TheChek News Flow

Johnson, GOP leaders urge House holdouts to back Senate-passed plan

WASHINGTON—House Republicans’ moves to advance President Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” this week have been cast into doubt by defections from GOP lawmakers worried that spending cuts are being pushed aside in a rush to enact tax reductions.

Republican leaders want to vote on a fiscal framework that would unlock a fast track to legislation carrying many Trump priorities, including tax cuts and new spending on border security and the military. Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) are hoping to show progress on extending expiring tax cuts to counteract the market chaos sparked in recent sessions by Trump’s tariff rollout.

“The American people are counting on us, and failure is not an option,” Johnson and GOP leaders wrote to lawmakers, emphasizing the importance of moving the process forward and insisting that the House won’t let the Senate dictate the text of a final bill.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump directed the House to pass the Senate measure quickly, saying it “will make, even the subject of World Trade, far easier and better for the U.S.A.”

But just when Trump needs Republicans to stay united, the House GOP conference is fracturing, endangering the prospect of quick action.

Republican opponents already have more than enough declared “no” votes to block the House from passing the version that came out of the Senate on Saturday. They argue that the Senate version fails to lock in enough spending cuts alongside tax cuts and that pushing it forward now risks unacceptably large budget deficits. Republicans control the House with a 220-213 majority, meaning they can’t afford to lose more than three of their own members on any legislation if all Democrats vote no.

Johnson has faced this kind of math before, and his playbook is clear: Have Trump lean on wavering House Republicans and promise critics a bigger say in the next phase, when final legislation is written. That general approach worked three times already this year—once to get Johnson re-elected as speaker, once on a short-term spending bill and once on the House version of the fiscal framework.

There are reasons to think this time could be different, despite top Republicans being eager to demonstrate progress before a two-week congressional break.

The opponents of moving ahead now aren’t just the members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus such as Reps. Andy Harris (R., Md.) and Chip Roy (R., Texas). They also include lawmakers such as Reps. Lloyd Smucker (R., Pa.) and David Schweikert (R., Ariz.), who are concerned about budget deficits—and aren’t the usual obstacles for House GOP leaders.

On a conference call Sunday of House Republicans, Smucker argued that he couldn’t back the Senate measure because it would add to deficits, according to people on the call. Instead, he pushed for the party to secure agreements to find specific savings ahead of time, which he said they would need to send to the Senate to pass before he would sign on.

Rep. Andy Ogles (R., Tenn.), a member of the Freedom Caucus, said on X: “Make no mistake, the Senate budget resolution is everything but America-first.”

Rep. Ralph Norman (R., S.C.) told reporters Monday that he is a no on the budget resolution and he expects more than a dozen other Republicans to be in that camp as well. His remarks came before Johnson was expected to meet with the Freedom Caucus, of which Norman is a member, late Monday in an effort to get naysayers onboard.

The House and Senate must both pass the same version of a budget resolution—the fiscal framework—before they can advance a bill that dodges Democrats and the Senate filibuster. That track is likely the only way Republicans can extend all of the Trump tax cuts expiring Dec. 31, add other ideas such as Trump’s proposed “no tax on tips” and reduce spending.

The House version, passed in late February, called for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a decade, largely from the committee that handles Medicaid, the health insurance program that covers more than 70 million people, including children and people with low incomes or disabilities. It would permit $4 trillion in tax cuts and even more if the spending cuts exceeded $1.5 trillion.

Conservatives were willing to accept that $2 trillion-plus gap between spending cuts and tax cuts, citing expectations of faster economic growth. Moderate GOP House members grumbled about potential Medicaid cuts but pushed the plan forward.

The Senate version kept the House’s numbers as targets for House committees but included different and much more lenient targets for Senate committees, creating a mismatch instead of confronting the House-Senate disagreement. The Senate plan would lock in $4 billion in spending cuts and would allow more than $5 trillion in tax cuts.

Senators say they are actually aiming for $2 trillion in spending cuts but set those far lower floors because they were aiming for maximum flexibility. They are mindful that failing to hit a minimum target would imperil the procedural fast track. Some House members worry that the Senate will produce a take-it-or-leave-it bill down the road with deadlines looming and that they will lose the chance to secure spending cuts if they don’t force changes now.

The Senate backed its maximum-flexibility approach on a 51-48 vote after an overnight voting session, with Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine voting no along with Democrats. Other Republican senators—Josh Hawley of Missouri, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska—used amendment votes to express concerns about Medicaid cuts.

Heading into the week, Johnson also appeared like he was going to be squeezed by his own party on an entirely different matter. House Freedom Caucus members were threatening to shut down the floor if Johnson didn’t block a push by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R., Fla.) to establish proxy voting for new parents.

Johnson announced a proposed deal Sunday, which would include “vote pairing” that essentially allows a member to offset an absence by forming a pair with a member on the opposite side of an issue who votes present.