A proposal to create a new $20 fee on most passenger cars to help pay for Trump administration priorities may already be in danger thanks to Republicans loathe to create a new fee.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.) released the details Tuesday of his committee’s contribution to the larger GOP megabill ahead of a planned Wednesday markup, which included the $20 annual fee indexed to inflation.

Graves said it is intended to lay the foundation for eventually doing away with the federal gasoline tax, which has helped pay for transportation projects since it was established in 1932. For now, though, the fee, which would be levied on gas-powered passenger cars, would be additive.

But Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) was outraged by the proposal and put it forward as an example of why he’s skeptical about how much the Republicans’ party-line package of tax cuts, border security investments, energy policies and more will actually reduce the federal deficit.

“Like, are you out of your fricking mind?” Roy said Tuesday upon reviewing the proposal. “Like, the party of limited government is gonna go out and, ‘say we’re gonna have [a car tax]?’”

“You know what I was told? ‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll get rid of it later in the highway bill,’” Roy continued. He said the message he received is that the car tax is “a gimmick to pay for this, so we know that we’re not actually gonna pay for it. That’s how this town works.”

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) said when the committee convenes to vote on the matter, he’s planning to vote “no,” calling the language “problematic.”

He said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) is working on an amendment that would modify the language, though he didn’t elaborate. Perry’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“We’re trying to get the message to leadership that there’s got to be a better way to find the funds than to create a new national vehicle registration fee,” Burlison said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson separately told reporters the proposed fee wasn’t a priority of his, but also didn’t oppose the idea – a least not publicly.

These early reactions from some Republicans don’t bode well for the proposal. But if Graves succeeds, it would mark the first meaningful change to the excise tax revenues that pay for federal transportation projects since Bill Clinton was president — and a major move away from the political inaction on funding deficits that has been the cornerstone of the country’s transportation policy for decades.

Graves’ proposal would call for state departments of transportation to collect the fee and remit it to the Federal Highway Administration. It wouldn’t take effect until Oct. 1, 2030, and would expire four years later unless Congress renews it. Actually doing away with the gasoline tax would require subsequent legislation, as well.

House Education and Workforce Committee Republicans advanced draft legislation Tuesday to slash billions of dollars to student aid programs to help offset the cost of legislation to enact President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda.

Chair Tim Walberg’s plan, which advanced in a 21-14 party-line vote, would make major changes to federal student aid programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and is estimated to produce $351 billion in savings, according to a preliminary score from the Congressional Budget Office — exceeding the $330 billion in cuts the panel was tasked with finding to help pay for the larger package of tax cuts, border security investments, energy policy and more.

“Higher education is at an inflection point,” Walberg of Michigan said in his opening remarks. “We are on a fiscally unsustainable path, so we must deliver on the promise of economic mobility to our students and families.”

The measure, dubbed the “Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan,” includes significant changes to the Pell Grant like addressing the shortfall in funding and adjusting eligibility for the award. It also would place stricter limits on federal loans borrowers can take out,; repeal regulations related to gainful employment and borrower defense; and include a risk-sharing provision that would put schools on the hook for a portion of unpaid student loan balances.

It also would incorporate a risk-sharing provision that would put schools on the hook for a portion of unpaid student loan balances. Many of the plan’s provisions stem from Republicans’ signature higher education bill known as the College Cost Reduction Act, which has stalled on Capitol Hill.

In a major rebuke of former President Joe Biden’s student loan plans that Republicans have long criticized, the committee’s draft bill would repeal the last administration’s income-driven repayment plan known as SAVE, which offered an easier path to student loan debt forgiveness.

“The Biden-Harris administration’s foolish actions in the federal student loan program exacerbated this budgetary catastrophe,” Walberg said. “From their radical SAVE loan repayment plan to the never-ending repayment pause, Democrats are intent on forcing taxpayers to pay for free college.”

Democrats introduced a little over three dozen amendments that were all rejected during Tuesday’s markup.

The House Armed Services Committee advanced its $150 billion portion of Republicans’ megabill on Tuesday with the support of several Democrats, even as most lambasted it as a “blank check” for a Pentagon in chaos and a defense chief who can’t be trusted.

The 35-21 committee vote came after Republicans thwarted more than 20 Democrat amendments aimed at gutting key funding provisions and highlighting complaints about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s leadership.

Five Democrats sided with Republicans on the final vote to increase defense spending: Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, Don Davis of North Carolina, George Whitesides of California and Eugene Vindman of Virginia. But most, if not all, Democrats are expected to oppose the broader Republican measure of tax cuts and reductions to domestic programs, such as Medicaid.

Democrats immediately dove into Hegseth’s now infamous decision to share sensitive military details on a Signal chat. Top Armed Services Democrat Adam Smith introduced an amendment that would have restricted 75 percent of the new defense funding until the Pentagon develops a plan to prevent the sharing of classified information outside of approved systems.

“They have not even begun to prove that there’s a chance in hell that they will spend this money intelligently,” said Smith. His amendment failed in a 26-29 party-line vote.

Another amendment from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) would have prevented any of the new Pentagon money from being spent until Hegseth steps down as Defense secretary. Her amendment was voted down 24-31, with Democrats Davis and Golden opposing it.

Democrats also highlighted other controversies surrounding Hegseth. Rep. Sara Jacobs of California put forward an amendment that would have blocked funding for a Pentagon makeup studio, following a report that he had ordered a room retrofitted to use before television appearances. Hegseth has denied the report. The measure was defeated in a 26-29 partisan vote.