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!

SALT sellouts: GOP dumps red-state voters for New York Democrats



Every Republican ran for office last year promising to slash the record spending levels that fueled Biden-era inflation. Yet, every GOP proposal now adds to the deficit. Republicans can't agree on a single major program to cut. At the very least, one might expect them to eliminate federal subsidies that prop up blue-state Medicaid schemes and high-tax policies. Instead, they plan to burn their political capital shielding those same states from the consequences of their choices.

Forget “inflation” or “invasion.” The buzzword in Washington this month is “SALT.” Lifting the cap on the state and local tax deduction is the message GOP leaders chose to go with. Brilliant!

Blue-state Republicans should export red-state policies, not act as lobbyists for high-tax regimes.

Salt may season food, but in tax policy, SALT leaves a bitter taste. Before Trump’s 2017 tax reforms, taxpayers could deduct unlimited state and local taxes from their federal burden, with some restrictions for the wealthy under the old Alternative Minimum Tax. This allowed blue-state politicians to raise state income and property taxes knowing Washington would offset the pain through greater deficit spending. Trump’s bill capped SALT deductions at $10,000 and lowered federal rates across the board.

Now, a bloc of blue-state Republicans has hijacked the budget reconciliation process to push what amounts to an unlimited national subsidy for high-tax states. With existing tax cuts and Trump’s new priorities already straining the budget, these Republicans want to burn $1 trillion over 10 years to spare New York and California politicians from a taxpayer revolt.

After rounds of internal negotiation, House leaders offered a compromise: Raise the SALT cap to $30,000 for families earning less than $400,000. The SALT caucus rejected the offer. “A higher SALT cap isn’t a luxury. It’s a matter of fairness,” declared New York Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, and Mike Lawler. Fairness? They want the rest of the country to go deeper into debt to prop up New York’s failed policies.

zimmytws via iStock/Getty Images

RELATED: The last march of the moderates

Blue-state Republicans should export red-state policies, not act as lobbyists for high-tax regimes. Their job is to pressure local Democrats to cut taxes — or to help conservative voters move out. Instead, they keep fueling blue-state profligacy and shielding the very politicians who caused the mess.

Worse still, these lukewarm Republicans want to spend over $1 trillion on blue-state tax breaks instead of using that money for broad-based tax cuts that would actually boost growth. They’ve even floated raising the cap to $62,000 for individuals and $124,000 for families, with no income limits. Most of those benefits would go to households earning over half a million dollars. For comparison, the Tax Foundation reports the average American pays about $13,890 in federal income taxes. Yet, these Republicans want to let wealthy blue-staters deduct nearly 10 times that amount.

And what of Donald Trump — the be-all and end-all of the Republican Party? He pressures the Freedom Caucus to drop its demands to end blue-state Medicaid grift, but he says nothing about the SALT holdouts. Instead, he endorsed Stefanik and Lawler for re-election.

Trump left New York for Florida to escape New York’s oppressive tax regime. So why back politicians who insist on making the rest of the country pay for it?

If Trump won’t rein in these RINOs, Republicans will head into the midterms without a message — and they’ll need smelling salts to revive a self-immolated mandate.

House GOP targets 'rogue' activist judges, advancing new bill amid Trump's legal standoffs



As President Donald Trump grapples with more than a dozen injunctions, Republican lawmakers have targeted "rogue" activist judges with two new bills.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act to restrict U.S. district judges' ability to issue broad injunctions. The bill passed the House Rules Committee on Tuesday in a 9-4 vote along party lines.

'700 District Court judges shouldn't each have nationwide veto power over a President's national security decisions.'

"The bill would allow a district court to issue a nationwide injunction in a case in which two separate states from two separate judicial circuits are parties — making clear the nationwide nature of the dispute. In such a case, the bill provides for the establishment of a panel of three randomly chosen judges to determine whether to issue a nationwide injunction. Such injunctions may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court," the proposed bill reads.

Since Trump's January inauguration, his administration has already been hit with 15 injunctions, stalling a wide range of initiatives such as the end of birthright citizenship, deportation flights, and the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

Issa told the New York Post that his proposed bill is "a constitutional solution to a national problem."

"Time and again, solitary judges have usurped congressional intent and confronted President Trump, rather than dispassionately interpreted the law," he stated.

New York Republican Reps. Claudia Tenney, Nick Langworthy, and Nick LaLota have co-sponsored the bill.

Tenney pointed out that 67% of all injunctions ever issued have been placed against Trump.

"I am supporting the No Rogue Rulings Act to stop radical judges from imposing nationwide injunctions on President Trump's agenda, which 77 million Americans voted for," she wrote in a post on X.

LaLota stated, "700 District Court judges shouldn't each have nationwide veto power over a President's national security decisions."

Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.) called the activist judges' actions "unconstitutional lawfare."

Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Monday introduced a similar measure, the Judicial Relief Clarification Act, which aims to "limit federal court orders to parties directly before the court — ending the practice of universal injunctions and clarifying the constitutional role of the judicial branch."

It would require parties to file a class-action lawsuit to receive nationwide injunctive relief.

Grassley stated, "For a number of years, but particularly in the last few months, we've increasingly seen sweeping orders from individual district judges that dictate national policy. Our Founders saw an important role for the judiciary, but the Constitution limits judges to exercising power over 'cases' or 'controversies.' Judges are not policymakers, and allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous."

On Tuesday, two House Judiciary Committee subcommittees held a joint hearing examining judicial overreach. Former Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, joined the hearing as witnesses.

Larkin told lawmakers, "The practice of issuing nationwide injunctions outside the confines of a certified nationwide class action is mistaken as a matter of law and unwise as a matter of policy."

"It is not the courts that are responsible for creating the laws; the courts are responsible for interpreting it as it applies, but they can only do so in the context of a case or controversy," he added. "Only the Congress can create a law. Any time a court enters a judgment that is tantamount to being a law, the judge has gone too far."

Gingrich called the judges' injunctions against the Trump administration "potentially a judicial coup d'état."

“The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the executive branch and override a commander in chief who received 77.3 million votes should trouble every American,” he stated.

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

Vulnerable GOPs Are Concerned Speaker Johnson’s Funding Strategy May Cost Them Reelection

'I hope it doesn’t hold up the funding'

George Santos Pleads Guilty In Federal Corruption Case

'Essential that justice continues to be served'

GOP Lawmakers Want Trump To Cut Out The Race Talk, Focus On Harris’ Policy

'Happened to turn black'

Former CNN Pundit John Avlon Wins Democratic Primary In New York

Avlon garnered more than half of Goroff’s total votes

George Santos Drops Independent Bid For House

'responsible for handing the house to Dems'

‘Uptick in crime’ near controversial NYC migrant shelter prompts GOP lawmakers to demand vetting process records: Report



An “uptick in crime” near a controversial New York City migrant shelter prompted Republican lawmakers to send a letter, obtained by the New York Post, to the National Park Service demanding information about the vetting process for tenants.

House Republican Bruce Westerman, the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, and seven other GOP lawmakers penned a letter to NPS director Charles Sams stating that the House Committee on Natural Resources is examining the decision to house migrants at Floyd Bennett Field, which is located on NPS land.

The city began housing migrants at the Brooklyn airfield in November after its existing shelter system neared capacity. Many of the migrants who were part of the first busload transported to Floyd Bennett Field refused to reside at the makeshift tent city shelter, complaining that the accommodations were too remote.

The shelter, which can house up to 2,000 migrants, became a hotbed for panhandling, according to residents in the area. An increase in begging and criminal activity prompted Democratic Mayor Eric Adams to impose a curfew at some migrant shelter locations.

“Since the establishment of the migrant encampment at Floyd Bennett Field, local and national media have reported an uptick in crime at the migrant encampment and in the immediate neighborhood surrounding the park,” lawmakers wrote to Sams.

The letter stated that the migrant crisis has led to an increase in criminal activity in the city and nationwide.

“The widespread reports of criminality in and around the Floyd Bennett Field migrant encampment include domestic violence, assault, shoplifting, prostitution, and panhandling scams,” the lawmakers said. “The Committee is deeply concerned with the Biden administration’s management of American’s public lands, notably at Floyd Bennett Field, and the inherent safety risks to employees at the park, residents of the surrounding communities, and migrants as a result of the decision to lease national park land for a migrant encampment.”

The lawmakers noted that the lease agreement states that the New York Police Department is the “primary entity responsible for law enforcement issues” at the encampment but that the Adams administration “contracted with a private security firm.”

“[O]n at least one occasion, the private security firm has impeded NYPD officers attempting to access the camp,” the letter claimed.

Lawmakers added that migrant tenants “are not subject to a basic background search during the intake process.”

“All tenants, employees of Floyd Bennett Field, and surrounding residents deserve to know if they are living with migrants who have previous arrest records and/or convictions,” the House Republicans wrote.

The letter requested that the NPS provide lawmakers with “documents and communications” concerning the lease and the shelter’s intake process by April 11.

Lawmakers demanded evidence that shows “how NPS has cooperated, or plans to cooperate, with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement],” “how the migrant tenants at Floyd Bennett Field are screened,” and “how NPS is preventing persons with a history of criminal conduct from residing at Floyd Bennett Field.”

The letter was signed by Republican Representatives Westerman from Arkansas, Paul Gosar from Arizona, and Mike Collins from Georgia. New York Republican Representatives Anthony D'Esposito, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, Nicole Malliotakis, and Elise Stefanik also signed the correspondence.

Neither the NPS nor Adams’ office responded to a request for comment from the Post.

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

Months after being expelled from the House, George Santos announces congressional bid



Former Republican Rep. George Santos of New York, who was expelled from office last year, has announced a congressional bid.

"New York hasn't had a real conservative represent them since I left office arbitrarily, thanks to RINO, empty suits like @nicklalota. He is a willing to risk the future of our majority and the future of this country for his own political gain," Santos tweeted on Thursday night.

"Tonight, I want to announce that I will be returning to the arena of politics and challenging Nick for the battle over #NY1. I look forward to debating him on the issues and on his weak record as a Republican. The fight for our majority is imperative for the survival of the country," he wrote.

— (@)

Santos served as the representative for New York's Third Congressional District during most of last year, but in December was expelled from the House in a 311-114 vote

In February, Democrat Tom Suozzi won the seat during a special election.

"To raise the standard in Congress, and to hold a pathological liar who stole an election accountable, I led the charge to expel George Santos. If finishing the job requires beating him in a primary, count me in," Nick LaLota tweeted.

— (@)

Santos attended President Joe Biden's State of the Union address on Thursday night.

Earlier this year, the former congressman expressed interest in serving as director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement if former President Donald Trump becomes president again.

"My new year resolution is that President Trump returns to the white house and in 2025 I can be appointed Director of ICE," Santos said in a tweet. "ICE has had their hands tied for far too long with the sole exception of the great four years of DJT. The time is now and that's why I'm putting my name in the mix for a role that will take grit and a fearless person and not a coward that will fear media spin."

— (@)

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