Congress

The megabill will soon be megalaw

Published

1 year ago

July 3, 2025

House Republicans passed their domestic policy megabill Thursday after nearly 24 hours of nonstop angst, discord and hands-on pressure from President Donald Trump and allies — ultimately uniting to deliver his top legislative priority.

The 218-214 final vote is a major victory for congressional Republicans who pledged to send the bill to Trump’s desk before July 4. Speaker Mike Johnson muscled the bill through in the early-morning hours after a full day of meetings with holdouts, huddles on the House floor and gatherings of different factions at the White House.

One preliminary vote Wednesday was held open for more than nine hours — what Democrats claimed was a new House record — as GOP leaders scrambled to secure the votes. Once they did, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries delayed final action almost another nine hours with a record-breaking floor speech attacking the 887-page bill.

The decisive vote ended up almost entirely along party lines. Only Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky joined Democrats in opposition to the bill.

What was not clear upon passage is what precisely a small band of holdouts, most of them members of the House Freedom Caucus, had secured in return for their votes. They were irate about changes that had been made to the bill in the Senate, but GOP leaders were insistent that no further tweaks would be made — which would require another time-consuming trip across Capitol Hill.

The holdouts had been discussing the possibility of executive actions and other promises pertaining to the implementation of the sweeping legislation. But Johnson insisted no deals were cut.

“We find out where the red lines are, and we try to navigate around them and get a product that everybody can buy into,” he told reporters.

Angry Democrats, who had been left in a holding pattern most of the day Wednesday and deep into the night, seethed at the situation.

“I have no idea what in the world the crowd that was holding out got for holding out,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) on the floor. “Does anyone know? It is a complete mystery to me and to the American people.”

To most Republicans, however, final passage came as a relief after more than six months of intensive intraparty debates and negotiations about how the centerpiece of the Republican legislative agenda should be structured and what should be included.

The centerpiece was always set to be an extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the signature bill of Trump’s first term. But Republicans quickly sparred over whether those tax cuts — a legislative hornet’s nest — should be packaged together with other, easier-to-pass GOP priorities or lopped off to pass separately.

Trump sided with lawmakers, mainly in the House, who wanted to pass the whole domestic agenda in one piece, and what Trump would deem the “one big, beautiful bill” was born. On top of the tax package, which eventually swelled in excess of $4 trillion, were defense spending boosts, increased immigration enforcement and dramatic changes to some safety-net programs to help offset the costs.

Republicans seized on rosy projections from White House economists while most independent analysts concluded the bill’s economic impacts would be relatively modest.

House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) touted the “largest tax cut in U.S. history” Thursday morning and promised a flurry of economic benefits, despite the bill mainly continuing tax policies already in place.

“We can expect record job growth, investment, repatriation of capital back to the United States, record-low unemployment, record-high wage growth and the lowest poverty rates in recorded history,” he said.

While the tax cuts were the glue meant to hold GOP support for the bill together, it was not always clear that hard-line fiscal hawks and moderate purple-district Republicans would be able to come to terms on a single piece of legislation.

Those concerns were amplified after the Senate reshaped the bill the House passed in late May, making steeper cuts to Medicaid and speeding up the rollback of wind and solar energy tax credits, while also adding hundreds of billions of dollars more to the deficit than the House-passed bill did.

Key blocs of House Republicans initially blanched at the changes, leading to hours of meetings Wednesday between GOP leadership and holdouts in an effort to quell the rebellion. With further changes to the bill off the table, lawmakers talked up the possibility of future executive actions from Trump. White House Budget Director Russ Vought came to the Capitol to discuss the possibility of future spending cuts with hard-liners and how exactly the administration planned to target key programs.

Meanwhile, among purple-district Republicans nervous about a roughly $1 trillion cut to Medicaid, there were major concerns over how medical providers in their districts might be able to access a limited $50 billion fund for rural hospitals created in the Senate and whether the funding patch would be enough to compensate for cuts elsewhere.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Senate-passed megabill would increase the number of people without health insurance by roughly 11.8 million in 2034. That estimate was posted before a slate of last-minute changes were made to the bill before Senate passage earlier this week.

Democrats vowed Republicans would pay a steep political price for passing the megabill, with some comparing it to the health care bill Republicans abandoned in 2017 — preceding a GOP House wipeout in the subsequent midterms. In speeches throughout the day, Democratic leaders name-checked purple-district Republicans whose districts they hope to target in next year’s midterm elections.

The minority party had few tools to stop the bill’s passage, and their plans to at least slow it down were at first overtaken by the GOP’s own snail-like progress. But then Jeffries used his unlimited speaking time Thursday morning to lash into what he called “one big, ugly bill” that coddled billionaires, undermined clean energy production and slashed the social safety net, delaying passage until Thursday afternoon.

“I ask the question, if Republicans were so proud of this one big ugly bill, why did the debate begin at 3:28 a.m. in the morning?” Jeffries said at the outset of his speech, accusing Republicans of trying to “jam this bill through the House of Representatives under the cover of darkness.”

Jeffries took special aim at the bill’s health care cuts — reading story after story from Americans who rely on Medicaid for their medical needs and calling out the particular Republican lawmakers who represent them. He also mocked Trump’s insistence that he would protect the program.

“He was going to ‘love and cherish’ Medicaid,” he said. “Nothing about this bill ‘loves and cherishes’ Medicaid. It guts Medicaid.”

The bill now heads to Trump’s desk, and he’s expected to sign it on the holiday, Johnson told reporters: “We’ll do that on July 4, potentially, maybe right before the B-2s fly. I mean you just can’t script this any better.”

David Lim and Cassandra Dumay contributed to this report.

Congress

Republicans stay mum on whether they’ll return campaign cash from embattled Max Miller

Published

3 hours ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Max Miller has kicked campaign cash to more than a dozen fellow Republicans competing in some of the midterm’s tightest races. Few are saying whether they now have plans to return the money as the Ohio lawmaker seeks reelection despite serious allegations of domestic abuse.

According to records filed with the Federal Elections Commission, Miller’s Dependable Conservative Leadership PAC has made contributions to 16 GOP incumbents struggling to hold onto their seats in Congress.

The money — more than $70,000 in all — has largely been donated in increments of $1,000, $2,500 or $5,000. In a few cases, such as with Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), the PAC maxed out with $10,000 donations.

Of these 16 Republicans who received money from Miller this cycle contacted this week by Blue Light News, only the campaign for Rep. Brad Finstad of Minnesota said it had already returned its $5,000 contribution.

A campaign spokesman for Lawler, meanwhile, said the incumbent Republican had no plans to relinquish the money, noting that Democratic challenger Cait Conley had attended a fundraiser hosted for her by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 amid a prostitution scandal.

But spokespeople in the congressional offices and campaigns for the other 14 candidates did not return requests for comment, underscoring the uncomfortable situation Republicans find themselves in as they seek to distance themselves from Miller without giving up any cash advantage in the final weeks leading up to the November elections.

Those staying silent now include Husted, who is facing a tough election against former Sen. Sherrod Brown. Husted said Miller should not run for reelection after Emily Miller — Max Miller’s ex-wife and fellow Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno’s daughter — accused her former husband of assaulting her and their young child.

Miller has denied the accusations. Spokespeople for his campaign and PAC did not respond to requests for comment.

Other Republican candidates who have remained quiet in recent days about whether they’ll give Miller back his money are Pennsylvania Reps. Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie and Brian Fitzpatrick, as well as Iowa Reps. Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

They also include Reps. Nick Begich III of Alaska, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, Gabe Evans of Colorado, Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey, Jen Kiggans of Virginia, David Valadao of California and Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin.

Van Orden, asked Tuesday night about the $2,500 contribution he received from Miller during about an interview about the results of his state’s primary elections, refused to discuss the matter, calling the accusations against Miller “allegations” he had heard about “the day before yesterday.”

Miller will be the GOP candidate on the ballot this fall in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District after he rejected calls to get out of the race before a legal deadline this past week to replace him — forcing Republicans to support him if they want the party to hold onto the seat. Members of President Donald Trump’s political team also urged Ohio Republicans to hold off on a public pressure campaign to get Miller to drop out so as not to risk the party appearing ununified.

Polling now shows Miller trailing his Democratic challenger, Brian Poindexter, which could force the GOP to spend precious resources in a district that would otherwise be safely red — and possibly cost them a seat Trump won by double digits. Poindexter, a city councilmember and union ironworker, was added Tuesday to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “red-to-blue” program, reserved for congressional candidates who are seen as standing a chance of flipping a Republican-held seat.

But Miller’s baggage may not be confined to his race alone. Some Democrats are already using the unreturned campaign donations as fodder to hammer Republicans running in other contests around the country.

“Ryan doesn’t care,” said Benny Stanislawski, communications director for Democrat Bob Brooks, in attacking Brooks’ opponent Mackenzie. “That’s who he is: open for business for whoever’s willing to pay up, no questions asked.”

Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement Tuesday called Democrats “shameless hypocrites who conveniently look the other way when their vulnerable members are bankrolled by scandal-plagued Democrats like [former Rep.] Eric Swalwell.”

The NRCC also claimed that some of the Democrats who said they’d give away Swalwell campaign contributions have, in fact, not returned the money as promised.

“Nobody should take these slimeballs seriously when their supposed principles disappear the second they become politically inconvenient,” Marinella added of Democrats.

Unlike Miller, Swalwell resigned in April and ended his gubernatorial bid in California amid intense pressure from inside his own party over sexual assault allegations he denies.

Viet Shelton, a spokesperson with the DCCC, shot back that it is, in fact, Republicans who “spend all their time virtue signaling about how self righteous they are just to turn around and take dirty money from disgraced, disgusting, and abhorrent men … They should stop with the fake outrage.”

Some House Republicans continue to rally around Miller as the party seeks to hold onto its razor-thin majority: Just last week, Miller and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.)filed a new joint fundraising committee with the FEC.

Lunasaid in a recent text message to POLITICO that she would not get in the middle of a private matter between the Millers. Tuesday night, she said the committee was “not active,” adding: “nothing more to it.”

Samuel Benson, Lisa Kashinsky, Madison Fernandez and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Paramount lawyer says company ‘happy to cooperate’ as Democrats vow crackdown on merger

Published

11 hours ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic lawmakers are readying aggressive oversight of Paramount Skydance’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount’s top lawyer said Tuesday the company is “happy to cooperate.”

“We’re not naive to know that politics does not exist,” Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim said. “We’re not shocked about that. We’ll be happy to cooperate and really engage with Republicans and Democrats about any issue and aspect. This merger is actually going to be good not only for California, it’ll be good for America.”

Paramount has been “transparent” and responsive to lawmaker’s concerns,” Delrahim — who served as Trump’s antitrust chief in his first administration — said at Blue Light News’s The California Agenda: Sacramento Summit.

The merger of the media companies has become a flashpoint for Democratic outcry, as the party outlines a range of grievances that could resurface as a sweeping oversight effort if they take control of one or both chambers of Congress next year. Top Democrats already insist Paramount CEO David Ellison and his company have been less than forthcoming.

Democrats have blasted Paramount’s $110 billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery as a gross antitrust violation with serious national security implications due in part to the involvement of foreign investment in the deal. And they have slammed Ellison for paying a $16 million settlement to President Donald Trump, which Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts claimed could be “bribery in plain sight” in exchange for the administration’s approval of the company’s merger with Skydance last year.

Ellison also last week tried to tamp down Democratic concerns he would influence the independence of news network BLN after the deal, after Paramount’s takeover of CBS News last year led to outrage from journalists that leadership was pressing for more favorable coverage of the Trump administration.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is leading 12-states in a lawsuit to block the company’s current merger with Warner Bros., and last week, a federal judge scheduled a March trial to decide whether the acquisition violates antitrust law. Paramount agreed to punt the merger until next year — precisely when Democrats hope to be back in power.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement to Blue Light News that Ellison “has evaded Congressional oversight of his work to create a mega-media empire designed to serve Donald Trump’s political agenda. If he thinks he can run out the clock on Congressional scrutiny of his massive media mergers and blockbuster corporate deals, he’s mistaken.”

Raskin called the investigation a “priority” and said “anyone involved should be prepared to answer under oath for their role in this brazen campaign to bend America’s free press to Donald Trump’s political, financial and personal will.”

Presented with Raskin’s statement, Delrahim said, “You can allege all you want. There is no corruption here.”

“We’d be happy to engage with Congressman Raskin and provide him, as we have, information,” Delrahim continued. “It sounds good, and I get it. It’s politics. But we respect his role and his important role in oversight. But just because he said so doesn’t mean that there is any corruption.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: Why Miller’s Ethics probe may be a bust

Published

24 hours ago

August 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Ethics panel dealt the final blow derailing GOP Rep. Chuck Edwards’ re-election campaign last week, but don’t expect the same scenario to happen to Rep. Max Miller.

Miller, an Ohio Republican, is officially on the ballot this fall after pressure campaigns failed to push him out amid domestic abuse allegations he denies. The GOP is now coming to terms with Miller as their candidate, with members of the White House political team telling Republicans in the state to tamper down calls for Miller to drop out last week as it became clear he was immovable.

“They basically told us to back off,” said one Ohio Republican involved in the conversations, “and let the voters decide.”

Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, told POLITICO he plans to withhold judgment on whether Miller is fit for office until the Ethics Committee works through its process.

”We have to allow this process to play out. It’s just begun,” Johnson said last week.

But neither voters nor Johnson should expect to get any clarity on the claims against Miller from the bipartisan House panel and its non-partisan staff charged with investigating member misconduct. The panel’s probe — instigated by Miller’s self-filing last week — is highly unlikely to be completed before the committee’s traditional pre-election 60-day blackout period, which begins in early September.

That delay is politically convenient for Miller as well as for Johnson, who is already grappling with a razor-thin margin that would be further eroded if Miller faced pressure to step down.

A spokesperson for Johnson didn’t respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Ethics Committee declined to comment on the probe’s timing, as the panel traditionally does not comment on open investigations.

In last week’s case involving Edwards, it was the Ethics panel’s detailed report finding the North Carolina lawmaker engaged in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers” that was the final straw to end his reelection campaign. Edwards announced he’d drop out following public outcry and pressure from fellow Republicans.

North Carolina party leaders picked Jennifer Balkcom last night to replace Edwards on the ballot.

But Edwards’ probe was months in the making, and the pace of Ethics Committee investigations varies widely. Some inquiries have spanned multiple Congresses, including an investigation into the campaign activity of former Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

The launch of other investigations have galvanized public pressure more rapidly. Former Rep. Tony Gonzales, who was being investigated earlier this year for having a sexual relationship with a staffer, resigned shortly after the panel ramped up its scrutiny as an expulsion vote also loomed.

At the time, Gonzales was facing a primary battle. Johnson also said he would let the process “play out.”

What else we’re watching:

— CASSIDY BLASTS TRUMP’S VACCINE ORDER: Sen. Bill Cassidy pushed back Monday on Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to reduce the number of recommended vaccines children get and spread the shots over more appointments. “This executive order is wrong. The President does not have the expertise to make these changes,” Cassidy posted on X. “Breaking up vaccines will mean children have to get more shots to get the same protection, not fewer shots. It will increase hesitancy and make children less safe.” The move comes months ahead of the midterm elections on an issue that Trump’s own pollsters have warned is unpopular, but that the president has long shown a personal interest in.

— DEMS BRACE FOR WALL STREET CRYPTO PLANS: SEC Chair Paul Atkins and CFTC Chair Michael Selig may soon get a glimpse of the challenge they could face if Republicans lose control of either chamber or both in November. The Wall Street regulators are readying new cryptocurrency rules after lawmakers punted on a digital assets bill before heading home for recess. The Clarity Act setback has put the SEC and CFTC in position to drive crypto policymaking. But they risk a backlash from the left as lawmakers fear they’re too cozy with the industry.

Meredith Lee Hill, Erin Doherty, Cheyenne Haslett, David Lim, Sophie Garnder and Declan Harty contributed to this report.