Senate Republicans passed a budget plan aimed at advancing President Trump’s domestic objectives, primarily focusing on military and border security funding, with a party-line vote of 52-48. The blueprint includes a $150 billion military spending increase and $175 billion for border security over ten years. However, crucial funding and tax cut details were postponed for later discussion, amidst concerns in the House over a necessary $2 trillion in spending cuts. While a two-bill strategy has been adopted to assure funding for Trump’s agenda, many Republicans express anxiety regarding potential cuts to essential programs, leaving key issues unresolved.
The budget proposal that Senate Republicans advanced early Friday marked an essential initial step toward achieving President Trump’s ambitious domestic objectives, yet it deferred the most challenging and contentious issues regarding how Congress will implement these plans.
With a largely party-line vote of 52-48, Senate Republicans secured the approval of a framework that includes a $150 billion increase in military funding and an additional $175 billion for border security over the next decade.
How will they finance these measures? That’s a discussion for another time. What about the significant tax cuts that they and Mr. Trump have committed to? Senators claim they’ll sort that out later.
Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans face pressure to identify at least $2 trillion in spending cuts to support Mr. Trump’s fiscal agenda and satisfy their more conservative members. Their strategy, which G.O.P. leaders aim to put to a vote as soon as next week, consolidates extensive tax reductions and policy transformations into one substantial package, necessitating deep cuts to government programs to finance everything. However, it faces a precarious path through the closely divided House, where Republicans maintain a slim majority.
Senate Republicans have essentially postponed any decisions regarding these complex details, choosing instead to secure an early triumph for Mr. Trump by allocating funds for his stringent anti-immigration policies. They indicated that they would tackle spending and tax cut inquiries later in a separate piece of legislation.
“We’ve resolved to prioritize security,” stated Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Budget Committee chairman. “We want to ensure the permanence of the tax cuts. We’re collaborating with our House colleagues on that. They are set to expire at year-end, but we have sufficient time. The Republican Senate believes that when it comes to border security, we cannot afford to fail. We need the funding now to sustain that momentum.”
This approach sees the Senate bypassing the House in an effort to quickly deliver a political win for Mr. Trump. Yet, it also leaves unresolved some of the most challenging matters that could jeopardize Republicans’ bid to implement a comprehensive fiscal plan despite dissent from Democrats.
Mr. Graham has indicated that his plan would be funded through a combination of new revenue from domestic drilling and unspecified cuts in spending.
“We’re committed to ensuring it’s financed by reallocating funds from other government sectors that are less important,” Mr. Graham mentioned at a recent press briefing. He further noted that he was instructing four Senate committees to generate “at least” $1 billion in cuts each to help offset the bill’s costs over the next four years.
The Senate’s dual-bill strategy also postpones challenging decisions on which taxes to reduce. Simply renewing the tax cuts introduced in 2017 is projected to cost $4 trillion. Many of the initiatives that Mr. Trump campaigned for, such as abolishing taxes on tips and Social Security benefits, carry an even higher price tag.
Senate Republicans have stated that they will work out the specifics later this year, while their immediate focus is securing funding for Mr. Trump’s enforcement operations at the U.S. southern border.
“President Trump’s actions are effective — they are achieving so much that the Trump administration claims it is running short on funds for deportations,” remarked Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 Republican. “Senate Republicans will swiftly respond to provide the resources that the administration has requested and requires.”
However, their strategy also subtly acknowledges the daunting challenges that their party’s tax and spending package faces in the House. Senate leaders opted to proceed with their budget strategy even after Mr. Trump supported the House’s single-bill approach on Wednesday, framing their proposal as a safeguard should the House encounter difficulties.
“If the House can deliver one extensive, well-crafted bill, we’re set to collaborate with them to bring that to fruition,” stated Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, during a press conference on Wednesday. “However, we believe the president appreciates having options.”
The House’s budget proposal outlines in finer detail the areas where Republicans intend to pinpoint spending reductions. For instance, the plan directs the Energy and Commerce Committee, responsible for overseeing Medicaid, to identify at least $880 billion in cuts — more than half of the total reductions specified in the budget outline.
Nevertheless, this plan still does not specify the precise federal programs set for cuts — or the extent of those reductions. Legislators are only obligated to do so once both the House and Senate approve their budget frameworks and draft legislation detailing specific policy adjustments to meet the established targets.
Even in the absence of these specifics, some Republicans already express discomfort regarding the potential spending cuts they might be required to support. A faction of House Republicans within the Congressional Hispanic Caucus cautioned in a letter to G.O.P. leaders that the party needs to “ensure that assistance programs,” such as food stamps, “remain safeguarded as nearly 22 percent of Hispanic families depend on this vital program as a temporary safety net during challenging times.”
“I’m not in favor of significant cuts to Medicaid,” stated Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri in a conversation with HuffPost. “We should not impose any cuts to Medicare at all.”