Republican support wanes as Senate overhauls key provisions in 'big, beautiful bill'



The Senate Finance Committee put out its version of the "big, beautiful bill," and support from Republican lawmakers is already beginning to slip.

The House version of the bill narrowly passed in a 215-214 vote in May after weeks of tumultuous negotiations. The House then sent the bill over to the Senate, where the Finance Committee made key changes to several tax provisions in the bill, once again provoking various ideological factions within the GOP.

'Yeah, I will not vote for this.'

RELATED: SALT Republicans left seething after Senate makes major changes to the 'big, beautiful bill'

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

One of the most contested changes was lowering the SALT cap from the House's $40,000 cap back down to $10,000 in the Senate. The SALT caucus vigorously negotiated for weeks on the House side and quadrupled its original cap, which leaders have said is nonnegotiable.

As expected, SALT Republicans came out strongly against the $10,000 cap put forth by the Senate, calling the bill "insulting" and "dead on arrival." The Senate claims that the lower figure is simply a placeholder to negotiate with the House, but SALT Republicans have made clear that they won't accept anything less than $40,000.

Given their narrow House majority, Republicans can afford to lose only a handful of votes to pass the bill. Without the support from the SALT caucus, the bill would not pass the House.

"I have been clear since Day one: sufficiently lifting the SALT Cap to deliver tax fairness to New Yorkers has been my top priority in Congress," Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York said Monday. "After engaging in good faith negotiations, we were able to increase the cap on SALT from $10,000 to $40,000. That is the deal and I will not accept a penny less. If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO and the bill will fail in the House."

RELATED: House narrowly passes DOGE cuts despite Republican defectors: 'The gravy train is up'

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Senate has also taken a gentler approach to rolling back green-energy subsidies first implemented through former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Certain solar and wind subsidies are now going to be extended through at least 2030 and in some cases through 2040.

Fiscal hawks like Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas fought for more aggressive cuts in the House version of the bill. While the Senate softened up on green-energy subsidies, Roy is insisting on deeper cuts.

"Yeah, I will not vote for this," Roy said of the Senate's bill.

"The IRA subsidies need [to] end," Roy added. "Period."

RELATED: Democrats vote overwhelmingly to allow illegal aliens to continue voting in key district

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Most critics argue the Senate's bill doesn't go far enough, but with respect to Medicaid, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri says it went too far.

The House version freezes new provider taxes, strengthens work requirements, and puts forth certain cuts to the program in order to ensure only eligible individuals are receiving Medicaid benefits. This was crucial in securing support from fiscal conservatives like Roy, who otherwise were inclined to vote against the bill in the House.

The Senate version takes these cuts one step further, capping the expansion states' charges at 3.5% by 2031. Hawley said he was "alarmed" by this provision, noting that many rural hospitals in low-income areas rely on support from the federal government.

"This is gonna defund rural hospitals effectively in order to, what, pay for solar panels in China?” Hawley said. “I’ll be really interested to see what the president thinks about this."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How much Green New Scam spending will survive the One Big Beautiful Bill?



Germany’s first chancellor Otto von Bismarck famously said, “Laws are like sausages. It is best not to see them being made.” That description fits President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — with one major exception.

Unlike most legislation, the OBBB deserves a close look. But the media would rather focus on headline fodder like the SALT deduction fight and proposed Medicaid work requirements. What the media has mostly ignored is far more significant: the dismantling of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act’s climate spending, or what Trump rightly calls the “Green New Scam.”

The OBBB isn’t perfect — but it’s the best shot conservatives have to kill the Green New Scam, lock in Trump’s tax cuts, and put America’s fiscal house on firmer ground.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) recently claimed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the OBBB rolls back “the most reckless parts of the engorged climate spending,” reclaiming $6.5 billion in unspent funds. But that figure barely scratches the surface.

Goldman Sachs estimated the total value of the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate spending at a whopping $1.2 trillion. According to Grok, X’s artificial intelligence tool, the initial OBBB version would have left most of it intact.

Roughly $140 billion of that $1.2 trillion had already been spent in 2024 — much of it used to grease the palms of red-state politicians, as I’ve discussed elsewhere. Another $140 billion has been committed but not yet disbursed. The Trump administration is currently fighting in court to block that money from being spent.

But here’s the kicker: Grok’s analysis projected that between $700 billion and $900 billion of the Green New Scam funds would remain untouched under the original OBBB draft. That’s not a rounding error. That’s two orders of magnitude away from Guthrie’s $6.5 billion figure.

Fortunately, the House Freedom Caucus didn’t back down.

Led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the caucus demanded a bill that honored Trump’s campaign pledge to kill the Green New Scam. Roy wrote on X, “Rather than just subsidizing $350B for states with high taxes — we should pass a OBBB that FULLY terminates the Green New Scam and FULLY ends the Medicaid money laundering scam abused to hurt the vulnerable.”

He followed with this: “Writing a deficit-backed blank check (SALT) is easier than cutting spending (DOGE, Green New Scam, Post-COVID spending). Congress/swamp will always choose the easy route, but we can’t afford it.”

Roy was right. And though not completely successful, the Freedom Caucus scored a major win.

The House passed the OBBB on May 22 by a single vote, 215-214. Thanks to the Freedom Caucus, the bill cuts about $500 billion in wasteful Green New Scam spending. Half of the unspent funds have now been stripped out. The bill is now with the Senate, where its fate remains unclear.

RELATED: The Senate’s Romney-Ryan tax ideas collide with a Trump-Vance world

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

One strategic advantage of the OBBB lies in how it’s being passed. Like the Inflation Reduction Act before it, the OBBB uses budget reconciliation — a tool that bypasses the filibuster and requires only a simple majority. In this case, what was once a Democrat-only spending spree may now be repealed with a Republican-only rollback.

Call it poetic justice. Call it the only viable option. Either way, reconciliation makes this repeal possible — despite the fondness many subsidy-happy Republicans still have for the Green New Scam.

But the most important part of the OBBB isn’t about repealing waste. It’s about preserving growth.

The bill makes Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent. That alone carries a projected value of $4 trillion over the next decade and prevents a $1,700 annual tax hike on the average American family.

Republicans who block the OBBB over narrow interests risk handing Democrats a tax increase — and possibly their own walking papers in the 2026 midterms. That includes swing-district moderates who demand Green New Scam subsidies and fiscal hawks who balk at anything short of a full repeal.

The key difference? The pro-subsidy Republicans didn’t vote for those climate programs in the first place. Yet, now they’re willing to tank the whole bill to preserve them.

One Freedom Caucus member told me he remains hopeful the Senate can claw back more of the Green New Scam funds. Maybe so. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Which brings us back to Bismarck. Lawmaking may resemble sausage-making, but at least sausages leave a good taste behind. When done right, so can legislation.

The OBBB isn’t perfect — but it’s the best shot conservatives have to kill the Green New Scam, lock in Trump’s tax cuts, and put America’s fiscal house on firmer ground.

Chip Roy reveals to Glenn Beck possible motive behind Elon Musk's scathing review of the 'big, beautiful bill'



Although Elon Musk has largely functioned as a close ally to President Donald Trump, the former DOGE head condemned one of the administration's greatest legislative projects — and it might not be for the reason you think.

Musk signaled disapproval for Trump's "big, beautiful bill" over the last few weeks, ultimately branding the bill a "disgusting abomination" just days after he formally departed from the DOGE.

"I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore," Musk said. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it."

'I'm not sure that Elon is really excited about the extent to which we are killing the subsidies.'

RELATED: Mike Johnson says Elon Musk is 'terribly wrong,' defends Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Musk cited fiscal concerns for opposing the bill, echoing Republican critics like Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. However, other Republican lawmakers like Rep. Chip Roy of Texas have suggested that Musk may oppose the bill because it negatively impacts some of his businesses.

"I'm not sure that Elon is really excited about the extent to which we are killing the subsidies across the board," Roy told Glenn Beck Wednesday. "All future subsidies for EVs, for solar panels, for the wind crap, all future subsidies, we are mostly killing."

In its current form, the bill would terminate the $7,500 federal tax credit for new electric vehicles and the $4,000 tax credit for used electric vehicles. The bill would also eliminate the $1,000 tax credit for electric vehicle charger installations.

Notably, Musk's companies have been heavily subsidized by the government. Across his companies, Musk has reportedly received $38 billion in government funding, with Tesla alone receiving $11.4 billion in regulatory credits from both federal and state governments.

RELATED: Elon Musk issues fiery statement against Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' — and the White House responds immediately

.@chiproytx suggests that Elon Musk opposes the BBB because it kills subsidies that benefit his businesses🚨 https://t.co/AQnmowzo0U
— Rebeka Zeljko (@rebekazeljko) June 4, 2025

Roy is not the only Republican who has come to this conclusion. Following Musk's bombshell statement on Tuesday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) noted that Musk's businesses may be negatively impacted.

"It's not personal," Johnson said. "I know that the EV mandates are very important to him. That is going away because the government should not be subsidizing these things. It's part of the Green New Deal, and I know it has an effect on his business."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump keeps endorsing the establishment he vowed to fight



Donald Trump’s endorsement of Karrin Taylor Robson in December marked one of the most baffling moves of his political career. Still riding the momentum of his victory, Trump pre-emptively backed a known RINO for Arizona governor — nearly 19 months ahead of the 2026 primary. The endorsement fit a troubling pattern: early-cycle support for anti-Trump Republicans who hadn’t lifted a finger for the movement, while stronger MAGA candidates waited in the wings.

If Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promises, he needs to reassert deterrence against weak-kneed incumbents and withhold endorsements in open races until candidates prove themselves.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help.

Arizona illustrates why MAGA must push back hard on Trump’s errant picks. Robson, a classic McCain Republican, publicly criticized Trump as recently as 2022. She ran directly against MAGA favorite Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial primary. Maybe she could merit a reluctant nod in a general election, but nearly two years before the primary? With far better options available?

And indeed, better options emerged. Months later, Rep. Andy Biggs — one of the most conservative voices in Congress and a staunch Trump ally — entered the race. The Arizona drama had a partially satisfying resolution when Trump issued a dual endorsement. But dig deeper, and the story turns sour.

Top Trump political aides reportedly worked for Robson’s campaign, raising serious questions for the MAGA base. Their loyalty seemed to shift only after Robson refused to tout Trump’s endorsement in her campaign ads.

Which brings us to the million-dollar question: Why would Trump endorse candidates so subversive that they feel embarrassed to even mention his support?

The Robson episode is an outlier in one way: Most establishment Republicans eagerly shout Trump’s endorsement from the rooftops. Yet the deeper issue remains. Without MAGA intervention, Trump keeps handing out endorsements to RINOs or to early candidates tied to his political network — often at the expense of better, more loyal alternatives.

A pattern of bad picks

Some defenders claim Trump backs incumbents to push his agenda. That theory falls apart when so many of those same RINOs openly sabotage it.

Take Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Jen Kiggans (R-Va.). Both received Trump’s endorsement while actively working against his legislative priorities — pushing green energy subsidies and obsessing over tax breaks for their donor class. These aren’t minor policy differences. These are full-spectrum RINO betrayals.

Trump wouldn’t dare endorse Chip Roy (R-Texas) for dissenting from the right, so why give cover to Republicans who consistently undermine his mandate from the left?

And don’t chalk this up to political necessity in purple districts. Trump routinely gives away the farm in safe red states, too.

Here's a list of Trump’s Senate endorsements this cycle, straight from Ballotpedia — and it’s not comforting.

You’d struggle to find a single conservative in this bunch. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, and Jim Risch of Idaho all represent the globalist mindset that Trump’s base has spent years fighting. So why did Trump hand them early endorsements — before they even faced a challenge? What exactly is he getting in return?

Well, we know what his loyalty bought last cycle.

After Trump endorsed Mississippi’s other swamp creature, Roger Wicker, against a MAGA primary challenger in 2024, Wicker walked into the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee — and now he’s stalling cuts to USAID. That roadblock has helped keep the DOGE rescissions package from reaching the president’s desk.

Wicker isn’t the only one. Several of Trump’s endorsees have publicly criticized his tariff agenda. Whether or not you agree with those tariffs, the pattern is telling. Trump only seems to call out Republicans who dissent from the right. Meanwhile, the ones who oppose him from the left collect endorsements that wipe out any hope of a MAGA primary.

Ten years into the MAGA movement, grassroots candidates still can’t gain traction — and Trump’s endorsements are a big part of the problem.

Instead of amplifying insurgent conservatives, Trump often plays air support for entrenched incumbents. He clears the field early, blasting apart any challenge before it forms. That’s how we ended up stuck with senators like Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) — both from red states — who routinely block Trump’s nominees and undermine his priorities.

Trump endorsed both Tillis and Cassidy during the 2020 cycle, even as grassroots conservatives geared up to take them on. In fact, almost every red-state RINO in the Senate has received a Trump primary endorsement — some of them twice in just 10 years. That list includes Moore Capito, Graham, Hyde-Smith, and Wicker.

Saving red-state RINOs

What’s worse than endorsing RINOs for Congress in red states? Endorsing RINOs for governor and state legislature.

Yes, Washington is broken. Even in the best years, Republicans struggle to muster anything more than a narrow RINO majority. But the real opportunity lies elsewhere. More than 20 states already lean Republican enough to build permanent conservative power — if we nominate actual conservatives who know how to use it.

The 2026 election cycle will feature governorships in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, to name just a few. These races offer a chance to reset the Republican Party — state by state — with DeSantis-caliber fighters.

Instead, we’re slipping backward.

RELATED: Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Trump has already endorsed Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor — nearly two years before the election. In most red states, Donalds would look like an upgrade. But Florida isn’t most red states. Florida is the citadel of conservatism. It deserves a contested primary, not a coronation. Donalds hasn’t led the way DeSantis has — either nationally or in-state — so why clear the field this early? Why not at least wait and see whether DeSantis backs a candidate?

And don’t forget about the state legislatures.

Freedom Caucuses have made real gains in turning GOP supermajorities into something that matters. But in Texas, House Speaker Dustin Burrows cut a deal with Democrats to grab power — then torched the entire session. Conservative voters are eager to remove Burrows and the cronies who enabled him.

We’ll never drain the swamp this way

This is where Trump should be getting involved — endorsing against the establishment, not propping it up.

Instead, he’s doing the opposite.

Trump recently pledged to back Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows and his entire entourage of RINO loyalists — just because they passed a watered-down school choice bill that also funneled another $10 billion into the state’s broken public-school bureaucracy.

The same pattern holds in Florida.

The House speaker there, Daniel Perez, has consistently blocked Governor Ron DeSantis’ agenda, including efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement — policies that are now a national model. Despite this, Perez cozied up to Byron Donalds. Donalds returned the favor, but refused to take sides in the Perez versus DeSantis clashes. He also ducked the fights against Amendments 3 and 4. So what exactly qualifies Donalds to become Trump’s handpicked candidate in the most important red state in America?

This new paradigm — where candidates secure Trump endorsements just by parroting his name — has allowed RINO governors and legislators to push corporatist policies while staying firmly in Trump’s good graces. They wrap themselves in the MAGA brand without lifting a finger to advance its agenda.

That’s not the movement we were promised.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help. We can’t keep celebrating Trump’s total control of the GOP while hand-waving away the RINOs, as if they’re some separate, unaccountable force. Trump has the power to shape the party. He could use it to clean house.

Instead, he keeps using it to protect the establishment from grassroots primaries.

At the very least, he should withhold endorsements until candidates prove they can deliver on the campaign’s promises. Don’t hand out golden Trump cards before they’ve earned them.

Mr. President, please don’t be such a cheap date.

Elon Musk takes jab at Trump’s 'big, beautiful, bill': 'I was disappointed'



President Donald Trump was working around the clock with House Republican leadership to secure enough votes for his "big, beautiful bill." After several overnight sessions and closed-door meetings, the bill passed the House last week with just one vote to spare.

Although many Trump allies championed the achievement, DOGE head Elon Musk expressed disappointment with the landmark legislation.

'I think a bill can be big, or it could be beautiful. But I don't know if it could be both.'

RELATED: Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' narrowly passes the House, notching another win for Johnson

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

In the days leading up to the vote, the fate of the bill was still unclear. Apart from spending hawks demanding deeper cuts and significant Medicaid reform, the SALT Caucus Republicans kept demanding a higher and higher cap for state and local tax deductions.

With several roadblocks in the way of the bill, Trump met with House Republicans multiple times both on the Hill and in the White House in an attempt to shepherd any defectors. The bill later passed in a 215-214 vote, with two Republicans voting against the bill, one voting present, and two not voting at all.

While most Republicans and Trump allies took a victory lap, Musk said he was "disappointed" by the bill.

"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," Musk said.

"I think a bill can be big, or it could be beautiful," Musk added. "But I don't know if it could be both."

'Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the big, beautiful bill where the House missed the moment.'

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Musk is not alone in his disappointment. Several House Republicans, like House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.), said the bill does not do enough to address federal spending. Notably, Harris was one of the conservative holdouts leading up to the vote and was the only Republican who voted present on the bill.

“I share Mr. Musk’s concerns about the short-term adverse effect on the federal deficit of the limited spending reductions in the BBB," Harris told Blaze News. "Debt markets remained concerned about U.S. total debt and annual deficits. Hopefully the Senate will take those concerns into consideration as the legislative process moves forward.”

Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio echoed Musk's concerns about spending, urging the Senate to deepen spending cuts. Davidson and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky were the only two GOP members to vote against the bill.

"Hopefully, the Senate will succeed with the big, beautiful bill where the House missed the moment," Davidson said.

The bill is now on its way to the Senate, where lawmakers will inevitably rewrite major portions of the bill before punting it back over to the House before the proposed July 4 deadline.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!