The Republicans Who Voted Against the 'Big Beautiful Bill'
The bill—a sweeping tax and spending package that includes additional money for deportation efforts, steep cuts to funding for Medicaid, and tax exemptions for tips, among other major provisions—earned the votes of most Republican lawmakers amid pressure from Trump to pass the legislation by his July 4 deadline. It now returns to the House, which passed its own version in May.
But the package has faced concerns from some Republicans over its proposed funding cuts to Medicaid, which serves more than 70 million Americans, and what it would mean for government spending. A report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicated that the legislation would add more than $3.9 trillion to the national debt, despite the White House's assertions that it would reduce the deficit.
Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, and Rand Paul of Kentucky ultimately broke ranks with their fellow Republicans in spite of Trump's threats to campaign against lawmakers who voted against the bill. 'I will always do what is in the best interest of North Carolina, even when that puts me at odds with my own party,' Tillis said in a Monday statement. 'I cannot support this bill in its current form. It would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities.'
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday outside of Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' migrant detention center, Trump said he believed the bill would pass the House with ease.
Here are the three Senators that voted against the bill.
Thom Tillis
Sen. Tillis's vote against the 'Big Beautiful Bill' followed an impassioned floor speech on Sunday in which he spoke against the Medicaid cuts in the bill, which he said would affect hundreds of thousands of North Carolina residents.
'What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding's not there anymore, guys? I think the people in the White House … advising the President are not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break a promise,' Tillis said.
The CBO found in a report released Saturday that the legislation could cause nearly 12 million adults to lose health insurance over the next decade due to its reductions of hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid's funding.
Tillis said at the time that he would vote against the legislation unless his concerns were addressed. In a statement on Sunday, he again pointed to the cuts even as he praised other parts of the bill.
'There is a lot for North Carolinians to love about the rest of the One Big Beautiful Bill, including extending historic funding for border security, and ending wasteful spending,' he said. 'We can and must accomplish this without hurting our rural communities and hospitals.'
Tillis's opposition to the bill has not come without a cost.
Trump threatened on Sunday to meet with other candidates who would primary Tillis in the upcoming Senate race and claimed in a Truth Social post that the Senator 'has hurt the great people of North Carolina.'
'Tillis is a talker and complainer, NOT A DOER!' Trump said, before calling the Senator 'worse than Rand 'Fauci' Paul!', referencing U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, who drew Trump and Republican's ire amid the COVID-19 pandemic, to attack another critic of the legislation.
Tillis announced his retirement that same day.
'In Washington over the last few years, it's become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,' Tillis said. 'When people see independent thinking on the other side, they cheer. But when those very same people see independent thinking coming from their side, they scorn, ostracize, and even censure them.'
Susan Collins
Sen. Collins similarly pointed to concerns about the Medicaid cuts in the bill as a driving force for her decision to vote against it. Some 400,000 Mainers depend on the health insurance program, according to the Senator.
'I strongly support extending the tax relief for families and small businesses,' said Collins in a Tuesday statement. 'My vote against this bill stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes.'
While the bill includes a 'special fund' proposed by Collins that would provide some financial support for rural hospitals, she said that inclusion was insufficient to offset the damages the legislation would impose on Medicaid.
Rand Paul
Sen. Paul also cast a 'no' vote, citing concerns about how the bill would increase the national deficit, which currently stands at $1.36 trillion.
Paul said Tuesday that he met with the Vice President and offered to vote for the bill if it included a '90% reduction in the debt ceiling.'
'I offered my vote for fiscal sanity. Congress chose to sell out taxpayers instead. Only once the bill is released, we will know what the true price was.' Paul wrote on X after the vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's budget bill is closer to becoming law - here are the remaining sticking points
Donald Trump's massive tax and spending budget bill is returning to the US House of Representatives - as the clock ticks down to the president's 4 July deadline for lawmakers to present him with a final version that can be signed into law. The bill narrowly cleared the Senate, or upper chamber of Congress, on Tuesday. Vice-President JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote after more than 24 hours of debate and resistance from some Republican senators. It could prove equally tricky for Trump's allies to pass the bill through the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to hold a vote as early as Wednesday. The lower chamber approved an earlier version of the bill in May with a margin of just one vote, and this bill must now be reconciled with the Senate version. Both chambers are controlled by Trump's Republicans, but within the party several factions are fighting over key policies in the lengthy legislation. Sticking points include the question of how much the bill will add to the US national deficit, and how deeply it will cut healthcare and other social programmes. During previous signs of rebellion against Trump at Congress, Republican lawmakers have ultimately fallen in line. Facing intense pressure, House must decide if Trump's bill is good enough What's in Trump's budget bill? Trump and Musk feud again over budget plans The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the version of the bill that was passed on Tuesday by the Senate could add $3.3tn (£2.4tn) to the US national deficit over the next 10 years. That compares with $2.8tn that could be added by the earlier version that was narrowly passed by the House. The deficit means the difference between what the US government spends and the revenue it receives. This outraged the fiscal hawks in the conservative House Freedom Caucus, who have threatened to tank the bill. Many of them are echoing claims made by Elon Musk, Trump's former adviser and campaign donor, who has repeatedly lashed out at lawmakers for considering a bill that will ultimately add to US national debt. Shortly after the Senate passed the bill, Congressman Ralph Norman of South Carolina, a Freedom Caucus member, called the move "unconscionable". "What the Senate did, I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor," he added. Norman's colleague from Texas, Chip Roy, was also quick to signal his frustration. "I think the odds are a hell of a lot lower than they were even 48 hours ago or 72 hours ago based on the deal-cutting that I just saw," Roy said in response to a question about meeting Trump's 4 July deadline. Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris of Tennessee told Fox News that "a group of us are not going to vote to advance the bill until we iron out some of the deficit problems". "Mr Musk is right, we cannot sustain these deficits," Harris continued. "He understands finances, he understands debts and deficits, and we have to make further progress." On Tuesday, Conservative Congressman Andy Ogles went as far as to file an amendment that would completely replace the Senate version of the bill, which he called a "dud", with the original House-approved one. Meanwhile, Ohio Republican Warren Davison posted on X: "Promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending." He added: "We will eventually arrive at the crash site, because it appears nothing will stop this runaway spending train. A fatal overdose of government." Beyond fiscal hawks, House Republican leadership will also have to contend with moderates in their party who represent more liberal-leaning states and key swing districts that helped the party rise to power in the November election. "I've been clear from the start that I will not support a final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid, puts critical funding at risk, or threatens the stability of healthcare providers," said Congressman David Valadao, who represents a swing district in California. This echoes the criticism of opposition Democrats. Other Republicans have signalled a willingness to compromise. Randy Fine, from Florida, told the BBC he had frustrations with the Senate version of the bill, but that he would vote it through the House because "we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Representatives from poorer districts are worried about the Senate version of the bill harming their constituents, which could also hurt them at the polls in 2026. According to the Hill, six Republicans planning to vote down the bill due to concerns about cuts to key provisions, including cuts to medical coverage. Some of the critical Republicans have attacked the Senate's more aggressive cuts to Medicaid, the healthcare programme relied upon by millions of low-income Americans. House Republicans had wrestled over how much to cut Medicaid and food subsidies in the initial version their chamber passed. They needed the bill to reduce spending, in order to offset lost revenue from the tax cuts contained in the legislation. The Senate made steeper cuts to both areas in the version passed on Tuesday. Changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) in the Senate's bill would see roughly 12 million Americans lose health insurance by 2034, according to a CBO report published on Saturday. Under the version originally passed by the House, a smaller number of 11 million Americans would have had their coverage stripped, according to the CBO. Discussing the Medicaid issue with former Trump adviser and conservative podcaster Steve Bannon, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was asked whether the House might simply "rubber stamp" the Senate version. The right-wing House member and Trump loyalist responded that there was not enough support to get the bill through the House, using strong language to suggest the situation was a mess. "I think it's far from over," she said. "It's really a dire situation. We're on a time clock that's really been set on us, so we have a lot of pressure." The bill also deals with the question of how much taxpayers can deduct from the amount they pay in federal taxes, based on how much they pay in state and local taxes (Salt). This, too, has become a controversial issue. There is currently a $10,000 cap, which expires this year. Both the Senate and House have approved increasing this to $40,000. But in the Senate-approved version, the cap would return to $10,000 after five years. This change could pose a problem for some House Republicans.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Paramount Global Blasted For Settling Donald Trump's '60 Minutes' Lawsuit: 'Threatens Journalists' Ability To Do Their Job,' WGAE Says
Paramount Global is already facing sharp criticism over its decision to settle Donald Trump's lawsuit over the way that CBS' 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris. The $16 million settlement, announced late on Tuesday, came after months of wrangling and protest within CBS News. The lawsuit was seen by many legal observers as meritless, but Paramount Global needs Trump administration approval for its merger with Skydance Media. More from Deadline Paramount Global Settles Trump Lawsuit Over '60 Minutes' Segment For $16M Paramount Settles Donald Trump Lawsuit, Clearing Path For Skydance Merger; $16M Payment But No Apology In '60 Minutes' Affair After Dodgers Incident With Federal Agents, Stephen Miller Co-Founded Legal Group Files Employment Complaint Over Team's DEI Efforts The Writers Guild of America East, which represents writers at 60 Minutes and elsewhere in the news division, said that they stand 'behind the exemplary work of our members at 60 Minutes and CBS News. We wish their bosses at Paramount Global had the courage to do the same. This settlement is a transparent attempt to curry favors with an administration in the hopes it will allow Paramount Global and Skydance Media merger to be cleared for approval. Paramount's decision to capitulate to Trump threatens journalists' ability to do their job reporting on powerful public figures.' Ruth Ben-Ghiant, the author who writes about authoritarianism and propaganda, wrote on X, 'Had they consulted with someone, anyone, who knows about authoritarian shakedown tactics and Mafia states, they would have learned that by paying out they have confirmed their weakness in the eyes of the predator.' One organization, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in May that it planned to file a shareholder derivative lawsuit against the company if there was a settlement. A spokesperson for the organization did not immediately return a request for comment. More to come. Best of Deadline Who Is [SPOILER]? The Latest Big Marvel Reveal Explained 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 'Poker Face' Season 2 Guest Stars: From Katie Holmes To Simon Hellberg
Axios
13 minutes ago
- Axios
Key renewables official looks forward to permitting overhaul
A top renewables industry official is looking ahead to overhauling permitting and having wind and solar meet fast-rising demand, even as the House is weighing the Senate bill that would ax incentives. Why it matters: Absent a dramatic plot twist on Capitol Hill, the industry faces a much tougher future, with the GOP yanking unprecedented Biden-era support. There's no sugarcoating it: analysts now see much slower renewables growth. The body blow could have been even worse. But GOP moderates forced the removal of new taxes on wind and solar projects and softened some deadlines. The intrigue: With the "polarizing" reconciliation fight in the rearview, American Clean Power Association CEO Jason Grumet hopes for a revival of permitting legislation that made progress last year. (ACP's criticism of the reconciliation bill is here.) He told me he sees an opening for the wider energy industry to get back to "advocating for shared interests," noting a "shared frustration we have with the inability to modernize the country." "The administration has expressed significant interest in permitting reform. It's going to require the good old-fashioned, 60-vote, bipartisan legislative process," Grumet said. Friction point: The budget bill pares back tax credits just as U.S. power demand is rising quickly after roughly 15 static years. That means renewables will remain needed resources in a country that needs more electricity — and fast, he said. The big picture:"We're not competing with natural gas because every single electron is needed. And we're certainly not competing with future technologies like geothermal or advanced nuclear," Grumet said of renewables. "The incredible economic demand and the fact that electricity is not a nice-to-have, but it's a must-have commodity, gives us confidence that we're going to continue to see clean power be the fastest to market, and in many parts of the country, the lowest-cost resource." Threat level: The increased U.S. demand — fueled in no small part by AI — has changed the landscape, he said. "When we had no real growth in demand, the country could tolerate bad federal policy, because, you know, you could screw up this side of the economy, you could screw up that side of the economy, but there was enough energy going around to kind of cover the gaps," Grumet said. "Going forward, we do not have that luxury. Skyrocketing demand that strains reliability and increases prices focuses the mind." That creates an opportunity to "build upon the closure of this chapter" and begin building more durable policy. Between the lines: I asked Grumet about a theme running through the budget fight: how IRA red state investments and jobs didn't deter major rollbacks. "It's true that the intense polarization actually overwhelmed the rational self-interests of the majority of the Republican members of the Senate," he said. But Grumet sees shared interests exerting more sway going forward — he was quick to note that senators including John Curtis and Lisa Murkowski helped strip some of the harshest provisions even as they backed the broader bill. The bottom line: "That coalition of the pragmatic has actually just started to reassert itself," he said, "and we're going to, certainly with the permitting reform debate and others, try to now grow that ballast in the system."
