Today's News: Congressional Battles Over Medicaid Cuts in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill

The Senate parliamentarian’s rulings have disqualified several key cost-saving provisions, complicating the bill’s passage through the budget reconciliation process.

Terrence Dorsey

Jun 26, 2025

Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post

Date: June 25-26, 2025
Topic: Congressional Battle Over President Trump’s Comprehensive Tax and Spending Bill
Summary: President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a sweeping legislative package combining tax cuts, increased spending on immigration and defense, and significant reductions to social safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP, faces substantial challenges in Congress. The Senate parliamentarian’s rulings have disqualified several key cost-saving provisions, complicating the bill’s passage through the budget reconciliation process. This has intensified internal Republican divisions, with some expressing concerns over the impact on vulnerable populations and rural hospitals, while others push for the bill’s swift enactment. The legislation’s future and its broader political implications for the Republican party and the nation’s social welfare system remain uncertain.

Sources

Key Points

President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” is a comprehensive tax-and-spending package that extends tax cuts, increases spending on immigration enforcement and defense, and proposes significant cuts to social safety net programs, particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The Senate parliamentarian has disqualified several key cost-saving provisions from the bill, creating budgetary challenges and complicating its passage through the reconciliation process.
The proposed Medicaid cuts are a major point of concern, with articles highlighting their potential adverse effects on vulnerable populations and the financial stability of rural hospitals.
Republicans are utilizing the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill with a simple majority in the Senate, acknowledging that this process is subject to specific rules (the Byrd Rule) that limit what provisions can be included.
The articles consistently report on internal Republican divisions and challenges, including concerns from some GOP senators and House members about the bill’s provisions and the political risks associated with the cuts.
President Trump’s public stance on the bill, including his denial of Medicaid cuts and emphasis on work requirements, is noted across the articles.

Unique Highlights

The New York Times provides detailed estimates of the bill’s impact, stating it would remove nearly 11 million people from health care rolls and 3.2 million from SNAP, while cutting nearly $300 billion from SNAP over a decade. It also offers academic perspectives on voter behavior and accountability regarding policy changes, and quotes Speaker Mike Johnson’s specific target for work requirements as “29-year-old males sitting on their couches playing video games.”
CNN personalizes the impact of the cuts through the story of Courtney Leader, a Missouri mother whose 9-year-old daughter with brain damage and cerebral palsy relies on Medicaid for daily care. It also details the concerns of Golden Valley Memorial Healthcare in rural Missouri regarding the impact of Medicaid cuts on their operations and patient care, and highlights the increased demand at Ozarks Food Harvest amidst potential SNAP reductions.
NBC News specifically lists the provisions disqualified by the parliamentarian, including Medicaid rules concerning immigration status, pharmacy benefit manager reimbursement changes, and provider tax restrictions, while noting that new work requirements for able-bodied adults for Medicaid were deemed compliant. It also details the strong backlash from conservative senators like Tommy Tuberville and Roger Marshall against the parliamentarian, and Sen. Susan Collins’s defense of her role.
Fox News emphasizes Sen. Roger Marshall’s explicit call for the Senate parliamentarian’s firing, citing historical precedent, and his intention to introduce a resolution for term limits for the position. It also specifically lists “gender-affirming care” as a provision that was nixed from Medicaid/CHIP funding by the parliamentarian’s ruling, in addition to immigrant-related provisions and provider rates.
The Washington Post focuses on the “revolt” of House Republican holdouts who find the Senate’s transformed bill “unrecognizable,” highlighting their specific concerns about the preservation of Biden-era clean energy credits and the Senate’s abandonment of the House’s proposed increase to the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap. It also mentions Sen. Susan Collins pushing for a $100 billion fund to mitigate the impact of Medicaid cuts on rural hospitals.
The Wall Street Journal provides a clear explanation of the “Byrd Rule” and related terms like “Byrd Bath” and “Byrd droppings.” It includes a quote from Sen. John Cornyn on X stating, “We will not let an unelected staffer stop us from passing” the bill, and details other provisions previously affected by the parliamentarian’s rulings, such as those related to student loans and the U.S. Postal Service.

Contrasting Details

Severity of Medicaid Cuts: While The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post generally indicate that the Senate’s proposed Medicaid cuts were intended to be “bigger” or “far deeper” than the House’s version, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal focus on the significant disqualification of many of these intended cuts by the parliamentarian, which alters the final scope of the reductions.
Estimated Financial Impact of Disqualified Provisions: NBC News and The Washington Post estimate the disqualified provisions total between $200 billion and $300 billion in savings. In contrast, Fox News reports Sen. Roger Marshall’s claim that the rulings “may erase up to $500 billion in spending cuts,” presenting a significantly higher figure.
Trump’s Stance on Medicaid Cuts: The New York Times explicitly states President Trump “has gone as far as denying that the House bill cuts Medicaid benefits at all, saying ‘the only thing we’re cutting is waste, fraud and abuse.’” CNN, while noting his pledge not to cut Medicaid, highlights that the Congressional Budget Office indicates the current version would do so. The Wall Street Journal states Trump has “expressed misgivings about cutting Medicaid too deeply,” which implies an acknowledgement of potential cuts, rather than a denial.
Specific Disqualified Provisions: While most articles broadly mention Medicaid provisions related to provider taxes and immigrant eligibility were disqualified, Fox News uniquely highlights the nixed provision preventing Medicaid and CHIP funding from going toward “gender-affirming care.” This specific detail is not present in the lists of disqualified items provided by NBC News or The Wall Street Journal.
House vs. Senate Bill Differences: The Washington Post provides specific details on policy disagreements between the House and Senate versions beyond Medicaid, such as the Senate preserving some clean energy credits that the House sought to eliminate immediately, and the differing approaches to raising the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction cap (House proposed $40,000, Senate left at $10,000). Other articles focus more broadly on the overall components of the bill without detailing these specific inter-chamber policy stalemates.

The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.

This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).

The Newsie Project