Congress

Republicans in the dark on White House plan for Obamacare abortion restrictions

Published

7 months ago

November 26, 2025

The White House’s silence on how its health care plan deals with abortion is causing a headache for Republicans on Capitol Hill.

For many GOP members, an expansion of abortion restrictions in Obamacare is a must-have. But the White House’s decision to leave the issue out of its tentative framework caught Republicans off guard, leaving them in the dark about whether the president would ultimately stake out a position publicly, according to two aides granted anonymity to disclose private discussions.

The fight over the Hyde amendment, which bars federal funding for abortion, is just one of many landmines that need to be cleared before any health care deal to extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies can be reached. It also comes on top of GOP backlash to other aspects of the White House’s health policy framework that leaked Sunday.

“No Republican has voted for Obamacare or an Obamacare extension or expansion,” said a senior Senate Republican aide, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Asking members to do that and not including Hyde would be impossible for many.”

The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the president’s stance.

The proposal the administration had planned to roll out this week consisted of a two-year extension of the ACA’s enhanced subsidies with new limitations favored by conservatives, such as a cutoff for people with higher incomes and a requirement that everyone pay a minimum monthly premium. But the White House gave no indication of whether it endorsed GOP lawmakers’ demand to also prohibit any insurance plan that receives a federal subsidy from covering abortion services.

Gavin Oxley, a spokesperson with Americans United for Life, said it would be helpful for the White House to publicly lay out its position on the Hyde question to give lawmakers an idea of how to proceed.

Not weighing in now, or proceeding with a plan without abortion restrictions, “would ultimately fracture the wide-reaching coalition that got President Trump re-elected,” Oxley said.

“We believe the Administration and pro-life leaders in Congress will come to the table in good faith with a plan that includes Hyde,” he continued. “But should it not, we will be prepared to reject such a plan.”

House and Senate Republicans, as well as dozens of anti-abortion groups that havespent months lobbying Congress and the White House, oppose any extension of the subsidies that doesn’t bar all insurance plans in the individual market from covering abortion. One of the people granted anonymity to speak candidly said that including the abortion funding restrictions was a “red line” for a broad swath of Republicans.

“We don’t have any details on this plan, but Senator Young supports Hyde protections and believes they should apply to any taxpayer funded health care spending,” said Leah Selk, spokesperson for Republican Sen. Todd Young of Indiana.

The hard line for Republicans creates a narrow window for bipartisan agreement, if any, before the end of the year, when the subsidies are set to expire and cause premiums to skyrocket. Democrats, whose votes are needed to clear the filibuster in the Senate to advance most legislation, have declared that abortion restrictions would be a non-starter in ongoing negotiations.

“Instead of working with Democrats to fix the health care crisis they created, Republicans now want to hold women’s health care hostage and force their radical agenda on the American people,” said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee that has jurisdiction over much of the sprawling U.S. health system, in a recent floor speech. “I have one thing to say to that: not on my watch.”

Likely cognizant of this political reality, the White House’s decision to sidestep the abortion question was intended to allow the administration to avoid drawing attention to an issue that could have immediately jeopardized the plan’s viability, said a Republican aide with knowledge of the discussions – even if its silence has actually had the opposite effect.

“Look, it’s no secret that this administration is not rushing to put a lot of political capital on the issue of abortion if they can avoid it,” said Patrick Brown, a fellow with the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center, which has been part of the roiling debate over abortion restrictions in Obamacare. “It’s not something I think they have any interest in highlighting.”

The abortion standoff is just one of many factors complicating a proposed deal to extend insurance subsidies. Deep divisions remain around who should qualify for such subsidies, how generous they should be, and what kind of health services are covered.

Any agreement would need Trump’s blessing, giving Republicans political cover to vote for an extension of the health reform law they have raged against for more than a decade. But given this difficult landscape, conservative lobbyists are skeptical that passage is possible even if Trump endorsed abortion restrictions. Those in close contact with lawmakers say it’s unlikely an extension of the subsidies could win 60 votes in the Senate — or even 50.

“It’d be very difficult, even if they do it through reconciliation,” said Tom McClusky, the director of government affairs for Catholic Vote. “On the subsidies alone, I think you have a large enough contingent on the Republican side that don’t want them renewed at all — regardless of if you can somehow miraculously figure out the protections of Hyde.”

Since its inception more than a decade ago, the Affordable Care Act has barred federal subsidies from paying for abortions, but left it up to states whether health insurance plans in the individual market could cover abortion using other funding.

Half of states have opted to ban all coverage of abortion on their Obamacare markets, including some where abortion itself is legal, like Pennsylvania and Arizona. In the remaining 25 states, abortion coverage through Obamacare is either allowed or required, though any claims paid out involving the termination of a pregnancy come from a separate account that doesn’t use any federal subsidies.

If Congress passes an Obamacare subsidy extension that includes the abortion restrictions conservatives are demanding, it would force roughly a dozen states where abortion coverage is mandatory to make a tough decision: change their laws or risk losing billions of dollars. In the states where abortion coverage is allowed but not required, it would be up to individual insurance plans whether to lose federal funding or drop abortion coverage.

After nearly a year of the Trump administration clawing power away from Capitol Hill and dictating everything from spending to military action, some anti-abortion advocates are baffled by the lack of a firm message on how the Hyde amendment’s ban on abortion funding applies to Obamacare.

“It’s in tension with this administration’s broader approach to dealing with Congress, which has been very heavy handed — sort of, ‘We are calling the shots. Sit back and let us drive,’” said Brown. “But it would be their preference to sit in the back seat on that issue specifically.”

Benjamin Guggenheim contributed to this report.

Congress

Johnson-backed plan to combine Pentagon and election bills advances to floor

Published

6 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Rules Committee advanced a procedural measure aimed at breaking an intra-Republican deadlock Monday night. But GOP leaders are still facing a major battle Tuesday to regain control of the House floor.

The panel approved on party lines a measure to set up Republicans’ $1.1 trillion defense policy bill, a government funding bill and other GOP bills for floor debate. It would then combine the Pentagon bill, once passed, with the contentious elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate as one piece of legislation.

That maneuver, telegraphed by Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Monday, is aimed at appeasing House GOP hard-liners who have blockaded the floor, demanding the Senate pass the elections bill that has languished there for months.

However, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, the Republican leading the blockade, said in an interview Monday before the Rules Committee acted that Johnson’s plan is not sufficient — raising the possibility she and allies could vote down the measure on the floor. Other House GOP hard-liners say there are other outstanding issues to battle over Tuesday.

Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Democrat, called the merger move “a big waste of time.” The panel voted down a motion by McGovern to remove the provision to combine the two bills in a party-line vote.

The Senate is set to debate its own version of the defense bill next month, and it is likely that the elections overhaul will be removed in negotiations between the two chambers — as McGovern acknowledged Monday and House GOP leaders privately concede.

“The Senate will just strip the SAVE Act out,” he said at the meeting. “There is a zero percent chance SAVE ends up in the [Pentagon bill] because of this rule today.”

The defense bill faces a tight vote if Republicans can pass the procedural measure. Most Democrats are expected to oppose the measure over its massive price tag, which they contend is wasteful.

The panel is set up debate on 312 amendments to the bill. The slate includes GOP measures to codify a Trump executive order to block transgender people from serving in the military, prohibit coverage of gender-affirming care, block aid to arm Ukraine and strip Democratic-backed protections for collective bargaining for Pentagon civilian workers.

The committee also voted down Democratic proposals to slash $150 billion from the bill’s topline and limit the war against Iran.

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Congress

Pentagon and elections bills could be combined in bid to unfreeze House floor

Published

8 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he plans to deploy an unusual procedural maneuver in a bid to unfreeze the House floor this week, seeking to send the annual Pentagon policy bill and the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act to the Senate in a single package.

That is likely a recipe for a continued standoff between the two chambers over the SAVE America Act, which has stalled in the Senate for months due to internal GOP divides. Under Johnson’s plan, the annual defense policy bill, which typically passes every year with large bipartisan majorities, could become a collateral victim of the impasse.

Asked in brief interview if he had talked to Senate Majority Leader John Thune about his plans, Johnson replied, “I have to do my job in the House, and they’ve got to do their job in the Senate, so we’ll see what happens.”

Johnson is seeking to placate House conservative hard-liners, led by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have threatened to oppose the procedural measures that give Republicans control of the floor unless they agree to tougher tactics meant to force the Senate into passing the elections bill.

House GOP leaders discussed the plan to merge the two bills over the weekend as Luna pushed to amend the defense bill directly.

She did not say in an interview Monday whether Johnson’s gambit would suffice: “We want it baked together, not able to be stripped out,” she said.

But the Senate is free to work its own will, and members of that chamber are likely to reject any defense bill that has the partisan elections bill attached. That would set the stage for GOP leaders to strip it out when the House and Senate hash out the differences between their competing Pentagon bills later this year.

Johnson, meanwhile, is pushing a separate plan to pass a slimmed-down version of the SAVE America Act through the party-line budget reconciliation process — an option hard-liners have all but rejected.

“I don’t think that that can be done,” Luna told reporters Monday.

He’s also facing another complication: The version of the SAVE America Act he is proposing to attach to the Pentagon bill doesn’t include the latest demands for the bill from President Donald Trump — including a near-total ban on mail voting that is opposed by many Republicans.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Top Trump officials face bipartisan questions in first all-member Iran briefings

Published

9 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers of both parties questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff Monday in the first broad congressional briefings on President Donald Trump’s Iran deal.

While Democrats asked some of the sharpest questions, participants in an afternoon conference call with House members said, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) at one point pressed the administration officials on the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.

According to two people granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks, Witkoff and Rubio repeated assurances the administration has privately made to select lawmakers in prior briefings — that the goal is to negotiate a final deal that would prohibit Iran from keeping its highly enriched uranium.

The memorandum of understanding Trump signed earlier this month, they said, was meant to launch those negotiations. Witkoff, the people said, added that the technical team involved in that part of the talks was traveling from Switzerland to Qatar, where talks between the U.S. and Iran are set to happen Tuesday.

Democrats, meanwhile, pushed the administration for more details on what financial benefits Iran could reap under the memorandum — including proceeds from previously sanctioned oil sales.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) went back and forth with Rubio and Witkoff over the lifting of the oil sanctions, two other people granted anonymity on the House call said. The officials eventually cut off the conversation and ended the call.

At another point, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) raised concerns about Witkoff’s business interests in the Middle East as he’s negotiating with Iran, prompting a sharp defense from Rubio, those people said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked Rubio and Witkoff about the oil sanctions during a separate all-senators call Monday, saying in a statement afterward that they “confirmed to me that Iran will reap billions in oil revenue while retaining dangerous leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.”

“If this is the administration’s defense behind closed doors, Secretary Rubio should make it under oath, in public, before the Foreign Relations Committee,” Schumer added, calling the briefing “delayed, deficient, and devoid of details.”

An administration official granted anonymity to speak candidly countered on Schumer’s characterization, noting that he had previously gotten a briefing of the deal as part of a group of top leaders engaged on national security matters. Schumer, the official said, had the opportunity to ask multiple follow-up questions on the Senate call.

A separate group of White House officials briefed top congressional leaders and key committee chairs in a classified briefing in the Capitol later Monday.

The administration has faced bipartisan skepticism over multiple provisions of the memorandum of understanding — particularly the lifting of oil sanctions and a $300 billion reconstruction fund that many Senate Republicans fear will help fuel Iran’s military and regional proxies.

Rubio and Witkoff sought to ease concerns about the slow reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — the critical trade route whose closure has sparked higher fuel and fertilizer costs. Both officials said more mine removal is required, and Witkoff indicated that Iran broke the terms of the Trump-signed deal by launching a drone attack on a passing ship over the weekend.

They also sought to assure lawmakers that Iran has received no money under the memorandum — especially not directly from American sources. Administration officials have previously pledged in smaller briefings that the reconstruction fund won’t include U.S. funds.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) called the Senate briefing a “productive conversation” but said “much of what I heard today is similar to what I heard last week” during a dinner at Vice President JD Vance’s residence.