What to know as the Senate tries to pass Trump's agenda bill next week
It's go time in the Senate for President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.'
After months of negotiations, Senate Republicans are gearing up for a potential vote next week on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. It will be a major test for Republican Leader John Thune and Trump's own hold on the upper chamber that aides say will be cast as a binary choice for the rank-and-file: you either are with the president or you aren't.
Thune has predicted the Senate could begin consideration on the bill as early as the middle of next week. That would mean a massive sprint starting this weekend to draft final text, whip votes and iron out a series of major sticking points that will satisfy holdouts – without pushing the bill in such a different direction that it stalls out in the House of Representatives where it passed by a single vote.
The bottom line is next week is crunch time and all the hard decisions that have been punted will need to be made in the next several days.
Aides and members say that if everything goes according to plan (and that's far from certain), the 20-hour clock to debate the bill could start as soon as Wednesday.
Republicans would yield a big part of their time back and vote-a-rama – an hours-long voting marathon – could begin Thursday evening into Friday. That could always get pushed into Friday evening, but right now the goal is to have this finished by the end of next week.
Over the next several days, a myriad of technical work and hard-fought negotiations have to unfold in order to get the bill to a place where it is even ready for the floor. Some of these negotiations will be substantial, others will be a way to give members an off-ramp to vote 'yes' because members really do want to back the president here.
One of those tasks is already underway and will continue this weekend: the Byrd Bath.
Simply put, the Byrd bath is a critical process led by the Senate parliamentarian that ensures all the provisions of the bill comply with special Senate rules that allow Republicans to move this bill with a simple majority rather than being subject to the normal 60-vote threshold.
Those rules are specific and nuanced, but the Budget Control Act set parameters that required provisions within a bill that is going to pass with a simple majority to have more than just an 'incidental' budget impact. The parliamentarian traditionally makes a call on whether a provision qualifies.
It's named after the late Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who came up with the rule to stop either side from abusing the reconciliation process and trying to use it to just pass legislation that bypassed a filibuster.
The way it works is Democrats and Republican staffers of each committee with jurisdiction in the bill privately meet with the parliamentarian and make their arguments for whether provisions meet the confines of the process. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to undertake this process Sunday evening, a critical step in moving forward because so many of the tax and health care provisions that are the heart of this bill are in Finance's purview.
Several other committees have already begun, including the Senate Banking Committee, which Democrats say led to some of the provisions in that committee's jurisdiction from being ruled out of compliance with reconciliation.
'The Parliamentarian agreed that the funding cap for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), elimination of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), gutting of the Office of Financial Research and Financial Stability Oversight Council, and slashing Federal Reserve staff salaries violate the Senate's Byrd Rule,' Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office announced in a statement.
State and local tax deductions: This may be the biggest hurdle right now. Unlike in the House, where a number of swing district members hail from high-tax states, there is absolutely no interest in the Senate in investing hundreds of billions of dollars to raise the cap on how much constituents in New York, California, New Jersey and Illinois can deduct in state and local taxes on their federal taxes. The Senate bill currently keeps the cap frozen at $10,000, a placeholder that Senate leaders have indicated they may be willing to negotiate on. But the coalition of House Republicans who raised the cap to $40,000 for certain income thresholds under $500,000 aren't interested in renegotiating the hard-fought deal they cemented in the House.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma and former House member, has been leading the talks over the issue, but so far there is no deal. There is some discussion, two sources say, over dialing back the income threshold for who qualifies for the $40,000 deduction but so far that's been a nonstarter for the group of House Republicans who got this concession in the House bill a few weeks ago.
To say there is palpable frustration in the Senate with a handful of House members dictating the future of a provision in the Senate bill that no one in that chamber cares much about is putting it mildly.
Medicaid: A number of Senate Republicans have made clear they could vote against the Senate bill if there aren't protections to ensure rural hospitals are protected from some of the changes to Medicaid in the bill, like the slash to how much hospitals can be held harmless when it comes to the provider tax. Led by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a group of these Republicans are pushing leadership to create a kind of stabilization fund that states could use. Aides close to the process say that it could go a long way to win over some skeptical Republicans, including people like Sen. Jim Justice of West Virginia and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley. The particulars of how the fund would be structured and how much it would cost are still being considered and it's important to note that the fund helps hospital but wouldn't do much for others who could lose coverage because of other changes to Medicaid, including new work requirements.
Green energy tax credits: While the Senate bill takes a slower approach to phasing out some of the clean energy tax credits that were a key part of the Biden administration's environmental legacy, there are still some Republicans who have warned that some of the phaseouts may happen too quickly. Other conservatives have warned that they need to be eradicated more expeditiously, setting up a massive clash and one that could rear its head again if the Senate passes a bill that ultimately doesn't go as far as the House did. A last-minute negotiation is ultimately what got House conservatives to vote for the bill so any changes to the timeline could be an issue when the bill goes back to the House.
Once the Senate passes its version of Trump's bill, it will go over to the House. There, Speaker Mike Johnson and his GOP conference will have to decide whether to back the new bill – or begin the drawn-out process of trying to negotiate. Do they swallow the Senate's big changes and allow the bill to move quickly to Trump's desk for a huge policy win? Or do they fight for their own version and begin the rigorous, and time-consuming, process of a conference committee, where both chambers will formally iron out their differences? Johnson and Trump are both hoping to avoid the latter option – but will the fractious House GOP conference agree?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Washington Post
27 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Hundreds protest in The Hague against NATO, days before the Dutch city hosts alliance summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Hundreds of people protested Sunday against NATO and military spending and against a possible conflict with Iran, two days before a summit of the alliance in The Hague that is seeking to increase allies' defense budgets. 'Let's invest in peace and sustainable energy,' Belgian politician Jos d'Haese told the crowd at a park not far from the summit venue. Although billed as a demonstration against NATO and the war in Gaza, protesters were joined by Iranians who held up banners saying 'No Iran War,' the day after the United States launched attacks against three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'We are opposed to war. People want to live a peaceful life,' said 74-year-old Hossein Hamadani, an Iranian who lives in the Netherlands. Look at the environment. 'Things are not good. So why do we spend money on war?' he added. The Netherlands is hosting the annual meeting of the 32-nation alliance starting Tuesday, with leaders scheduled to meet Wednesday. The heads of government want to hammer out an agreement on a hike in defense spending demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. The deal appeared largely done last week, until Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that committing Madrid to spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defense 'would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive .' U.S. allies have ramped up defense spending since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, but almost a third of them still don't meet NATO's current target of at least 2% of their gross domestic product. The summit is being protected by the biggest ever Dutch security operation, code named 'Orange Shield,' involving thousands of police and military personnel, drones, no-fly zones and cybersecurity experts. ___ Associated Press writer Molly Quell in The Hague contributed.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bombing Iran's Nuclear Sites Complicates Hunt for What's Left
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump's decision to order US forces to attack three key Iranian nuclear installations may have sabotaged the Islamic Republic's known atomic capabilities, but it's also created a monumental new challenge to work out what's left and where. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Trump said heavily fortified sites were 'totally obliterated' late Saturday, but independent analysis has yet to verify that claim. Rather than yielding a quick win, the strikes have complicated the task of tracking uranium and ensuring Iran doesn't build a weapon, according to three people who follow the country's nuclear program. International Atomic Energy Agency monitors remain in Iran and were inspecting more than one site a day before Israel started the bombing campaign on June 13. They are still trying to assess the extent of damage, and while military action might be able to destroy Iran's declared facilities, it also provides an incentive for Iran to take its program underground. Indeed, there's just a slim possibility that the US entering the war will convince Iran to increase IAEA cooperation, said Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank. 'The more likely scenario is that they convince Iran that cooperation and transparency don't work and that building deeper facilities and ones not declared openly is more sensible to avoid similar targeting in future,' she said. IAEA inspectors haven't been able to verify the location of the Persian Gulf country's stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium for more than a week. Iranian officials acknowledged breaking IAEA seals and moving it to an undisclosed location. The IAEA called on a cessation of hostilities in order to address the situation. Its 35-nation board will convene on Monday in Vienna, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said. Trump dispatched B-2 stealth jets laden with Massive Ordnance Penetrators, known as GBU-57 bombs, to attempt to destroy Iran's underground uranium-enrichment sites in Natanz and Fordow. Satellite images taken on Sunday of Fordow and distributed by Maxar Technologies show new craters, possible collapsed tunnel entrances and holes on top of a mountain ridge. No evidence of damage to the underground enrichment halls can be seen, and IAEA inspectors reported there were no radiation releases from the site. US Air Force General Dan Caine told a news conference on Sunday that an assessment of 'final battle damage will take some time.' Before the US intervention, images showed Israeli forces alone had met with limited success four days after the bombing began. Damage to the central facility in Natanz, located 300 kilometers (186 miles) south of Tehran, was primarily limited to electricity switch yards and transformers. The US also joined in attacking the Isfahan Nuclear Technology and Research Center, located 450 kilometers south of Tehran. That was after the IAEA re-assessed the level of damage Israel had dealt to facility. Based on satellite images and communications with Iranian counterparts Isfahan appeared 'extensively damaged,' the agency wrote late on Saturday. The IAEA's central mission is to account for gram-levels of uranium around the world and to ensure it isn't used for nuclear weapons. The latest bombing now complicates tracking Iranian uranium even further, said Tariq Rauf, the former head of the IAEA's nuclear-verification policy. 'It will now be very difficult for the IAEA to establish a material balance for the nearly 9,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, especially the nearly 410 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium,' he said. Last week, inspectors had already acknowledged they'd lost track of the location of Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile because Israel's ongoing military assaults are preventing its inspectors from doing their work. That uranium inventory — enough to make 10 nuclear warheads at a clandestine location — was seen at Isfahan by IAEA inspectors. But the material, which could fit in as few as 16 small containers, may have already been spirited off site. 'Questions remain as to where Iran may be storing its already enriched stocks,' Dozikova said. 'These will have almost certainly been moved to hardened and undisclosed locations, out of the way of potential Israeli or US strikes.' Far from being just static points on a map, Iran's ambitions to make the fuel needed for nuclear power plants and weapons are embedded in a heavily fortified infrastructure nationwide. Thousands of scientists and engineers work at dozens of sites. Even as military analysts await new satellite images before determining the success of Trump's mission, nuclear safeguards analysts have reached the conclusion that their work is about to become significantly harder. By bombing Iran's sites, Israel and the US haven't just disrupted the IAEA's accountancy of Iran's nuclear stockpile, they've also degraded the tools that monitors will be able to use, said Robert Kelley, who led inspections of Iraq and Libya as an IAEA director. That includes the forensic method used to detect the potential diversion of uranium. 'Now that sites have been bombed and all classes of materials have been scattered everywhere the IAEA will never again be able to use environmental sampling,' he said. 'Particles of every isotopic description have infinite half-lives for forensic purposes and it will be impossible to sort out their origin.' Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
