Trump's major legislative push faces conservative pushback in House

Hold onto your hats, folks—President Donald Trump’s much-touted “big, beautiful bill” is hitting a brick wall with some of his staunchest allies in the House.

Conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus are sounding the alarm over the Senate’s version of Trump’s sweeping legislation, which tackles taxes, border security, energy, defense, and the debt limit, while the Senate scrambles to amend it before a critical House vote that could spell doom for the plan.

Let’s rewind to the starting line: Republicans are leveraging the budget reconciliation process to fast-track Trump’s agenda, dropping the Senate vote threshold to a simple majority of 51 to sidestep Democratic roadblocks.

Senate bill sparks deficit debate

This massive bill, which the GOP hopes to land on Trump’s desk by the Fourth of July, passed the House with a version that added $72 billion to the federal deficit.

But the Senate’s take? It’s a whole different beast, ballooning the deficit by a staggering $1.3 trillion and tacking on an extra $1 trillion to raise the debt limit compared to the House’s plan.

The House Freedom Caucus didn’t mince words in their public statement, noting, “Even without interest costs, it is $651 billion over our agreed budget framework.” That’s not just a red flag; it’s a full-blown siren for fiscal conservatives who thought they had a deal.

Medicaid amendments stir controversy

Adding to the tension, the Senate version permanently extends corporate tax cuts from Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, while the House opted for a temporary extension, fully aware that those cuts expire at the end of next year without action.

Then there’s the Senate’s oddball additions, like a $25 billion rural hospital fund to soften Medicaid cuts and a curious tax break for whalers—presumably a nod to Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. One has to wonder if harpoons are the new pork barrel.

Sen. Rick Scott of Florida is pushing an amendment to slash federal Medicaid funding for states that expanded under the Affordable Care Act, dropping the federal match rate from 90% to as low as 50%, potentially saving hundreds of billions on top of the Senate’s already claimed $1 trillion in Medicaid reductions.

House vote hangs in balance

House Freedom Caucus members like Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana are cheering Scott on, posting on X, “All Republican Senators should vote YES.” Talk about a public nudge—turns out social media is the new Capitol Hill hallway.

Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina told Fox News Digital, “If it gets through [the House Rules Committee], I don't think it survives on the floor.” That’s a grim forecast from a key conservative, signaling this bill might be dead on arrival without serious Senate tweaks.

Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri echoed the sentiment, saying to Fox News Digital, “I don't see how what the Senate is doing will pass the House if [Rick Scott's amendment] does not pass at the minimum.” Seems like the House is drawing a line in the sand, and the Senate better start digging for compromise.

Senate defends its costly plan

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans argue their version offers $1.6 trillion in spending cuts over a decade—above the Caucus’s $1.5 trillion demand—and the White House Council of Economic Advisers projects $4.1 trillion in growth from tax permanence.

A GOP aide told Fox News Digital that the Senate plan “contains more in Byrd-compliant savings than the House.” They’re banking on revenue-neutral scoring of tax extensions, but House conservatives aren’t sold on the crystal ball economics.

As the Senate works through amendments, expected to wrap up soon, the bill’s fate in a House procedural vote hangs in the balance. If key changes like Scott’s amendment don’t make the cut, this “big, beautiful bill” might just be a beautiful disaster.