A 1,116-page bill passed by the House in the early hours of Thursday is now facing numerous objections from Senate Republicans aiming to advance President Trump’s legislative goals.
Some GOP senators are advocating for reforms in Medicaid and suggesting revisions to the bill, particularly regarding the sale of government-owned spectrum bands and the gradual reduction of clean energy incentives until the projected effects on federal debt are clearer.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) criticized Republican senators from Blue States and pushed to increase the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to as much as $40,000, which is another contentious point among GOP senators.
A significant block could come from Senate Conservatives who believe the bill doesn’t adequately address future deficit reductions, which are expected to exceed $2 trillion annually for the next two years.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) has already made his opposition clear, stating he will not support the bill as long as it includes a provision to raise federal debt limits by $4 trillion over the next two years. He emphasized, “We’ve never voted to raise the debt cap this much,” suggesting it isn’t a conservative stance to support such an increase.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), known for his fiscal conservatism, mentioned that at least four senators are prepared to vote against the current version of the bill. “It should aim to reduce deficits,” he argued. His personal stance is a firm “no” on the House bill, reflecting a desire to decrease the deficit.
The Congressional Budget Office projects the bill would add around $3.8 trillion to the national debt, while Johnson believes it could be closer to $4 trillion. He indicated that “at least four” Republican senators are disinclined to proceed without more substantial spending cuts.
On the House side, fiscal conservatives have also threatened to oppose the bill unless they see significant cuts included. However, some seemed placated after meeting with Trump earlier this week.
Only two House Republicans, Thomas Massey (KY) and Warren Davidson (OH), voted against the bill, with House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD) opting to vote “present.”
A faction of Senate Republicans is also raising concerns regarding Medicaid reforms. This group includes Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.). Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is hearing their concerns about how proposed House reforms may impact constituents and rural hospitals.
Collins has flagged issues around tax reforms and cost-sharing for healthcare providers, suggesting that changes will lead to higher costs for beneficiaries, particularly affecting workers.
Another major point of contention is a proposal in the House bill that would phase out clean energy incentives, a move that could substantially affect Republican-majority states. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), John Curtis (R-Utah), Murkowski, and Moran have previously expressed the need to maintain a stable tax framework for energy development.
Tillis cautioned that reducing renewable energy subsidies could have consequences similar to the hardships faced by the oil industry following canceled projects, like the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Some senators are also focusing on changing the SALT cap from $10,000 to $40,000, with discussions around potential impacts on residents in high-tax states like New York and New Jersey. These deductions would start phasing out for incomes exceeding $500,000.
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) indicated that these adjustments would cause some issues. Thune acknowledged that revising the SALT cap will be one of the many areas Senate Republicans will look to amend.
While some GOP senators are keen to rewrite portions of the House bill, Johnson warned that they risk jeopardizing the coalition needed to push the bill through the House.
Additionally, there are Republican senators opposing provisions related to auctioning off government-owned spectrum currently utilized by the Pentagon. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) voiced concerns over the national security implications of these measures, insisting they need serious revision to mitigate risk.
