House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is steamrolling congressional Republicans. What’s in it for them? | David Kirp

      by

      Like soldiers in a well-disciplined army, Republican members of US Congress do whatever Commander Donald Trump demands. While the foot soldiers may occasionally grumble, they quickly fall in line when Trump intervenes.Republican representatives go through contortions to satisfy the bully in the White House: we hated deficits, goes the party orthodoxy, but now we vote for adding trillions to the deficit; we supported Ukraine, but now we cozy up to the Russians; we scrutinized cabinet nominees, but now we give our “advice and consent” to a cabinet of knaves and charlatans.In being supremely supine, these legislators are behaving as if they were members of parliament, taking their cues from the prime minister. Yet as every schoolchild knows, “balance of powers” was the framers’ watchword, with the three branches of government each held in check by the others.Apologies for this civics lesson, but it’s a reminder that this is not the world we now live in. The constitution is merely an inconvenience for Trump, who says that he “doesn’t know” whether he must abide by its provisions.“I run the country and the world,” the president said, in an Atlantic interview. He regards Congress’s role as merely rubber-stamping his decisions – its members have no business thinking for themselves. Case in point: Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”The final version of that 1,037-page measure was pushed through the House of Representatives in less than a day. Legislators had precious little time to understand, let alone debate, its provisions because Trump and his sock-puppet, Mike Johnson, the House speaker, don’t give a fig about their opinions. To adapt a line from the comedian Rodney Dangerfield: “They don’t get no respect.”Under these circumstances, even the brightest bulb would have missed a provision here or there. It’s no wonder that some Republicans were embarrassed by their ignorance of the specifics of the legislation.Consider the case of Mike Flood, a Republican backbencher from Nebraska. “I am not going to hide the truth – this provision was unknown to me when I voted for that,” Flood said during a town meeting, responding to questions about a provision that makes it easier for the federal government to defy court orders. He would not have voted for the bill, Flood said, if he had realized what was in it.Marjorie Taylor Greene, the walking conspiracist from Georgia, was also flummoxed. “Full transparency, I did not know about this section, blocking states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.”Why do the Republican members of Congress stand for such treatment? Why don’t they speak up or quit?Imagine how Republican lawmakers would respond under the influence of truth serum. “Should Congress have a say in setting tariffs?” they might be asked. “Is it OK to lift immigrants off the streets and ship them to a hellhole in El Salvador?” “Should Elon Musk & Co have been allowed to rampage through the federal government?” “How about Trump intimidating federal judges who dare to challenge his actions?”Some true believers in the Republican party would doubtlessly follow their Pied Piper, even if it meant leaping over a cliff, but many lawmakers would be aghast. How do they reconcile their beliefs and their behavior?Ethicists argue that government officials have a duty to speak out against moral rot, even if there’s a price to pay. Consider the fate of the former congressman Adam Kinzinger, who voted to impeach Trump and, facing likely defeat, opted not to run again, or Liz Cheney, who lost her House seat because she spoke truth to power. Those principled decisions are as rare as hens’ teeth.My colleagues are too scared to express their opinions, said the Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, who is often the lone Republican voice of dissent in the upper chamber. “You’ve got everyone zip-lipped. Not saying a word, because they’re afraid they’re going to be taken down, they’re going to be primaried, they’re going to be given names in the media. You know what, we cannot be cowed into not speaking up.”Resigning on the grounds of principle is almost unheard of, and it’s easy enough to understand why. If you’re a Republican legislator, you have a nice life, with a decent salary, a generous healthcare plan and a solid pension. Constituents fawn over you. Little League all-stars and scout troops pay you a visit, hanging on to your every word. You get VIP treatment at Butterworth’s, the “in” restaurant for the Trump crowd.Maybe you justify your decision to stay on the job by imagining that you’re doing something of value. Perhaps you contend that there’s no point in your resigning because whoever replaced you would behave in the same way. But those rationales cannot stand the light of day.The lawmakers who privately blanch at Trump’s authoritarian impulses presumably entered politics with the idea of doing good. They might ask themselves whether – by following the herd and being dissed by the White House – they are still doing good. If their honest answer is “no,” the only justification for their remaining in office are the creature comforts and the intangible perk of obeisance. Should that suffice?Such arguments would have carried weight during the Watergate era, when ethics in public life were taken seriously. In the present political climate, on the other hand, even to remind lawmakers that speaking out or resigning may be the morally right course of action risks being dismissed as terminally naive. But history will surely be unkind to the politicians who put ambition over principle and paved the way to autocracy. How will they justify their actions – or inaction – in this crucible year?

      David Kirp is professor emeritus at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      House votes to claw back $9.4bn in spending including from NPR and PBS

      by

      The House narrowly voted on Thursday to cut about $9.4bn in spending already approved by Congress as Donald Trump’s administration looks to follow through on work by the so-called “department of government efficiency” when it was overseen by Elon Musk.The package targets foreign aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. The vote was 214-212.Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States’ standing in the world and will lead to needless deaths.“Cruelty is the point,” the Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, said of the proposed spending cuts.The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands.“This rescissions package sends $9.4bn back to the US Treasury,” said Representative Lisa McClain, House Republican conference chair. “That’s $9.4bn of savings that taxpayers won’t see wasted. It’s their money.”The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So, if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes.The Senate majority leader, John Thune, said the Senate would probably not take the bill up until July and after it has dealt with Trump’s big tax and immigration bill. He also said it was possible the Senate could tweak the bill.The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along.Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump’s sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits, are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump’s “America first” ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias.In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900m from $10bn that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500m for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400m to address the global HIV epidemic.The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800m, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country.About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries.The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1bn from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it is slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country.The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump announces $1,000 government-funded accounts for American babies

      by

      Donald Trump unveiled a federal program Monday providing $1,000 government-funded investment accounts for American babies, getting big time backing from top business leaders who plan to contribute billions more to an initiative tied to “the big beautiful bill”.At a White House roundtable with over a dozen CEOs, including from Uber, Goldman Sachs and Dell Technologies, Trump relayed the details of “Trump accounts” – tax-deferred investment accounts tracking stock market performance for children born between 2025 and 2029.“For every US citizen born after December 31, 2024, before January 1, 2029, the federal government will make a one-time contribution of $1,000 into a tax-deferred account that will track the overall stock market,” Trump said.The accounts will be controlled by guardians and allow additional private contributions up to $5,000 annually. Trump called it “a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation”.CEOs from major companies including Michael Dell, Dara Khosrowshahi of Uber, David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, and Vladimir Tenev of Robinhood committed billions for employees’ children’s accounts. Trump praised the executives as “really the greatest business minds we have today” who are “committed to contributing millions of dollars to the Trump account”.Mike Johnson, the House speaker, also at the roundtable, championed the program, saying: “It’s a bold, transformative policy that gives every eligible American child a financial head start from day one. Republicans are proud to be the party we always have been. It supports life and families, prosperity and opportunity.”The program passed the House as part of a massive budget bill but faces stiffer Senate Republican resistance over the broader package. The accounts cannot be implemented as a standalone program and depend entirely on passage of what Trump calls the “one big, beautiful bill” that is “among the most important pieces of legislation in our country’s history”, claiming it’s “fully funded through targeted reforms” including welfare changes and a proposed remittance tax.However, the congressional budget office last week found the bill would also add $2.4tn to the national debt over the next decade while cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs. The CBO analysis showed the bill, which passed the House by a single vote and no Democratic support, would leave 10.9 million more Americans without healthcare by 2034.The treasury-funded accounts, previously called “Maga ccounts” resemble existing 529 college plans but with lower contribution limits – leading some financial advisers to say the Trump accounts may not offer the best investment incentives.The move is also not without precedent the United Kingdom operated a similar Child Trust Fund with government seed funding from 2002-2011 before discontinuing the program, while Singapore runs the Baby Bonus Scheme that includes government-matched savings accounts for children.Trump was optimistic about returns, saying beneficiaries would “really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies into the future”.Johnson warned that failure to pass the legislation would result in “the largest tax increase in American history” and pushed for swift congressional action on what he called “pro-growth legislation” that would “help every single American”. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      2 New York Representatives Are Denied Access to ICE Facility

      by

      Representatives Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez were turned away when seeking to inspect a migrant detention area inside a Manhattan federal building.Federal officials prevented two members of Congress on Sunday from entering an immigration detention facility in Manhattan where the representatives were seeking to investigate reports of overcrowding, stifling heat and migrants sleeping on bathroom floors.The representatives, Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez, both Democrats from New York, said officials at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building had denied them access to the 10th-floor detention area because it was a “sensitive facility.”The building, at 26 Federal Plaza, a few blocks from City Hall, has been the site of recent protests against the transport of migrants there by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It also houses immigration courts where ICE has been making arrests in recent weeks.Members of Congress are allowed special access to any Department of Homeland Security facility, including those operated by ICE, as long as they give at least 24 hours’ advance notice, according to visitation guidelines.“Today, ICE violated all of our rights,” Representative Espaillat said at a news conference on Sunday after being turned away. “We deserve to know what’s going on on the 10th floor.”He added, “If there’s nothing wrong, there’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to go in to see it.”Representative Velázquez said she was outraged about being turned away. “Our duty is to supervise any federal building,” she said.“This is not Russia; this is the United States of America,” she added. “The president of the United States is not a king.”A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said Sunday evening that the lawmakers had shown up unannounced. ICE officials had told them, she said, that they “would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.”The representatives arrived a day after dozens of protesters at the complex tried to block ICE vehicles carrying migrants. Many held up signs, including some that said “Stop Deportations!” and “To Get Our Neighbors You Have To Get Through Us!”That demonstration erupted in a clash with police officers, some of whom blasted protesters with pepper spray. The police said 22 people were taken into custody. Most were issued summonses or asked to return to court at a later date, according to a spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney.“This is the nightmare scenario we’ve been taught to fear since childhood,” said John Mark Rozendaal, 64, of Manhattan, who has protested at the building over the last three weeks.We need to “stand up to the repression that’s coming into our nation,” he added.Santiago Castro, 28, a student who is from Colombia, said he had come to the demonstration for a personal reason: ICE agents arrested his father in Manhattan on Tuesday.Mr. Castro said he was demonstrating “for my family.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Outrage after Republican representative disparages Sikh prayer in the US House

      by

      A Republican congresswoman is facing widespread backlash after saying that a Sikh should not have conducted a prayer in the US House.Mary Miller, an Illinois representative, on Friday published – then deleted – a post on X saying that Giani Singh, a Sikh Granthi from southern New Jersey, should not have delivered the House’s morning prayer.Miller at first mistakenly identified Singh as a Muslim and said that it was “deeply troubling” someone of that faith had been allowed to lead prayer in the House and it “should never have been allowed”, Miller posted on X.“America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it,” Miller continued. “May God have mercy.”Miller first edited her post to change Muslim to Sikh – then opted to delete it.Her comments triggered swift outrage, with the Democratic House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, saying: “It’s deeply troubling that such an ignorant and hateful extremist is serving in the United States Congress. That would be you, Mary.”Similarly, David Valadao, a Republican congressman of California, said on Friday: “I’m troubled by my colleague’s remarks about this morning’s Sikh prayer, which have since been deleted. Throughout the country – and in the Central Valley – Sikh-Americans are valued and respected members of our communities, yet they continue to face harassment and discrimination.”Jared Huffman, another Democratic US House member from California, wrote on X: “I often say that I serve in Congress with some of the greatest minds of the 18th century. With [representative] Miller I may need to take it back a few more centuries.”Meanwhile, the Democratic congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey said on X: “It’s deeply troubling that someone with such contempt for religious freedom is allowed to serve in this body. This should have never been allowed to happen. America was founded as free nation, and I believe the conduct of its legislators should reflect that truth, not drift further from it.”Grace Meng, a Democratic congresswoman from New York, also weighed in on Miller’s tweets, saying: “What’s deeply disturbing is the blatant ignorance and anti-Sikh, anti-Muslim xenophobia coming from my colleague across the aisle. There is no place in our country, and especially the halls of Congress, for this hate and intolerance.”Meng went on to add: “The tweet may have been deleted, but we still have the receipts.”The Congressional Asian Pacific American caucus (Capac) also condemned Miller, saying she had engaged in “anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim bigotry”.“Sikhs and Muslims practice two separate and distinct religions, and conflating the two based on how someone looks is not only ignorant, but also racist,” Capac said in a statement.The Sikh Coalition also responded on X, saying: “To be clear, deleting the tweet is not enough. Congresswoman Miller should apologize for her remarks – to both the Sikh and Muslim communities, because no one should be targeted on the basis of their identity.”Similarly, the Hindu American Foundation said: “Whichever version of the tweet [Miller] was going with, it is racist, xenophobic and plainly un-American to lash out over a Sikh prayer. When you took your oath of office [congresswoman] Miller, you swore to uphold our constitution, whose first amendment prohibits your establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another.”Miller’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Guardian. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Money can’t buy him love: Republicans give Elon Musk the cold shoulder

      by

      Elon Musk may believe his money bought the presidential election and the House of the Representatives for the Republicans. But he is discovering painfully and quickly that it has not bought him love, loyalty or even fear among many GOP members of Congress on Capitol Hill.Faced with the choice of siding with Musk, the world’s richest man, or Donald Trump, after the two staged a public relationship breakdown for the ages on Thursday, most Republicans went with the man in the Oval Office, who has shown an unerring grasp of the tactics of political intimidation and who remains the world’s most powerful figure even without the boss of Tesla and SpaceX by his side.The billionaire tech entrepreneur, who poured about $275m into Trump’s campaign last year, tried to remind Washington’s political classes of his financial muscle on Thursday during an outpouring of slights against a man for whom he had once professed platonic love and was still showering with praise up until a week before.“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk posted to his 220 million followers on X, the social media platform he owns – and which he has used ruthlessly to reshape the political agenda.It was a variation on a theme from a man who has repeatedly threatened to deploy his untold millions in funding primary challengers to elected politicians who displease him or who publicly considered blocking Trump’s cabinet nominations.But a gambit that had been effective in the past failed to work this time – and might not be enough to sink the “big, beautiful bill” that Musk this week condemned as a deficit-inflating “abomination”.One after another, Republican House members came out to condemn him and defend Trump, despite having earlier been told by Musk that “you know you did wrong” in voting for what has become Trump’s signature legislation that seeks to extend vast tax cuts for the rich.Troy Nehls, a GOP representative from Texas, captured the tone, addressing Musk before television cameras: “You’ve lost your damn mind. Enough is enough. Stop this.”It chimed with the sentiments of many others. “Nobody elected Elon Musk, and a whole lot of people don’t even like him, to be honest with you, even on both sides,” Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey congressman, told Axios.“We’re getting people calling our offices 100% in support of President Trump,” Kevin Hern, a representative from Oklahoma, told the site. “Every tweet that goes out, people are more lockstep behind President Trump and [Musk is] losing favour.”Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican, called Musk’s outburst of social media posts – that included a call for Trump’s impeachment, a forecast of a tariff-driven recession and accusation that the president is on the Jeffrey Epstein files – “absolutely childish and ridiculous”. Musk had “lost some of his gravitas”.There were numerous other comments in similar vein.They seemed to carry the weight of political calculation, rather than principled sentiment.Republicans were balancing the strength of Trump’s voice among GOP voters versus the power of the increasingly unpopular Musk’s money – and most had little doubt which matters most.“On the value of Elon playing against us in primaries compared to Trump endorsing us in primaries, the latter is 100 times more relevant,” Axios quoted one unnamed representative as saying.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAnother said: “Elon can burn $5m in a primary, but if Trump says ‘that’s the person Republicans should re-elect,’ it’s a wasted $5m.”Trump said on Thursday that he would have won the battleground state of Pennsylvania even without his former benefactor’s significant financial input.But it is also evidence-based. In April, Musk discovered how finite his influence was when a Republican judge he had backed with $25m of his own money lost by 10 percentage points in an election for a vacant supreme court seat in Wisconsin.It was a chastening experience that bodes ill for any hopes he has of persuading Republicans to change their minds on Trump’s spending bill.Yet Musk still has his sympathisers on Capitol Hill, even if they are a minority.With the “big, beautiful bill” still likely to pass through the Senate, Thomas Massie, a senator for Kentucky – who has been labelled “a grandstander” by Trump for his consistent criticism of the legislation – was unambiguous when CNN asked which side he choose between Trump and Musk.“I choose math. The math always wins over the words,” he replied. “I trust the math from the guy that lands rockets backwards over the politicians’ math.”It was a rare case of economics trumping politics on a day when political self-interest seemed paramount. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Pledge to Not Tax Overtime Could Become Federal Law

      by

      When President Trump first floated the idea of “no tax on overtime” at a campaign rally last year, he did not elaborate on how it would work. Could anyone who works more than 40 hours a week claim a tax break? Would overtime pay really be completely tax-free?The answer to both questions, as it turns out, is no.Under the sprawling domestic policy bill that Republicans pushed through the House and are preparing to steer through the Senate, the tax break would be limited. It would be available only to Americans who, under federal law, must be paid at a time-and-a-half rate for working any time exceeding 40 hours in a week. That’s a broad group that includes almost all Americans who are paid an hourly wage, but many salaried workers would not be eligible.And the tax relief would not be total. Americans would still owe payroll taxes, and potentially state income taxes, on their overtime pay. Federal income taxes would be eliminated on those wages, but only on the earnings attributable to the 50-percent bump in pay — only a third of the money made while working overtime.Even with those limitations, both critics and supporters of the idea believe the tax break could reshape the American labor market. The White House Council of Economic Advisers expects that the policy will motivate Americans to work more and help strengthen the economy.Skeptics think the change would primarily drive people to reclassify their earnings or even change jobs in order to file for overtime. They worry that if enough people sought jobs that offer overtime, wages in those positions could eventually fall.“Ultimately, it’s going to create unintended consequences that incentivize certain behaviors in the labor market and thus create winners and losers from that,” said Emmet Bowling, a labor policy analyst at the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. “Hourly jobs might become more desirable because of this tax deduction.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Musk trade barbs as rift over tax and spend bill erupts into open

      by

      A public feud erupted between Donald Trump and Elon Musk on Thursday, with the president saying he was “very disappointed” by the former adviser’s opposition to his top legislative priority, and Musk firing back that Trump would not have won election without his financial support.The falling-out came days after Musk had stepped down as head of Trump’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge) and then pivoted to attacking the One Big Beautiful Bill, which would extend tax cuts, fund beefed-up immigration enforcement and impose new work requirements for enrollees of federal safety net programs.While the Tesla CEO has focused his complaints on the price tag of the bill, which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates will add $2.4tn to the deficit over the next decade, Trump accused him of turning against it because of provisions revoking incentives for consumers to purchase electric vehicles.“I’m very disappointed in Elon. I’ve helped Elon a lot,” Trump said, adding that “he knew every aspect of this bill. He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left.”“Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will any more,” the president said.Musk responded almost immediately on X, saying that the president’s comment was “false”, and “this bill was never shown to me even once”. He then pivoted to personal attacks on Trump, after praising him just days earlier in an Oval Office appearance to mark the end of his time leading Doge.“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” he said, responding to a video of Trump’s remarks. “Such ingratitude.”The tech boss’s criticism has become the latest obstacle facing the One Big Beautiful Bill , which the House of Representatives approved last month by a single vote.The Senate this week began considering the bill, not long after Musk commenced the barrage of tweets over its cost, which he warned would undo Doge’s efforts to save the government money by cancelling programs and pushing federal workers out of their jobs. Musk said he believed the initiative could reduce spending by $1tn, though its own dashboard shows it has saved less than 20% of that amount since Trump was inaugurated.The House speaker, Mike Johnson, spent weeks negotiating with his fractious Republican majority to get the bill passed narrowly through his chamber, and on Wednesday said he had been trying to speak with Musk about his concerns. In an interview with Bloomberg TV on Thursday, he called the Tesla CEO “a good friend” and said the two had exchanged text messages ahead of a call he expected to take place that morning.View image in fullscreen“I just want to make sure that he understands what I think everybody on Capitol Hill understands. This is not a spending bill, my friends, this is a a budget reconciliation bill. And what we’re doing here is delivering the America first agenda,” Johnson said.“He seems pretty dug in right now, and I can’t quite understand the motivation behind it,” the speaker added.Later in the day, Johnson told reporters at the Capitol that the call did not take place, but that the disagreement “isn’t personal”. On X, Musk publicly questioned Johnson’s resolve to cut government spending, prompting the speaker to reply that he “has always been a lifelong fiscal hawk”.The Senate’s Republican leaders have shown no indication that they share Musk’s concerns. Instead, they are eyeing changes to some aspects of the measure that were the result of hard-fought negotiations in the House, and could throw its prospects of passage into jeopardy.One issue that has reappeared is the deductibility of state and local tax (Salt) payments, which the tax bill passed under Trump in 2017 limited to $10,000 per household. House Republicans representing districts in Democratic-run states that have higher tax burdens managed to get a provision increasing the deduction to $40,000 into the One Big Beautiful Bill act.But there are almost no Republican senators representing blue states. The majority leader, John Thune, said after a meeting with Trump on Wednesday that his lawmakers were not inclined to keep that provision as they negotiate the bill.“We also start from a position that there really isn’t a single Republican senator who cares much about the Salt issue. It’s just not an issue that plays,” Thune said.That could upset the balance of power in the House, where Republicans can lose no more than three votes on any bill that passes along party lines. More