Vance casts tiebreaking vote after Republicans betray Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'



President Donald Trump is getting closer to codifying the first landmark legislation of his second term, but the fight is not over.

After a record-breaking 27-hour voting marathon, the Senate narrowly passed Trump's "big, beautiful bill" in a 51-50 vote. Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaking vote after three Senate Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Rand Paul of Kentucky — voted against the legislation.

'This performative theatre won’t solve the problem.'

The bill is now headed back to the House, where lawmakers will scramble to meet the president's ambitious July 4 deadline.

This deadline will not be easy to meet. During the drawn-out vote-a-rama, several key provisions failed to make it into the Senate's final draft, raising concerns among House Republicans.

RELATED: GOP-controlled Senate keeps taxpayer dollars flowing to criminal aliens after parliamentarian's ruling

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Several Republicans were outraged about one provision in particular. The Senate rejected an amendment that would reduce Medicaid funding for states that offer the social program to criminal aliens after the parliamentarian ruled against the provision, increasing the vote threshold from a simple majority to 60 votes.

RELATED: Republicans rage over Senate's ‘watered-down’ version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

"If the Senate won’t do their job, DHS MUST," Republican Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas said of the amendment. "Because this performative theatre won’t solve the problem. It’s great messaging, but it does nothing."

"Illegals should not get Medicaid," Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida said in a post on X. "This should not have to be said."

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

GOP-controlled Senate keeps taxpayer dollars flowing to criminal aliens after parliamentarian's ruling



As the Senate continues to work through the "big, beautiful bill," lawmakers axed yet another key provision from President Donald Trump's landmark legislation.

Senators are hammering out key amendments in the reconciliation bill before the final Senate vote, which will likely come Tuesday. Certain amendments, based on advisory rulings from the parliamentarian, are required to pass the 60-vote threshold instead of a simple majority, making it more difficult to codify key provisions in the bill.

'An unelected Senate staffer is thwarting the will of 75 million people who voted to make sure foreign alien invaders aren’t getting taxpayer benefits.'

RELATED: Democrats unanimously vote against condemning 'mostly peaceful' anti-ICE riots

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

One of these amendments included a provision that would reduce federal funding for states that provide Medicaid to illegal aliens who were charged with additional violent crimes. Because of the parliamentarian's ruling, the amendment failed in a 56-44 vote on Tuesday.

As a result of these rulings, the parliamentarian has been the focal point of a lot of criticism leading up to the vote, particularly from prominent voices on the right.

"Elizabeth McDonough stopped the Senate bill from blocking illegals from getting Medicaid," Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk said in a post on X. "An unelected Senate staffer is thwarting the will of 75 million people who voted to make sure foreign alien invaders aren’t getting taxpayer benefits. This is a red line. The Senate needs to CHANGE THE RULES, fire her, or find a solution. This is in the hands of the Senate to find a solution. We have 53 votes — figure it out! No more excuses."

RELATED: Republicans rage over Senate's ‘watered-down’ version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Many Republicans and even the president have called for leadership to overrule the parliamentarian. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has the authority and the precedent to overrule her, but he decided against it.

"That would not be a good outcome for getting a bill done," Thune said.

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

Senate parliamentarian rules against key provisions from Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'



The Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that several key provisions in the "big, beautiful bill" violate the Byrd Rule, potentially setting the stage for the provisions to be removed altogether.

In order to avoid a filibuster and pass the bill under a simple majority, the legislation needs to be compliant with the Byrd Rule, which prevents "extraneous" provisions from being included in reconciliation. The "extraneous" provisions MacDonough ruled against include key climate and financial provisions.

Although these rulings can be contentious, they are not set in stone.

One provision the parliamentarian ruled against came from the Senate Banking Committee's reconciliation text, which would have cut $6.4 billion in funding from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She also ruled against cutting $1.4 billion by reducing the wages for Federal Reserve staff, cutting $293 million from the Office of Financial Research, and cutting $771 million by abolishing the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

MacDonough also ruled against a provision that would repeal green energy subsidies authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as certain tailpipe emission standards put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency.

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

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Although these rulings can be contentious, they are not set in stone. James Wallner, vice president of policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, told Blaze News that the parliamentarian's rulings are based on precedent and provide an advisory role subject to the chair.

"There's how it works on paper, and then how it works in practice," Wallner said. "The parliamentarian is just a staffer. So we have a parliamentarian because you have all these different procedural authorities and Senate rules. The Senate rules, though, are very vague, and they are many pages long."

"So you have all these rules, but oftentimes what happens is the rule isn't very explicit, and there are ambiguities," Wallner added. "So when there are ambiguities, the parliamentarian will advise the Senate. At least in theory."

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

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Wallner said the parliamentarian works alongside both majority and minority committee staff to identify provisions that violate the Byrd Rule. Once the parliamentarian issues a ruling, a senator has to raise a point of order on the floor about the Byrd violations. The parliamentarian then advises the chair, who ultimately makes the final decision as to whether the provision in question is a violation.

Although MacDonough ultimately serves in an advisory capacity, Wallner told Blaze News that senators often like to point the finger at the parliamentarian.

"Senators talk about her as if she's the only one who decides," Wallner said. "But it's a very convenient way for them to kind of pass the buck and act like they're not in charge. The parliamentarian has no power to actually issue it authoritatively."

"It can be adversarial, but it's through that adversarial process that you really get a robust discussion of these provisions," Wallner added.

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

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!

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



The Senate Finance Committee amended major tax provisions in the House's version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," and some Republicans are not happy about it.

The SALT Caucus, which advocates for an increased cap on state and local deductions, managed to do just that in the House version of the bill that was passed in May. After weeks of negotiating with Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leadership, SALT Republicans were able to quadruple the original $10,000 cap to $40,000.

By appealing to the very stubborn SALT members, the House was able to pass the bill in an uncomfortably narrow 215-214 vote.

Although SALT Republicans were eventually able to get behind the landmark legislation, the Senate's amendments may have alienated them and their much-needed support.

'Not only insulting but a slap in the face to the Republican districts that delivered our majority and trifecta.'

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

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The Senate Finance Committee pushed the $40,000 cap right back down to $10,000 on Monday, treating it as a "negotiating mark." As expected, SALT Republicans are not on board.

At the forefront of this dispute is Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, who, like many of his other SALT colleagues, maintains that his support for the bill is conditional.

"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," Lawler said in a statement 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."

"Consider this the response to the Senate’s 'negotiating mark': DEAD ON ARRIVAL," Lawler added.

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

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Other SALT Republicans echoed Lawler, saying they will pull their support for the bill if the original $40,000 cap they negotiated in the House is scrapped.

"The Senate doesn’t have the votes for $10k SALT in the House," Republican Rep. Nick LaLota of New York said Monday. "And if they’re not sold on the House’s $40k compromise, wait until they crash the OBBB and TCJA expires — when SALT goes back to unlimited at year-end. They won’t like that one bit."

Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of New York shared her SALT colleagues' frustrations. Malliotakis said the Senate's amended bill is a "slap in the face," reminding them that Republicans in moderate districts have helped secure the narrow majority they relied on to pass the legislation in the first place.

Notably, Malliotakis is the only Republican SALT member who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, which is in charge of the tax policy drafted in the House.

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

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

"The $40,000 SALT deduction was carefully negotiated along with other tax provisions by the House of Representatives and we all had to give a little to obtain the votes to pass the Big Beautiful Bill," Malliotakis said Monday. "For the Senate to leave the SALT deduction capped at $10,000 is not only insulting but a slap in the face to the Republican districts that delivered our majority and trifecta."

"If we want to be the big tent party, we need to recognize that we have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country with constituents who benefit from refundable tax credits despite paying zero in taxes," Malliotakis added.

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

Trump doesn’t threaten democracy — he threatens its ruling class



For years, I’ve heard the same complaint from friends, family, and the nightly news: Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. The real problem, they say, is the man’s personality. If only he weren’t so obnoxious, if only he didn’t speak off the cuff or insult his critics, then maybe his enemies would stop calling him a Nazi. Maybe the protests would stop. Maybe the country could calm down.

It’s true that Trump’s tactlessness and unreflective speech can grate, even on those who support him. But let’s not pretend his critics hold anyone else to the same standard. Where was their outrage when Joe Biden declared that Trump supporters were “the only garbage I see,” smeared the GOP as “semi-fascists" and "terrorists,” or cursed at reporters who dared ask unscripted questions?

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly.

The same people clutching pearls over Trump’s tone cheered on mouthy scolds like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. They ignored threats by former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who warned Supreme Court justices against overturning Roe v. Wade outside their own courthouse. When it comes to rhetoric, Democrats don’t offend them — only Republicans do.

And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Anti-white racism is commonplace among Democrats. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocked Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) as a purveyor of “white tears” for disagreeing with her. Crockett also derided “mediocre white boys” who oppose race-based preferences and once referred to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels” without consequence. No apology. No media outcry. Just applause.

At some point, the conclusion becomes obvious: The outrage over Trump’s rhetoric has little to do with his words. It has everything to do with the groups he opposes. His critics don’t hate how he speaks. They hate what he threatens.

If rhetoric really mattered, then Democrats would call out their own side for the endless stream of vile speech and political violence. But they don’t. They won’t. Because they know it’s not about tone. It’s about power.

Would the Trump-haters change their tune if a more well-mannered Republican — House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), or even Dr. Oz — pushed Trump’s policies? Don’t bet on it. Democrats didn’t tone down their vitriol even after two assassination attempts against Trump, the second by a man, Ryan Routh, who explicitly cited Democratic rhetoric and media hysteria as his motivation.

Legacy media rage against Trump not because he speaks crudely, but because he disrupts their agenda. He guts bloated agencies, cuts funding to woke nonprofits, and works to dismantle bureaucracies like the Department of Education — which caters to teachers’ unions but has done zilch to improve American learning.

Trump also dares to enforce immigration law. After Democrats spent years encouraging waves of illegal immigration, he tried to reverse the damage — and they called him a “tyrant.” He asserts that men are men and women are women, even as the ruling class invents new genders and demands compliance.

RELATED: Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power

Blaze News Illustration

The ruling class can get away with its double standard because its multiple armies close ranks to defend any lie or exaggeration from its government placeholders. When Biden labeled Trump’s voters as terrorists, the foreign policy blob, the think-tank class, and the media all fell in line. Groups like the Council on Foreign Relations echoed the claim, amplifying a fantasy of right-wing extremism while excusing left-wing bigotry.

Search engines bury criticism of Democrats while promoting glowing defenses of their nastiest remarks. The same media that spent years covering for Biden’s obvious cognitive decline and told you it’s a conspiracy theory to question his mental fitness to serve now say they had no idea anything was wrong. Trust them.

And don’t forget the cultural cleanup crews. During Pride Month, every major corporation, institution, and media outlet falls in lockstep. No dissent. No nuance. Just forced applause for whatever new orthodoxy the cultural left pushes. (Though that might be changing.)

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly. Even modest success in weakening their grip on government, culture, or education terrifies them. Because once that monopoly breaks, their entire edifice could fall.

That’s why Trump provokes such hysteria. Not because he insults people. But because he threatens the system that protects their power.

And maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing.

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



The House passed another bill Tuesday night protecting election integrity, but Democrats are once again digging their heels in.

The bill repeals a Washington, D.C., ordinance known as the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022 that allows noncitizens to vote in local elections. Just 56 Democrats joined 210 Republicans to bar noncitizens from voting in these American elections, while 148 Democrats voted to continue allowing illegal aliens to vote in D.C.

'It is a national embarrassment that foreign citizens can vote in America’s capital city.'

Republican Rep. August Pfluger of Texas, who led the bill in the House, said the legislation was "common sense" and that "only American citizens should be able to vote in U.S. elections."

"Last night, 148 Democrats voted against my bill to prohibit noncitizens from voting in D.C.," Pfluger said. "Let me be clear: Every vote against this bill was a vote for the transfer of political power away from the citizen voter."

RELATED: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against resolution condemning anti-Semitic Boulder attack, while lone Republican votes present

🚨 I just spoke on the House floor in support of H.R. 884, my legislation to stop noncitizens from voting in DC elections.

Congress must exercise its constitutional right and duty to restore commonsense and accountability in our nation's capital. Watch my full remarks: pic.twitter.com/61s8nKaC67
— Rep. August Pfluger (@RepPfluger) June 10, 2025

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) echoed Pfluger's sentiment, saying "foreign actors" are being given the same privileges as American citizens.

"Only American citizens should decide the outcome of American elections," Johnson said. "Yet the D.C. City Council has made it clear they actually want noncitizens and even foreign actors to have an equal say in choosing a mayor and other local public officials in our nation’s capital. As the constitutional authority overseeing the District, House Republicans stand firm against this un-American decision which undermines the rule of law and the core principles of our republic."

RELATED: Republicans clash with Democratic lawmakers defending violent anti-ICE rioters

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Other Republicans like Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah came out against the D.C. ordinance, calling it an "embarrassment" and "grotesquely unjust."

"For decades, Democrats slandered conservatives as conspiracy theorists for exposing their strategy to import illegal alien voters," Gill said. "But that’s exactly what they are doing right now: fighting to allow illegal aliens to vote. This is not only grotesquely unjust, but it waters down the meaning of American citizenship."

"It is a national embarrassment that foreign citizens can vote in America’s capital city," Lee said.

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

Will Elon Musk be brought back into the fold?



Following President Donald Trump and Elon Musk's very public falling-out, the former DOGE head may be looking to reconcile.

Musk remained a close ally to Trump during his campaign and through the beginning of his second term. However, signs of tension began to appear publicly toward the end of Musk's 130-day tenure as a special government employee.

Throughout the saga, Trump remained remarkably restrained.

Fault lines first emerged when Musk criticized Trump's "big, beautiful bill," a landmark piece of legislation that would codify many of the president's campaign promises. Musk first called the bill into question in May, saying he was "disappointed" with the amount of spending in it.

Although his critiques were relatively tame at first, they quickly devolved once he departed from the DOGE.

Musk poured fuel on the fire through a series of posts on his social media platform, X, starting in early June. The tech mogul decried the bill as an "outrageous, pork-filled ... disgusting abomination," shaming all 215 Republicans who voted to pass it in the House.

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

Photo by ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images

Republican leadership, like Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) and Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.), quickly came to Trump's defense, saying Musk was "terribly wrong" about the bill.

Despite the unification of Republicans behind the president, Musk continued to fan the flames with a series of online attacks.

RELATED: The only Trump-Musk feud timeline you'll need

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Trump and other Republicans suggested that Musk's disapproval of the bill was due to a provision revoking tax credits for electric vehicles that his business Tesla has benefited from. Trump also said that Musk has had access to the legislation for a while and questioned why he waited until after the legislation passed the House to criticize it.

"False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" Musk said in response.

Musk went on to claim that Trump would have lost without his support, predicted the tariffs will cause a recession, suggested Trump should be impeached, and accused the president of being "in the Epstein files."

RELATED: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against resolution condemning anti-Semitic Boulder attack, while lone Republican votes present

No shot. We know Epstein had Trump's phone number; White House 47 released that publicly too. If there was any more to it, Biden and the Democrat DOJ would have 1000% released it. https://t.co/bKtE1whMxK
— Christopher Bedford (@CBedfordDC) June 5, 2025

Throughout the saga, Trump remained remarkably restrained. Trump addressed Musk's comments a few times, saying he wished him well but that he was "not particularly" interested in talking to Musk.

Since then, Musk has deleted many of his posts, including those calling for impeachment and suggesting Trump was part of the Epstein conspiracy. In fact, Musk has gone back to posting on his social media platform as if nothing happened, leaving some to speculate that he may be trying to mend his relationship with the president.

❤️
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 9, 2025

Musk is back to retweeting Vice President JD Vance, posting American flags in support of the administration, and even posting Trump's Truth Social posts on his page. One post shows Musk replying to Trump with a heart emoji, a far cry from the accusatory comments he made just days before.

"It’s outrageous how much character assassination has been directed at me, especially by me!" Musk joked.

Although Musk has yet to make a public apology to the president, it seems as though he is attempting to take a more reconciliatory approach. We will have to wait and see if it's enough for the two political heavyweights to make amends or if Musk's fall from grace will be permanent.

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