Congress

State budgets land in GOP crosshairs amid struggle to fund megabill

Published

3 weeks ago

May 7, 2025

Congressional Republicans agree that the federal government has a spending problem. Now top GOP leaders want to make it someone else’s problem — by shifting some safety-net programs onto state budgets.

The plans under discussion could generate hundreds of billions of dollars in savings to finance the GOP’s domestic policy megabill. But they’re vexing Republican lawmakers — many of them former governors and state legislators — who are not interested in addressing Washington’s fiscal woes by creating them in state capitals, including those run by their own party.

It’s one big reason why Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune are struggling right now to build consensus for the “big, beautiful bill,” with its expensive suite of tax cuts as well as border and defense spending plus-ups. Already they are scaling back ambitious plans that would force states to either subsidize health and food aid or kick thousands of residents off benefit rolls.

“Most of us are not interested in simply shifting costs,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a former governor, who warned “there most certainly would” be significant pushback from states if the GOP proceeds with cost-sharing plans.

“I hope to goodness we don’t go there,” added Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), another former governor, whose constituents are heavily reliant on federal programs.

The mathematical impetus for the GOP proposals is straightforward enough: The tax cuts that President Donald Trump and Republican leaders are eyeing are estimated to cost $5 trillion or more over the coming decade. Offsetting that cost requires more than shaking the couch cushions, and two safety-net programs have emerged as particularly appealing targets.

Together Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, account for about $1 trillion in yearly federal spending. Republicans are mostly unified on instituting work requirements, tightening eligibility verification, excluding undocumented immigrants from benefits and cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse. But to achieve even deeper cuts, they are looking to make states pick up more of the tab.

Medicaid has been a joint federal-state program since its creation in the Great Society era, but its 2010 expansion under the Affordable Care Act put the federal government on the hook for 90 percent of the costs for newly eligible beneficiaries. States, meanwhile, have never had to bear the costs of SNAP benefits, though they are responsible for a portion of administrative costs.

Under some House GOP proposals now under consideration, states would have to assume a greater share of the cost for the Medicaid expansion population while also bearing a portion of SNAP benefit costs for the first time. Republicans are also exploring whether to curtail health provider taxes states frequently use to finance their Medicaid costs.

Together, it could shift hundreds of billions of dollars yearly to state budgets that are already strained as federal pandemic aid runs out and other Trump administration cuts take effect. In California, for instance, lawmakers are preparing for a minimum $10 billion budget shortfall for the fiscal year starting July 1, with that number set to triple at least in 2026.

The National Association of State Budget Officers has found that Medicaid makes up more than half of federal funding to states. Brian Sigritz, the group’s director of state fiscal studies, said in an interview that states will either have to raise taxes, cut benefits or slash other programs in response to the slew of changes impacting their budgets. Sigritz said the impact will be “cumulative.”

“It’s clear states won’t be able to absorb the federal cuts and cost shifts in recent federal actions and congressional proposals,” Sigritz said. “States are required to balance their budget, and states won’t be able to fill in the gap.”

Republicans have trained much of their criticism on Democratic-run states that, they argue, run those two programs wastefully. But millions of low-income families in red states also rely on the programs for health care and food aid, and some of the latest GOP plans would actually hurt deep-red states even more than others — including a reworked SNAP state-cost share plan.

That has fueled the intra-GOP backlash, with many Republicans in the House and Senate shorthanding their opposition by insisting they will not “cut benefits” — meaning they might tolerate work requirements and other ancillary changes but not changing the federal government’s core responsibilities.

Rep. David Valadao, one of the most vulnerable Republicans up for reelection in 2026, is a former state legislator who sharply criticizes the fiscal management of his home state of California. But he’s also wary of putting a greater financial burden on states like his.

“California has kind of blown it on some of these fronts,” Valadao said. “So it puts me as a Californian in a difficult position.”

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) stood up during a closed-door House GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning to warn about the SNAP proposal’s impact on his home state of Wisconsin’s budget. Alongside Van Orden sat dozens of House Republicans in states that would be hit even harder.

GOP leaders have pulled back from some of the farthest-reaching proposals. The House Agriculture Committee had been eyeing having states pick up a 25 percent share of SNAP costs; the latest proposal would start at 10 percent for states with the lowest rates of overpayments. “No one likes this,” said one Republican granted anonymity to describe private sentiments inside the party, “but we need to reach these cuts.”

As for Medicaid, Johnson on Tuesday ruled out cutting the federal reimbursement rate and suggested that an alternative — per-capita caps on federal reimbursements — would also be excluded.

But other proposals — like limiting state provider taxes — remain on the table, and so far the public pushback inside the House GOP has been relatively limited. That’s not true in the Senate, where most Republicans hate the idea of saddling states with billions of dollars in new financial burdens — though discussion continued about cutting the federal share for some Medicaid beneficiaries at a party retreat Wednesday, according to two senators who attended and were granted anonymity to describe the closed-door event.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a former state House speaker, has warned against catching states off guard on Medicaid changes and said he plans to call members of his own state legislature to discuss the percolating proposals. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), another veteran of state government, said shifting costs to states “may make [the federal] numbers look better … but it still becomes a burden.”

Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said in an interview that he has “concern” about sharing costs for food aid and that his panel is not pursuing the idea. Sen. John Hoeven — who, like Boozman, is in frequent contact with House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) — said he was skeptical the House would ultimately follow through: “I’d put that in the category of, let’s actually see if they do it.”

New cost-sharing mandates could stick GOP-dominated states such as Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alabama and Florida with multi-billion-dollar annual bills — forcing high-stakes choices for state officials who would suddenly have to worry about their own political hides. Even White House officials have privately fretted about a potential “one-two punch” for red states, leaving many in the GOP much more comfortable with the less drastic proposals, such as work requirements.

“I think the politics of work are a lot lighter burden to carry than just pushing off some of the costs to the states,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is seeking reelection next year.

Samuel Benson, Rachel Bluth and Eric He contributed to this report.

Congress

‘A historic betrayal’: Murkowski slams Trump administration revoking protections for Afghan immigrants

Published

1 day ago

May 30, 2025

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) denounced the Trump administration’s decision to axe temporary protected status for Afghan immigrants — the latest break by the centrist Republican from President Donald Trump’s administration.

In a joint letter with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the senator urged the administration to reconsider the cancellation of the temporary protection, which affords Afghans a work permit and legal status in the U.S.

“This decision endangers thousands of lives, including Afghans who stood by the United States,” Murkowski and Shaheen — the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — wrote. “This decision represents a historic betrayal of promises made and undermines the values we fought for far more than 20 years in Afghanistan.”

The letter — which was sent May 23 and released Friday — comes amid reports that the State Department is shuttering the office that coordinated Afghan resettlement for those who helped with the war effort, part of an agency-wide reorganization aligning with the Trump administration’s moves to reduce foreign aid and assistance and refocus on “America First” priorities.

Murkowski has not been shy about criticizing her own party, while encouraging her fellow GOP senators to do the same. The Republican has rebuked President Donald Trump for his close relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing the U.S. of “walking away from our allies.” But she also acknowledged a reticence within Republican circles of defying Trump — saying “we are all afraid” of Trump’s retaliation.

She’s also not the only Republican to raise red flags about the cancellation of TPS protections for some immigrants, with Miami’s members of Congress also urging the Trump administration to continue the protections for Venezuelans and Haitians.

The Alaska Republican first criticized the decision on TPS shortly after it was announced by the Department of Homeland Security, calling it “concerning” in light of promises from Noem to address a backlog of asylum applications — which could dramatically increase as former TPS holders look for avenues to stay in the U.S.

But eliminating TPS has been one of Trump’s key campaign promises from the start, after calling the program corrupt and saying the legal status had been extended for too long.

The battle over TPS has made its way to the courts. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to revoke TPS protections for roughly 350,000 Venezuelans.

Murkowski has previously called out the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, which happened under the Biden administration, saying the “botched” operation endangered many who then came to the U.S. — and that ending protections would only exacerbate the problem.

“This administration should not compound that misstep by forcing them to return to the Taliban’s brutal regime,” Murkowski wrote on X earlier this month.

Congress

Fired copyright chief loses first round in lawsuit over Trump powers

Published

3 days ago

May 28, 2025

Blue Light Newsroom

A judge denied a request for reinstatement Wednesday from the ousted head of the national copyright office, rejecting for now her claims that President Donald Trump had no right to fire her.

Shira Perlmutter was fired as register of copyrights earlier this month, an office housed inside the Library of Congress. In a suit filed in Washington’s federal court last week, she alleged that Trump and his subordinates overstepped in both naming a new Librarian of Congress — the only official, she claims, that can hire and fire a copyright chief.

Perlmutter asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order keeping Trump’s appointees out of the Library of Congress and keeping her on the job, but U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion from the bench in a hearing Wednesday.

Perlmutter’s lawsuit names as lead plaintiff Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, whom Trump attempted to appoint as acting Librarian of Congress, alongside Trump and several other administration officials. Justice Department lawyers representing Blanche & Co. asserted in a court filing this week that the Library of Congress is “part of the Executive Branch and is subject to presidential control.”

“The Library of Congress is not an autonomous organization free from political supervision,” the lawyers wrote.

The White House argues that Trump has the authority to name an acting librarian and register of copyrights who can serve temporarily under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act — much as the president can name acting leaders for any other federal agency with a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed chief.

Key lawmakers on Capitol Hill, including some top Republicans, are questioning that assertion, and it has created a standoff at the Library of Congress over the attempted takeover.

Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, said in a statement that the arguments in the recent administration court filing amount to “unlawful and unconstitutional efforts to wrest control of the Library and the Copyright Office from Congress and the American people.”

“The law is clear,” Morelle said. “The Library of Congress is a legislative branch agency, and the President has no authority to appoint an Acting Librarian or meddle in the Library’s personnel decisions.”

In addition to attempting to install Blanche as acting librarian, Trump also attempted to appoint Brian Nieves as acting assistant librarian and Paul Perkins as acting register of copyrights, replacing Perlmutter as director of the Copyright Office.

But Robert Randolph Newlen, who assumed the acting librarian role immediately after Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden’s removal, appears to remain in control of the library, and Blanche has not been seen at the library or sent communications to employees since the attempted takeover earlier this month.

While Kelly did not immediately grant Perlmutter’s request, her lawsuit will continue. Kelly indicated he will hear arguments in the coming weeks on whether to grant a preliminary injunction blocking Trump and Blanche while the litigation plays out.

In the meantime, the leadership of the library and copyright office will remain in limbo.

“If Mr. Blanche assumes the role of Acting Librarian of Congress, the Executive Branch will gain access to reams of confidential information that belongs to Congress and that Congress has zealously guarded from disclosure, as well as privately owned copyright deposits,” Perlmutter’s lawyer wrote in a Tuesday filing.

Republican chairs of the House and Senate panels with oversight responsibility of the library declined a request for comment.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, called once again for Congress to take bipartisan action to codify full congressional control of the library, condemning the “unprecedented encroachment by the White House.”

Congress

White House plans — at last — to send some DOGE cuts to Hill

Published

4 days ago

May 28, 2025

Blue Light Newsroom

The White House plans to send a small package of spending cuts to Congress next week, senior GOP officials told several House Republicans Wednesday.

The planned transmission of the “rescissions” bill, confirmed by two Republicans granted anonymity to describe the plans, comes after a long internal battle over how to formalize the cuts that have been made by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative.

The package set to land on Capitol Hill is expected to reflect only a fraction of the DOGE cuts, which have already fallen far short of Musk’s multi-trillion-dollar aspirations. The two Republicans said it will target NPR and PBS, as well as foreign aid agencies that have already been gutted by President Donald Trump’s administration.

Speaker Mike Johnson said on X Wednesday that the House “is eager and ready to act on DOGE’s findings so we can deliver even more cuts to big government that President Trump wants and the American people demand.” He said the House “will act quickly” on a package without saying when it might be submitted or what it might contain.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have been growing impatient as they await the White House request, after the Trump administration confirmed more than six weeks ago that it intended to send a more than $9 billion package of proposed cutbacks.

It’s unclear whether the forthcoming submission will meet that target, which is itself a tiny fraction of the $1.6 trillion in yearly discretionary spending. The White House budget office did not respond to a request for comment.

“We’ve all said that we’re anxious to act on rescissions packages and hope they find a way to send them up,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in a brief interview last week before lawmakers left town for a weeklong recess.

An online pressure campaign aimed at “codifying” the DOGE cuts has gained steam in recent days, pushed by Musk-friendly Republicans including Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Many MAGA influencers on Musk’s X platform have amplified the effort.

In a CBS News interview Tuesday, Musk himself criticized the “one big, beautiful bill” backed by Trump that just narrowly cleared the House last week and is headed for the Senate. Musk said he “was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit … and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.” “A bill can be big or it can be beautiful,” Musk said in a clip of the interview published Tuesday night. “But I don’t know if it can be both.”

Trump’s top policy aide, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, responded to Musk in a late-night X post noting that the cuts Musk has been seeking could not be done in the GOP megabill but instead “would have to be done through what is known as a rescissions package or an appropriations bill.”

Senior Republicans informed some House GOP members the rescissions package would finally be coming hours later.

Whether it can pass is a separate question: Republicans have debated possible DOGE-inspired rescissions for months, and GOP leaders have been sensitive to the fact that some pieces may have trouble passing the House, according to two other Republicans granted anonymity to discuss the matter, as well as the tight 45-day timeline for consideration set out in federal law. Top appropriators have sought to weigh in ahead of any White House submission to ensure the package can pass.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who first pressed Musk almost three months ago to get Trump to pursue clawbacks, is frustrated that the Trump administration had not sent a package sooner.

“I’m very disappointed — not only in the White House, but disappointed in Congress,” Paul said in a brief interview last week. “If Congress can’t cut $9 billion, I think most of them should resign and go home.”