House Republicans are experiencing deepening divisions in their negotiations over a settlement package aimed at addressing President Trump’s legislative agenda from his first year, with time running short as deadlines loom.
On Wednesday, GOP members provided mixed messages regarding Medicaid cuts, signaling a lack of consensus on one of the key issues in their discussions.
They also faced challenges related to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction caps, losing ground as they attempted to come to a compromise.
Republicans maintained that Trump intends to present the package he has characterized as “big beautiful bills” before the Memorial Day break, a target considered quite ambitious from the outset.
As May begins to wrap up, it seems they’re creating more work for themselves.
“There’s a whole range of parameters and many differing opinions,” commented Representative Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), part of the SALT Caucus and the Ways and Means Committee. “And we’re starting to realize that.”
Separately, leaders from the House Energy and Commerce Committee met with their members to discuss how to maintain their agreement amidst the turmoil.
The co-chairs of the SALT Caucus, seeking to raise the caps for high-tax states—Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) and Young Kim (R-Calif.)—joined discussions on the matter.
However, one SALT Caucus member shared a rather bleak impression of the meeting’s outcomes.
Malliotakis noted that the caucus didn’t propose what they considered ideal cap numbers during discussions. Nonetheless, Kim mentioned that her preferred cap is $62,000, a figure that Malliotakis did manage to advocate for.
“I’m aiming to gather as many figures as possible,” Malliotakis told reporters when questioned about specific numbers.
Meanwhile, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) presented remarks that seemed to contradict those made by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA.) regarding Medicare cuts.
Guthrie indicated that some of the bills his committee is drafting could include “per capita” provisions for a broader Medicaid demographic.
Conversely, Johnson stated the previous night that Republicans would likely reject that controversial change and would aim to sidestep direct cuts to states’ enhanced federal funding, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).
“I wasn’t part of that meeting, so I can’t say for sure what was discussed,” Guthrie reflected on Johnson’s comments as he exited a gathering. He emphasized that individual caps were “still an option” and he was still figuring things out.
Guthrie indicated he needed further discussions with leadership. When asked about his contradiction with Johnson’s earlier stance, he hesitated but shifted focus back to Guthrie’s role.
“He’s the chairman, and they’ll hash it out,” the speaker remarked. “It’s still not a final call, so I probably said that for a reason. We need to develop consensus on all proposed ideas.”
Guthrie’s comments followed a meeting with a moderate Republican the day before, who expressed concern regarding the potential Medicaid changes.
As uncertainties abound, some hardline conservatives are pushing for significant deficit reductions.
Representative Lloyd Smucker (R-PA) spearheaded a letter on Wednesday urging House leaders to avoid deviations from established House targets to align with the Senate’s lower goals. It’s uncertain how these varying positions will resolve.
“Our backing reaffirms we will adhere strictly to the House framework concerning the bill as outlined in the concurrent budget resolution,” the letter asserted.
Both the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee aim to finalize their legislative components next week, ensuring they can meet an anniversary deadline, though no formal markups have been scheduled yet.
“We still want to proceed,” Guthrie remarked regarding the timeline. “We’re working through all the details and still debating it.”
Representative Buddy Carter (R-GA), who chairs the Energy and Commercial Health Subcommittee, indicated that no determinations had been finalized regarding the legislation’s specifics.
“We haven’t actually included anything yet; we’ve just removed certain elements,” Carter stated.
Trump has consistently said he’s opposed to cuts in Medicaid benefits. On Sunday, he reiterated his commitment to protecting Medicaid, insisting Congress has no plans to reduce it.
Republicans generally agree on other changes to Medicaid, including implementing federal work requirements, disqualifying non-citizens from eligibility, and increasing the frequency of state eligibility checks.
However, Guthrie’s committee is tasked with achieving an $880 billion cut to help reach a substantial spending reduction target of at least $1.5 trillion, making it challenging to achieve that number without considering more controversial options.
Compounding the lawmakers’ challenges, an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office released Wednesday indicated that millions could lose health insurance under the proposed Republican measures.
For instance, instituting a Medicaid spending cap for beneficiaries of a growing demographic could save $225 billion, potentially leaving 1.5 million more people uninsured by 2034.
Moderate Congressman Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) responded to the CBO’s findings by reaffirming his opposition to per capita caps and other contentious Medicaid adjustments.
“I’ve maintained from the start that I’m against changes that detract from the eligibility of recipients,” Lawler said on X, referencing suggested changes like per capita caps and FMAP adjustments.
Per capita caps and direct cuts to federal funding have been deal-breakers for many centrist Republicans, while hardliners argue that aggressive Medicaid cuts are essential.
“I worry we won’t achieve necessary deficit reductions without addressing Medicaid cuts,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), chair of the Freedom Caucus, stated on Wednesday.
