Category: Politics

Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Stephen Miran said that some countries that are negotiating with the United States in good faith could see tariffs delayed as President Donald Trump’s deadline to strike trade deals closes in.

Speaking with ABC News’ “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos, Miran hedged on what deals are in the works.

“On tariffs, the president’s deadline is approaching for the deals. You’ve only seen three deals so far. What should we expect next?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“I’m still optimistic that we’re going to get a number of deals later this week. Part of that is because all the negotiating goes through a series of steps that lead to a culmination timed with the deadline,” Miran said.

Pressed on if these other deals fail to come through and if Trump would extend the deadline, Miran indicated that could be possible.

“Well, my expectation would be that countries that are negotiating in good faith and making the concessions that they need to get to a deal, but the deal is just not there yet because it needs more time, my expectation will be that those countries get a roll, you know, sort of get the date rolled,” he said.

Asked which countries could see that date shifted, Miran refused to elaborate, but said that he has heard good things about talks with Europe and India.

“I would expect that a number of countries that are in the process of making those concessions, you know, they might see their date rolled. For the countries that aren’t making concessions, for the countries that aren’t negotiating in good faith, I would expect them to sort of see higher tariffs,” Miran said. “But again, the president will decide later this week and in the time following whether or not the countries are doing what it takes to get access to the American market like they’ve grown accustomed to.”

Stephanopolous was also joined by former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who balked at the potential economic benefits of Trump’s tariffs.

“It probably will collect some revenue at the cost of higher inflation for American consumers, less competitiveness for American producers,” Summers said. “So higher prices, less competitiveness, and not really that much revenue relative to what’s being given to the very wealthy in this [budget] bill.”

Here are more highlights from Miran and Summers’ interviews:

Miran on CBO estimates for Trump’s megabill
Stephanopoulos: Why should we not believe the CBO when they say that something approaching a little more than 11 million people are going to be — are going to lose their health care coverage because of the Medicaid cuts?

Miran: Well, because they’ve been wrong in the past. When Republicans repealed the individual mandate penalty during the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the president’s first term, CBO predicted that there was going to be about 5 million people losing their insurance by 2019. And you know what? The number was not very significantly changed at all. It was a tiny fraction of that. And so, they’ve been wrong in the past. And look, if we don’t pass the — if we didn’t pass the bill, 8 to 9 million people would’ve lost their insurance for sure, as a result of the biggest tax act in history creating a huge recession. The best way to make sure people are insured is to grow the economy, get them jobs, get them working, get them insurance through their employer. Creating jobs, creating a booming economy is always the best way to get people insured.

Miran on past tax cuts
Stephanopoulos: You say this is all going to turbocharge growth. We have seen some experience with this back — in Ronald Reagan’s day, back in 1981. He had huge tax cuts. The growth didn’t come, and they had to end up raising taxes for several years after that. Concerned that could happen again?

Miran: Well, like I said before, you know, history’s on our side. If you look at what happened in the president’s first term, growth soared and there was no real material, you know, meaningful long-term decline in revenue. Revenue as a share of GDP was 17.1% last year, the same as it was before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. So, you got this huge surge in growth as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There was no material long-term decline in revenue. Corporate revenue even went up as a share of GDP from 1.6 to 1.9%. And the growth delivered. And we expect the same thing to happen this time.

Summers on cuts to the safety net
Stephanopoulos: In The New York Times this week, you and Robert Rubin, who also served as president, as Treasury secretary, called this bill “dangerous,” said it “posed a huge risk to the economy.” What are those risks?

Summers: George, just to start with, what your people have been describing is the biggest cut in the American safety net in history. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that it will kill, over 10 years, 100,000 people. That is 2,000 days of death like we’ve seen in Texas this weekend. In my 70 years, I’ve never been as embarrassed for my country on July Fourth. These higher interest rates, these cutbacks in subsidies to electricity, these reductions in the availability of housing, the fact that hospitals are going to have to take care of these people and pass on the costs to everybody else, and that’s going to mean more inflation, more risk that the Fed has to raise interest rates and run the risk of recession, more stagflation, that’s the risk facing every middle-class family in our country because of this bill. And for what? A million dollars over 10 years to the top tenth of a percent of our population. Is that the highest priority use of federal money right now? I don’t think so. This is a shameful act by our Congress and by our president that is going to set our country back.

Summers on claims of economic growth
Stephanopoulos: Part of the president’s argument is that economic growth sparked by the bill will alleviate the dangers that you talk about here. The chair of the Council of Economic Advisers is up next and his council issued a report this week projecting $11 trillion in deficit reduction from growth, higher tax revenue and savings on debt payments. How do you respond to that?

Summers: It is, respectfully, nonsense. None of us can forecast what’s going to happen to economic growth. What we can forecast is that when people have to hold government debt instead of being able to invest it in new capital goods, new machinery, new buildings, that makes the economy less productive. What we can forecast is that when we’re investing less in research and development, investing less in our schools, that there is a negative impact on economic growth. There is no economist anywhere, without a strong political agenda, who is saying that this bill is a positive for the economy. And the overwhelming view is that it is probably going to make the economy worse. Think about it this way. How long can the world’s greatest debtor remain the world’s greatest power? And this is piling more debt onto the economy than any piece of tax legislation in dollar terms that we have ever had.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration deported eight migrants to South Sudan, according to a Department of Homeland Security official, after the administration had to halt their deportation to a base in Djibouti.

“A district judge cannot dictate the national security and foreign policy of the United States of America,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said to ABC News. “This Independence Day marks another victory for the safety and security of the American people.”

The plane landed in South Sudan just before midnight EST on Friday.

The eight migrants, who DHS has alleged have serious criminal convictions, were the subject of a lawsuit that had halted their deportation to South Sudan and diverted them to a U.S. military base in Djibouti.

The conditions at the base, according to court filings, were both challenging for the detainees and ICE officials who were tasked with watching them.

The lawsuit made it all the way up to the Supreme Court and the court ruled that the Trump administration was not bound by a lower court order to keep them at a military facility in Djibouti.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that the noncitizens the Trump administration moved to deport to South Sudan — and has since held temporarily in Djibouti in legal limbo — is not bound by a lower court order to keep them there as legal proceedings play out.

The decision is another win for the Trump administration and its unprecedented effort to deport immigrants to countries with which they have no ties and where they may face mistreatment.

In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court explained that when it lifted judge-imposed due process requirements for third-country removals last month the government can no longer be held to account for allegedly violating the requirements.

One of the lawyers representing the group of men called their deportation to South Sudan “punitive and unconstitutional.”

“Because of the Supreme Court’s procedural ruling, these men were denied an opportunity to contest their deportations to South Sudan based on their fear of torture or death,” said Trina Realmuto in a statement to ABC News. “The U.S. State Department warns Americans against all travel to South Sudan yet deported these men there without any due process. Make no mistake about it, these deportations were punitive and unconstitutional.”

-ABC News’ Laura Romero contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Over the past six months, Vice President JD Vance has shown how much of a key player he has become in the Trump administration, serving as the president’s most prominent advocate and advancing his agenda.

The latest example came this week, when Vance helped push President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending bill through Congress.

Vance held a series of meetings with conservative and moderate holdouts and Senate leadership last Saturday to help move the bill forward. A source with direct knowledge stated that Vance played a key role in talking with Senate holdouts throughout the bill before he ended up casting several tie-breaking votes as president of the Senate and move the spending bill along to the House.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who had been critical of the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and SNAP — the food assistance program — met with Vance, where he thanked her for being a team player despite her concerns with the legislation, just before she voted for the bill.

During the sprint to push the bill through, Vance was criticized for his social post around concerns of the bill’s impact on Medicaid, writing that “the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions.”

During all this, Vance was making phone calls to Trump and the two were updating each other on their talks with senators ahead of the bill’s passage.

The vice president attended Wednesday’s meeting at the White House between Trump and several holdouts from the House as the president ramped up the pressure to vote for the bill.

North Carolina GOP Rep. Greg Murphy, who had told reporters on Wednesday night that he was still undecided because of some of the health care provisions, said Thursday that he ultimately decided to support the package after speaking on the phone to Vance and the president.

“I needed assurances,” he said.

A source close to Vance said that he continued to work the phones ahead of the floor vote on the rule, calling multiple House GOP holdouts to make the administration’s case for them to support the bill.

However, it’s not just on the domestic policy front that Vance is having an impact. He has also been critical in supporting Trump’s foreign policy.

While Trump was weighing the decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, Vance came to the president’s defense after supporters like Tucker Carlson and those in the MAGA base were outspoken against the U.S. getting involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran.

“He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,” Vance wrote on X. “And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue. And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish American people’s goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.”

Vance’s comments were a departure from his prior statements that the U.S. should not get entangled in foreign conflicts.

A prime example is the vice president’s opposition to the U.S. providing more aid to Ukraine.

“I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” Vance said in February 2022, amid an explosion of bipartisan support for the country following the aftermath of Russia’s invasion.

Most recently, Vance expressed concerns about the president’s decision to strike the Houthis in Yemen in a Signal group chat with other top administration officials.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance wrote in the chat. “There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

In the lead-up to the strikes, Trump was trying to engage the MAGA base with Vance to see what their reaction would be if he ordered the bombing.

Prior to the strikes, Trump told reporters on Air Force One while flying back from the G7 summit in Canada that it was possible he could send Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff to meet with Iranian negotiators.

Vance’s active role in moving Trump’s agenda forward was always part of the plan.

In November, following the election, a source close to the vice president told ABC News that Vance had been tasked to ensure that all of the priorities of the Trump administration move forward and would work on any of the issues Trump needed him to further, signaling that the vice president would not be assigned one specific issue to work on, but would be involved in several policy issues.

It was also expected that Vance would be Trump’s “eyes and ears” in the Senate to ensure that his agenda moves forward, the source also said. It’s familiar territory for Vance, who was elected to the Senate in 2022.

All this comes as Vance is viewed by some as the MAGA heir apparent to Trump ahead of the 2028 election. At the same time, he is working to raise as much money as possible for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms as chair of the Republican National Committee — the first time a vice president has ever held the role.

Joel Goldstein, a vice-presidential scholar and former professor at Saint Louis University Law School, told ABC News that Vance is working in a different timeline compared to his predecessors, as he will serve only one term as vice president under Trump.

“Every vice presidency is different and one of the things that is unique about Vance’s is that every other vice president, you know, with the possible exception of Harris, entered office with the expectation that the president was going to run for reelection,” Goldstein said.

“I think he’s in a very unique position in that his first term as vice president is his last, and so his presidential ambitions, the time for reckoning comes up, you know, much quicker than is normally the case.”

Following his tie-breaking votes in the Senate, several Democrats who might be opponents in the 2028 presidential election attempted to make Vance the face of Trump’s spending bill.

In a post on X, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called out Vance for casting the tie-breaking vote to allow the bill to move forward.

“VP Vance has cast the deciding vote in the Senate to cut Medicaid, take away food assistance, blow up the deficit, and add tax breaks for the wealthiest,” Buttigieg wrote. “This bill is unpopular because it is wrong,” he continued.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom told Americans on X to “bookmark” this moment, writing that “JD Vance is the ultimate reason why 17 million Americans will lose their healthcare.”

In an interview with NBC News, Trump pointed to Vance and Secretary of State and interim national security adviser Marco Rubio as possible successors, and said, when asked, that he believes his MAGA movement can survive without him.

Asked about the president’s comments, Vance said that if he does end up running for president, he’s “not entitled to it.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is slated to use the White House’s Fourth of July celebrations as the backdrop for his final victory lap over his massive spending bill.

The president will sign the legislation, which will bring massive cuts to government benefits such as Medicaid and increase funding for immigration enforcement, during the White House’s military family picnic on Friday evening.

It is unclear what guests will attend the signing event or if the picnic’s fireworks will take place during that time.

Trump pushed Congress to pass the bill by July 4th as some Republicans held out over several issues, including the bill’s effect on the debt ceiling.

“There could be no better birthday present for America than the phenomenal victory we achieved just hours ago when Congress passed the ‘One Big, Beautiful Bill’ to Make America Great Again,” Trump said in Iowa on Thursday, after the House passed the bill.

The White House celebrations for the Fourth of July will include several flyovers, including one featuring B-2 bombers. The president said Thursday that the flyover will occur at the same time he signs the bill; however, the White House has not confirmed the timing of that event.

Democrats criticized the president and the bill’s supporters over its cuts to services that help the poorest Americans. The bill institutes work requirements for Medicaid that some experts say will make millions of Americans uninsured, and makes cuts to the program that will result in closures of health centers in rural areas, according to health care employers.

On Thursday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries broke the chamber’s record with an eight-hour, 44-minute speech decrying the bill.

“We wanted to make sure that the American people had an opportunity to fully and more completely understands, in the light of day, just how damaging this one big, ugly bill will be to the American people,” he said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

“President Trump’s use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible. It underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country. Words from our leaders matter and we expect more from the President of the United States,” the organization said in a statement.

Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, also condemned Trump’s comments, saying in a statement it was one of “the most quintessential antisemitic stereotypes.”

“This is not an accident. It follows years in which Trump has normalized antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories — and it’s deeply dangerous,” she added.

“To me, Shylock is somebody that’s a money lender at high rates. I’ve never heard it that way. You view it differently than me. I’ve never heard that,” Trump claimed.

This is not the first time that an executive branch member came under fire for using the term.

In 2014, then-Vice President Joe Biden took heat for using the term during the 40th anniversary celebration of the Legal Services Corporation, referring to predatory bankers as “these Shylocks who took advantage of these women and men while overseas.”

“He’s correct, it was a poor choice of words, particularly as he said coming from ‘someone as friendly to the Jewish community and open and tolerant an individual as is Vice President Joe Biden.’ He’s right,” Biden said in a statement.

ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s major tax cut and spending bill passed the House on Thursday, but not without some Republican opposition.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania voted against the legislation alongside the entire House Democratic Caucus.

While Massie and Fitzpatrick were the only GOP members to vote no, several House GOP hardliners were angered by the changes made to the bill by the Senate and there was an overnight scramble by Speaker Mike Johnson to secure the necessary support to proceed. Some of the hardliners who ultimately voted yes say President Trump made promises to get their votes, including that he’d make the bill “better” in the future.

On Thursday, Massie said he did not vote for the bill because of its projected impact on the national debt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill could add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.

“Although there were some conservative wins in the budget reconciliation bill (OBBBA), I voted No on final passage because it will significantly increase U.S. budget deficits in the near term, negatively impacting all Americans through sustained inflation and high interest rates,” Massie wrote on X. Massie also opposed the House version of the megabill that passed back in May.

Trump’s been a vocal critic of Massie, lambasting him last month in a lengthy social media post as not being “MAGA.”

“Actually, MAGA doesn’t want him, doesn’t know him, and doesn’t respect him,” Trump wrote at the time.

The president accused Massie of being a “grandstander” who routinely votes no on key Republican-led legislation. Trump suggested Massie should be challenged in the upcoming Republican primary, even before this latest vote.

“The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I’ll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard,” Trump wrote.

Rep. Fitzpatrick did vote for the House bill in May, but said on Thursday that the Senate changes to the bill (which resulted in deeper cuts to Medicaid) as the reason for his change in position.

As I’ve stated throughout these negotiations, with each iteration of legislative text that was placed on the House Floor, I’ve maintained a close and watchful eye on the specific details of these provisions, and determined the specific district impact, positive or negative, on our PA-1 community,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement.

“I voted to strengthen Medicaid protections, to permanently extend middle class tax cuts, for enhanced small business tax relief, and for historic investments in our border security and our military,” he added/ “However, it was the Senate’s amendments to Medicaid, in addition to several other Senate provisions, that altered the analysis for our PA-1 community. The original House language was written in a way that protected our community; the Senate amendments fell short of our standard.”

“I believe in, and will always fight for, policies that are thoughtful, compassionate, and good for our community. It is this standard that will always guide my legislative decisions,” Fitzpatrick said.

The Pennsylvania congressman, who also faces reelection in 2026, represents a swing district that went blue in 2024 for Kamala Harris.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House has passed President Trump’s major tax cut and spending bill in a 218 to 214 vote.

The legislation will now go to President Trump’s desk for his signature.

The final vote came after an overnight scramble by Speaker Mike Johnson to secure the necessary GOP votes to proceed, and then a record-breaking speech from House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries that lasted for 8 hours and 44 minutes.

No changes were made by the House to the Senate version of the bill, despite some grumbling from House Republican hardliners over the Senate changes to Medicaid and the deficit. Some of those holdouts say President Trump made promises to get their votes, including saying he’d make the bill “better” in the future.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Four major law enforcement groups are sounding the alarm in a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about potential cuts to the intelligence-gathering arm of her agency.

The Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies (ASCIA), Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) and National Fusion Center Association (NFCA) warn that any potential changes to the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) current structure could have a negative ripple effect on state and local law enforcement.

“For state and local stakeholders, I&A is not just another federal component; it is an essential partner in the shared mission of protecting our communities. Its embedded personnel, analytic products, and communication platforms are vital tools for understanding and responding to threats in real time,” the letter sent by the associations date July 2, 2025, and obtained by ABC News.

“When changes occur without input from the field, that partnership risks being weakened — along with the systems that support timely and effective threat response,” the letter said.

Reports have suggested that DHS plans to cut the I&A workforce by close to 75%.

The top Democrats on the House and Senate Homeland Security committees, as well as on the Intelligence Committee, also warned against the cuts.

“Radically reducing I&A’s workforce at headquarters or in the field would create dangerous and unnecessary security gaps and could again leave us in the dark about the threats that lie ahead,” Rep. Jim Himes, Rep. Bennie Thompson and Sen. Gary Peters said in a letter to Noem.

The groups said that they “fully recognize” the need for the intelligence apparatus to adapt to meet its current needs — which they said they are support.

“At the same time, we believe that changes of this magnitude must be shaped through dialogue with those who rely on I&A every day — especially given its unique role in connecting the federal intelligence community with frontline public safety agencies.”

In response to the letter, a DHS spokesperson said the agency is focusing on returning to its core mission.

“DHS component leads have identified redundant positions and non-critical programs within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The Department is actively working to identify other wasteful positions and programs that do not align with DHS’s mission to prioritize American safety and enforce our laws,” the spokesperson said.

On Wednesday, Noem met with the newly formed Homeland Security Advisory Council a panel selected by her and President Donald Trump to offer advice on matters pertaining to the department, she stressed how critical DHS is to national security.

“This is a national security agency, and the decisions that we make and the things that we’ll talk about are highly classified at times, and all of you are entrusted to be my advisers,” she said. “To be the ones who give me advice not just on the border and immigration, citizenship, visa waiver programs, work programs, but also on FEMA, how we respond to disasters, how we contract, how we get good people that work for us and how to fire people who don’t like us.”

Noem said she receives an intelligence briefing every day and said the country has “vulnerabilities,” something the law enforcement groups warn about in their letter.

“At a time when the threat environment is escalating — ranging from terrorism and transnational crime to cyberattacks on critical infrastructure — the need for strong, two-way coordination has never been more urgent,” the letter said. “Decisions that affect I&A’s operational capacity must be approached with transparency and collaboration, or we risk creating avoidable gaps in information sharing and coordination necessary for effective threat prevention.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is making a marathon last stand against President Donald Trump’s major tax cut and spending bill.

Jeffries took to the House floor around 5 a.m. on Thursday and shortly after noon had been speaking for more than seven hours, delaying a final vote in the chamber on the domestic policy bill at the heart of Trump’s second-term agenda.

Jeffries has stacks of binders next to him at the podium as he picks apart the bill and some of the Republicans who voted for it.

“Donald Trump’s deadline may be Independence Day. That ain’t my deadline,” Jeffries said. “You know why, Mr. Speaker, we don’t work for Donald Trump, we work for the American people. That’s why we’re here right now on the floor of the House of Representatives, standing up for the American people.”

The “magic minute” speech is a procedure that grants members of House leadership unlimited time to speak after debate on a bill has concluded. For context, then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, spoke for more than eight hours in 2021 when the House passed President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act.

Jeffries is getting close to that mark, and appears to be aiming for a new record.

House Speaker Mike Johnson is expected to speak for about 10 minutes once Jeffries has wrapped up. After that, a final vote will take place on the bill.

Johnson, who has said he has the votes to pass the bill, told reporters he expected a signing ceremony for the bill will be held on Friday.

“Potentially before the B-2s fly,” Johnson said, referencing the White House celebration set to mark the Fourth of July.

Jeffries has focused much of his speech on the bill’s projected impact on Medicaid, the federal program that primarily serves seniors and people with disabilities, sharing personal stories from people he says will struggle as a result of the megabill.

“People will die. Tens of thousands, perhaps year after year after year, as a result of the Republican assault on the healthcare of the American people,” Jeffries said. “I’m sad. I never thought I would be on the House floor saying this is a crime scene.”

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Medicaid cuts and changes passed by the Senate could cause 11.8 million Americans to lose their health insurance over the next decade.

Jeffries is excoriating the Trump-backed megabill’s “assault on healthcare.”

“Every single house Democrat is fighting hard to protect your Medicaid,” Jeffries said. “We value you and we’re working hard to defend you.”

Republicans have defended the changes as reforms to entitlement programs they claim are riddled with “waste, fraud and abuse.” The Trump administration has also pushed back on the nonpartisan budget office itself and its analysis, claiming bias.

Jeffries didn’t stop at health care and is criticizing other portions of the bill, including its impact on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and its immigration provisions.

“You see, budgets are moral documents. And in our view, Mr. Speaker, budgets should be designed to lift people up,” he said. “This reckless Republican budget that we are debating right now on the floor of the House of Representatives tears people down.”

“This reckless Republican budget is an immoral document,” Jeffries continued. “And everybody should vote no against it because of how it attacks children, seniors, and everyday Americans, and people with disabilities. This reckless Republican budget is an immoral document. And that is why I stand here on the floor of the House of Representatives with my colleagues in the House Democratic caucus to stand up and push back against it with everything we have.”

Those comments prompted House Democrats gathered near Jeffries to stand in applause.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — While there were no changes made to the legislative text of President Donald Trump’s megabill after it came back from the Senate, some House Republican holdouts said Trump made promises in order to get their votes.

After meeting with House Republicans at the White House on Wednesday and working the phones through the night and into the early morning Thursday, the president addressed members’ unease in real-time, Speaker Mike Johnson observed, “making sure that everyone’s concerns are addressed and their questions are answered.”

South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman said Trump provided holdouts “assurances” that changes would be made to “getting permits” related to wind and solar tax credits.

“Wind and solar needs to be — we would have cut those out Day 1. We couldn’t do that,” Norman said on CNBC Thursday.

“And, you know, up until late in the night, we were negotiating, you know, things that could change with, you know, the tax credits, which all were put in by Joe Biden, which needed to be extinguished,” Norman said.

Norman also signaled that Trump could use executive power to “make the bill better.”

But during negotiations this week, the lawmakers were unable to extract any changes to the bill.

Nevertheless, Texas Rep. Chip Roy, an outspoken conservative firebrand who led the public pushback against the bill, argued that the Freedom Caucus “has successfully delivered substantive wins” — before adding, “There may be a few more yet.”

“The real story of the OBBB is reforming Medicaid to require work & to return spending to pre-COVID levels, saving over $1 Trillion,” Roy posted on X. “A modest but important reform that would not have happened if the @freedomcaucus had not fought for it.”

Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde said he “fought” to improve the megabill — hoping to include an amendment to remove taxes on firearms — that the Senate ultimately stripped out.

“I also had the opportunity to discuss this critical matter directly with President Trump at the White House. I look forward to working with him and his Administration to further restore our 2A rights. Stay tuned,” Clyde said.

While the firearms tax remains in the bill, Clyde said he ultimately planned to vote in favor of the package “because I support fulfilling President Trump’s America First agenda and the promises we made to the country.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.