Latest news with #SenateRepublicans
CNN
5 hours ago
- Business
- CNN
The White House's fuzzy math is starting to haunt the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill'
Elon Musk's 36-word social media missile directed at the cornerstone of President Donald Trump's legislative agenda marked the latest, if most visceral, example of a growing problem for the White House. Nobody buys its math. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk posted in the middle of the White House press briefing in a dramatic escalation of his initial objections to the giant domestic policy bill's cost. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.' Musk's post (and its Wednesday follow up) landed at the most delicate moment for an essential pillar of Trump's entire domestic agenda. Senate Republicans are set to launch their high-stakes effort to pass the bill, while Trump and his top advisers seek to aggressively counter the widespread consensus among economists, nonpartisan budget scorekeepers and Wall Street analysts that the bill will pile trillions of dollars onto the soaring US debt. Trump's top economic officials insist, unequivocally and repeatedly, that the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' won't add to the debt over 10 years. The definitive statements serve as an unabashed outlier among the catalogue of budget scores, growth forecasts and macroeconomic analyses produced since House Republicans passed their version of Trump's agenda by the narrowest of margins. Differences of opinion between economists, scorekeepers and analysts are commonplace, as are the heated rhetorical attacks lobbed at the Congressional Budget Office. They aren't exclusive to this White House. But the near-universal agreement that the bill's combination of tax and spending cuts net out as a significant deficit driver lays bare an unusually dramatic disconnect with the view of Trump's economic team. White House officials defend their outlier projections with their view that the bill will spark a durable surge in economic activity that, paired with their broader economic agenda, will far outpace the median economic forecasts. That, in turn, would drive up federal tax receipts and fill most, if not all, of the hole created by $3.7 trillion loss of revenue to the government projected over 10 years at the same time Trump's tariffs would drive a dramatic surge in revenue not included in any budget score tied to the bill. The $1.3 trillion in mandatory spending cuts over a decade would mark the starting point White House officials will take into the looming spending battle on Capitol Hill, where Trump and Republican leaders will drive a hardline view that any bipartisan agreement must include deep discretionary spending cuts. To put it plainly, the White House rationale is tied to a combination of projections and assumptions that crash head-on with economic, political and geopolitical consensus views of reality. 'There are a lot of arguments Republicans can make here – and the White House makes them, too – about the merits of this package and our long-standing belief that scorekeepers consistently fail to capture the effect of tax cuts,' said a Republican economic official who has served in multiple GOP administrations. 'But I'm not sure why they insist on going this particular route given the design of the bill.' But White House officials, who regularly point to several projections that undershot Trump's first term economy, have elevated that message at a critical moment. The White House's messaging is intended to undercut public opposition from Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Ron Johnson, as well as the private anxiety of a handful of others as the Senate mulls changes to the House-passed version of the plan, according to multiple Senate GOP aides. 'I want to see the tax cuts made permanent, but I also want to see the $5 trillion in new debt removed from the bill,' Paul said Tuesday. 'At least four of us in the Senate feel this way.' But it's also directed at an audience that carries far more sway over Trump's economic agenda than any politician: bond investors, who have grown increasingly jittery in recent months. Escalating concern over stratospheric US debt levels drove last month's credit rating downgrade from Moody's, which helped spark another round of tumult in the world's largest and most liquid bond market. Investors had already signaled unease with Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, but as the House moved toward a vote on the bill last month, bond investors once again got jittery. That signaled bond investors' willingness to consider whether the decades-long warnings of a looming, but theoretical, US fiscal collapse may be inching closer to reality. 'You are going to see a crack in the bond market, OK?' said JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon during a May 30 discussion at the Reagan National Economic Forum in California. Dimon, who also said he supports the Republican bill because of the certainty it will bring to US tax policy, said he couldn't predict when exactly that kind of dramatic disruption would occur. But Dimon said the current US fiscal position, absent a major and sustained policy shift, makes a crisis inevitable. 'It's going to happen,' Dimon said. White House officials dismiss that worst-case scenario. They insist the administration isn't rattled by the spike in long-term US borrowing costs or the tumultuous few months in the US Treasury market. They say the bond market's fluctuations aren't aren't tethered to the realities underpinning the world's largest economy. 'I've known Jamie a long time, and for his entire career he's made predictions like this,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation. 'Fortunately, none of them have come true.' Bessent's blunt dismissal of Dimon's prediction reflected a prevailing view inside the West Wing that boils down to, essentially (and sometimes, depending on the adviser, explicitly): 'Everyone else is wrong.' After all, the bill represents an essential component of Trump's economic agenda. The package is more or less what every Republican elected in 2024 campaigned on with Trump. This package includes the tax cuts at the heart of his economic agenda and a series of regulatory reforms that accelerate his sweeping deregulatory agenda. The bill also includes significant military and immigration enforcement spending that would fulfill campaign pledges. Narrow majorities in both chambers were always going to make the effort a high-wire act to balance the hardline fiscal hawks' desires with the needs of the more moderate members who populate the conferences in both chambers. But failure – and the devastating economic and political consequences it would bring – isn't really an option here for the White House or GOP leaders. Still, the deficit concerns are very real and pose the most acute risk at this stage of Senate consideration. They also represent a far higher-stakes threat if bond investor jitters turn into something more dire. White House officials are keenly aware they need to aggressively make their case to uneasy bond investors – and make it well. That reality, more than anything else, raises the question of why officials insist on declaring the bill won't drive up deficits by even a dollar over 10 years. The big assumptions that underpin that projection go something like this: 1) Tariffs will produce trillions of dollars in revenue without hurting US economic growth. 2) Courts allow the White House's sweeping deregulatory agenda, including DOGE cuts, to go forward. 3) Business investment surges, even after the front-loaded corporate tax incentives expire in a couple years. 4) Backloaded spending cuts remain in place over a four-year period and Republicans secure major discretionary spending cuts that will require Democratic support. You can see the sheer number of variables, many outside of Trump's control, inherent in those assertions. That underscores the connective tissue between Trump's first and second terms – and the number of Trump advisers who were by his side then and now. Trump's advisers remain animated by the unyielding belief that the economic experts were proven wrong in Trump's first term. They are betting that's the case again, with Trump's entire economic agenda hanging in the balance. Musk's social media unburdening this week certainly wasn't helpful to the cause. But there is no discussion about any major course change at the White House. 'Nothing has changed from our view of the world,' Vought told reporters outside the West Wing a couple of hours of Musk's Tuesday post.
CNN
6 hours ago
- Business
- CNN
The White House's fuzzy math is starting to haunt the Big, Beautiful Bill
Elon Musk's 36-word social media missile directed at the cornerstone of President Donald Trump's legislative agenda marked the latest, if most visceral, example of a growing problem for the White House. Nobody buys its math. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk posted in the middle of the White House press briefing in a dramatic escalation of his initial objections to the giant domestic policy bill's cost. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.' Musk's post (and its Wednesday follow up) landed at the most delicate moment for an essential pillar of Trump's entire domestic agenda. Senate Republicans are set to launch their high-stakes effort to pass the bill, while Trump and his top advisers seek to aggressively counter the widespread consensus among economists, nonpartisan budget scorekeepers and Wall Street analysts that the bill will pile trillions of dollars onto the soaring US debt. Trump's top economic officials insist, unequivocally and repeatedly, that the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' won't add to the debt over 10 years. The definitive statements serve as an unabashed outlier among the catalogue of budget scores, growth forecasts and macroeconomic analyses produced since House Republicans passed their version of Trump's agenda by the narrowest of margins. Differences of opinion between economists, scorekeepers and analysts are commonplace, as are the heated rhetorical attacks lobbed at the Congressional Budget Office. They aren't exclusive to this White House. But the near-universal agreement that the bill's combination of tax and spending cuts net out as a significant deficit driver lays bare an unusually dramatic disconnect with the view of Trump's economic team. White House officials defend their outlier projections with their view that the bill will spark a durable surge in economic activity that, paired with their broader economic agenda, will far outpace the median economic forecasts. That, in turn, would drive up federal tax receipts and fill most, if not all, of the hole created by $3.7 trillion loss of revenue to the government projected over 10 years at the same time Trump's tariffs would drive a dramatic surge in revenue not included in any budget score tied to the bill. The $1.3 trillion in mandatory spending cuts over a decade would mark the starting point White House officials will take into the looming spending battle on Capitol Hill, where Trump and Republican leaders will drive a hardline view that any bipartisan agreement must include deep discretionary spending cuts. To put it plainly, the White House rationale is tied to a combination of projections and assumptions that crash head-on with economic, political and geopolitical consensus views of reality. 'There are a lot of arguments Republicans can make here – and the White House makes them, too – about the merits of this package and our long-standing belief that scorekeepers consistently fail to capture the effect of tax cuts,' said a Republican economic official who has served in multiple GOP administrations. 'But I'm not sure why they insist on going this particular route given the design of the bill.' But White House officials, who regularly point to several projections that undershot Trump's first term economy, have elevated that message at a critical moment. The White House's messaging is intended to undercut public opposition from Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Ron Johnson, as well as the private anxiety of a handful of others as the Senate mulls changes to the House-passed version of the plan, according to multiple Senate GOP aides. 'I want to see the tax cuts made permanent, but I also want to see the $5 trillion in new debt removed from the bill,' Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday. 'At least four of us in the Senate feel this way.' But it's also directed at an audience that carries far more sway over Trump's economic agenda than any politician: bond investors, who have grown increasingly jittery in recent months. Escalating concern over stratospheric US debt levels drove last month's credit rating downgrade from Moody's, which helped spark another round of tumult in the world's largest and most liquid bond market. Investors had already signaled unease with Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, but as the House moved toward a vote on the bill last month, bond investors once again got jittery. That signaled bond investors' willingness to consider whether the decades-long warnings of a looming, but theoretical, US fiscal collapse may be inching closer to reality. 'You are going to see a crack in the bond market, OK?' said JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon during a May 30 discussion at the Reagan National Economic Forum in California. Dimon, who also said he supports the Republican bill because of the certainty it will bring to US tax policy, said he couldn't predict when exactly that kind of dramatic disruption would occur. But Dimon said the current US fiscal position, absent a major and sustained policy shift, makes a crisis inevitable. 'It's going to happen,' Dimon said. White House officials dismiss that worst-case scenario. They insist the administration isn't rattled by the spike in long-term US borrowing costs or the tumultuous few months in the US Treasury market. They say the bond market's fluctuations aren't aren't tethered to the realities underpinning the world's largest economy. 'I've known Jamie a long time, and for his entire career he's made predictions like this,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation. 'Fortunately, none of them have come true.' Bessent's blunt dismissal of Dimon's prediction reflected a prevailing view inside the West Wing that boils down to, essentially (and sometimes, depending on the adviser, explicitly): 'Everyone else is wrong.' After all, the bill represents an essential component of Trump's economic agenda. The package is more or less what every Republican elected in 2024 campaigned on with Trump. This package includes the tax cuts at the heart of his economic agenda and a series of regulatory reforms that accelerate his sweeping deregulatory agenda. The bill also includes significant military and immigration enforcement spending that would fulfill campaign pledges. Narrow majorities in both chambers were always going to make the effort a high-wire act to balance the hardline fiscal hawks' desires with the needs of the more moderate members who populate the conferences in both chambers. But failure – and the devastating economic and political consequences it would bring – isn't really an option here for the White House or GOP leaders. Still, the deficit concerns are very real and pose the most acute risk at this stage of Senate consideration. They also represent a far higher-stakes threat if bond investor jitters turn into something more dire. White House officials are keenly aware they need to aggressively make their case to uneasy bond investors – and make it well. That reality, more than anything else, raises the question of why officials insist on declaring the bill won't drive up deficits by even a dollar over 10 years. The big assumptions that underpin that projection go something like this: 1) Tariffs will produce trillions of dollars in revenue without hurting US economic growth. 2) Courts allow the White House's sweeping deregulatory agenda, including DOGE cuts, to go forward. 3) Business investment surges, even after the front-loaded corporate tax incentives expire in a couple years. 4) Backloaded spending cuts remain in place over a four-year period and Republicans secure major discretionary spending cuts that will require Democratic support. You can see the sheer number of variables, many outside of Trump's control, in herent in those assertions. That underscores the connective tissue between Trump's first and second terms – and the number of Trump advisers who were by his side then and now. Trump's advisers remain animated by the unyielding belief that the economic experts were proven wrong in Trump's first term. They are betting that's the case again, with Trump's entire economic agenda hanging in the balance. Musk's social media unburdening this week certainly wasn't helpful to the cause. But there is no discussion about any major course change at the White House. 'Nothing has changed from our view of the world,' Vought told reporters outside the West Wing a couple of hours of Musk's Tuesday post.
CNN
6 hours ago
- Business
- CNN
The White House's fuzzy math is starting to haunt the Big, Beautiful Bill
Elon Musk's 36-word social media missile directed at the cornerstone of President Donald Trump's legislative agenda marked the latest, if most visceral, example of a growing problem for the White House. Nobody buys its math. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk posted in the middle of the White House press briefing in a dramatic escalation of his initial objections to the giant domestic policy bill's cost. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.' Musk's post (and its Wednesday follow up) landed at the most delicate moment for an essential pillar of Trump's entire domestic agenda. Senate Republicans are set to launch their high-stakes effort to pass the bill, while Trump and his top advisers seek to aggressively counter the widespread consensus among economists, nonpartisan budget scorekeepers and Wall Street analysts that the bill will pile trillions of dollars onto the soaring US debt. Trump's top economic officials insist, unequivocally and repeatedly, that the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' won't add to the debt over 10 years. The definitive statements serve as an unabashed outlier among the catalogue of budget scores, growth forecasts and macroeconomic analyses produced since House Republicans passed their version of Trump's agenda by the narrowest of margins. Differences of opinion between economists, scorekeepers and analysts are commonplace, as are the heated rhetorical attacks lobbed at the Congressional Budget Office. They aren't exclusive to this White House. But the near-universal agreement that the bill's combination of tax and spending cuts net out as a significant deficit driver lays bare an unusually dramatic disconnect with the view of Trump's economic team. White House officials defend their outlier projections with their view that the bill will spark a durable surge in economic activity that, paired with their broader economic agenda, will far outpace the median economic forecasts. That, in turn, would drive up federal tax receipts and fill most, if not all, of the hole created by $3.7 trillion loss of revenue to the government projected over 10 years at the same time Trump's tariffs would drive a dramatic surge in revenue not included in any budget score tied to the bill. The $1.3 trillion in mandatory spending cuts over a decade would mark the starting point White House officials will take into the looming spending battle on Capitol Hill, where Trump and Republican leaders will drive a hardline view that any bipartisan agreement must include deep discretionary spending cuts. To put it plainly, the White House rationale is tied to a combination of projections and assumptions that crash head-on with economic, political and geopolitical consensus views of reality. 'There are a lot of arguments Republicans can make here – and the White House makes them, too – about the merits of this package and our long-standing belief that scorekeepers consistently fail to capture the effect of tax cuts,' said a Republican economic official who has served in multiple GOP administrations. 'But I'm not sure why they insist on going this particular route given the design of the bill.' But White House officials, who regularly point to several projections that undershot Trump's first term economy, have elevated that message at a critical moment. The White House's messaging is intended to undercut public opposition from Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Ron Johnson, as well as the private anxiety of a handful of others as the Senate mulls changes to the House-passed version of the plan, according to multiple Senate GOP aides. 'I want to see the tax cuts made permanent, but I also want to see the $5 trillion in new debt removed from the bill,' Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday. 'At least four of us in the Senate feel this way.' But it's also directed at an audience that carries far more sway over Trump's economic agenda than any politician: bond investors, who have grown increasingly jittery in recent months. Escalating concern over stratospheric US debt levels drove last month's credit rating downgrade from Moody's, which helped spark another round of tumult in the world's largest and most liquid bond market. Investors had already signaled unease with Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, but as the House moved toward a vote on the bill last month, bond investors once again got jittery. That signaled bond investors' willingness to consider whether the decades-long warnings of a looming, but theoretical, US fiscal collapse may be inching closer to reality. 'You are going to see a crack in the bond market, OK?' said JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon during a May 30 discussion at the Reagan National Economic Forum in California. Dimon, who also said he supports the Republican bill because of the certainty it will bring to US tax policy, said he couldn't predict when exactly that kind of dramatic disruption would occur. But Dimon said the current US fiscal position, absent a major and sustained policy shift, makes a crisis inevitable. 'It's going to happen,' Dimon said. White House officials dismiss that worst-case scenario. They insist the administration isn't rattled by the spike in long-term US borrowing costs or the tumultuous few months in the US Treasury market. They say the bond market's fluctuations aren't aren't tethered to the realities underpinning the world's largest economy. 'I've known Jamie a long time, and for his entire career he's made predictions like this,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation. 'Fortunately, none of them have come true.' Bessent's blunt dismissal of Dimon's prediction reflected a prevailing view inside the West Wing that boils down to, essentially (and sometimes, depending on the adviser, explicitly): 'Everyone else is wrong.' After all, the bill represents an essential component of Trump's economic agenda. The package is more or less what every Republican elected in 2024 campaigned on with Trump. This package includes the tax cuts at the heart of his economic agenda and a series of regulatory reforms that accelerate his sweeping deregulatory agenda. The bill also includes significant military and immigration enforcement spending that would fulfill campaign pledges. Narrow majorities in both chambers were always going to make the effort a high-wire act to balance the hardline fiscal hawks' desires with the needs of the more moderate members who populate the conferences in both chambers. But failure – and the devastating economic and political consequences it would bring – isn't really an option here for the White House or GOP leaders. Still, the deficit concerns are very real and pose the most acute risk at this stage of Senate consideration. They also represent a far higher-stakes threat if bond investor jitters turn into something more dire. White House officials are keenly aware they need to aggressively make their case to uneasy bond investors – and make it well. That reality, more than anything else, raises the question of why officials insist on declaring the bill won't drive up deficits by even a dollar over 10 years. The big assumptions that underpin that projection go something like this: 1) Tariffs will produce trillions of dollars in revenue without hurting US economic growth. 2) Courts allow the White House's sweeping deregulatory agenda, including DOGE cuts, to go forward. 3) Business investment surges, even after the front-loaded corporate tax incentives expire in a couple years. 4) Backloaded spending cuts remain in place over a four-year period and Republicans secure major discretionary spending cuts that will require Democratic support. You can see the sheer number of variables, many outside of Trump's control, in herent in those assertions. That underscores the connective tissue between Trump's first and second terms – and the number of Trump advisers who were by his side then and now. Trump's advisers remain animated by the unyielding belief that the economic experts were proven wrong in Trump's first term. They are betting that's the case again, with Trump's entire economic agenda hanging in the balance. Musk's social media unburdening this week certainly wasn't helpful to the cause. But there is no discussion about any major course change at the White House. 'Nothing has changed from our view of the world,' Vought told reporters outside the West Wing a couple of hours of Musk's Tuesday post.
Fox News
8 hours ago
- Business
- Fox News
The ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill' urgently needs a makeover to usher in Trump's Golden Age
President Donald Trump is working to usher in a new Golden Age for America. But he needs Congress to do its part by ensuring that the "One Big, Beautiful Bill" isn't neutered by shortsighted compromise. Recently, Trump gave Senate Republicans the green light to make changes to the House version of his signature legislative initiative, openly acknowledging that there is room to significantly improve on its current form. I've been working publicly and privately to advocate for this bill since before Trump's reelection, collaborating with some of the greatest business leaders and economists in the country to ensure that we make the absolute most of this rare opportunity to set this country up for long-term economic prosperity. We've identified several provisions that add significantly to the bill's "score" from the Congressional Budget Office (a measure of how much the legislation is projected to affect the federal budget) without offering commensurate economic benefits. Addressing these provisions would free up space to expand the bill's most impactful pro-growth elements — most significantly by creating the budget room to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. One element of the House bill that needs to be eliminated is a provision offering full expensing for new structures. While it might sound like a good, pro-growth idea to allow companies to deduct the entire cost of a new building the year it's placed into service, in practice no public company would ever take advantage of it — because taking the deduction would slash their reported earnings, harming their stock value and investor confidence. Even private businesses face structural hurdles, including the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT), income mismatches and the reality that bonus depreciation already provides ample incentive. Buildings are long-term investments. A one-year tax write-off simply isn't the deciding factor. According to the CBO, however, this provision alone adds $148 billion to the projected cost of the "Big, Beautiful Bill." That's a huge chunk of change that crowds out other worthwhile provisions that companies would actually use to increase productivity and output. Blue state Republicans successfully fought for the inclusion of a much more generous cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, which the House bill raises from $10,000 to $40,000. The increased cap means that about 90% of filers will be able to deduct the full value of their state and local taxes from their federal income tax, adding an estimated $320 billion to the cost of the legislation. Once again, however, the projections fail to account for the actual, real-world implications of the provision. Because of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), very few filers would even be able to claim the full deduction at the $40,000 cap used in the House bill. In other words, blue state Republicans are sabotaging this legislation for the sake of political theater — they don't expect voters to understand the nuances of tax law, and when they run for re-election next year, they want to be able to tell their constituents that they went to bat for them. In fact, raising the SALT cap could ultimately hurt many blue state taxpayers, because Democrat elected officials in those states would use the increased cap to justify raising taxes even higher while telling voters that Uncle Sam will be offsetting a significant portion of the cost. We're fortunate that the Trump tax cuts are coming up for renewal at a time when Republicans control the White House and both Houses of Congress. But who will be in charge the next time the tax cuts are due to expire? We should not be forcing American families to live with the anxiety of wondering whether their taxes will automatically shoot up if the political winds aren't blowing the right way in the future. Likewise, we can't expect businesses to make the long-term investments our economy needs if they can't reliably project tax rates even just a few years into the future. Certainty and stability are essential to sound economic policy. With the savings from eliminating full and immediate expensing of structures and lowering the SALT cap back to $10,000, Congress should be able to make the individual and corporate tax reductions permanent, creating the conditions for long-term growth. The fixes outlined above could also create room in the budget for full and immediate expensing of R&D investments. Unlike expensing of new structures, companies would eagerly take advantage of tax write-offs on their research and development costs. This was included in the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, but is currently in the process of being automatically phased out. Competitors such as Great Britain and China are already offering permanent, full and immediate expensing of domestic R&D investments. If America intends to keep up in the race to develop and perfect world-changing new technology like artificial intelligence, we can't afford to be out-competed by the incentives offered by other countries. Thanks to President Trump's visionary leadership, America is on the precipice of a new Golden Age — if only Congress can get tax policy right. We only have one chance.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Republican senator criticized for mock apology after saying ‘we all are going to die'
Senator Joni Ernst triggered fierce criticism after making light of voters' fears that Republican Medicaid cuts could prove fatal, telling a town hall audience 'we all are going to die' and then filming a mocking response video over the weekend. The Iowa Republican, who is facing a possibly challenging re-election battle in 2026, was explaining at a Friday town hall how the Republican immigration and tax package would affect Medicaid eligibility when an audience member shouted that people could die if they lost coverage through the proposed cuts. 'Well, we all are going to die,' Ernst responded as the crowd groaned. 'So, for heaven's sakes. For heaven's sakes, folks.' Rather than clarify or apologize, Ernst channeled Trump-era defiance in her response on Saturday with an Instagram video that appeared to be filmed in a graveyard. 'I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth,' she said. 'So I apologize, and I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well.' She concluded by telling viewers: 'For those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and savior Jesus Christ.' The controversy comes as Senate Republicans prepare to tackle the so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill', which passed the House and would slash social safety net spending by more than $1tn over a decade. Congressional Budget Office projections suggest the measure could strip Medicaid coverage from 8.7 million people and leave 7.6 million more Americans uninsured. On Monday afternoon, the White House defended the legislation with a 'mythbuster' statement dismissing claims that the bill would cause deaths as 'one of Democrats' most disgusting lies'. The White House argued the bill would actually 'strengthen and protect the social safety net' by removing what it claimed were 1.4 million undocumented people from Medicaid rolls and implementing work requirements for able-bodied adults. 'By removing at least 1.4 million illegal immigrants from the program, ending taxpayer-funded gender mutilation surgeries for minors, and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, the One Big Beautiful Bill will ensure Medicaid better serves the American people,' the statement read. Senate Republicans acknowledge the House-passed bill will undergo significant revisions, with several Republican senators seeking changes to the Medicaid provisions. Ernst's comments have also provided Democrats with potent ammunition for their argument that Republicans prioritize tax cuts for wealthy Americans over healthcare for ordinary citizens. Democratic National Committee chairperson Ken Martin said Ernst had 'said the quiet part out loud', arguing Republicans don't care 'whether their own constituents live or die as long as the richest few get richer'. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut told CNN on Sunday that the Republican bill 'is about life and death'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion 'Everybody in that audience knows that they're going to die. They would just rather die in old age, at 85 or 90, instead of dying at 40,' Murphy said. 'And the reality is that, when you lose your healthcare, you are much more at risk of early death.' In Iowa, the stakes are notably high, with roughly one in five residents relying on Medicaid coverage, including half of all nursing home residents, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Ernst attempted damage control during Friday's town hall, insisting Republicans would 'focus on those that are most vulnerable' and protect people who meet Medicaid eligibility requirements. The senator faces several primary challengers as she seeks a third term, with the Medicaid controversy potentially complicating her political positioning in a state where healthcare access remains a key voter concern. In December, she was attacked by her right-flank for being a 'Rino' after initially hesitating on confirming the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.
