House Republicans warn Senate not to touch SALT deal

Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states are warning senators that they will not give the 'big, beautiful bill' a final stamp of approval if the Senate changes their proposal for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap.
The shot across the Capitol came shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters the upper chamber would likely tweak the SALT provision in the mammoth measure in one of several alterations.
The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 — quadruple the $10,000 deduction cap in current law. Several moderates in the House from New York, New Jersey and California have said they would not support the package unless it included substantial SALT relief.
Those members are now warning that any changes to the provision could prevent the bill from passing the House once it is sent back from the Senate.
'If the Senate unwinds the House's $40K SALT deal, it's like digging up buried radioactive waste—reckless and sure to contaminate the whole One Big Beautiful Bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on social platform X. 'Best to leave it alone.'
He elaborated on his comments later, telling reporters he would encourage the Senate to keep their deal in place.
'The reason I've chosen that analogy is because the House took four months to get to where we could finally compromise, negotiate and settle on bill language as it relates to SALT and other interlocking and related provisions. So the Senate to disrupt that is to undo a lot of that painful work, to rip off some scabs, and to essentially restart the very painful process that we went through for four months,' he said.
'I would advise them to keep the bill intact. I respect the senators' prerogatives to exercise their constituents' priorities, but we worked really hard to get to the compromise bill that we got to, and it'd be a shame to have to restart.'
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another member of the group, was more concise: 'Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal.'
'If the Senate changes the negotiated number of $40,000 — it will derail final passage of the bill,' Lawler wrote on X.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was a key player in brokering a SALT deal in the House, said he spoke with members of the caucus on Wednesday, shortly after Thune signaled changes to their provision, and plans to make their case to the Senate.
'I just talked to my SALT Caucus on the floor and I'm going to go communicate to the Senate, again, it's a very delicate thing, we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House,' Johnson told reporters. 'And it took almost a year to get to that point, so I don't think we can toss that off.'
Asked if there is wiggle room around the $40,000 deduction cap, the Speaker was coy: 'I'm about to find out; we'll see.'
The SALT deduction cap was always expected to be a battle in the Senate.
While a number of vulnerable Republicans in the House care deeply about SALT, Senate Republicans don't even have members from New York, New Jersey or California.
The issue came up for Senate Republicans at a conference-wide meeting Wednesday, where some were itching to lower the cap but wary of gumming things up for Johnson.
'Our goal isn't to create a problem for the House, but we also know the Senate will put its mark on the bill,' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said.
One Senate Republican indicated that some senators favor forcing the House SALT backers into supporting a lower ceiling but believe the easiest path is for the upper chamber to swallow its pride and defer to Johnson.
'It may be easier to say than do,' the Senate GOP member said. 'It would just screw the whole bill.'
This senator said even lowering the ceiling from $40,000 to $30,000 could be risky since it might lead some of the House Republicans to vote against the bill. But the senator also suggested the SALT Republicans in the House could be bluffing.
'Is that enough to get you, because otherwise you say, 'I'm going to vote against the bill and for a $4 trillion tax increase as a Republican,'' the member continued. 'That's original sin there.'
While Thune is signaling that the chamber will likely change the SALT provision, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — a former House member and key liaison between the two chambers — is saying the opposite.
'It was a hard fight over there,' Mullin said, pointing to its roughly $300 billion cost. 'It's a big number, but it was something they had to do to try to get the bill passed. We don't want to do something that would cause it not to pass.'
'The body here is going to work its will,' he continued. 'I would be a little [skeptical] about doing too much with SALT.'
House Republicans in the SALT Caucus are warning they aren't bluffing.
'I wouldn't bet against a couple of salty Republicans, including a couple of salty New Yorkers,' LaLota said. 'I wouldn't bet against us.'
Pressed on if the Senate should take the SALT Caucus's comments as a signal that the House will not pass a bill with a lower deduction cap, LaLota responded: 'That would be reasonable for them to consider that.'
Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), another member of the SALT Caucus, expressed confidence.
'The leadership is working and talking to the Senate on a regular basis, and I'm very confident much of what we passed in the House will still be there,' Kim said. 'So I'm not going to comment on how I'll be voting for it till I see the package that comes back to us.'
'We're already working to ensure that everything that we pass in the House is still kept in the Senate version,' she added.
Asked if there was any wiggle room on their SALT deal, LaLota said: 'I'm eager to see what they actually come back with. I don't know why anybody would logically want to disrupt something that was the result of a lot of hard work, pain, heartache and ultimately compromise,' he added.
When a reporter pointed out that his comments were not a firm no, he responded: 'I would love them to increase it. That would be a great idea if they came to us with $50,000, I would endorse it right away.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

San Francisco Chronicle​

37 minutes ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Vance blames California Dems for violent immigration protests and calls Sen. Alex Padilla 'Jose'

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Vice President JD Vance on Friday accused California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of encouraging violent immigration protests as he used his appearance in Los Angeles to rebut criticism from state and local officials that the Trump administration fueled the unrest by sending in federal officers. Vance also referred to U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, the state's first Latino senator, as 'Jose Padilla,' a week after the Democrat was forcibly taken to the ground by officers and handcuffed after speaking out during a Los Angeles news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on immigration raids. 'I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question,' Vance said, in an apparent reference to the altercation at Noem's event. 'I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't a theater. And that's all it is.' 'They want to be able to go back to their far-left groups and to say, 'Look, me, I stood up against border enforcement. I stood up against Donald Trump,'' Vance added. A spokesperson for Padilla, Tess Oswald, noted in a social media post that Padilla and Vance were formerly colleagues in the Senate and said that Vance should know better. 'He should be more focused on demilitarizing our city than taking cheap shots,' Oswald said. Vance's visit to Los Angeles to tour a multiagency Federal Joint Operations Center and a mobile command center came as demonstrations calmed down in the city and a curfew was lifted this week. That followed over a week of sometimes-violent clashes between protesters and police and outbreaks of vandalism and looting that followed immigration raids across Southern California. Trump's dispatching of his top emissary to Los Angeles at a time of turmoil surrounding the Israel-Iran war and the U.S.'s future role in it signals the political importance Trump places on his hard-line immigration policies. Vance echoed the president's harsh rhetoric toward California Democrats as he sought to blame them for the protests in the city. 'Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, by treating the city as a sanctuary city, have basically said that this is open season on federal law enforcement,' Vance said after he toured federal immigration enforcement offices. 'What happened here was a tragedy,' Vance added. 'You had people who were doing the simple job of enforcing the law and they had rioters egged on by the governor and the mayor, making it harder for them to do their job. That is disgraceful. And it is why the president has responded so forcefully.' Newsom's spokesperson Izzy Gardon said in a statement, 'The Vice President's claim is categorically false. The governor has consistently condemned violence and has made his stance clear.' In a statement on X, Newsom responded to Vance's reference to 'Jose Padilla,' saying the comment was no accident. Jose Padilla also is the name of a convicted al-Qaida terrorism plotter during President George W. Bush's administration, who was sentenced to two decades in prison. Padilla was arrested in 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport during the tense months after the 9/11 attacks and accused of the 'dirty bomb' mission. It later emerged through U.S. interrogation of other al-Qaida suspects that the 'mission' was only a sketchy idea, and those claims never surfaced in the South Florida terrorism case. Responding to the outrage, Taylor Van Kirk, a spokesperson for Vance, said of the vice president: 'He must have mixed up two people who have broken the law.' Federal immigration authorities have been ramping up arrests across the country to fulfill Trump's promise of mass deportations. Todd Lyons, the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has defended his tactics against criticism that authorities are being too heavy-handed. The friction in Los Angeles began June 6, when federal agents conducted a series of immigration sweeps in the region that have continued since. Amid the protests and over the objections of state and local officials, Trump ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the second-largest U.S. city, home to 3.8 million people. Trump has said that without the military's involvement, Los Angeles 'would be a crime scene like we haven't seen in years.' Newsom has depicted the military intervention as the onset of a much broader effort by Trump to overturn political and cultural norms at the heart of the nation's democracy. Earlier Friday, Newsom urged Vance to visit victims of the deadly January wildfires while in Southern California and talk with Trump, who earlier this week suggested his feud with the governor might influence his consideration of $40 billion in federal wildfire aid for California. 'I hope we get that back on track,' Newsom wrote on X. 'We are counting on you, Mr. Vice President.' ___ Associated Press writers Julie Watson and Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles and Tran Nguyen in Sacramento contributed to this report.

Yahoo

37 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Mysterious poll may shape Royals' stadium choice. No one will say where it came from

As Missouri lawmakers weighed an incentives package to keep the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals inside state lines, speculation about polling related to the Royals and Clay County circulated throughout the state Capitol. Top lawmakers involved in the debate, from the Republican bill sponsor to the top Democrat in the state House, have ascribed significance to the mysterious poll, mentioning its existence in legislative hearings, interviews and a press conference over the past several weeks. Any type of polling in Missouri could hold significant weight as the Royals decide whether to stay in the state or move to Kansas. The incentives plan in Missouri requires commitments from local governments and a poll in Clay County could help the team determine whether voters would support some form of tax increase to fund a new stadium in the Northland. Kansas City-area officials contacted by The Star say they heard the polling showed positive results for the likelihood of Clay County voters supporting a new Royals stadium in North Kansas City. But most who spoke with The Star expressed some level of skepticism about it. In interviews, most officials said that they have not actually seen the alleged poll, its full results or who paid for it. While very little has been shared publicly, nearly every official who spoke with The Star, from state lawmakers to a Kansas City councilman to a Clay County commissioner, said they had either heard of it or seen a small portion of its results. Clay County Commissioner Scott Wagner said in an interview that he received the top line results of the poll. However, he would not say who shared it with him, saying only that it didn't come from the Royals and that the poll was not commissioned by the county. 'The top line results that have been shared with us suggest that Clay Countians are very open to the Royals coming,' Wagner said, adding that he hasn't seen finer details about the poll. 'But, as you know, the devil's in the details. And, as was witnessed last year, the details can make or break a question like that.' Revelations about the mysterious poll come after Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe signed legislation that would allow the state to offer incentives to help pay for up to 50% of new stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals. But neither team has committed to staying amid a competing offer from Kansas that would potentially pay for up to 70% of new stadiums across the state line. The lack of firm commitment will likely put pressure on officials in Kansas City, Jackson County and Clay County to put together additional funding packages for the teams. The required local commitment in the Missouri plan would likely come in the form of a local tax vote, just more than a year after Jackson County voters rejected a similar tax. Rep. Chris Brown, a Kansas City Republican who handled the Missouri bill in the House, was also one of the officials who said he had heard about the poll. Brown, who hails from Clay County, said he would love to see the Royals move to the Northland. 'I have heard that it has been done. I heard that it was favorable,' Brown said. 'I would like to think that is something that people would not just imagine or put that out there, you know, without it being based in some sort of reality.' Brown said he heard that Axiom Strategies, a political campaign firm owned by GOP consultant Jeff Roe, conducted the poll. Representatives from Roe's firm did not respond to requests for comment for this story, but Axiom's involvement would not come as a major surprise. The firm previously managed the local tax vote campaign for the Royals and Chiefs, The Star previously reported. The teams and the campaign did not go out of their way to make it known that Axiom was involved at the time, either. A spokesperson for the Royals also did not respond to a request for comment about the poll. But others who spoke with The Star had heard about the poll as well. Kansas City Councilman Wes Rogers said he has seen a copy of it, but said it was not given to him. Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Marshall Republican who sponsored the Missouri funding bill, and Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Kansas City Democrat, said they had heard of its existence but have not seen it. 'What I had heard, it (polled) so high that I thought…it was a pretty far stretch, quite frankly,' Nurrenbern said in an interview, adding that she takes every poll with a grain of salt. However, she said that if Clay County decides to put a stadium-funding tax vote on the ballot, 'we can make the case to all of Clay County, northern Clay County as well, that this would be a good investment for our county.' In April, the FOX 4 TV station in Kansas City reported that a Royals poll had been sent out to Clay County residents. While it's unclear if this is the same polling circulating among lawmakers, the station reported that the poll asked if residents would support a half-cent sales tax increase to support a Royals stadium in North Kansas City. If the Royals decide to stay in Missouri, a potential fight over the teams between Kansas City and Clay County could be on the horizon. But, so far, the team has not shared where it would like to build a new stadium. A downtown Kansas City site at Washington Square Park and a spot in North Kansas City in Clay County have both been floated as potential sites in Missouri. But news of a recent real estate deal tied to an Overland Park site in Kansas has also intensified speculation about the Royals' intentions — and their preferred stadium location. It's also unclear when the team plans to make its decision and whether the decision to stay in Missouri would be based on polling in Clay County or Kansas City. Any local tax vote in Missouri would likely come in November at the earliest. The Kansas incentives offer expires at the end of June, which means the team could decide whether to cross state lines by the end of the month. But Kansas could also extend that deadline to give the teams more time to decide. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas is one of the biggest supporters of the Royals moving downtown. When asked whether Lucas was concerned about the polling in Clay County, his spokesperson said that the mayor's 'focus remains on Kansas City's plan and providing the best option for the Royals in Downtown Kansas City.' 'With Missouri state support now secured, Kansas City will continue its work with the Royals to build a robust and responsible development plan,' the spokesperson, Megan Strickland, said in an email. 'The Mayor is committed to leveraging Kansas City's unique experience in large facility development to create the best venue and district for our community, our taxpayers, our future, and our team.' After Kansas and Missouri approved incentives packages for the Chiefs and Royals, officials who spoke with The Star now say they're largely waiting to see where the teams decide to end up. For Wagner, the Clay County commissioner, Clay County would respond if 'something comes our way.' But, 'we're not driving that ship,' he said, the Royals are. 'I have come to learn that anybody who says they know anything doesn't know anything,' Wagner said. 'Because, at the end of the day, there's only one decision-maker and that is the team.'

Fox News

an hour ago

• Fox News

User's manual to the Big, Beautiful Bill this weekend and early next week

Next week is crucial to passage of the Big, Beautiful Bill in the Senate. If things go well, the bill could be done by the end of next week. If things go poorly, the Senate may be crashing to finish the bill before July 4. That could involve weekend sessions and the cancellation of the July 4 recess. On Sunday, Senate Republicans huddle with Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough to whittle away provisions which don't comport with Senate budgetary rules. The Senate is using a special process known as "budget reconciliation" to avoid a filibuster. As a result, the bill must be fiscal in nature and not add to the deficit. It cannot include "policy." This is known as the "Byrd Rule." It's named after late Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.V.). The process of meeting with the Parliamentarian is the "Byrd Bath." MacDonough serves as a referee to decide what fits with Senate budget rules. The various provisions which MacDonough fillets from the bill are called "Byrd droppings." Anyway, despite the cornpone Senate humor, the process offstage on Sunday is crucial to the process. What's ruled in or out could bolster chances of passing the bill – or kill it. We will start to get information about what is ruled in or out over the weekend and stretching into Monday. Those policy details will be critical. So watch for leaks and other information to dribble out beginning on Sunday. This process will roll into early next week with an initial vote to begin the process mid-week. It will culminate with a round-the-clock voting session (known as a "vote-a-rama") late next week. Then the measure must go back to the House. That's because the Senate will inevitably change the bill. The House and Senate must be aligned before the bill can go to the president's desk. And this is why the deadline to finish the bill by July 4 may slip.