Americans didn’t elect a Boston judge president



How much longer will Congress and the executive branch keep bowing to rogue judges?

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ordered the federal government to continue reimbursing Planned Parenthood under Medicaid. She warned that cutting funding could cause women to “suffer adverse health consequences,” face more unintended pregnancies, and go without treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power.

Congress had already voted to end the funding. The law is on the books. It went through the full legislative process and was signed by the president. But Judge Talwani believes her opinion overrides all of that. She not only reinterpreted the law, she ordered the appropriation of funds to a private abortion business.

That crosses a major constitutional line.

Judges don’t have the power of the purse. They can’t spend money. They can’t fund private organizations. Only Congress can do that. Yet that core principle of the separation of powers now seems optional. We are left with a system where unelected judges act as legislators, executives, and arbiters — and no one challenges them.

Too many conservatives hesitate to confront this reality. They’ll cheer when Trump ignores Congress on TikTok but wring their hands when he considers defying an unlawful court ruling. But judicial opinions don’t carry binding force simply because a judge wrote them. Presidents and lawmakers swear the same oath to the Constitution as judges do. They don’t swear loyalty to the judiciary.

If a court orders the government to fund Planned Parenthood in direct defiance of a law passed by Congress, and the executive branch complies, then we no longer have a functioning constitutional system. We have a judiciary with a veto power over the other branches.

This didn’t start with Talwani’s ruling, and it won’t end here. Judges now routinely issue sweeping decisions that affect the entire country, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that supposedly reined in nationwide injunctions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito warned that lower courts would continue to defy precedent unless checked. They were right.

The time for deference is over. If Trump continues to honor every lawless edict from every federal judge, he only encourages more of the same. He entrenches the notion that judges make law and everyone else must obey.

RELATED: Democrats created this court monster — now it’s eating them

  Prasong Maulae via iStock/Getty Images

Imagine Congress passes and Trump signs a reconciliation bill that strips federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration enforcement or Planned Parenthood funding. Under Judge Talwani’s logic, the courts could simply declare the law unconstitutional and order the executive branch to act against it — up to and including spending money Congress never appropriated. That’s not judicial review. That’s a judge acting like a one-woman super-legislature with a gavel and a god complex. Where does it end?

It never ends. Earlier this month, a judge in California ruled that ICE cannot carry out “roving” immigration enforcement in parts of the state’s Central Valley. The ruling lacked any constitutional basis. The judge simply decided too many illegal immigrants were being arrested and declared the enforcement itself a violation of rights — despite no evidence that a single American citizen had been wrongfully detained.

Rather than overturn the decision, the Ninth Circuit grilled government attorneys about whether ICE had an arrest quota. The implication was clear: Immigration enforcement itself is now suspect.

The federal judiciary was never intended to wield this kind of unchecked power. Congress holds the purse strings. The executive enforces the law. Judges interpret the law in individual cases. That’s the constitutional design.

Abraham Lincoln, in his fifth debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858, warned against treating court opinions as absolute. If citizens and lawmakers accept every ruling without question, Lincoln said, they prepare themselves to accept the next decision “without any inquiry.”

That mindset leads to tyranny. Not suddenly, but step by step.

The judiciary was supposed to be the weakest branch. It was designed that way. It has no army. It has no budget. Its legitimacy depends on its restraint. When judges cast that aside, the other branches must respond.

Otherwise, we will find ourselves governed not by the Constitution but by the whims of unelected lawyers with lifetime tenure.

If Trump does not confront the courts, we will be obliged to implement any rule from any judge who shares the same beliefs as Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I’d hate to see what the next decision looks like.

The budget hoax that nearly sank Trump’s biggest win (so far)



Conservatives are celebrating a once-in-a-generation legislative triumph with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4 by President Trump. But the victory almost didn’t happen — thanks to what can only be described as the “budget hawk hoax,” a long-standing tactic used by phony conservatives to block meaningful reforms from becoming law.

The heart of this hoax is that the overriding problem facing America is “the deficit crisis” — and that nothing else on the conservative agenda can ever be moved forward until we deal with it.

Too many conservatives have fallen for the 'budget hawk hoax' for far too long.

But when the conversation turns to cutting wasteful spending, these same so-called budget hawks introduce a poison pill: the notion that the only serious way to reduce the deficit is by gutting Social Security and Medicare — before touching any other government waste.

They know this is a nonstarter — and we all know it’s a nonstarter — because there is no way voters will ever allow Nana’s Social Security to be cut while we’re still using taxpayer money to fund LGBTQ+ programs in Nepal and Botswana.

The impossible dream?

Even worse, the faux-conservative “budget hawks” have generally dismissed any efforts to cut other wasteful government spending, insisting that it would have been a mere insignificant drop in the bucket. Yet when President Trump tried to secure $5 billion in funding for the border wall in his first term, budget hawks protested that we couldn’t afford it.

When the Trump administration began dismantling corrupt NGOs under USAID, legacy “conservative” media scoffed at the effort because it didn’t yield massive dollar savings. Yet if we don’t eliminate such foundational waste first, long-term entitlement reform has no credible path forward.

The truth is, of course, that Conservatism Inc. was just desperately trying to protect the corrupt status quo, keep left-wing spending in place, and deny any spending that advances the conservative agenda.

The same old playbook was rolled out again with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Critics labeled it “budget-busting,” but that claim was misleading. The bill didn’t increase spending. In fact, it prevented a scheduled tax hike that would have rolled back Trump-era tax cuts and restored pre-2017 rates.

RELATED: The reality behind this week’s One Big Beautiful Bill spectacle

  BackyardProduction via iStock/Getty Images

To be fair to the bill’s critics, the history of omnibus bills is fraught with corruption. Typically, omnibus bills have been legislative horse trades: Republicans secure pork for their districts, and Democrats secure massive expansions of the welfare state. But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different. It actually slashes major government spending in ways that align with long-standing conservative demands.

For instance, the $7,500 federal incentive for electric vehicle purchases is set to expire almost immediately. Under the old playbook, such a subsidy would have increased in exchange for some infrastructure funding in a red district. Not this time.

By trying to defeat the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “budget hawks” were actually striving to protect and perpetuate the following left-wing agenda items, all in the name of “fiscal conservatism”:

  • A massive tax increase, restoring Obama-level tax rates.
  • Allowing able-bodied Medicaid recipients to continue taking welfare without being required to work.
  • Maintaining all the federal EV rebates and green energy incentives, which are designed to deny Americans the right to affordable energy and reliable transportation.
  • Blocking border security by denying funding for the border wall, additional detention centers, and additional Border Patrol staffing.

It’s even more obscene when you consider the enormous cost to taxpayers of providing social services for illegal aliens — services the “budget hawks” are trying to save — while also perpetuating open borders because “we can’t afford” measures to seal the border.

Too many conservatives have fallen for the “budget hawk hoax” for far too long, accepting that we cannot have any conservative victories so long as we have a national debt. Perhaps that day has finally ended.

Yes, our country’s fiscal crisis is real, and it will persist. But forsaking any victories over the left because of the deficit is not a matter of high principle. It’s simply surrender.

The “budget hawks” will never be able to fix the deficit. They don’t want to. But given the chance, they would continue to use the issue to prevent real conservatives from ever passing useful legislation.

The hoax failed

They lost this round — and thank heaven for that!

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act stops income tax hikes in their tracks. It strips funding from Planned Parenthood, rogue judges notwithstanding. It shuts down the EV grift. It tightens border security and reins in Medicaid fraud.

This is what winning looks like — and the self-styled “budget hawks” hate it. Why? Because it derails the left’s agenda and puts the public back in charge.

Credit goes to President Trump and Speaker Johnson for delivering this landmark victory. And to Stephen Miller — relentless as ever — for making sure the truth broke through.

Trump notches 'big, beautiful' win following Jeffries' drawn-out spectacle



President Donald Trump notches the first major legislative victory of his second term in office after months of tumultuous negotiations on Capitol Hill.

The House passed the final version of the "big, beautiful bill" Thursday in a 218-214 vote after a tense overnight rules vote that was finalized just after 3:20 in the morning. The bill passed with 218 Republicans voting in favor of the legislation, while Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvaniajoined 212 Democrats and voted against the bill.

Leading up to the final vote, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) gave a record-breaking eight-hour, 44-minute speech on the House floor to stall the vote, even putting a fellow Democratic lawmaker to sleep. Vice President JD Vance joked in a post on X that a GOP rep texted him about how Jeffries' speech swayed his vote.

“I was undecided on the bill but then I watched Hakeem Jeffries [sic] performance and now I’m a firm yes."

"Democrats are focused on performing," Speaker Mike Johnson said ahead of the vote. "Republicans are focused on delivering."

Although the bill has been embraced by the president and the majority of the MAGA coalition, Massie and Fitzpatrick are not the only ones who took issue with the legislation.

'This Independence Day will mark the beginning of America's golden age.'

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

  Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Leading up to the vote, several House Republicans argued the Senate had "watered down" the bill beyond recognition. Conservatives were particularly concerned that the Senate did not properly address removing Biden-era green energy subsidies as well as limiting Medicaid access for criminal illegal aliens.

Other Republicans, Massie in particular, maintained that the spending levels in the bill are unsustainable.

"There’s no such thing as a tax relief without spending cuts," Massie said. "Gov’t can reduce the tax rate, but the spending still must be paid for. Gov’t must borrow money (which raises interest rates & requires more taxes later) or print money (which causes inflation). Both hurt Americans."

Many of these conservatives who had reservations over the bill met with the president at the White House on Wednesday morning leading up to the vote. In the end, Johnson managed to get the bill across the finish line with just a fewvotes to spare. Notably, Johnson passed the first version of the bill in the House with a 215-214 vote.

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

  Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Vance had to cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate on Tuesday after three Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Rand Paul of Kentucky — voted against the bill. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska was also a tough sell, calling it "one of the hardest votes" she has taken during her time in the Senate.

After a record-breaking 27-hour vote-a-rama, Murkowski came around and voted to pass the bill, although she said the "bill needs more work across chambers and is not ready for the President's desk."

Despite Murkowksi's plea to continue working on the legislation, the bill is headed right to the president's desk. Trump is expected to hold a signing ceremony at the White House on July 4.

"After years of failed policies, we stepped up to put Americans first and fulfilled our promises," Republican Rep. August Pfluger of Texas told Blaze News. "On July 4, 2025, we will return power to where it belongs — with the American people. This Independence Day will mark the beginning of America's golden age."

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

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!

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Thomas Massie Reveals What Would Get Him To ‘Yes’ On Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

'I could be for that, possibly'

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



Republican lawmakers are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Senate as the parliamentarian continues to hack away at key provisions in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill."

The latest ruling from the Senate parliamentarian has sent Republicans into a tailspin. It struck several Medicaid-related reforms that many conservatives fought for. Some of these provisions include limiting federal funds to states that allow illegal aliens to receive Medicaid benefits, prohibiting federal funds for "gender-affirming care," and preventing non-expansion states from increasing their current provider tax rates.

'The Senate should know better than to send a bill with this waste of taxpayer money back to the House.'

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

  Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

"How is it that an unelected swamp bureaucrat, who was appointed by Harry Reid over a decade ago, gets to decide what can and cannot go in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill? The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected," Republican Rep. Greg Steube of Florida said in a post on X. "She is not accountable to the American people. Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters."

"We are trying to undo the America LAST insanity from the Democrats by kicking illegals off of Medicare and Medicaid and stopping taxpayer subsidies from being used for genital mutilation of children!!" Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said in a post on X.

Although the parliamentarian is able to issue advisory rulings over which provisions are in violation of the Byrd Rule, they can be overruled, which is what Republican Rep. Keith Self of Texas is calling for.

"The rogue Senate Parliamentarian should be overruled, just like activist judges."

RELATED: Republican senator makes a stunning admission: 'I can't be somebody that I'm not'

  Photo by Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images

It's not just the Medicaid provisions that have sparked outrage amongs Republican lawmakers. The Senate has hardly rolled back Biden-era green-energy subsidies that were implemented through the Inflation Reduction Act. Many Republicans in the House made it clear that aggressive cuts were nonnegotiable, yet the Senate is extending certain solar and wind subsidies through at least 2030 and in some cases through 2040.

"The American people are sick and tired of their tax dollars funding Chinese solar panels and inefficient wind turbines that are destroying our land," Republican Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois told Blaze News. "President Trump made it clear he wants no Green New Scam tax credits in the big, beautiful bill. The Senate must follow the House's lead and get it done — this is our opportunity to protect our farmland, our food supply, and our energy independence."

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

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

“Congress has a chance to end the left’s Green New Scam for good, but if Senate Republicans swap the House’s firm ‘placed in service’ deadline for the vague ‘construction begins’ standard, we will fail to deliver on President Trump’s promise," Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin told Blaze News. "This loophole would let wind and solar subsidies drag on for years — long after Trump’s second term — destroying American farmland and threatening our power grid."

"Americans didn’t elect Republicans to rubber-stamp Joe Biden’s radical Green New Deal scam," Self said in a post on X. "The Senate’s watered-down 'Big Beautiful Bill' wastes billions on climate schemes."

Republicans maintained that if the Senate punts this "watered-down" bill back to the House, they will likely not have the votes to pass the bill before the July 4 deadline.

"Biden's Green New Scam offers massive, unchecked subsidies to billion-dollar corporations and Chinese manufacturers, undermining American energy independence and economic freedom," Republican Rep. Mark Harris of North Carolina told Blaze News. "Yet the Senate is reportedly gutting our hard-fought House measures to stop these tax giveaways. President Trump wants them gone, and so do I. The Senate should know better than to send a bill with this waste of taxpayer money back to the House.”

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

A tax hike is coming — and it’s not just for the rich



Academy Award-winner Elizabeth Taylor, married eight times to seven men, likely entered each union with the hope it would last. Good things, after all, should be permanent.

Yet in Washington, permanence is too often treated as a liability. Nowhere is this more apparent than in tax policy. Thanks to arcane rules surrounding budget reconciliation, Congress routinely enacts pro-growth reforms with an expiration date baked in.

A permanent extension of the reconciliation bill’s pro-growth elements would produce more ‘bang for the buck’ than a temporary extension.

Consider the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Though the measure would extend and build upon President Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it fails to permanently extend several of the law’s most pro-growth elements.

That’s a mistake. Again, good things should be permanent.

Pro-growth policies need permanence

Earlier this month, Unleash Prosperity Now — a nonprofit aligned with President Trump — organized a letter signed by more than 300 economists, myself included, urging Congress to “extend President Trump's tax cuts permanently to prevent a tax increase on January 1, 2026.”

Why do we insist upon permanence? Permanent pro-growth public policies result in better economic outcomes. In contrast, temporary policies create troublesome uncertainty, which, in turn, sows confusion for consumers and businesses, making financial planning and investment needlessly difficult.

A permanent extension of the reconciliation bill’s pro-growth elements would produce more economic “bang for the buck” than a temporary extension. It’s that simple.

According to the Tax Foundation, “Permanence for the [bill’s] four cost recovery provisions would more than double the long-run economic effect.” These provisions would include 100% bonus depreciation, expensing of research and development investment, and a more generous interest deduction limit, among others.

The Tax Foundation concludes:

The current package produces meager effects on GDP and a smaller U.S. capital stock over the long run because the cost recovery provisions sunset. As lawmakers continue to debate the tax package, they should not compromise on permanence for the most pro-growth provisions.

This view aligns with the prevailing economic literature. For example, a 2019 study by the St. Louis Federal Reserve concluded, “A rise in uncertainty is widely believed to have detrimental effects on macroeconomic, microeconomic, and financial market outcomes.”

If that warning were plastered on the side of a pack of cigarettes, it would read, “Congressionally induced policy uncertainty is hazardous to the country’s economic health.”

Jobs under threat

Fortunately, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) is determined to extend the reconciliation bill’s most pro-growth elements permanently. Bravo, Mr. Chairman!

Permanence aside, why did more than 300 economists call for preventing the tax increase scheduled under current law?

RELATED: I was against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ — Stephen Miller changed my mind

 Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

If taxes increase as planned, the economic fallout could be steep. Wells Fargo warns that average monthly job creation could plummet from 133,000 in the first quarter to just 25,000 next quarter — and then turn negative, with an estimated loss of 17,000 jobs per month in the fourth quarter.

If Congress fails to “spike the hike,” Wells Fargo estimates economic growth will slow to a tepid 1.1% this year and next.

A warning to deficit hawks

For those worried about the deficit, here's the paradox: Letting the economy slow — or worse, slip into recession — is the surest way to worsen the nation’s fiscal health.

To further underscore the situation, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who directed the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, cautions: “Given the weak state of the economy, it [the scheduled tax increase] would likely trigger a recession, and the budget outlook never gets better in a recession.”

Yes, it’s that simple.

Elizabeth Taylor once quipped, “If you hear of me getting married [again], slap me!” At least, she had the right intentions. Congress, on the other hand, routinely resorts to temporary policies to game the reconciliation process. That needs to stop.

To guard against recession, Congress should reconsider the tax increase scheduled for next year. But to boost economic growth, Congress should follow Crapo’s lead and extend permanently the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act pro-growth provisions.

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!