Speaker Mike Johnson struggled to secure enough votes for the G.O.P. budget resolution, facing opposition from centrist Republicans worried about Medicaid cuts and conservatives wanting deeper spending reductions. He announced a potential evening vote, but uncertainty loomed about gathering support, as he could afford just one Republican defection. The budget plan proposes adding $3 trillion to the deficit over a decade while facilitating $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and a $4 trillion debt limit increase. Conservatives criticized the plan for not adequately cutting spending, while swing-district Republicans expressed discomfort with potential harm to Medicaid and food assistance programs.
Speaker Mike Johnson worked diligently on Tuesday to secure the votes necessary for the G.O.P. budget resolution to pass through the House, contending with possible defections from moderate Republicans worried that the plan could lead to significant Medicaid cuts, as well as from conservatives advocating for even deeper reductions in federal spending.
Mr. Johnson announced an evening vote on the budget outline, which, if passed, would facilitate the implementation of key aspects of President Trump’s domestic agenda, but it remained uncertain whether he could gather sufficient votes for approval.
During a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, Mr. Johnson indicated that Republican leaders were “very close” to securing the required votes, but suggested that the vote might be postponed until later in the week.
“There may be a vote tonight,” he mentioned. “There might not be.”
This scenario reflects a recurring dilemma for the speaker, who is striving to address dissatisfaction from both ends of his divided conference while managing a slim majority that can hardly afford any defections. If all members are present and voting, Mr. Johnson can tolerate the absence of no more than one Republican, and several have already stated their opposition to the proposal.
The approval of the budget plan is a vital initial step for Republicans to facilitate the progress of a substantial fiscal package through Congress using a procedure known as reconciliation, which enables these bills to circumvent a filibuster and pass the Senate on a simple majority vote.
The House framework suggests that legislation would increase the deficit by approximately $3 trillion over ten years, while setting the stage for significant cuts to spending on healthcare and food assistance programs for low-income individuals. This approach would help fund $4.5 trillion in tax reductions. Additionally, it proposes increasing the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.
On Tuesday morning, at least five conservatives expressed their intention to vote against the plan.
“It’s insane,” remarked Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky. “We’re going to increase the deficit with this. Why would I vote for that? You cannot cut taxes without also cutting spending, and they aren’t truly cutting spending.”
Meanwhile, Republicans in swing districts have voiced their discomfort with endorsing a proposal that could entail substantial cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. Although the budget does not delineate exact cuts, it outlines general spending targets by committee that dictate where Republicans need to secure funding to support their tax cuts.
For instance, the plan mandates that the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid and Medicare, generate at least $880 billion in cuts. It would be challenging to identify that level of funding without making significant reductions to at least one of those programs.
“I’m still making my point all the way to the end about the need to protect the essential services for my district,” stated Representative Juan Ciscomani of Arizona as he exited a closed-door meeting with Republicans on Tuesday morning to discuss the proposal. “Clearly, this is merely the beginning. This is where the real struggle commences to safeguard the services I’ve been advocating for while also fulfilling the commitment to reduce the government’s size.”
Republican leaders have recently met with those skeptical lawmakers to reassure them that they will not eventually be required to support severe cuts to these programs. They argue that the House urgently needs to pass the blueprint — which does not have the force of law — in order to advance the reconciliation process.
“The critical question before us now is, what will guide us in the right direction: failure, or partial success?” questioned Representative Dusty Johnson, a Republican from South Dakota who heads the centrist Main Street Caucus. “I believe we will unite around the idea that failure is not an option, and a partial success is much more desirable.”
Maya C. Miller contributed reporting.