "We have to energize the public to make that been trying to get a trust fund for rail since I started my career, it seems. "For whatever reason why the politicians won't grab onto that and won't do that, especially when you realize the Highway Trust Fund keeps diminishing as cars get more efficient, we're paying less in gas taxes, that fund is have to invest in this infrastructure as a nation, and until that happens, seriously, we're all going to be trying to do our little pieces." The U.S. High Speed Rail Association paid travel and hotel expenses for Newsweek reporter James Bickerton to attend its 2025 annual conference.

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