Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," which includes a controversial AI provision, is making its way through Congress.
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
Trump's bill could lead to rampant AI abuse, organizations warn in a letter to Congress.
A provision in the bill would prevent states from regulating AI for a decade.
The critics argue it risks civil rights, privacy, and accountability.
A group of high-profile unions, advocacy groups, non-profits, and academic institutions are warning that a provision in President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" could lead to the "unfettered abuse" of AI.
In a letter to Congress on Monday, 141 organizations called out a provision in Trump's signature bill that would prohibit states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. The provision, which Republicans placed into the sweeping tax, immigration, and defense legislation, would be a huge victory for regulation-wary AI companies.
But it would be a nightmare for Americans' civil rights, the groups argued in their letter, which was addressed to Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
"Protections for civil rights and children's privacy, transparency in consumer-facing chatbots to prevent fraud, and other safeguards would be invalidated, even those that are uncontroversial," the letter reads.
"The resulting unfettered abuses of AI or automated decision systems could run the gamut from pocketbook harms to working families like decisions on rental prices, to serious violations of ordinary Americans' civil rights, and even to large-scale threats like aiding in cyber attacks on critical infrastructure or the production of biological weapons," it continues.
And, the letter added, without state-level regulations on emerging technologies, companies wouldn't be held accountable.
"This moratorium would mean that even if a company deliberately designs an algorithm that causes foreseeable harm — regardless of how intentional or egregious the misconduct or how devastating the consequences — the company making that bad tech would be unaccountable to lawmakers and the public," the letter reads.
The letter's signatories include Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Economic Policy Institute, Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, the Alphabet Workers Union, and many others.
The provision would invalidate critical state laws — like those already in effect in New Jersey and Colorado — designed to protect people from the harms created by AI, like algorithmic discrimination, which can affect everything from housing, policing, healthcare, and financial services, the letter argues.
Those harms include "many documented cases of AI having highly sexualized conversations with minors and even encouraging minors to commit harm to themselves and others; AI programs making healthcare decisions that have led to adverse and biased outcomes; and AI enabling thousands of women and girls to be victimized by nonconsensual deepfakes," the letter says.
Trump's signature bill, which the House Budget Committee moved forward on Sunday, still has to clear a series of votes in the House before going to the Senate, and the bill's AI provision has to meet a high bar to remain in the larger bill.
The White House and a representative for Speaker Mike Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday defended the "aggressive" timetable he is pushing to advance President Donald Trump’s "big, beautiful bill," saying the House remains on track to pass the "historic" legislative package by Memorial Day.
The House Budget Committee will reconvene at 10 p.m. Sunday night after a vote to advance the more than 1,100-page "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" failed Friday, when five Republicans sided with committee Democrats to sink Trump’s sweeping tax bill.
"We’re on track, working around the clock to deliver this nation-shaping legislation for the American people as soon as possible," Johnson said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" regarding ongoing negotiations. "All 11 of our committees have wrapped up their work, and they spent less and saved more than even we’ve projected initially. This really is a once in a generation opportunity that we have here."
After the bill advances through the budget committee, Johnson said the plan is to move the legislative package to the House Rules Committee by mid-week and then to the House floor by the end of the week "so we meet our initial, our original Memorial Day deadline."
"It’s very important for people to understand why we’re being so aggressive on the timetable and why this really is so important," Johnson said. "This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate the American people gave us during the last election. You’re going to have historic savings for the American people, historic tax relief for American workers, historic investments in border security.
"At the same time, we’re restoring American energy dominance, and we’re rebuilding the defense industrial base, and we’re ensuring that programs like Medicaid and SNAP are strengthened for U.S. citizens who need and deserve them and not being squandered away by illegal aliens and persons who are ineligible to receive them and are cheating the system," he added.
Johnson reiterated that making Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent by 2026 is critical and stressed that the package also eliminates taxes on overtime and tips – a 2024 Trump campaign promise. He said it also includes new tax relief for seniors on Social Security and cuts taxes on "job creators, so that will help everybody across the country at the same time as incentivizing American-made production and manufacturing."
"This is a big thing. We cannot fail, and we’ll get it done for the American people," Johnson said.
South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman and Texas Rep. Chip Roy are among critics from Johnson’s own party who say the speaker is not serious about cutting spending. They want work requirements for able-bodied adult Medicaid recipients to be implemented sooner than 2029 – a view Johnson told "Fox News Sunday" that he shares, but the speaker added there is concern over the ability of the states to "retool their systems and ensure the verification process" can be enforced.
"We’re working through all those details, and we’ll get it done, but I’ll tell you what, this is the largest spending reduction in at least three decades, probably longer. It’s historic," Johnson said, adding that the package has the support of Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, as well as "nearly 500 organizations across the conservative spectrum" including fiscally responsible groups who believe "that we’ve got to turn the tide in spending."
"We are. This is our opportunity to do it. It’s once in a generation, as I’ve said, and we can’t squander it," Johnson said.
The speaker said that while he is confident he will be able to reach a compromise on the Medicaid work requirement to squash internal disputes, Republican leadership does not expect a single Democrat to vote for the bill.
"Which means that they will be on record apparently supporting the largest tax increase in U.S. history, which is what will happen by default after the end of this year if we do not get this job done. We have to accomplish this mission, and we will.," Johnson said.
The White House is shutting down accusations from Democrats and anti-Trump "resistance" that nearly 14 million people will lose insurance coverage under Republican Medicaid reform proposals as part of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" — with Republicans calling foul on the data spin and saying Dems are using it as a scare tactic.
The infighting comes as Democrats and Republicans are going head-to-head over Medicaid spending levels, which has emerged as a prominent wedge between the parties amid the release of new analysis suggesting millions of people would lose their health insurance in order to foot the bill for Trump’s tax cuts.
While Democrats have merged data from two new reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to back up claims that nearly 14 million would lose coverage, the White House and Republicans are objecting, as not all the policy proposals evaluated were actually included in Republicans' legislation, and far fewer people would actually face insurance loss.
Instead, Republicans argue that their proposed reforms to implement work requirements, strengthen eligibility checks and crack down on Medicaid for illegal immigrants preserve the program for those who really need it.
"President Trump is protecting Medicaid for every eligible American who relies on it by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse within this program," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a Tuesday statement to Fox News Digital. "By taking commonsense measures to strengthen Medicaid, we will ultimately improve care for those who this program is intended to serve: pregnant women, the disabled, seniors, and low-income families."
"The President has repeatedly said that he will save Medicaid to ensure it remains a reliable and sustainable lifeline for generations to come," Desai said.
A series of calculations from the CBO have recently emerged evaluating multiple different Medicaid proposals — further pitting Republicans and Democrats against one another on Medicaid reform.
Much of the CBO's Health Analysis Division consists of Democrats or Democrat donors, however, according to conservative government research nonprofit American Accountability Foundation, putting its standing as a nonpartisan organization into question, Fox News Digital.
"The CBO likes to call itself ‘nonpartisan’ in an attempt to disguise its role as an undercover leftist think tank," AAF President Tom Jones said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "In fact, the CBO is institutionally progressive, with 84% of its professional healthcare staff members being registered Democrats. These same staff members, who are on record donating to radicals like Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton, ‘score’ legislation and present it to the American people like it’s sacrosanct."
The CBO declined to comment to Fox News Digital on these claims.
The first new CBO analysis, commissioned by Democrats and released Thursday, failed to examine the exact proposals Republicans are considering and instead, took a shot in the dark at what Republicans might introduce, according to experts.
That’s because Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., requested the CBO evaluate various policies that Republicans could have suggested. However, most of the policies analyzed are not identical to the ones that Republicans have actually put forward, experts said.
"That was Democrats trying to guess what Republicans were going to do," Ryan Long, a senior research fellow at the Paragon Health Institute, told Fox News Digital Monday.
Michael Cannon, the director of health policy studies at the Washington-based libertarian-leaning Cato Institute think tank, voiced similar sentiments about the initial CBO report.
"The first thing to know is that this is not a Republican proposal that CBO was examining," Cannon told Fox News Digital Monday about the initial CBO analysis. "They’re similar to Republican proposals, but these were proposals, ideas that the Democrats asked CBO to examine for the purposes of criticizing those proposals, using them as a CBO score as a cudgel against Republicans."
While Democrats labeled the first scorekeeper’s report as proof that Republican policies would lead to "catastrophic" Medicaid cuts and force millions of people off their coverage, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee said in a post on X that Democrats sought to "fear monger" Americans.
Ultimately, the CBO report released Thursday evaluated five different initiatives that would rein in Medicaid spending, freeing up billions of dollars in spending but jeopardizing healthcare coverage for up to 8.6 million people.
Additional analysis from the CBO released Monday claimed that an additional 5.1 million Americans could lose their coverage if the measure fails to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits that will expire in 2034, and includes a provision to fully implement the Marketplace Integrity Rule that seeks to crack down on eligibility verification.
Although neither of these proposals is included in the Republican legislation, Democrats have added the numbers from these two CBO reports and have asserted that roughly 13.7 million people would go uninsured under Republican policies.
Meanwhile, the latest CBO analysis released Tuesday examining Medicaid proposals included in the GOP measure found that adding work requirements, new eligibility checks and removing illegal immigrants from Medicaid would result in 10.3 million people losing coverage, and would leave 7.6 million people without insurance.
CBO declined to comment when reached by Fox News Digital on its recent reports.
Additionally, Cannon pushed back against accusations that any of the proposals would actually cut Medicaid funding. While federal Medicaid spending is set to increase by 4.5% annually, the proposals CBO evaluated would simply curb that growth to at least 3% annually.
But ultimately, Cannon said the report is a mechanism Democrats are using to ignite fears among Republicans as they seek a legislative victory of their own.
"Democrats want to beat up Republicans, of course they do," Cannon said. "They want to win elections, and they think if they can scare people, they can do it… they don't want Republicans to get a political win, like tax cuts, and so this is their best weapon to stop tax cuts. They’re making the most of it, so that's what's going on with that CBO score."
The tension between Republicans and Democrats over Medicaid funding stems from a larger battle over Trump’s budget package that is making its way through Congress.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is seeking to get the measure over the finish line in the House by Memorial Day.
Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled a portion of the measure Sunday that tackled Medicaid, as the panel follows through on requests to find $880 billion in spending cuts to foot the bill for other Trump priorities.
Specifically, the committee’s proposal put forth policy initiatives, including a new 80-hour-per-month work requirement on certain able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 that receive Medicaid.
The measure also puts limits on how much states spend on expanded Medicaid populations established through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which permitted states to increase their Medicaid coverage to those who make up 138% of the poverty level.
Likewise, states that issue Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants are in jeopardy of reduced federal Medicaid reimbursement funding under the measure. That would require the state to pick up additional costs.
Still, Democrats claimed that the effort would seize healthcare coverage from "millions of Americans."
"This is not trimming fat from around the edges, it’s cutting to the bone," Pallone said in a statement Sunday night. "The overwhelming majority of the savings in this bill will come from taking healthcare away from millions of Americans. Nowhere in the bill are they cutting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ — they’re cutting people’s healthcare and using that money to give tax breaks to billionaires."
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said Democrats are attempting to "scare" Americans.
"Democrats are pedaling incorrect reports that include policies that aren’t even in the bill," Guthrie told Fox News Digital Monday.
Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind and Louis Casiano contributed to this report.
The White House is shutting down accusations from Democrats and anti-Trump "resistance" that nearly 14 million people will lose insurance coverage under Republican Medicaid reform proposals as part of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" – with Republicans calling foul on the data spin and saying Dems are using it as a scare tactic.
The infighting comes as Democrats and Republicans are going head-to-head over Medicaid spending levels, which has emerged as a prominent wedge between the parties amid the release of new analysis suggesting millions of people would lose their health insurance in order to foot the bill for Trump’s tax cuts.
While Democrats have merged data from two new reports from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to back up claims that nearly 14 million would lose coverage, the White House and Republicans are objecting, as not all the policy proposals evaluated were actually included in Republicans' legislation, and far fewer people would actually face insurance loss.
Instead, Republicans argue that their proposed reforms to implement work requirements, strengthen eligibility checks and crack down on Medicaid for illegal immigrants preserve the program for those who really need it.
"President Trump is protecting Medicaid for every eligible American who relies on it by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse within this program," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a Tuesday statement to Fox News Digital. "By taking commonsense measures to strengthen Medicaid, we will ultimately improve care for those who this program is intended to serve: pregnant women, the disabled, seniors, and low-income families."
"The President has repeatedly said that he will save Medicaid to ensure it remains a reliable and sustainable lifeline for generations to come," Desai said.
A series of calculations from the CBO have recently emerged evaluating multiple different Medicaid proposals – further pitting Republicans and Democrats against one another on Medicaid reform.
The first new analysis, commissioned by Democrats and released Thursday, failed to examine the exact proposals Republicans are considering and instead, took a shot in the dark at what Republicans might introduce, according to experts.
That’s because Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., requested the CBO evaluate various policies that Republicans could have suggested. However, most of the policies analyzed are not identical to the ones that Republicans have actually put forward, experts said.
"That was Democrats trying to guess what Republicans were going to do," Ryan Long, a senior research fellow at the Paragon Health Institute, told Fox News Digital Monday.
Michael Cannon, the director of health policy studies at the Washington-based libertarian-leaning Cato Institute think tank, voiced similar sentiments about the initial CBO report.
"The first thing to know is that this is not a Republican proposal that CBO was examining," Cannon told Fox News Digital Monday about the initial CBO analysis. "They’re similar to Republican proposals, but these were proposals, ideas that the Democrats asked CBO to examine for the purposes of criticizing those proposals, using them as a CBO score as a cudgel against Republicans."
While Democrats labeled the first scorekeeper’s report as proof that Republican policies would lead to "catastrophic" Medicaid cuts and force millions of people off their coverage, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee said in a post on X that Democrats sought to "fear monger" Americans.
Ultimately, the CBO report released Thursday evaluated five different initiatives that would rein in Medicaid spending, freeing up billions of dollars in spending but jeopardizing healthcare coverage for up to 8.6 million people.
Additional analysis from the CBO released Monday claimed that an additional 5.1 million Americans could lose their coverage if the measure fails to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits that will expire in 2034, and includes a provision to fully implement the Marketplace Integrity Rule that seeks to crack down on eligibility verification.
Although neither of these proposals is included in the Republican legislation, Democrats have added the numbers from these two CBO reports and have asserted that roughly 13.7 million people would go uninsured under Republican policies.
Meanwhile, the latest CBO analysis released Tuesday examining Medicaid proposals included in the GOP measure found that adding work requirements, new eligibility checks and removing illegal immigrants from Medicaid would result in 10.3 million people losing coverage, and would leave 7.6 million people without insurance.
CBO declined to comment when reached by Fox News Digital.
Additionally, Cannon pushed back against accusations that any of the proposals would actually cut Medicaid funding. While federal Medicaid spending is set to increase by 4.5% annually, the proposals CBO evaluated would simply curb that growth to at least 3% annually.
But ultimately, Cannon said the report is a mechanism Democrats are using to ignite fears among Republicans as they seek a legislative victory of their own.
"Democrats want to beat up Republicans, of course they do," Cannon said. "They want to win elections, and they think if they can scare people, they can do it… they don't want Republicans to get a political win, like tax cuts, and so this is their best weapon to stop tax cuts. They’re making the most of it, so that's what's going on with that CBO score."
The tension between Republicans and Democrats over Medicaid funding stems from a larger battle over Trump’s budget package that is making its way through Congress.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is seeking to get the measure over the finish line in the House by Memorial Day.
Meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee unveiled a portion of the measure Sunday that tackled Medicaid, as the panel follows through on requests to find $880 billion in spending cuts to foot the bill for other Trump priorities.
Specifically, the committee’s proposal put forth policy initiatives, including a new 80-hour-per-month work requirement on certain able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 that receive Medicaid.
The measure also puts limits on how much states spend on expanded Medicaid populations established through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which permitted states to increase their Medicaid coverage to those who make up 138% of the poverty level.
Likewise, states that issue Medicaid coverage to illegal immigrants are in jeopardy of reduced federal Medicaid reimbursement funding under the measure. That would require the state to pick up additional costs.
Still, Democrats claimed that the effort would seize healthcare coverage from "millions of Americans."
"This is not trimming fat from around the edges, it’s cutting to the bone," Pallone said in a statement Sunday night. "The overwhelming majority of the savings in this bill will come from taking healthcare away from millions of Americans. Nowhere in the bill are they cutting ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ – they’re cutting people’s healthcare and using that money to give tax breaks to billionaires."
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said Democrats are attempting to "scare" Americans.
"Democrats are pedaling incorrect reports that include policies that aren’t even in the bill," Guthrie told Fox News Digital Monday.
Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.
"I don't think we should have any appearance of impropriety," House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Wednesday.
Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images
House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Wednesday that he supports a ban on stock trading in Congress.
But he said he has "sympathy" for arguments against it.
Trump recently said he supported a stock trading ban and would sign it into law.
House Speaker Mike Johnson says he supports banning members of Congress from trading stocks — but has "sympathy" for arguments against it.
"I'm in favor of that, because I don't think we should have any appearance of impropriety," Johnson told reporters on Wednesday, before adding that there's an "other side" to the argument.
The speaker, whose own personal finances are relatively modest, noted that annual salaries for rank-and-file members of Congress have remained frozen at $174,000 since 2009 and that some lawmakers may find it hard to make the job work financially.
"If you stay on this trajectory, you're going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress," Johnson said. "So the counterargument is — and I have some sympathy — look, at least let them, like, engage in some stock trading, so that they can continue to, you know, take care of their family."
The speaker previously told NPR that he was "open to the conversation" about a stock trading ban, but declined at the time to take a position.
Johnson doesn't own or trade any stocks himself, according to his 2023 financial disclosure. The Louisiana congressman is far less wealthy than most members of Congress and once slept in his Capitol Hill office.
The speaker on Wednesday went on to say that blatant insider trading would not be tolerated.
"Look, we have no tolerance for anything even resembling insider trading, or any of this kind of advantage that anybody can take, zero tolerance for it," Johnson said. "And we'll stamp it out ourselves."
.@SpeakerJohnson on potential Congressional stock ban: "I'm in favor of that because I don't think we should have any appearance of impropriety here...On balance, my view is we probably should do that." pic.twitter.com/7AEDoGxAIA
The idea gained more momentum in recent weeks after President Donald Trump said he would sign a stock trading ban into law.
Democrats have also called attention to well-timed stock trades made by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia during a dip in the stock market caused by Trump's April 2 tariff announcement.
She's not the only person who benefited. Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida also plunged tens of thousands of dollars into stocks during that same period, just days before Trump's announcement of a 90-day "reciprocal" tariff pause caused a rebound in the market.
House Speaker Mike Johnson isn't quashing talk of a stock trading ban, saying he's "open to the conversation."
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
Mike Johnson says he's "open to the conversation" about banning stock trading in Congress.
That doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon.
Here's where things currently stand.
You may have heard this story before: The Speaker of the House is open to the idea of banning members of Congress from trading stocks, but it's not exactly clear whether it will happen.
That's where we were three years ago, when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi — after initially causing a firestorm by rejecting the idea — told reporters that she was "okay with that" if that's what her colleagues wanted to do.
That's where we are again, with Speaker Mike Johnson telling NPR earlier this month that he's "open to the conversation."
"It's been talked about for quite some time," Johnson observed. "But there's probably a reason that the bill hasn't moved in all those years because there's never been a consensus built around it."
Johnson is correct. Despite the broad popularity of banning members of Congress from trading stocks — along with renewed interest driven by scrutiny of recent trades made by lawmakers like Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania — the task of actually passing a bill to do it has never been straightforward.
As of now, there are several proposals in both chambers that would address the issue, and each one is a little bit different. There's the question of whether spouses should be included in a ban. There are differing views about the feasibility of using blind trusts. And if someone violates the rules, what should be the punishment?
These are all solvable questions, and during the last Congress, a group of senators with dueling bills managed to come together around a common proposal. But we're in a new Congress now, and lawmakers have largely returned to introducing their own bills.
It's also a matter of prioritization.
Sure, politicians ranging from President Donald Trump, to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, to Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri all support the idea. But it's ultimately up to GOP leaders like Johnson and Senate Minority Leader John Thune — who told NPR that the current rules around stock trading disclosures are "pretty good" already — to decide it's an issue worth taking up.
In the meantime, they're spending most of their time trying to muscle through a sweeping fiscal bill that's set to include changes to the tax code and spending cuts.
Even if Johnson and Thune decide it's important, success isn't guaranteed.
In 2022, Pelosi and House Democratic leaders ultimately did move towards a vote on banning members of Congress from trading stocks, only to yank the bill due to internal opposition.
This year, it may take pressure from Johnson's right flank to spur Congress to action.
"It's been sitting out there for three or four years, we kind of keep dragging feet, and it's time to deal with it," Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas told BI in January.
Former Vice President Mike Pence has a message for his old boss.
Pence is urging President Donald Trump, under whom he served as vice president in Trump's first administration, not to raise the tax rate on wealthy Americans.
Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the signature domestic achievement of his first White House term, is scheduled to expire this year if it's not extended by Congress.
The Trump White House and some congressional Republicans for weeks have mulled letting the tax reductions on the wealthy sunset as a way to pay for the rest of the tax cuts as well as Trump's other pricey second-term priorities.
And the president, during a Wednesday phone call, pushed House Speaker Mike Johnson to raise taxes on the highest income earners and close the carried interest loophole in the reconciliation process, Fox News Digital confirmed. The development was first reported Thursday by Punchbowl News.
A source familiar with Trump's thinking said Trump is considering allowing the rate on individuals making $2.5 million or more to increase by 2.6%, from 37% to 39.6%.
But Pence, a fiscal conservative and budget hawk during his long political career in the House of Representatives, as Indiana governor and as vice president, strongly cautioned against upping the rates on the highest earners.
"Any suggestion that I've heard among some in and around the administration that we raise the top margin rate, the so-called millionaires tax, would be an enormous tax increase on small business owners across America," Pence said. "It needs to be opposed."
And the former vice president, in an interview with Fox News Digital this week, argued that "the majority of people that file taxes of a million dollars are simply individuals that own businesses, and they file their taxes as an individual, but then plow that money back into their company. If you raise that top margin, it would be an enormous tax increase on small business America."
"Let’s make all the Trump-Pence tax cuts permanent. That’s a way to really lay a foundation to grow the economy in the days ahead," Pence urged.
Pence, who was interviewed in Boston after receiving the John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage award, gave "President Trump all the credit in the world for an historic victory last November, and for sparing the country one more liberal Democrat administration."
He also praised Trump "not only for his victory, but for securing our southern border, for restoring morale and recruitment in our military, for taking the fight to the Houthis."
But he argued that "I truly do believe that some of the other steps the president is taking away from that conservative agenda should be a concern that would work against his legacy and ultimately the success of our party or our country. And so we're going to continue to be a voice against them.
"I really do believe that for prosperity … for the success of our country, we need to stick to those time-honored principles of strong defense, American leadership on the world stage, less government, less taxes, traditional moral values and the right to life, and I’m going to be a voice for that," Pence added.
We’re in the interlude between the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness.
Derby winner Sovereignty won’t run in the Preakness coming up in Baltimore.
But House Republicans aren’t skipping out on trying to finish the big, beautiful bill. And if this were a horse race, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., would dare the pony players to bet against House Republicans when it comes to wrapping things up.
"Stop doubting us. We're going to get this job done," said Johnson about the plan to renew tax cuts and slash spending.
House Republicans aren’t exactly maidens here. But the morning line might suggest House Republicans are due to lose in this sweepstakes.
Like the Triple Crown, there are three steps to this legislative tournament. And Republicans are now on to the final leg of a legislative trifecta.
It was a photo finish in February when House Republicans barely adopted the framework for the tax cut and spending reduction measure. The House GOP leadership appeared to make the vote a late scratch - with Members fleeing the Capitol, only to have them recalled to the House chamber moments later. The Republican leadership brass shored up support for the plan and the House passed it.
It was a repeat in April when House Republicans tried to align with the Senate on their version of the blueprint. Republicans managed to lug the framework across the finish line by a nose, 216-214. Flip one vote and that would have produced a tie. A tie vote would have sent the big, beautiful bill out to a big, beautiful pasture.
House Republicans were only in the money on the Senate framework after conservatives secured some commitments from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., that senators would make substantial spending cuts.
But when it comes to actually finishing this version of the bill, House Republicans are barely a furlong into the race.
A debate rages about what Republicans should address in the bill. Passage hinges on what’s in or out.
"Everybody's going to have to give, including, the SALT provision," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., referring to a potential deduction for state and local taxes, known as SALT. "There's a happy medium that will have to be met to get the cuts."
Moderate Republicans from high tax states like New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey will demand the deduction in order to secure their votes for the entire plan. Norman noted that "each individual state's going to have to have some pain" before this goes to the finish line.
"We're going to find the equilibrium point on SALT that no one will be totally delighted with," said Johnson. "But it'll solve the equation and we'll get it done."
"We're in a very good place as it relates to not just the SALT deduction," said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., "The people like the ones I represent in Staten Island and Brooklyn desperately need this relief because our mayor and our governor keep hammering us over the head with high taxes."
There are also items President Trump insists that lawmakers tuck into the bill.
"No tax on tips. No tax on overtime," echoed House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La.
But the toughest decisions of all center around changes – or cuts – to entitlement programs. Republicans have bandied around the idea that they could save up to $550 billion from waste and fraud in Medicaid over a decade. But there’s evidence that figure is markedly lower. Republicans disagree.
"Some of the information we’ve uncovered would indicate that (the improper payments figure) is much higher," said Johnson. "We’re going to try to eliminate that. And I think we owe that to the taxpayers."
But Democrats aren’t buying that.
"They’re lying to the American people," said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Democrats argue Republicans might cook the books to cover the cost of the tax breaks and shore up possible holes in the deficit.
"They’re going to make up whatever numbers they want," said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., the ranking Democrat on Energy and Commerce Committee. "They know they can't reach these numbers."
One item expected in the bill: a major hike in the debt ceiling.
"When is X date?" asked Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing.
The "X date" refers to when the federal government exhausts its ability to cover its obligations.
"As an outfielder running for a fly ball, we are on the warning track. When you’re on the warning track, it means the wall is not that far away," replied Bessent.
Or, coming up the side rail.
But Bessent added that the government "will not default."
Lawmakers grilled cabinet members about trimming departments at hearings this week. Such was the case when Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins appeared before a Senate panel.
"You are taking a meat cleaver approach. There's that old adage. Measure twice. Cut once. You guys have been cutting without measuring," charged Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.
"I've not cut anything yet," responded Collins.
The Secretary added that there was a "goal" to restructure his department and cut significant numbers of jobs.
"Do you want to reach your goal or not?" asked Hassan.
"The goal is not a fact," replied Collins.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also found herself testifying about efforts to shrink her department before another Senate panel. She conceded that slimming government is hard.
"Have we done it perfectly? No. Any type of scale change and big effort to basically realign an entire government agency is difficult," said Rollins.
Democrats warn that Republicans will rue the day when they approve deep cuts.
"Each Republican who votes for reconciliation and bad budgets will be left holding that hot potato," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer," D-N.Y.
One senior House conservative told Fox they thought passing the bill would be "easy" compared to the other two rounds. Another conservative and a moderate Republican argued it would be harder. Much harder.
The best gamblers know that it’s best to quit when you’re ahead. House Republicans managed to eke out victories in the first two rounds. One argument is that they have momentum. Horse sense would tell you that the odds are against them.
But this is Capitol Hill. And you never know how things are going to turn out.
Mike Johnson and Republicans have no other choice. They promised the public they would pass the bill. President Trump expects it. There are no other options.
Pacing is everything in horseracing. A good jockey knows how to coax a burst of energy out of their horse at the right minute. When to give them the whip.
We’re looking at you, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn.
So the crowd is roaring. The hooves are thundering. Mud and dirt are flying. The stewards are watching.
Johnson contends the House isn’t off the pace with its goal of passing the package by Memorial Day. But Republicans are trying to pass a very complex bill with a tiny majority. It’s like running on a sloppy track. Republicans gallop down the homestretch soon.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled there is little appetite for judicial impeachments among House Republican leaders.
He said a bill passed by the House earlier this year, aimed at limiting federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in most cases, was a "silver bullet" against activist judges.
Johnson refused to pull impeachment off the table indefinitely when pressed by Fox News Digital, but he cautioned that there was a high bar for such maneuvers, while noting that getting enough votes to impeach in the House and remove in the Senate is an uphill battle in itself.
"Look, impeachments are never off the table if it's merited. But in our system, we've had 15 federal judges impeached in the entire history of the country. I mean, there may be some that I feel merit that, but you’ve got to get the votes for it, right? And it's a very high burden," Johnson said.
"And by the way, even if we could get an impeachment article through the House on a federal judge, it's unlikely that they would be tried and convicted in the Senate on that, with the divided number we have. So, short of that, what can we do?"
The speaker said House Republicans had "done everything within our power to solve that problem."
"Darrell Issa's bill is a great response: The No Rogue Rulings Act would prohibit a single individual judgment issuing a nationwide injunction like that to stop the entire policy of an administration," Johnson said.
"We passed it to the House, we sent it to the Senate with every expectation that they should be able to take that up. And I certainly hope they can, because, again, shouldn't be a partisan issue."
Some conservatives, however, are still hungry to pursue the impeachment route. They could force the House to do so by introducing a "privileged" resolution, meaning Johnson would need to take it up within two legislative days.
However, it is a politically risky undertaking that is ultimately guaranteed to fail in the Senate, where at least several Democrats would be needed to meet the two-thirds threshold for removal.
It comes amid the Trump administration’s continued standoff with the courts over a litany of the new White House’s policies — from deportation flights to the Department of Government Efficiency.
Republicans have dismissed the rulings as political decisions by activist judges, while Democrats accuse the White House of waging war on a co-equal branch of government.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has consistently said it is complying with all lawful court orders while denouncing activist judges in court and in the media sphere.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said that text messages are his "main means of communication."
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
House Speaker Mike Johnson said he doesn't use Signal, an encrypted messaging app.
"A lot of them text," Johnson said of his GOP colleagues. "That's our main means of communication."
He jokes that his texts are "probably being monitored by the Russians."
House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Wednesday that he doesn't use Signal, telling an interviewer that he's in "zero" chats on the encrypted messaging app.
Instead, Johnson said, he primarily communicates via regular text messages.
"I get about 400 a day literally just from members," Johnson said at an Axios News Shapers event in Washington, DC. "A lot of them text. That's our main means of communication."
He added, jokingly: "Probably being monitored by the Russians, for all I know."
Signal is an popular messaging app that uses end-to-end encryption to keep text messages secure, preventing third parties — including foreign governments — from being able to read messages.
While Apple's iMessage also uses end-to-end encryption, regular SMS text messages are generally not encrypted, leaving them vulnerable to hacking.
Signal was at the center of a recent scandal in Washington, when Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly added to a chat on the platform in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, and other Trump administration officials discussed upcoming strikes in Yemen.
Trump recently discouraged members of his administration from using the app following the incident.
"If you want to know the truth. I would frankly tell these people not to use Signal, although it's been used by a lot of people," Trump told The Atlantic. "But, whatever it is, whoever has it, whoever owns it, I wouldn't want to use it."
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., appeared to accuse Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., of lying about discussing the New York governor's race with her on Tuesday.
Johnson said he was having "conversations" with Stefanik and her fellow New Yorker, Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., when asked whether he discussed the upcoming gubernatorial election with the two potential candidates.
Stefanik cited a Punchbowl News report on Johnson's comments at the public press conference and wrote on X, "This is not true. I have had no conversations with the Speaker regarding the Governor’s race."
"Looking forward to the conversation about [State and Local Taxes] with NY Members tomorrow. Stay tuned," Stefanik wrote.
Fox News Digital reached out to Stefanik for further comment but did not hear back by press time.
When reached for comment, a spokesman for Johnson referred Fox News Digital to Johnson's remarks to reporters after his press conference.
"I just talked to her. Elise is one of my closest friends. We haven't specifically talked about her running for governor, but all these other things," Johnson said. "She's coming in to visit with me, and it's all good."
The exchange signaled a stunning public clash between two members of House GOP leadership that comes shortly after Stefanik returned to her House role full-time.
She had been poised to easily sail through the Senate confirmation process to become President Donald Trump's new ambassador to the United Nations.
But the House's razor-thin majority and concerns about the race to replace Stefanik in her upstate New York district eventually forced Trump to have her drop out of the process.
Stefanik had given up her role as House GOP Conference chair and two high-level committee positions on the House's intelligence and education panels to take the new job.
But Trump directed Johnson to find a new top role for Stefanik, and he soon announced her as chair of House Republican leadership.
Days after that, however, sources told Fox News Digital and other outlets that Stefanik was considering a run for New York governor.
When asked about speaking to her and Lawler about potentially running, Johnson told reporters on Tuesday, "I have lots of conversations."
"I love them both. They're two of my favorite people and most trusted colleagues. And, and they're both super talented, which is why they get talked about for doing other things… I mean, my preference is they all stay here with me, right," Johnson said.
"But I don't begrudge anybody for having other opportunities. And we ultimately support them in whatever they do. But, are we having conversations? We are. Yeah. And that's all I'm going to say about it."
EXCLUSIVE: Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said President Donald Trump has accomplished more in the first 100 days of his tenure than "most politicians or presidents accomplish in their entire lifetimes."
The top House Republican said this first period of a new GOP trifecta in government has been a "flurry of activity" used to set the stage for the party's plans to pass a massive piece of legislation setting up Trump's priorities on defense, taxes, energy and the border.
"So much of what we've done is leading up to the big reconciliation bill, and that is the legislative vehicle, as I've explained to people, it will help us, through which we will deliver the president's America First agenda," Johnson told Fox News Digital.
"We've done it with arguably the smallest margin in the history of the Congress, so challenges every day, but it's been very rewarding to lead us through that."
He noted that Trump and Congress had worked together on passing the Laken Riley Act, and on keeping transgender women out of biological women's spaces.
But the speaker also acknowledged that Trump has acted quite a bit on his own, as well.
"He's issued, I think, 110 executive orders and many other executive actions. And we've been working to codify so much of that. It's been kind of a partnership," Johnson said.
But not everyone views it as equal. Democrats have accused Republicans of acquiescing power to Trump on issues ranging from tariffs to government funding.
"I don't think we've ceded any authority. I think that he's doing what is within his scope to do. There's an assumption made by Congress that the administration, whoever is in the administration, will use the money that is appropriated to the executive branch as a good steward, that they will take every measure possible to prevent fraud, waste and abuse," Johnson said.
"And tariffs as well – the president, whomever is president, has a responsibility and I think an expectation from Congress that they will deal with unfair trade partners around the globe."
He also pointed out that a significant number of Trump's orders have targeted Biden administration actions or policies that were similarly enacted without Congress.
"I don't think the president has engaged in executive overreach," Johnson said. "So much of what he's done by executive order is reversing executive orders of his predecessor. So, it looks like he's doing a lot, but he's unwinding the damage done by the previous occupant of the Oval Office. So, he certainly has latitude to do that."
But Johnson, a former constitutional law attorney who styled himself "a jealous guardian of Article I," vowed he would raise his concerns with Trump if he ever felt Congress' power was being infringed.
"I don't think he's crossed the line yet. If he does, or if he did, you know, I would address it with him personally as a concern, as a partner, and explain that I think it's been overdone," he said.
When lawmakers arrived on Capitol Hill last Monday, House GOP leaders' plans to sync up with the Senate on sweeping legislation to advance President Donald Trump's agenda seemed an all-but-impossible task.
House fiscal hawks were furious with Senate Republicans for passing an amended version of the former's budget framework, one that called for a significantly lower amount of mandatory spending cuts than the House's initial plan.
By late Thursday morning, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was celebrating victory in front of reporters after a narrow 216-to-214 vote.
"I told you not to doubt us," a triumphant Johnson told the media. "We’re really grateful to have had the big victory on the floor just now. It was a big one, a very important one."
The hard-fought win came after long hours and late nights as House Republican leaders — and leaders in the Senate GOP as well — worked to persuade holdouts, while Trump and his aides worked those same critics from the sidelines.
White House aides were at House Republicans' weekly conference meeting on Tuesday, a rare sight but not unexpected, given the importance of the coming vote.
But GOP lawmakers filed out of that meeting doubting whether Trump's influence could help this time, after he played a key role in helping shepherd earlier critical bills across the finish line this year.
"I don't see it happening," a House Republican told Fox News Digital when asked whether Trump would be enough to sway critics.
Nevertheless, a select group of those holdouts were summoned to the White House alongside House GOP leaders on Wednesday afternoon, hours before the expected vote.
Fox News Digital was told that Trump commanded the room for roughly 20 to 30 minutes, and told House conservatives he agreed with them on the need to significantly slash government spending.
Trump also communicated to holdouts that Senate leaders felt the same, but, like the House, were working on their own tight margins, Fox News Digital was told.
The president, meanwhile, has been concerned in particular with the looming debt limit deadline, Fox News Digital was told.
It's one of the issues that Republicans are looking to tackle via the budget reconciliation process. By lowering the Senate's passage threshold from 60 votes to 51, it allows the party controlling the House, Senate and White House to enact broad policy changes via one or two broad pieces of legislation.
In this case, Republicans are looking for some added funds for border security and defense and to raise the debt ceiling — while paring back spending on the former Biden administration's green energy policies and in other sections of the federal government, likely including entitlement programs.
GOP lawmakers are also looking to extend Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the provisions of which expire at the end of this year. They will also need new funding for Trump's efforts to eliminate taxes on tipped and overtime wages.
But first, Republicans wanted the House and Senate to pass identical frameworks setting the stage for filling those frameworks with actual legislative policy.
Whereas the House version calls for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, the Senate mandated a floor of $4 billion — a wide gap to bridge.
The Wednesday-afternoon White House meeting did sway some holdouts, but far from enough.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., also met with House GOP critics of the bill for more than an hour on Wednesday evening ahead of the planned vote.
"He couldn't have been more cordial and understanding in talking to us about what we needed to know. And honestly, he had some of the same concerns that we did," Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital.
"You know, he's got to get it over the finish line, and he had to make certain commitments. But he committed to us to work with us."
Ultimately, however, plans to advance the measure that evening were hastily scrapped as an unrelated vote was held open for over an hour, leading to confusion and frustration on the House floor.
"He looked like he was in no better spot than he was at the beginning," one House Republican said of that night.
Trump was not called to address the group during that huddle with holdouts, two sources in the room told Fox News Digital.
However, the president did have individual conversations with some holdouts on Wednesday and Thursday, one person said.
The Wednesday night failure gave way to a late night of negotiations involving both holdouts and House GOP leaders.
Two House GOP leadership aides told Fox News Digital that Johnson had huddled with Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and House GOP Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain, R-Mich., until late Wednesday to figure out a path forward.
When they emerged shortly before midnight, they had settled on a plan — a televised promise by Johnson and Thune to put both leaders on the record committing to deep spending cuts.
"I'm happy to tell you that this morning, I believe we have the votes to finally adopt the budget resolution so we can move forward on President Trump's very important agenda for the American people," Johnson said.
Thune added, "We are aligned with the House in terms of what their budget resolution outlined in terms of savings. The speaker has talked about $1.5 trillion. We have a lot of United States senators who believe in that as a minimum."
A senior Senate GOP aide argued to Fox News Digital, "Absent Thune’s intervention, Mike Johnson would not have gotten this resolution through the House."
But the speaker was also putting in his own long hours with holdouts.
The office of Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., who ultimately voted to advance the framework, told Fox News Digital that critics were sent a memo by Johnson early on Thursday, assuring them that he was committed to deep spending cuts.
"The Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 14 preserves untouched language from the original House-passed resolution, including the reconciliation instructions to House committees and Section 4001 — Adjustment for spending cuts of at least $2 trillion," the memo said.
It referred to a measure in the House-passed framework that suggested funding toward tax cuts would be reduced by a corresponding amount if final spending cuts did not equal $2 trillion.
"This language reflects a critical principle — that deficit-increasing provisions of the final reconciliation bill are accompanied by concomitant spending cuts," it said.
Then, as the vote was called around 10:30 a.m. on Thursday morning, a final huddle between holdouts and leaders sealed the Republicans' victory.
"At some point, it was heated. And then the speaker's leadership team [House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn.] made sure we were clarified on some issues which are very important to some of the members," Burchett said.
"And then Steve Scalise, really batting cleanup, and he came in with the final with the final conclusion, which everybody agreed to pretty much. And then the speaker closed the deal."
Burchett said he believed that Johnson had spoken to Trump separately at some point during that huddle.
A senior House GOP aide said McClain was also present for that meeting.
Republicans clinched the win minutes after 11 a.m. on Thursday, with the GOP side of the House chamber erupting in applause.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., who helped lead the opposition, told reporters after the vote, "We made tremendous progress over the last two days in making certain that whatever we do on reconciliation, we don't increase this country's budget deficit."
"We take the Moody report from two weeks ago pretty seriously, that you can't have unpaid-for tax cuts, and we made progress in making, getting assurances both from the Senate and the House leadership that that's not going to occur," Harris said.
Speaker Mike Johnson and House GOP leaders are moving for a second time to shield President Donald Trump's tariffs from congressional disapproval.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Mike Johnson is making it harder for lawmakers to undo President Donald Trump's tariffs.
Congress can overturn the national emergency Trump used for his Liberation Day actions.
Trump paused most of his latest tariffs before the vote.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and GOP leaders on Wednesday moved to make it harder for challenges to President Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs to succeed.
Republican leaders tucked in a provision in an unrelated measure that would forestall challenges to the underlying national emergency Trump used to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on Liberation Day.
Johnson's move came before Trump announced a 90-day pause on the higher reciprocal for most countries. Wall Street soared on the news of Trump's decision. The GOP's action would make it harder to challenge Trump's tariffs if they were to return in full force after the pause ends in July.
The House passed the procedural measure on a 216 to 215 vote. Three Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Victoria Spartz of Indiana, and Mike Turner of Ohio voted against it.
Effectively, Johnson and his fellow Republicans have shielded Trump's trade policies amid grumbling from Republicans on both sides of the Capitol. Seven GOP senators are backing an unrelated bill to curb presidential tariff policy. Trump has promised to veto that legislation.
Under the National Emergency Act, Congress can terminate national emergencies by a joint resolution. A president could still veto a termination.
Crucially, the 1976 law allows such votes to be privileged, meaning they are among the few topics Republican leaders cannot block from reaching the floor. But the law requires a specific number of days before further action can be taken, and the GOP's provision would prevent the countdown from starting until the end of September.
GOP leaders included the policy in a key procedural step for Trump's budget resolution. By doing so, Johnson practically forced his colleagues to stomach the tariff provision or risk further imperiling the passage of a necessary step needed to get Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" of tax cuts and immigration policy through Congress.
Johnson and his team used a similar strategy in March to protect a previous round of Trump tariffs by inserting a provision into a procedural measure ahead of a potential government shutdown.
"Why haven't we voted on tariffs in the House of Representatives?" Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a libertarian-leaning Republican, wrote on X before the vote. "Because Speaker Johnson is using Rules Committee Resolutions, consummated by majority votes of the whole House, to declare that 'a day is not a day' in order to AVOID THE U.S. LAW that requires Congress to vote."
The House is now expected to vote later Wednesday evening on full approval of the Trump-backed budget plan.
House GOP leaders' aim to sync up with the Senate on a massive bill advancing President Donald Trump's agenda is on the rocks as of Monday morning, with fiscal hawks worried the upper chamber's version will not go far enough to reduce the national deficit.
House Republican skeptics are worried specifically about the Senate plan requiring a baseline of $4 billion in spending cuts, while the House plan calls for a $1.5 trillion minimum.
Two conservatives told Fox News Digital they would oppose the bill if it came to a House vote this week, while two others suggested they were leaning strongly against it.
"The Senate proposal is not serious and is an insult to the American people," Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., who said he is leaning "against" the measure, told Fox News Digital.
That is coupled with at least three GOP lawmakers declaring on social media this weekend that they are against the legislation – while even more have aired public concerns.
"It's dead on arrival," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital last week. "We have to stay with what we worked so hard to put over there, which is a bare minimum. When they talk about changes and talk about putting, basically, a teardrop in the ocean as far as cuts – we're not going to go along with that."
When asked on Monday morning about whether he felt the same, Norman replied emphatically via text message, "YES."
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., shared similar concerns about the gap in the House and Senate's minimum for spending cuts.
"At this point, I would vote against it," he said.
Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., another critic of excessive government spending, told Fox News Digital he had not made his mind up on the bill but said there were "not enough cuts" in the Senate version.
House GOP leaders are arguing that passing the Senate version does not impede the House in moving forward with its own more fiscally conservative version in any way. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has pitched House passage of the Senate bill as a necessary step to allow Republicans to enact Trump's agenda.
However, doubts over spending cuts are even extending beyond the House GOP's right-most flank. House Budget Committee Vice Chair Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., voiced his own issues with the bill in a private call with House Republicans on Sunday, two people familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital.
Smucker's office said it would not comment on internal deliberations, but pointed Fox News Digital to the lawmaker's statement on Saturday. "The Senate’s passage of the amended House resolution is a critical step forward. However, with $5.8 trillion in costs and only $4 billion required savings in their instructions, I cannot vote for it. We can and must do better."
Committee Chair Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, called it "unserious," but added he was open to working with House and Senate leaders and the White House to ease those concerns.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who sources said also raised concerns on the Sunday call, posted on X of the bill, "If the Senate’s 'Jekyll and Hyde' budget is put on the House floor, I will vote no."
In addition to opposing the gap in baseline spending cuts, some conservatives who oppose the bill are also wary of the Senate, signaling it would use the current policy baseline method to factor in the cost of extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts.
The scoring tool essentially means the cost of making Trump's tax cuts permanent would be factored at $0, because it extends current policy rather than counting it as new dollars being added to the federal deficit.
"I’m very wary of this budget gimmick, especially paired with a measly $4 billion floor in spending cuts," Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., told Fox News Digital. "The fiscally responsible way to extend and pay for tax cuts is through significant spending cuts, which is exactly what House Republicans instruct in our budget resolution."
Congressional Republicans are working on a massive piece of legislation that Trump has dubbed "one big, beautiful bill" to advance his agenda on border security, defense, energy and taxes.
Such a measure is largely only possible via the budget reconciliation process. Traditionally used when one party controls all three branches of government, reconciliation lowers the Senate's threshold for passage of certain fiscal measures from 60 votes to 51.
As a result, it has been used to pass broad policy changes in one or two massive pieces of legislation.
The House's framework passed in late February and included some new funding for defense and border security, along with $4.5 trillion for extending Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and implementing newer Trump proposals like no taxes on tipped wages.
The framework also called for between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in spending cuts, dependent on how much Trump's tax policies would add to the national deficit – something that was key to winning support from deficit hawks.
It also raised the debt limit, something Trump has specifically asked Republicans to deal with, by $4 trillion. The Senate's version, which passed in the early hours of Saturday, would raise the debt limit by $5 trillion.
Trump himself has endorsed both the House and Senate versions of the bill.
Passing a framework then allows lawmakers to craft actual policy to match the framework's federal spending guidelines, led by the respective committees of jurisdiction.
Those policy plans are all brought back together into another massive bill. The Senate and House must pass identical versions before it gets to Trump's desk for a signature – something the House speaker said would be done by Memorial Day.
However, Johnson insisted that the Senate's passage of its framework simply allows the House to begin working on its version of the bill passed in February – and that it does not impede their process in any way.
"The Senate amendment as passed makes NO CHANGES to the House reconciliation instructions that we voted for just weeks ago. Although the Senate chose to take a different approach on its instructions, the amended resolution in NO WAY prevents us from achieving our goals in the final reconciliation bill," the letter said.
"We have and will continue to make it clear in all discussions with the Senate and the White House that—in order to secure House passage—the final reconciliation bill must include historic spending reductions while protecting essential programs."
Johnson's office pointed back to the letter when reached for comment on Monday.
Republicans will have slightly more wiggle room to pass the measure than they have for much of the year so far, with the special election victories of Reps. Randy Fine, R-Fla., and Jimmy Patronis, R-Fla.
Even with those additions, however, Johnson can only lose three GOP votes with full House attendance to pass anything along party lines.
House Republicans are set to advance two key bills backed by President Donald Trump this week after House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., resolved a weekslong standoff with Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., over the issue of remote voting for new parents in Congress.
The House is poised to vote this week on the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, which requires proof of citizenship in the voter registration process; and the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., which would limit district court judges' ability to issue orders blocking Trump policies nationwide.
Both were expected to get a vote last week, but those plans were derailed amid a standoff over House procedure that ground business-as-usual to a halt.
"Speaker Johnson and I have reached an agreement to bring back a procedure called live/dead pairing, which dates back to the 1800s. It will be open for the entire conference to use when unable to vote (e.g., new parents, bereaved, emergencies, etc.)," Luna wrote on X Sunday evening.
"Thanks to [Trump] and his guidance, as well as all of those who worked to get this change done, this is becoming the most modern, pro-family Congress we’ve ever seen."
Johnson's office confirmed to Fox News Digital that the speaker announced a deal had been reached with Luna on a Republican lawmaker-only call on Sunday afternoon.
The compromise they agreed to invokes an old congressional custom that essentially cancels out an absent new mother's vote by "pairing" it with a vote by someone on the other side of the issue. Neither vote would count, but their stances on the issue would be noted in the Congressional Record.
Johnson's office said they also reached an agreement on boosting accessibility for young mothers in the Capitol as well.
The House floor was left paralyzed last Tuesday afternoon when a small group of GOP lawmakers upended their leaders' effort to quash a bill by Luna that would have allowed new parents to vote by proxy for 12 weeks surrounding their child's birth.
Luna was readying to force a vote on her legislation via a discharge petition, a mechanism allowing lawmakers to force bills into House consideration provided they can get signatures from a majority of the chamber.
Johnson, who believes proxy voting is unconstitutional, attached language to kill discharge petitions to an unrelated measure that was up for a vote on Tuesday afternoon.
If passed, it would have allowed for consideration and likely passage of the NORRA Act and SAVE Act last week.
The standoff comes as the House is also trying to reckon with the Senate's reconciliation framework, which will allow Republicans to begin working on policy and monetary changes that will become part of a massive bill advancing Trump's agenda on defense, energy, the border, and taxes.
Republican leaders are poised to move forward with that legislation as planned – despite concerns from fiscal hawks about discrepancies between the Senate and House's views on the issue.
House Republican leaders are rallying GOP lawmakers around a plan to enact a broad swath of President Donald Trump's agenda, after the legislation was passed by the Senate in the early hours of Saturday morning.
"More than a year ago, the House began discussing the components of a reconciliation package that will reduce the deficit, secure our border, keep taxes low for families and job creators, reestablish American energy dominance, restore peace through strength, and make government more efficient and accountable to the American people. We are now one step closer to achieving those goals," Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and his top lieutenants wrote to House Republicans.
"Today, the Senate passed its version of the budget resolution. Next week, the House will consider the Senate amendment."
Congressional Republicans are pushing a conservative policy overhaul via the budget reconciliation process. Traditionally used when one party holds all three branches of government, reconciliation lowers the Senate's threshold for passage on certain fiscal measures from 60 votes to 51.
As a result, it's been used to pass sweeping policy changes in one or two massive pieces of legislation.
Senate Republicans passed a framework for a reconciliation bill just after 2 a.m. ET on Saturday, after hours of debate and votes on amendments to the measure.
It's similar to the version House Republicans passed in late February; but mechanisms the Senate used to avoid factoring in the cost of extending Trump's 2017-era tax cuts as well as a lower baseline for required federal spending cuts has some House conservatives warning they could oppose the bill.
The Senate's version calls for at least $4 billion in spending cuts, while the House's version mandates a floor of $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion.
Both bills also include Trump priorities on border security, energy, and new tax policies like eliminating penalties on tipped and overtime wages.
"If the Senate’s 'Jekyll and Hyde' budget is put on the House floor, I will vote no," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote on X.
"In the classic ways of Washington, the Senate’s budget presents a fantastic top-line message – that we should return spending back to the pre-COVID trajectory (modified for higher interest, Medicare, and Social Security) of $6.5 Trillion, rather than the current trajectory of over $7 Trillion – but has ZERO enforcement to achieve it, and plenty of signals it is designed purposefully NOT to achieve it."
But House GOP leaders insist that the Senate's passage of its framework simply allows the House to begin working on its version of the bill passed in February – and that it does not impede their process in any way.
"The Senate amendment as passed makes NO CHANGES to the House reconciliation instructions that we voted for just weeks ago. Although the Senate chose to take a different approach on its instructions, the amended resolution in NO WAY prevents us from achieving our goals in the final reconciliation bill," the letter said.
"We have and will continue to make it clear in all discussions with the Senate and the White House that—in order to secure House passage—the final reconciliation bill must include historic spending reductions while protecting essential programs."
House GOP leaders have pointed out that passing a framework is just the first step in a long process, one that just lays out broad instructions for how money should be spent.
Now that similar frameworks have passed the House and Senate, the relevant congressional committees will work out how to achieve the final reconciliation policy goals under their given jurisdictions.
"We have made it clear the House will NOT accept nor participate in an ‘us versus them’ process resulting in a take it or leave it proposition from the Senate," House leaders warned.
"Immediately following House adoption of the budget resolution, our House and Senate committees will begin preparing together their respective titles of the reconciliation bill to be marked up in the next work period."
The letter reiterated Johnson's earlier goal of having a bill on Trump's desk by the end of May.
House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, called the Senate's resolution "unserious and disappointing," noting it only mandated $4 billion in "enforceable cuts."
He vowed to work with congressional leaders to find the best path forward, however.
"I am committed to working with President Trump, House leadership, and my Senate counterparts to address these concerns and ensure the final reconciliation bill makes America safe, prosperous, and fiscally responsible again," Arrington said.
Luna and Rep. Brittany Pettersen, D-Colo., are pushing a proposal that would let new parents vote by proxy for 12 weeks while caring for their newborns. With 218 lawmakers backing the move, it has enough support to force a vote.
Johnson, however, has historically opposed proxy voting, previously calling it unconstitutional and warning it was misused under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi during COVID. But after Trump’s endorsement, Luna revealed that Johnson reached out to her.
"@SpeakerJohnson has called me after POTUS statement and we discussed limiting the vote to just new moms who cannot physically travel in event of emergency etc. This is smart," Luna tweeted. "Remember: only 13 in US history."
Johnson had tried to kill the effort earlier this week, but nine Republicans joined all Democrats to block him, voting 206-222. After the loss, Johnson canceled votes for the rest of the week.
Despite the setback, Luna made it clear the issue isn’t about advancing any legislation for the president, saying she personally told Johnson as much.
It is unclear whether the issue will be brought back for a vote on the House floor before the April Recess.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is backing Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., for Florida governor.
"Byron Donalds is a principled conservative leader who Floridians can trust as their next Governor," Johnson said in a statement obtained by Fox News Digital, which was first reported by Politico Playbook.
"In Congress, Byron has been tenacious in standing up for Florida and President Trump’s America First agenda. I have no doubt he will bring that same fighting spirit with him as Governor, working every day to improve the lives of Florida families. My good friend Byron Donalds has my full support," Johnson added.
The Sunshine State Republican thanked Johnson for his support, calling him a "good friend" in a post on X.
"From local Tea Party Activism to the State House & the halls of Congress to my candidacy for Governor of Florida, my fight for the Sunshine State has been unwavering. Together, we are Making America Great Again," Donalds added.
The congressman announced his gubernatorial bid in February after President Donald Trump had already pledged to endorse him if he chose to run.
"Byron Donalds would be a truly Great and Powerful Governor for Florida and, should he decide to run, will have my Complete and Total Endorsement. RUN, BYRON, RUN!" Trump declared in a February Truth Social post.
The Florida constitution stipulates, "No person who has, or but for resignation would have, served as governor or acting governor for more than six years in two consecutive terms shall be elected governor for the succeeding term."
House Republicans are still divided after proceedings ground to a halt on Tuesday over a push by a small group of GOP lawmakers to block Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., from changing chamber procedures.
Nine House Republicans joined Democrats in blocking a normally sleepy procedural vote, known as a "rule vote," from passing on Tuesday afternoon. It came after House leaders tucked an unrelated provision into the measure that would have stopped Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., from forcing a vote on giving new parents in the House the ability to vote remotely.
Johnson called the move "disappointing" and cut the House's legislative week short, sending lawmakers back to their districts two days early and canceling the remaining votes.
"If a career in politics doesn't work out for me, I have ample credentials to work at a circus," a senior House GOP aide said when asked about the current situation.
It's led to bitter feelings on both sides of the standoff – and in some cases, toward both parties.
"America did not vote for Congress paternity proxy voting at home. America did not vote for Congress to put a lid on the week on a Tuesday," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., wrote on X on Wednesday morning. "I'm pretty disgusted with the events of yesterday. Republicans should not be joining with Democrats for their own personal agendas, and we shouldn't quit and go home when things don't go our way."
Republicans who were against Luna's push accused her of acting against the will of the House GOP majority and the country.
"I don't think most Americans want their Congress members voting from home. Our constituents have to show up to work, and we should too," Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, told "The Ingraham Angle."
Luna, however, has pointed out that Johnson could have stripped the provision killing her measure out of the "rule" and held the vote again, when it likely would have passed.
"I am 100% supportive of [President Donald Trump] and his America First agenda. It is disingenuous for [Johnson] to lie about me," Luna wrote on X in response to the speaker's comments. "[House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and Johnson] did not have to send us home."
Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., appeared to defend Johnson's decision to end the week.
"What I would say is, the speaker has a responsibility, and he is engaging in that responsibility to protect the institutions from proxy voting," Houchin said. "I support that, and we'll continue to have these conversations and hope that we'll come back together next week, and we'll get back to business."
Another House Republican told Fox News Digital of the decision to send lawmakers home early, "Lots of torn-up feelings. Might be better to press pause for a couple of days."
The "rule," if passed, would have allowed for debate and eventual House votes on a bill to limit district judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions and a measure requiring proof of citizenship in the voter registration process, respectively.
But House leaders also added a provision that would have neutered lawmakers' ability to file discharge petitions, a mechanism that forces the chamber to consider legislation even if those in charge oppose it.
Luna had used a discharge petition to try to force a vote on a bipartisan bill to allow new parents in the House to vote remotely for 12 weeks surrounding the birth of their child.
That bill gained support from all Democrats and enough House Republicans to net the necessary majority threshold, despite Johnson and a group of conservatives being vehemently opposed.
Republicans who voted with Luna on Tuesday argued they did so to protect a tool of the House majority.
"Don’t buy the BS. My ‘no’ vote was about process—not whether new parents should be able to proxy vote," Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., wrote on X. "I voted against a rule bill that undermined a Member’s right to utilize the discharge petition—a century-old tool that empowers individual Members to force a vote when leadership blocks legislation."
Steube himself successfully used a discharge petition last year to force a vote on legislation to offer tax relief for disaster victims.
Luna said in a statement Wednesday night, "The reason a discharge petition is put in place is in the event that members are unable to bring legislation to the floor because, for whatever reason, the leadership blocks it. There are a few bills that have been filed for a while but have never been voted on. This place loves to consolidate power. The discharge petition must be protected at all costs."
Johnson huddled with members of the House Rules Committee on Wednesday morning, but Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., one of the conservatives opposed to Luna's push, told Fox News Digital that no decisions had been made.
"Nothing has changed. I like Anna Paulina Luna. I just don't like proxy voting. I think that opens Pandora's Box," Norman said. "We didn't come up with any solutions today, but I think we'll come up with something."
If Johnson decides to strip out the discharge petition language from the "rule," the measure will have to be debated and advanced out of the House Rules Committee again.
He said little to Fox News when asked about the standoff on Wednesday.
"We'll work through it. We've already begun that process today," Johnson said. He added that "another rule" will be moved "early next week."
Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.
