big

The United States Senate narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending bill on Tuesday, following intense negotiations and a marathon voting session on amendments.

The bill, which still faces a challenging path to final approval in the House of Representatives, would impose deep cuts to popular health and nutrition programmes, among other measures, while offering $4.5 trillion in tax reductions.

The measure was approved after almost 48 hours of debate and amendment battles.

Here is what you need to know:

What is Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’?

The bill is a piece of legislation that combines tax cuts, spending hikes on defence and border security, and cuts to social safety nets into one giant package.

The main goal of the bill is to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. It would make most of these tax breaks permanent, while also boosting spending on border security, the military and energy projects.

The bill is partly funded by cutting healthcare and food programmes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates Trump’s measure will increase the US debt by $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. The US government currently owes its lenders $36.2 trillion.

The key aspects of the bill include:

Tax cuts

In 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered taxes and increased the standard deduction for all taxpayers, but it primarily benefitted higher-income earners.

Those tax breaks are set to expire this year, but the new bill would make them permanent. It also adds some more cuts he promised during his campaign.

There is a change to the US tax code called the SALT deduction (State and Local Taxes). This lets taxpayers deduct certain state and local taxes (like income or property taxes) on their federal tax return.

Currently, people can only deduct up to $10,000 of these taxes. The new bill would raise that cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years.

Taxpayers would also be allowed to deduct income earned from tips and overtime, as well as interest paid on loans for buying cars made in the US.

The legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

Children

If the bill does not become law, the child tax credit – which is now $2,000 per child each year – will fall to $1,000, starting in 2026.

But if the Senate’s current version of the bill is approved, the credit would rise to $2,200.

Border wall and security

The bill sets aside about $350bn for Trump’s border and national security plans. This includes:

• $46bn for the US-Mexico border wall
• $45bn to fund 100,000 beds in migrant detention centres
• Billions more to hire an extra 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents by 2029 as part of Trump’s plan to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in US history.

Cuts to Medicaid and other programmes

To help offset the cost of the tax cuts and new spending, Republicans plan to scale back Medicaid and food assistance programmes for low-income families.

They say their goal is to refocus these safety net programmes on the groups they were originally meant to help, primarily pregnant women, people with disabilities and children – while also reducing what they call waste and abuse.

Medicaid helps Americans who are poor and those with disabilities, while the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps people afford groceries.

Currently, more than 71 million people depend on Medicaid, and 40 million receive benefits through SNAP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would leave an additional 11.8 million Americans without health insurance by 2034 if it becomes law.

Clean energy tax cuts

Republicans are pushing to significantly scale back tax incentives that support clean energy projects powered by renewables like solar and wind. These tax breaks were a key part of former President Joe Biden’s landmark 2022 law, the Inflation Reduction Act, which aimed to tackle climate change and reduce healthcare costs.

A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles would expire on September 30 this year if the bill passes in its current form, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law.

Debt limit

The legislation would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, going beyond the $4 trillion outlined in the version passed by the House in May.

Who benefits most?

According to Yale University’s Budget Lab, wealthier taxpayers are likely to gain more from this bill than lower-income Americans.

They estimate that people in the lowest income bracket will see their incomes drop by 2.5 percent, mainly because of cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, while the highest earners will see their incomes rise by 2.2 percent.

Which senators voted against the bill?

Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine opposed due to deep Medicaid cuts affecting low-income families and rural healthcare.

I strongly support extending the tax relief for families and small businesses. My vote against this bill stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes.

— Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) July 1, 2025

Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina cited concerns over Medicaid reductions to his constituents. Tillis has announced that he will not seek re-election, amid threats from Trump that he would back a Republican challenger to Tillis.

The facts matter. The people matter. The Senate’s Medicaid approach breaks promises and will kick people off of Medicaid who truly need it. The Senate can make one simple fix to make sure that won’t happen. pic.twitter.com/zvW1AgCxBF

— Senator Thom Tillis (@SenThomTillis) June 30, 2025

Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky voted “no” on fiscal grounds, warning that the bill would significantly worsen the national deficit.

Throughout the Vote-a-rama, I was working all night to stop Congress from adding to our debt.

I met with @VP and I reiterated my offer to vote for the bill—if it included a 90% reduction in the debt ceiling.

No earmarks. No handouts. Just real fiscal reform.

I wasn’t looking…

— Rand Paul (@RandPaul) July 1, 2025

Every member of the Democratic caucus, a total of 47 senators, also voted against the bill.

Who supported the bill in the Senate?

The remaining Republicans voted in favour, allowing the bill to pass 51–50, with the deciding vote cast by Vice President JD Vance.

Trump has set a July 4 deadline to pass the bill through Congress, but conceded on Tuesday that it would be “very hard to do” by that date, since the House now needs to vote on it. The House had passed an earlier version of the bill in May, but needs to look at it again due to the amendments brought by the Senate.

Notable Senator supporters include:

Senator Lisa Murkowski (representative of Alaska): Her backing was secured after Republicans agreed to Alaska-specific provisions, including delayed nutrition cuts and a new rural health fund, making her vote pivotal.

“I have an obligation to the people of the state of Alaska, and I live up to that every single day,” she told a reporter for NBC News.

Senators Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming: These fiscally conservative senators shifted from hesitation to support following amendments to the bill.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune led the push to pass the legislation.

How have lawmakers and the public reacted?

Most Republican lawmakers celebrated it as a historic achievement.

Trump also expressed delight.

“Wow, music to my ears,” Trump said after a reporter told him the news. “I was also wondering how we’re doing, because I know this is primetime, it shows that I care about you,” he added.

Thune said after the vote: “In the end, we got the job done, and we’re delighted to be able to be partners with President Trump and his agenda.”

Democrats opposed it, calling it a giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of healthcare, food aid and climate policy.

“Today’s vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come,” Democrat Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech after the vote.

“Republicans covered this chamber in shame,” he added.

Today’s vote will haunt Senate Republicans for years to come.

Americans will see the damage done as hospitals close, as people are laid off, as costs go up, and as the debt increases.

Democrats will make sure Americans remember the betrayal that took place today. pic.twitter.com/WmwnZa5n9k

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) July 1, 2025

The US Chamber of Commerce led a coalition of more than 145 organisations supporting the bill, emphasising it would “foster capital investment, job creation, and higher wages”.

They praised the permanent tax cuts and border security funding.

However, healthcare and hospital associations have warned that millions could lose coverage, driving up emergency and unpaid care costs. Environmental groups have also voiced strong opposition.

Public opinion on the bill is in decline, too.

“Initially, [Trump] had more than 50 percent of the support. Now, it is under 50 percent, and politicians know that,” Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said, reporting from Washington, DC.

“They are aware that this could lead to a cut in Medicaid. They are aware, even though Donald Trump had promised to protect it, that this could cut nutritional programmes, particularly for poorer families in the United States.

“And although they will get tax cuts, they have managed a lot of the time to be convinced by the Democratic argument that, yes, there are tax cuts, but billionaires will do much better out of this than the ordinary American people, and that is what’s changed the opinion polls,” he added.

What happens next?

The process begins with the House Rules Committee, which will meet to mark up the bill and decide how debate and consideration will proceed on the House floor.

After the bill passes through the Rules Committee, it will move to the House floor for debate and a vote on the rule, potentially as soon as Wednesday morning.

If the House of Representatives does not accept the Senate’s version of the bill, it could make changes and send it back to the Senate for another vote.

Alternatively, both chambers could appoint members to a conference committee to work out a compromise.

Once both the House and Senate agree on the final text, and it is passed in both chambers of Congress, the bill would go to Trump to be signed into law.

The United States Senate has passed a sweeping tax bill championed by President Donald Trump, sending the controversial legislation to the House of Representatives for what could be a final vote.

Lawmakers passed the bill by a 51-to-50 vote in the Republican controlled-chamber on Tuesday, after Vice President JD Vance broke the tie.

The successful vote ended what was a marathon 27 hours of debate in the upper chamber. Three Republicans joined with Democrats to vote against the bill, which would enshrine many of Trump’s signature policies, including his 2017 tax cuts, reductions for social safety net programmes, and increased spending on border enforcement and deportations.

Critics on both sides of the aisle have taken aim at the estimated $3.3 trillion the bill would add to the national debt.

Others have blasted reductions to programmes like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They argue that the bill takes support away from low-income families to finance tax cuts that will primarily help the wealthy.

Trump, however, has pressed for the bill to be passed by July 4, the country’s Independence Day. The legislation — informally known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — now heads back to the House of Representatives for a Wednesday vote on the updated version.

The president found out about the Senate’s passage in the midst of a news conference in south Florida, where he was touting his crackdown on immigration.

Despite tight odds in the House of Representatives, Trump struck an optimistic tone about the upcoming vote.

“ I think it’s going to go very nicely in the House,” Trump said. “Actually, I think it will be easier in the House than it was in the Senate.”

The president also downplayed one of the most controversial provisions in the bill: cuts to Medicaid, a government health insurance programme for low-income families. About 11.8 million people are anticipated to lose their health coverage in the coming years if the bill becomes law.

“I’m saying it’s going to be a very much smaller number than that, and that number will be all waste, fraud and abuse,” Trump said.

Criticisms in the Senate

Trump was not the only Republican to be celebrating the passage of the omnibus bill. In the Senate, leading Republican John Thune touted the bill as a victory for American workers.

“It’s been a long road to get to today,” Thune said from the Senate floor. “Now we’re here, permanently extending tax relief for hard-working Americans.”

But not all Republicans were as enthused about the bill. Three party members — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine — all voted against its passage. And even a critical vote in favour, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, appeared to express regret in the aftermath.

“Do I like this bill? No,” she told a reporter for NBC News. “I know, that in many parts of the country, there are Americans who are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don’t like that.”

She later took to social media to criticise the haste of its passage. “Let’s not kid ourselves. This has been an awful process – a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution.”

Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said that Republicans had “betrayed the American people and covered the Senate in utter shame”.

“In one fell swoop, Republicans passed the biggest tax break for billionaires ever seen, paid for by ripping away healthcare from millions of people,” said Schumer.

Still, Schumer announced one symbolic victory on Tuesday, writing on the social media platform X that Trump’s name for the legislation — “One Big Beautiful Bill” — had been struck from its official title.

Republicans currently hold a trifecta in US government, with control of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House, giving Democrats reduced power in legislating.

But the Republicans have narrow majorities in Congress, leading to uncertainty about the bill’s fate. In the Senate, they hold 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. In the House, where the bill heads now, they have a majority of 220 representatives to the Democrats’ 212.

‘Not fiscal responsibility’

The bill is therefore likely to face a razor-thin margin in the House. An early version that passed on May 22 did so with just one Republican vote to spare.

The House Freedom Caucus, a group of hardline conservatives, has continued to baulk at the bill’s high price tag and could push for deeper spending cuts in the coming days.

“The Senate’s version adds $651 billion to the deficit — and that’s before interest costs, which nearly double the total,” the caucus wrote in a statement on Monday.

“That’s not fiscal responsibility. It’s not what we agreed to.”

Billionaire Elon Musk, whose endorsement and funding helped propel Trump to victory in the 2024 presidential election, has also been a vocal opponent of the bill.

“What’s the point of a debt ceiling if we keep raising it?” Musk asked on social media on Tuesday. “All I’m asking is that we don’t bankrupt America.”

Musk has threatened to fund primary challenges against Republicans who support the bill and even floated on Monday launching a new political party in the US.

Trump, however, has brushed aside Musk’s criticism as a reaction to the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles: The billionaire owns one of the most prominent manufacturers, Tesla.

The president also threatened to use the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which Musk helped to found — to strip the billionaire’s companies of their subsidies.

“DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump said as he travelled to Florida.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera correspondent Alan Fisher said that public support has been slipping as a clearer picture of the bill has emerged.

“The longer this has been talked about and the more details that become public, the fewer Americans support him,” Fisher said.

Several recent polls have shown a majority of Americans oppose the bill. A survey last week from Quinnipiac University, for example, found just 29 percent of respondents were in favour of the legislation, while 55 percent were against it.

Increase to national debt

All told, the legislation in its current form would make permanent Trump’s 2017 cuts to business and personal income taxes, which are set to expire by the end of the year.

It would also give new tax breaks for income earned through tips and overtime, a policy promise Trump made during his 2024 campaign.

At the same time, the bill would provide tens of billions of dollars for Trump’s immigration crackdown, including funding to extend barriers and increase technology along the southern border. The bill would also pay for more immigration agents and build the government’s capacity to quickly detain and deport people.

Beyond cuts to electric vehicle tax breaks, the bill also guts several of former President Joe Biden’s incentives for wind and solar energy.

Faced with criticism about the knock-on effects for low-income families, Republicans have countered that the new restrictions to Medicaid and SNAP — formerly known as food stamps — would help put the programmes on a more sustainable path.

Many Republicans have also rejected the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment that the legislation would add $3.3 trillion to the country’s already $36.2 trillion debt.

Nonpartisan analysts, meanwhile, have said the increase in debt has the potential to slow economic growth, raise borrowing costs and crowd out other government spending in the years ahead.

WASHINGTON — Building the border wall. Increasing detention capacity. Hiring thousands of immigration agents.

The budget bill narrowly approved by the Senate on Tuesday includes massive funding infusions — roughly $150 billion — toward immigration and border enforcement. If passed, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” will cement Trump’s hard-line legacy on immigration.

The budget bill would make Immigration and Customs Enforcement the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the federal government, exceeding its current yearly $3.4-billion detention budget many times over. It also would impose fees on immigration services that were once free or less expensive and make it easier for local law enforcement to work with federal authorities on immigration.

The 940-page Senate bill will now head back to the House, which passed its version in May, also by one vote, 215-214. The two chambers must now reconcile the two versions of the bill.

Though the legislation is still evolving, the immigration provisions in the House and Senate versions are similar and not subject to the intense debates on other issues, such as Medicaid or taxes.

Many of the funds would be available for four years, though some have longer or shorter timelines. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that, if enacted, the bill would increase the deficit by nearly $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Here are key elements concerning immigration:

Border wall

• $46.5 billion toward fortifying the U.S.-Mexico border wall and interdicting migrant smugglers at sea.

This includes construction and installation of barrier sections, building access roads, and barrier-related technology, such as cameras, lights and sensors. The legislation doesn’t reference specific locations.

Trump, in his first term, repeatedly vowed that Mexico would pay for the wall. It didn’t.

Staffing

• $32 billion for immigration enforcement, including staffing of ICE and expanding so-called 287(g) agreements, in which state and local law enforcement agencies partner with federal authorities to deport immigrants.
• $7 billion for hiring Border Patrol agents, customs officers at ports of entry, air and marine agents and field support staff; retention bonuses; and vehicles.
• $3.3 billion to hire immigration judges and support staff, among other provisions.

Trump has said he wants to hire 10,000 ICE agents, as well as 3,000 Border Patrol agents.

Detention

• $45 billion to build and operate immigrant detention facilities and to transport those being deported.
• $5 billion for new Customs and Border Protection facilities and improvements to existing facilities and checkpoints. It’s unclear how this could affect California or the well-known Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 5 near San Onofre.

The bill allows for families pending a removal decision to be detained indefinitely. Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, called that a blatant violation of the so-called Flores settlement agreement, which has been in place since 1977 and limits the amount of time children can legally be detained to 20 days.

Local assistance

• $13.5 billion to reimburse states and local governments for immigration-related costs. These are divided into two pots of funding: $10 billion for the “state border security reinforcement fund” and the “Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide” or BIDEN fund. Both would fund the arrest of immigrants by local law enforcement who unlawfully entered the U.S. and committed any crime.

Altman said: “You can think of it like a gift for [Texas Gov. Greg] Abbott.”

Immigration fees

• A fee of at least $100 for those seeking asylum, down from a $1,000 fee outlined in the House bill. Applicants also would pay $100 every year the application remains pending. This is unprecedented — a fee has never before been imposed on migrants fleeing persecution.
• At least $550 ($275 on renewal) to apply for employment authorization for those with asylum applications, humanitarian parole and temporary protected status. Currently there is no fee for asylum seekers and a $470 fee for others.
• At least $500 for temporary protected status, up from $80 including biometrics.

The stated fees are minimums — the bill allows for annual increases and, for many, prohibits waivers based on financial need.

“The paradox of a fee for an employment authorization document is that you’re not allowed to work, but you need to pay for the fee,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst with the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Altman noted that imposing a yearly fee on asylum seekers for their pending applications punishes people for the U.S. government’s own backlogged system, which is out of the applicant’s control.

Other sections exclude lawfully present immigrants, such as refugees and those granted asylum, from benefits including Medicare, Medicaid and the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). Another provision excludes children from the Child Tax Credit if their parent lacks a Social Security number.

Praise and scorn

Altman, whose organization has closely tracked the immigration aspects of the funding bill, said people can look at the bill two ways: big picture — as a $150-billion infusion to supercharge what the Trump administration has already started — or surgically, as a series of policy changes that will not be easy to undo “and make an already corrupt system subject to even fewer safeguards and really go after people’s most basic needs.”

Bush-Joseph had a different view. She said the funding reinforces an outdated and inflexible immigration system without fundamentally changing it.

“That’s why there’s all this money going to the border even though there aren’t a lot of people coming now,” she said.

Money alone won’t change things overnight, said Bush-Joseph. It takes time to hire people and to open detention facilities. Immigration judges will still have a massive backlog of cases. And getting foreign countries to agree to accept more deportees is tricky.

“Arresting and detaining people with private contractors doesn’t get you to an agreement from El Salvador to take five more planes per week,” she said.

During a White House event June 26, Trump urged Congress to pass the bill quickly, saying it “will be the single most important piece of border legislation to ever come across the floor of Congress.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of three senators who voted against the bill Tuesday, had called it “reckless spending,” writing on X: “I’m all for hiring new people to help secure our borders, but we don’t need it to the extent that’s in this bill, especially when our border is largely contained.”

Across the political aisle, Democrats including California Sen. Alex Padilla have slammed the bill, saying the immigration-related funding increases amount to a substantial policy change.

“You would think that maybe just for a moment, Republicans would take this reconciliation process as an opportunity to do what they said before they wanted to do and modernize our nation’s immigration system,” Padilla said last month. “But they’re not.”

Billionaire Elon Musk said on Monday that he would form a new political party in the United States if a Republican-leaning Congress passes President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which proposes tax breaks and funding cuts for healthcare and food programmes.

Musk has voiced criticism of the bill on multiple occasions over the past month and began suggesting the idea of the new party on social media starting early June.

Here is more about Musk’s reservations about the bill, and about his new proposed party.

What has Musk said about the America Party?

Musk has been saying that if the bill is passed, Republicans are no different from Democrats, who are often accused by conservatives of being profligate with spending taxpayers’ dollars.

The version of the bill that the Senate is discussing at the moment, if passed by both chambers of Congress, would expand the national debt by $3.3 trillion between 2025 and 2034. The current US national debt stands at more than $36 trillion.

“If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day,” Musk posted on his social media platform, X, on Monday.

“Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.”

In an earlier post, Musk wrote: “It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country – the PORKY PIG PARTY!!”

The debt ceiling, set by the US Congress, determines the upper limit to the amount of money that the US Treasury can borrow. The current debt limit is $36.1 trillion.

Why does Musk oppose the bill?

Once a key aide and major campaign donor for Trump, Musk had a public online falling out with the president in June over his criticism of the bill.

On June 3, Musk wrote on X: “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.”

Musk alleged that Trump was linked to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein in a now-deleted post on X. However, Trump and Musk seemed to have reached a detente when Trump told reporters that he wished Musk well while the latter wrote on X on June 11 that he had gone “too far” in his criticism of the US president.

However, since then, Musk has argued in a series of online posts that the bill would increase the debt ceiling, “bankrupt America”, and “destroy millions of jobs in America”.

Musk owns the electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer Tesla. The current version of the bill, with amendments made by the Senate, seeks to end the tax credit for purchases of EVs worth up to $7,500, starting on September 30. This could reduce the consumer demand for EVs in the US.

What is the America Party that Musk proposed?

On June 5, Musk posted a poll on his X account, asking his followers: “Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80 percent in the middle?”

While social media polls are known to be nonrepresentative of broader public sentiment, 5.6 million people voted on the poll, and 80.4 percent responded with “yes”. Since then, Musk has repeatedly reposted the poll result, citing it as evidence that most Americans want a new party to be formed.

“Musk believes that 80 percent of Americans are unhappy with the two major parties and are not being represented,” Natasha Lindstaedt, a professor at the Department of Government, the University of Essex, told Al Jazeera.

While that number might not reflect the wider American public, it does point to a trend in the electorate; according to a Gallup poll from 2024, 43 percent of Americans identified as independent, 28 percent identified as Republican and 28 percent identified as Democrat. In other words, more Americans identify as independent than as either Democrat or Republican.

One of Musk’s followers replied to a post on X with an image with the text “America Party”. The world’s richest man responded: “‘America Party’ has a nice ring to it. The party that actually represents America!”

How real is Musk’s threat?

Experts say Musk, whose net worth is $363bn as of Monday according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, would realistically be able to fund a third party in the US. However, it is still unclear whether he would go ahead with his plan or whether his party would have a significant effect on US elections.

“Musk certainly has the financial power to back a third party that could be very disruptive to the Republican Party, but it’s not certain if Musk will take on this risk,” Lindstaedt said.

Lindstaedt recalled how earlier this month, Musk backed down from his criticism of Trump on X. “If we take him at his word, he could spend hundreds of millions on this project,” she added.

“Musk has been ramping up his criticism of the bill lately, and he may find specific legislators [particularly from the House] would be willing to defect if their constituencies are more negatively affected by Trump’s policies,” Lindstaedt said, referring to the House of Representatives. “He will also have the attention of fiscal hawks in particular.”

Lindstaedt added that among American voters, there is a “huge appetite” for a third party.

“The bill will leave the US spending hundreds of billions just in the interest, and the more Americans understand this, the more they may want to flock to something different. US public frustration with the traditional parties is at an all-time high, and Musk may be able to capitalise on this.”

However, Thomas Gift, an associate professor of political science in the UCL School of Public Policy in London, said it was unclear whether Musk is serious and suggested that the barriers to breaking the Republican-Democrat duopoly are hard to scale for anyone.

“This is Elon Musk bluffing,” he told Al Jazeera. “He knows as well as anyone that the power of party machines behind Democrats and Republicans is too much to surmount.”

Gift added that while forming a party is possible, “winning seats in Congress or the White House is another matter entirely”.

“At best, a third party will have little impact on US elections; at worst, it will play ‘spoiler’, taking votes from one of the two parties and de facto giving it to another.”

What has Trump said about Musk?

On Monday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, saying: “Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one.”

Trump added: “Without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE.”

“Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!” Trump wrote, referring to the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory body aimed at boosting government efficiency and upgrading Information Technology, that Musk formed and led at the start of Trump’s second administration, before leaving on May 30.

The United States Senate is debating President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill“, which promises sweeping tax breaks, as Republicans hope to pass it before Friday’s Independence Day holiday.

On Saturday, the Senate voted 51-49 to open debate on the latest 940-page version of the bill,  despite two Republican senators joining the Democrats to oppose the motion. Trump’s Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, and Democrats hold 47.

What’s next if the Senate passes the bill?

On May 22, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed an earlier version of the bill in a 215-214 vote.

That bill has been revised by the Senate, and both chambers of Congress must pass the same legislation for it to become law. If the Senate passes its version, then members from both chambers would work to draft compromise legislation that the House and Senate would have to vote on again. Republicans hold 220 seats and Democrats hold 212 in the House.

If the compromise bill is passed, it would advance to Trump, who is expected to sign it into law.

So, who would be some of the winners and losers if the bill – opposed by Democrats and some conservatives – becomes law?

Who would benefit from the bill?

The groups who would benefit include:

High-income households

The bill would extend tax cuts that Trump introduced during his first term. While Trump has pitched this as a gain for the American people, some will benefit more than others.

More than a third of the total cuts would go to households with an annual income of $460,000 or more. About 57 percent of the tax cuts would go to households with a yearly income of $217,000 or more.

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Senate bill would slash taxes on average by about $2,600 per household in 2026. “High-income households would receive much more generous tax benefits”, its analysis said.

Families with children

If the bill does not pass, the child tax credit, currently at $2,000 per child per year, would drop to $1,000 in 2026.

However, if the current version of the Senate bill passes, the child tax credit will permanently increase to $2,200. This is a smaller increase than the $2,500 in the version of the bill that the House approved.

Traditional car manufacturers

Makers of traditional petrol-driven cars could benefit from the bill because the Senate version seeks to end the tax credit for purchases of electric vehicles (EVs), worth up to $7,500, starting on September 30.

This could decrease consumer demand for EVs, levelling the playing field for cars that run on petrol or diesel.

Workers who receive tips

Tips will not be taxed if the bill passes.

Currently, workers – whether waiters or other service providers – are required to report all tips in excess of $20 a month to their employers, and those additional earnings are taxed.

This bill would end that.

Who would lose out because of the bill?

Some of the groups that would not benefit include:

Food stamp recipients

The Senate version of the bill proposes slashing the food stamps programme, called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), by $68.6bn over a decade, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Food stamps help low-income families buy food. In the 2023 fiscal year, 42.1 million people per month benefited from the programme, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Medicaid beneficiaries

The Senate version of the bill proposes federal funding cuts by $930bn to Medicaid, the largest US programme providing healthcare to low-income people. These are cuts to budget outlays by 2034.

The bill says that starting in 2026, able-bodied adults under the age of 65 will be required to work 80 hours a month to continue to receive Medicaid, with the exception of those who have dependent children.

More than 71 million low-income Americans were enrolled in Medicaid for health insurance as of March.

EV manufacturers

The EV tax credit would end on September 30 if the Senate version of the bill passes. The House version aims to phase out the tax credit by the end of 2025.

Billionaire Elon Musk, who owns the EV manufacturer Tesla, has voiced his opposition to the bill online. “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote on X on June 3.

He doubled down on his criticism before the Senate deliberations on the bill on Saturday.

“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” Musk wrote on X, a platform he owns.

The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!

Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future. https://t.co/TZ9w1g7zHF

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025

Fiscal conservatives

Some conservatives have criticised the bill, saying it would inflate the country’s enormous debt.

The CBO estimated that the Senate version would raise the national debt by $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034. Under the House version, the CBO estimated a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt over a decade.

The current US national debt stands above $36 trillion and represents 122 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

The US Senate has begun a marathon vote on a sprawling budget that is critical to President Donald Trump’s agenda, but the spending plan is hanging in the balance after weeks of fraught negotiations.

Republicans – who control both chambers of Congress – are divided over how much to cut welfare programmes in order to extend tax breaks in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The president’s party is sprinting to pass the legislation by this week’s self-imposed deadline of the Fourth of July public holiday.

If the measure does clear the Senate, it will have to go back for another vote to the House of Representatives, which passed its own version of the bill last month by a single vote.

Senators zipped through the halls of the Capitol on Monday, making their way to the chamber floor for various amendment votes, then back to their private meeting rooms where they hashed out grievances outside the view of reporters.

Senators are currently arguing for or against adding amendments to the nearly 1,000-page bill in a process called “vote-a-rama”, which could entail up to 20 hours of debate.

“We’re still obviously perfecting a few things,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Monday.

An amendment to the proposal for Medicaid cuts recently proposed by Florida Senator Rick Scott could cause roughly 20 million Americans to lose their health insurance coverage, according to one estimate.

When asked about the report, Thune said there are “lots of analyses out there”.

“The thing that [Scott’s] bill doesn’t do is it doesn’t take effect until 2031. So I’m not sure how you can make the argument that it’s going to kick any people off of health insurance tomorrow,” Thune said.

Democrats, who have repeatedly denounced the bill, particularly for cutting health insurance coverage for millions of poorer Americans, are expected to use all 10 of their allotted hours of debate, while Republicans probably won’t.

Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and longstanding critic of Trump, called the bill “terrible”.

He told the BBC he was unsure if Senate Republicans would meet Trump’s deadline of passage by this Friday, when America celebrates Independence Day, adding that, even if they did, “who knows what happens in the House”.

Speaking at the White House on Monday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump is “confident” the bill would be passed and still expects it on his desk by his self-imposed deadline.

Senator John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, appeared frustrated on Monday afternoon, after no signs of a final draft of the bill emerged.

“Oh my God, I just want to go home,” he said, adding that the extended negotiations and voting rounds have caused him to miss his “entire trip to the beach”.

“I don’t think it’s really helpful to put people here till some ungodly hour,” he said.

On Sunday, Democrats used a political manoeuvre to stall the bill’s progress, calling on Senate clerks to read all 940 pages of the bill aloud, a process that took 16 hours.

The move followed weeks of public discussion and the Senate narrowly moving on the budget bill in a 51-49 vote over the weekend.

Two Republicans sided with Democrats in voting against opening debate, arguing for further changes to the legislation.

One of those Republicans, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, announced his retirement following that vote and said the legislation broke promises that Trump and Republicans made to voters.

“Too many elected officials are motivated by pure raw politics who really don’t give a damn about the people they promised to represent on the campaign trail,” Tillis wrote in his announcement.

The White House reacted angrily to Tillis’ comments on Monday, with Leavitt telling reporters the senator is “just wrong” and that “the President and the vast majority of Republicans who are supportive of this legislation are right”.

The other Republican who voted against moving the bill was Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He objected to the debt increase, and cuts to Medicaid, a healthcare programme that is relied on by millions of elderly, disabled and low-income Americans.

On Monday, Senator Dan Sullivan, an Alaska Republican, sought to quell concerns about cuts to Medicaid, saying “we’re going to be fine in this”.

When the bill comes up for a full Senate vote – expected either late on Monday night or early Tuesday morning – Republicans can only afford three defections in order for the bill to pass.

If they lose three votes, Vice-President JD Vance will have to cast a tie-breaking vote.

The bill would then return to the House of Representatives, where leadership has advised a full vote on the Senate’s bill could come as early as Wednesday morning.

While Republicans control the House, they can also only lose a handful of votes. There are frustrations with the Senate version of the bill among some Republicans in the House, which could make for another close vote.

The fiscal hawks of the Republican-led House Freedom Caucus have threatened to torpedo the Senate version over budget disagreements.

The Senate proposal adds over $650bn to the national deficit, the group said in a post on social media on Monday.

“That’s not fiscal responsibility,” they said. “It’s not what we agreed to.”

Democrats in both chambers have largely objected to the spending cuts and the proposed extension of tax breaks.

Meanwhile, Republican debate has focused on how much to cut welfare programmes in order to extend $3.8tn (£2.8tn) in Trump tax breaks.

The proposed cuts could strip nearly 12 million Americans of their health insurance coverage and add $3.3tn (£2.4tn) in debt, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency.

The version of the bill senators will soon vote on contains tax cuts that Trump campaigned on, such as a tax deduction on Social Security benefits, and the elimination of taxes on overtime work and tips.

The bill also authorises $5tn in new borrowing that will add to a swelling US debt load – a move that goes against what many conservatives have argued for and infuriated one-time Trump confidant Elon Musk.

Musk fired off social media posts on Monday, vowing to fund challengers to any conservative who votes for the bill and to set up an alternative political party.

“If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day,” he wrote on X.

“Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.”

The national debt currently sits at $36 trillion, according to the treasury department.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has urged Congress to address the debt limit by mid-July and warned if they do not, the US could be unable to pay its bills as early as August.

(With additional reporting from Bernd Debusmann Jr at the White House)

A proposal to tax remittances sent by individuals without Social Security numbers has passed the House and is now before the Senate. At 3.5%, the levy was initially expected to raise $26 billion over the next decade.

Changes made by the Senate on Saturday greatly narrowed the scope, so the tax would be 1%, and the yield only $10 billion over the next decade. However, the goals have remained the same: deter undocumented migration and recoup funds from those working outside legal status who send money to their families back home.

It might seem like easy money to tax migrants, but that doesn’t make it smart policy. The proposed tax risks undermining both financial transparency and national security. The policy would push billions of dollars into unregulated channels such as cryptocurrency exchanges, make law enforcement’s job harder and ultimately hurt the very communities the United States seeks to stabilize abroad for geopolitical reasons.

The U.S. is the world’s largest source of remittances, and Mexico has the highest dependency on them; 97% of the money Mexican expats send back home comes from the States ($64.75 billion in 2024). A 1% tax on remittances to Mexico alone could take much-needed funds away from migrants and their families and divert it to the state. While this might sound like a straightforward revenue win, the real-world impacts are more complicated and the slippery slope of allowing for remittance tax can have unintended negative consequences for everyone.

First, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has already condemned the measure and said the government will “mobilize” against it. Other countries across Latin America and Southeast Asia, where remittances account for as much as 25% of GDP, are sounding alarms. The U.S. has long relied on economic diplomacy to build goodwill, and taxing remittances could erode that, making it harder to partner on border security, anti-trafficking efforts and the war on drugs.

Next, taxing formal transfers doesn’t stop people from sending money home, it just changes how they send it. And often, the next-best option is far worse. In states like Oklahoma, even modest fees led to a surge in informal money transfers. Similarly, the proposed federal tax, which some lawmakers have said should be up to 15%, is going to push migrants to remit through alternative systems including Chinese- or Russian-owned fintech companies, crypto platforms and cash-based means that operate outside the formal financial system. These underground methods are notoriously difficult to monitor and are exploited for money laundering, organized crime and terrorism financing. While most migrants are simply trying to support their families, moving funds through black market systems exposes them to the risk of being unknowingly entangled in illicit activity.

Federal agencies and academic experts have long cautioned that informal remittance systems complicate efforts to track illicit financial flows. When remittances are pushed out of the formal system, it becomes significantly harder to enforce safeguards designed to prevent money from being diverted to criminal or extremist actors. A federal remittance tax risks accelerating this shift underground, weakening oversight and inadvertently expanding a shadow market where the lines between legitimate and illegitimate transfers are increasingly blurred.

Meanwhile, enforcing such a policy brings its own set of problems. To begin, it outsources immigration enforcement to banks and wire services. A clerk at Western Union could soon be legislated to ask whether a sender has a Social Security number, flag suspicious transfers and carry out new compliance systems. These are all new responsibilities that might lead to an increase of transfer fees, which in the U.S. are already around 6%, increasing the burden on senders. Thus, the tax is a costly and complex undertaking — one that will affect legal residents and U.S. citizens, who even though not subject to the federal tax would still be paying the higher fees to subsidize companies’ compliance.

None of this excuses illegal migration. The U.S. has a right and responsibility to enforce its laws and protect its borders. But not every enforcement tool is effective, and they all deserve scrutiny.

Take the hypothetical example of a grandmother living in Arroyo Seco, Mexico, where one in four households receives U.S. remittances and remittance flows supersede the annual municipal budget. Her son, an undocumented migrant in the U.S., sends $400 a month to help with rent, medication and her grandchildren’s basic needs. An almost 10% levy (combining the proposed tax and transfer fees) would claw back $40 monthly, enough to force her to skip medication for herself or meals for the children. Multiply this story by millions, and you begin to see that this kind of economic destabilization doesn’t just erode household resilience but also weakens entire communities, fuels migration pressures and creates openings for criminal networks and authoritarian states to exploit financial desperation.

Taxing remittances won’t reduce undocumented migration but could fuel more. And it will drive flows underground, forcing families to rely on riskier and less accountable financial channels — such as unlicensed money transmitters operating through apps like WeChat Pay, which lack consumer protections and operate under opaque governance frameworks tied to foreign state interests. It will also burden and disincentivize the very institutions that make lawful transactions possible.

While the remittance tax might score political points, the long-term risk as well as geopolitical and institutional damages might not be worth the $10 billion.

Yvonne Su is the director of the Centre for Refugee Studies and an assistant professor of equity studies at York University in Toronto.

Republicans in the US are trying to get President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ tax and spending bill passed by the Senate despite opposition from Democrats, who say it will be the most expensive bill in history while giving benefits to the wealthy.

The United States Senate has begun debating President Donald Trump’s 940-page “Big, Beautiful Bill” of tax breaks and sweeping cuts to healthcare and food programmes.

The all-night session on Sunday came as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the bill would add an estimated $3.3 trillion to the US debt over a decade.

It also said that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law.

Republican leaders, who reject the CBO’s estimates, are rushing to meet Trump’s deadline of July 4, the country’s Independence Day.

But they barely secured enough support to muscle the bill past a procedural vote on Saturday night. A handful of Republican holdouts revolted, and it took phone calls from Trump and a visit from Vice President JD Vance to keep the legislation on track.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who voted against the bill on Saturday, announced he would not seek re-election after Trump threatened to back a primary challenger in retribution for his “no” vote.

Tillis said he could not vote for the bill with its steep cuts to Medicaid, which provides health cover for low-income people.

Trump welcomed Tillis’s decision not to run again, saying in a post on TruthSocial: “Great News! ‘Senator’ Thom Tillis will not be seeking reelection.”

Other Senate Republicans, along with conservatives in the House of Representatives, are pushing for steeper cuts, particularly to healthcare, drawing their own unexpected warning from Trump.

The US president addressed “all cost cutting Republicans,” and said: “REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected. Don’t go too crazy! We will make it all up, times 10, with GROWTH, more than ever before.”

‘Most dangerous piece of legislation’

All told, the Senate bill includes some $4 trillion in tax cuts, making permanent Trump’s 2017 rates, which would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, while adding the new ones he campaigned on, including no taxes on tips.

The Senate package would roll back billions in green energy tax credits that Democrats warn will wipe out wind and solar investments nationwide, and impose $1.2 trillion in cuts, largely to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing work requirements and making sign-up eligibility more stringent.

Additionally, the bill would provide a $350bn infusion for border and national security, including for deportations, some of it paid for with new fees charged to immigrants.

Democratic Senators, who are all opposed to the bill, continued efforts to delay its passage, after earlier requesting the entirety of the draft legislation be read on the Senate floor – a process that took some 16 hours.

Minority Senate leader Chuck Schumer said Republicans were trying to rush through the extensive bill before Americans knew what was in it, and said Democrats would continue to “shine a light” on the bill in the coming days.

“Some Republicans are trying to rush through a bill that they released less than two days ago under the cloak of darkness, written behind closed doors,” he said.

The latest version of the bill, Schumer added, includes changes such as “even worse” cuts to clean energy, which would see Americans pay 10 percent more on electricity bills and “kill 900,000 good paying jobs in clean energy”.

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders called it “the most dangerous piece of legislation in the modern history of our country”.

“We don’t have enough money to feed hungry children. We don’t have enough money to make sure that people continue to have the health care that they need,” he said. “But somehow, the military industrial complex is going to get another $150bn, 15 percent increase.”

He added that Tillis’s decision not to seek re-election shows the hold that Trump’s cult of personality has over the Republican Party.

Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” is a gift to the billionaire class while causing massive pain for working families. It is the most dangerous piece of legislation in the modern history of our country.

I’m LIVE on the floor to oppose this disastrous bill. https://t.co/flAfpXmEzM

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 29, 2025

Lengthy process ahead

The legislation has been the sole focus of this weekend’s marathon congressional session. After the debate concludes, the Senate will enter an amendment session, known as a “vote-a-rama,” before voting on passage.

Lawmakers said they hoped to complete work on the bill on Monday.

If the Senate can pass the bill, it would need to return to the House.

Speaker Mike Johnson has told legislators there to be on call for a return to Washington, DC, this week.

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, DC, said the bill faces a “lengthy process” with “a lot of discussion, debate lying ahead”.

“Trump and his followers insist that it’s going to meet a lot of the promises he made during his campaign,” he said.

“Democrats point out that the massive tax relief is aimed at very wealthy individuals as well as corporations. They also argue very strongly that all of these tax cuts for the wealthy are being funded largely by massive cuts to social welfare programmes like Medicare, like food stamps,” he said.

“The other way it’s going to impact Americans is where the money is going as well. It’s a massive increase in funding for the military. It’s a massive increase in funding for those forces fighting against immigration.”

According to the American Immigration Council, the bill includes as much as “$45 billion for building new immigration detention centres, including family detention facilities”. This comes as the “Alligator Alcatraz” detention centre in the Florida Everglades is expected to open on Tuesday this week, as the Trump administration continues to call for 3,000 daily immigration arrests.

Despite the opposition, Republicans appear undeterred.

“We are going to make sure hardworking people can keep more of their money,” Senator Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican, told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who heads the Budget Committee, promised to do everything he can to get the bill to Trump’s desk.

“We’re going to pass the ‘Big, beautiful bill,” he said.

ITV have reportedly made a huge move to sign up two actors with great ‘charisma’ to present a brand new gameshow to be aired on Saturday nights

TV fans are set for a real treat with ITV’s latest gameshow signings, according to reports. It’s suggested the channel is to welcome an “amazing duo on-screen” to front a new gameshow.

Claims suggest the top secret new Saturday evening show is set to air next year. And at the helm is said to be Rivals duo Danny Dyer and Emily Atack.

The former EastEnders man, 47, and star of The Inbetweeners, 35, will reportedly start filming to project later this year. It comes after their successful performance on Disney+’s Rivals.

The series, based on Jilly Cooper’s bonkbuster books, was well received by fans and saw the duo roundly praised for their roles. Now, a source has claimed it’s this accoladed that had the ITV bosses clamouring to sign the duo.

Speaking to the Sun, a source said: “Bosses have been impressed with Danny and Emily’s charisma on Rivals and thought they’d make an amazing duo on-screen to freshen up their entertainment talent.

“They’re an unlikely pair but have appeared on a few panel shows together and have plenty of fun energy that is perfect for the tone that ITV want to set. Producers are keen to trial new presenting partnerships to get people talking, and both Emily and Danny have huge appeal.”

And they added: “ITV is constantly trying to create the next big show and duo. It’s about getting the chemistry just right.”

It continues Danny’s huge life turnaround. The actor has been open about his previous struggles in recent years. He revealed the moment of clarity to make a change to his life after he was “slowly killing himself” as he was “off his head” after the National TV Awards.

Looking back at his plight with interviewer Louis Theroux, Danny said previously he knew he was “destroying himself” and his career. And he admitted that at the time he was on EastEnders playing Mick Carter, but he would head into rehab in Cape Town in 2016.

He said: “I had a moment of clarity where I had been on it all night after the NTAs. I think I’d won and that’s always on like a Tuesday or something and I had to go to work. There’s another thing with EastEnders, is that they go, yeah, come celebrate NTAs, but you are up at seven in the morning. So anyway, I’d just overdone it again and I just could not work out how to get my jeans on.

“I was just sitting on my ensuite toilet trying to work out what leg goes in what, and I don’t why. I’ve sort of had many of them moments over the years of me being completely off my head.

” But that one really resonated with me. It was more because I looked up, my wife was just watching me and she looked shattered and she looked ill.”

As he continued to open up about the moment, he then revealed he made the decision to go to rehab in Cape Town after this awards show after-party at his house.

Dad-of-three Danny also previously told the BBC receiving a letter from his daughter Dani while at a rehab facility in 2016 was what convinced him to continue his treatment.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

The Republican-controlled Senate of the United States has voted to take President Donald Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” into the next phase of discussion, making it more likely to pass in the coming days.

The measure, which is Trump’s top legislative goal, passed its first procedural hurdle in a 51 to 49 vote on Saturday, with two Republican senators joining all Democrats in voting against it.

The result came after several hours of negotiation as Republican leaders and Vice President JD Vance sought to persuade last-minute holdouts in a series of closed-door negotiations.

Trump has pushed his party to get the bill passed and on his desk for him to sign into law by July 4, the US’s Independence Day.

He was monitoring the vote from the Oval Office late into the night, according to a senior White House official.

One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, DC, said the 940-page “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” was released shortly before midnight on Friday, and senators are still attempting to understand exactly what it means.

“One of the clear things in the bill is that it provides a $150bn boost to military spending. It also adds funding for mass deportations and building that border wall. Now, in order to get this money, what has happened is that there are cuts to Medicare, as well as to the Clean Energy funding programme,” he said.

“The other issue is that there are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats in the Senate. Now all the Democrats are opposed to the bill. That means every single Republican vote will count,” Hanna added.

The procedural vote on Saturday, which would start a debate on the megabill, began after hours of delay.

It then remained open for more than three hours of standstill as three Republican senators – Thom Tillis, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul – joined Democrats to oppose the legislation.

Three others – Senators Rick Scott, Mike Lee and Cynthia Lummis – negotiated with Republican leaders into the night in hopes of securing bigger spending cuts.

In the end, Wisconsin Senator Johnson flipped his no vote to yes, leaving only Paul and Tillis opposed among Republicans.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans unveiled the bill “in the dead of night” and are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what is in it.

He immediately forced a full reading of the text in the Senate, which would take an estimated 15 hours.

“Future generations will be saddled with trillions in debt. Debt is abstract, but what does it mean for the average American? Raising your costs, raising your costs to buy a home, raising your costs to buy a car, raising your costs on credit card bills. And why are they doing all this?” he asked.

“Why are they doing the biggest Medicaid cuts in history? Now it’s getting close to a trillion dollars, just in Medicaid alone, all to cut taxes for the ultra-rich and special interests.”

Elon Musk renews criticism

If passed in the Senate, the bill would go back to the House of Representatives for approval, where Republicans can only afford to lose a handful of votes – and are facing stiff opposition from within their own ranks.

Republicans are split on the Medicaid cuts, which will threaten scores of rural hospitals and lead to an estimated 8.6 million Americans being deprived of healthcare.

The spending plan would also roll back many of the tax incentives for renewable energy that were put in place under Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden.

Nonpartisan analysts estimate that a version of Trump’s tax cut and spending bill would add trillions to the $36.2 trillion US government debt. They also say that the bill would pave the way for a historic redistribution of wealth from the poorest 10 percent of Americans to the richest.

The bill is unpopular across multiple demographic, age and income groups, according to extensive recent polling.

On Saturday, billionaire Elon Musk, with whom Trump had a public falling out this month over his criticism of the bill, again doubled down on his criticism of the draft legislation.

The Tesla and Space X CEO called the package “utterly insane and destructive”.

“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” he wrote on X. “It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”

He later posted that the bill would be “political suicide for the Republican Party.”

Senate Republicans narrowly advanced a budget bill that is pivotal to President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda ahead of a self-imposed 4 July deadline.

In a 51-49 vote largely along party lines, the Senate has moved to open debate on the bill, a key initial hurdle that Republicans scrambled to overcome. Two Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the move to take up the bill.

Party leadership had been twisting arms for the initial vote on the “Big Beautiful Bill” on Saturday, following the release of its latest version – all 940 pages – shortly after midnight.

Republicans were divided over how much to cut welfare programmes in order to extend $3.8tn (£2.8tn) in Trump tax breaks.

The bill’s fate on the Senate floor remains uncertain, as Republicans in the chamber continue to quarrel over the bill’s provisions. Vice-President JD Vance travelled to the Capitol on Saturday night to offer a tiebreak vote, though party leaders were ultimately able to negotiate majority support without his help.

Meanwhile, Democrats say they will drag out the process in protest at the bill, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying his party will force Republicans to read out the nearly 1,000 pages of text before the Senate can begin debate and potentially take up a final vote.

Separately, some Republicans in the House of Representatives have expressed concerns over the changes in the Senate version of the bill. The sprawling tax and spending measure passed the House of Representatives by a single vote last month.

The Senate’s version of the bill included a series of changes meant to address points of disagreement among Republicans. Still, party leaders struggled to secure enough votes.

In a memo sent to Senate offices, the White House endorsed the latest revisions to the bill and called for its passage.

The memo reportedly warned that failure to approve the budget “would be the ultimate betrayal”.

Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined Democrats in rejecting the bill.

As the Senate vote concluded, President Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media platform, that Tillis was making a “BIG MISTAKE”. He wrote that he would be meeting with candidates who “come forward wanting to run in the Primary against “Senator Thom” Tillis”.

However, the bill did win over some Republicans who had expressed scepticism, including centrist Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin intially voted against it, but changed his vote at the end of the voting session.

The latest version was designed to appease some backbench Republican holdouts.

Other amendments incorporate input from the Senate parliamentarian, an official who reviews bills to ensure they comply with the chamber’s procedures.

It includes an increase in funding for rural hospitals, after some party moderates argued the original proposal would harm their constituents.

There are also changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which provides food benefits to low-income Americans.

Under the latest bill, Alaska and Hawaii would be temporarily exempt from a proposed requirement for some states to start footing the bill for the programme, which is currently fully funded by the federal government.

The revision comes after Alaska’s two Republican senators pushed for an exemption.

The legislation still contains some of its core components, including extending tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017, as well as the addition of new cuts that Trump campaigned on, such as a tax deduction on Social Security benefits and the elimination of taxes on overtime work and tips.

More contentious measures are also still in place, including restrictions and requirements on Medicaid – a healthcare programme used by millions of elderly, disabled and low-income Americans.

Democrats have heavily criticised this piece of the bill, saying it will limit access to affordable healthcare for millions of Americans.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million people would become uninsured due to such Medicaid cuts.

Senator Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, took to social media on Saturday to argue the bill contains “the largest healthcare cuts in history”.

Another critic of the bill is Elon Musk, who wrote on X on Saturday that the latest iteration of the bill “will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harms to our country”.

Musk took issue with taxes the bill proposes on solar and wind energy projects.

The bill now needs a simple majority to clear the Senate. With Republicans holding 53 seats out of 100, plus a tiebreaker from Vice-President JD Vance, the party can only afford three defections.

WASHINGTON — Just over a quarter of Republicans accept President Biden as the winner of the 2020 election, according to a new survey that underscores the instability of American democracy and the growing partisan divide over the legitimacy of elections.

“There was a hope there would see growing acceptance of Biden’s victory over time, as people moved away from the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement after Jan. 6. Instead, we saw the numbers stay in place,” said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist and one of the founders of Bright Line Watch, an organization that monitors the health of U.S. democracy.

Sinking confidence in election outcomes appears to have been fueled by former President Trump’s “Big Lie” — his continued claims of voter fraud in key states, even though such allegations were repeatedly discredited in numerous lawsuits and audits. The fallout of such lies was especially evident on Jan. 6, when thousands of Trump supporters violently stormed the U.S. Capitol in a brazen attempt to halt lawmakers’ certification of Biden’s victory.

Since then, many Republican officeholders and some of the biggest voices in conservative media have clung to the notion that the election was stolen from Trump.

Bright Line Watch’s November survey, released Thursday morning, shows that only 27% of Republicans accept Biden as the rightful winner — the exact same figure as in the group’s February poll — compared with 94% of Democrats who do.

The survey also shows that the 2020 election and its aftermath have hardened partisan attitudes about future elections, leaving Republicans less confident that their votes will be counted accurately in 2022.

Even amid Trump’s constant rhetoric during the 2020 campaign about a potentially rigged outcome, Democrats and Republicans had roughly equal confidence in October 2020 that the coming election would be decided fairly, with 59% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans believing that would be the case.

But the new survey reveals that a partisan gap has opened up in response to that question. Now, 80% of Democrats believe next year’s midterm election will be fair, with just 42% of Republicans saying the same.

“That’s a really scary fact for our democracy right now, that so many Republican voters don’t have confidence in the election,” said Susan Stokes, another founder of Bright Line Watch and a political scientist at the University of Chicago.

As Trump and so many Republicans have sowed mistrust in last year’s election results, they have used their misinformation campaign to justify new laws in several GOP-controlled states to restrict ballot access and, in some cases, allow partisan lawmakers to overrule election officials in determining outcomes.

That could lead to a scenario in which Democratic voters, even those who understand their party is facing stiff political headwinds next year, lose confidence in the legitimacy of the 2022 electoral results.

“This is an asymmetric moment. Republicans are leading the assault on our democracy,” Nyhan said. “At same time, you can imagine a world where an election is decided because of genuinely dubious election administration practices, and Democrats would become quite distrustful of such an election in the aftermath, and rightfully so.

“You can see a situation where neither side trusts the election results,” he continued. “The potential for a spiral of illegitimacy is real, and that’s not sustainable for our democracy in the long term.”

At the federal level, Democrats have been unable to agree on a legislative response that would protect voting rights, largely because they have the most slender of Senate majorities. Two centrists in the caucus, Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), oppose changing Senate rules to enable Democrats to pass a voting rights law with just 50 votes. And they continue to call for a bipartisan agreement even though few Republicans have been willing to compromise in what has become a zero-sum policy battleground.

The November survey, which questioned 2,750 individuals, also found that partisans tend to overestimate the antidemocratic leanings of the other side, like a reflection of the increasingly partisan nature of cable news and the proliferation of incendiary politically oriented posts and memes across social media platforms.

Compared to past Bright Line Watch surveys, fewer respondents expressed support for political violence. Only 9% condoned making threats, 8% were OK with verbal harassment, and just 4% said they accepted the kind of mob violence that occurred on Jan. 6.

But researchers worry those numbers may not reflect how many partisans might be led to take or support extreme actions that they claim to oppose, with the justification that they need to overcome alleged extremism by the opposing side.

“It’s still millions of Americans condoning violence, and that makes for a very explosive environment and is quite dangerous,” Stokes said. “What people are saying to themselves is: ‘Whatever my side is doing, it’s worth it, because the other side is so terrible.’

“It’s not at all hard to imagine a lot of people in the public going along with a real stealing of the election next time because they have come to believe the other side stole it — or even if they don’t, it’s so important to keep the other side out, it doesn’t matter how you do it.”

A political earthquake, say the headlines. A stunning victory. A wake-up call for the Democratic Party in the United States.

Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City’s mayoral primary has sent the news media into overdrive.

But what’s behind his win, and how significant is it for US politics?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests: 

Linda Sarsour – Palestinian-American activist and political strategist in New York

Joi Chaney – Democratic political strategist in Washington, DC

Omar Rahman – Political analyst and fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs in New York

June 26 (UPI) — PayPal on Thursday announced a partnership agreement with the Big Ten and Big 12 conferences on Thursday, which will enable payments from universities to student-athletes.

PayPal said in a press release that the new model “enables athletic departments to “seamlessly dispense payments through PayPal, ensuring a secure, efficient, and transparent way to distribute funds to payees.”

“From receiving institutional payments to making everyday purchases, we’re helping student-athletes, families, and schools engage in new ways that are modern, secure, and built for the future,” President and CEO of PayPal Alex Chriss said.

Under the deal, the two major college athletic conferences will exclusively make payments to student-athletes through PayPal.

PayPal said the rollout of payments from the college is expected to begin this summer as a court settlement in the House v. NCAA case, which allows schools to pay student-athletes, is set to take effect on July 1.

The settlement allowed schools to pay up to $20.5 million to current athletes over the next year, and $2.8 billion to former players across the NCAA.

“We look forward to partnering with PayPal to ensure a secure, rapid and reliable way for student-athletes to receive institutional payments as we welcome in this new era in college athletics,” said Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti.

“We are thrilled to enter into this landmark partnership with PayPal and Venmo,” said Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark. “As we embark on a new era of college athletics, aligning with a global leader like PayPal will unlock a wealth of opportunities for the Big 12. This partnership will also empower our student-athletes to receive payments through a secure, trusted platform they already know and use.”

Venmo will also be a part of this partnership; the company will allow students to use Venmo at college bookstores and for items such as tickets, concessions, and merchandise.

Venmo is also introducing a new Debit MasterCard for purchases on campus.

SACRAMENTO — California really does still have a Legislature, even if you haven’t been reading or hearing much about it. In fact, it’s currently making a ton of weighty decisions.

They’ll affect many millions of Californians — with a gamut of new laws and hefty spending.

But the lawmakers’ moves have been slipping under the news radar because of our focus on more compelling non-Sacramento events — including protests against overzealous federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, President Trump’s power trip of calling up the California National Guard over Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla’s being shoved to the floor and handcuffed for simply trying to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question.

Plus congressional wrangling over Trump’s “Big Beautiful” ugly, debt-hiking bill — and the eruption of a Middle East war.

Meanwhile, it’s one of the busiest and most important periods of the year in the state Capitol. This is budget time, when the Legislature and governor decide how to spend our tax dollars.

The Legislature passed a $325-billion so-called budget June 13, beating its constitutional deadline by two days. If it hadn’t, the lawmakers would have forfeited their pay. But although that measure counted legally as a budget, it lacked lots of details that still are being negotiated between legislative leaders and Newsom.

The final agreements will be tucked into a supplementary measure amending the main budget bill. That will be followed by a long line of “trailer bills” containing even more policy specifics — all currently being hammered out, mostly in back rooms.

The target date for conclusion of this Byzantine process is Friday. The annual budget will take effect July 1.

Some budget-related issues are of special interest to me and I’ve written about them previously. So, the rest of this column is what we call in the news trade a “follow” — a report on where those matters stand.

Prop. 36

For starters, there’s Proposition 36 funding.

Californians cast more votes for Proposition 36 last year than anything else on the ballot. The measure passed with 68% of the vote, carrying all 58 counties.

Inspired by escalating retail theft, the initiative toughened penalties for certain property and hard-drug crimes, such as peddling deadly fentanyl. But it offered a carrot to drug-addicted serial criminals. Many could be offered treatment rather than jail time.

Proposition 36 needs state money for the treatment, more probation officers to supervise the addicts’ progress and additional law enforcement costs. The measure’s backers estimate a $250-million annual tab.

Newsom, however, was an outspoken opponent of the proposition. He didn’t provide any funding for it in his original budget proposal and stiffed it again last month when revising the spending plan.

But legislative leaders insisted on some funding and agreed on a one-time appropriation of $110 million.

Woefully inadequate, the measure’s backers contend. They’re pushing for more. But some fear Newsom might even veto the $110 million, although this seems doubtful, given the public anger that could generate.

Greg Totten, chief executive of the California District Attorneys Assn., which sponsored the initiative, says more money is especially needed to hire additional probation officers. Treatment without probation won’t work, he insists.

Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) is trying to change the $110-million allocation mix. There’s nothing earmarked for county sheriffs who now are handling lots more arrests, she says.

“I want to make sure we uphold the voters’ wishes and are getting people into drug treatment,” Blakespear says. “This passed by such a high percentage, it should be a priority for elected officials.”

Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) predicts the Legislature will still be fiddling with the budget until it adjourns in September and vows: “I’ll continue to advocate for adequate funding for 36.” He asserts the budget now being negotiated won’t hold up because of chaos under Trump, who’s constantly threatening to withhold federal money due California.

Healthcare for immigrants

Another sticky issue is state-provided healthcare for immigrants living here illegally.

Newsom and the Democratic-controlled Legislature decided a few years ago to generously offer all low-income undocumented immigrants access to Medi-Cal, California’s version of federal Medicaid for the poor.

But unlike Medi-Cal for legal residents, the federal government doesn’t kick in money for undocumented people. The state foots the entire bill. And it didn’t set aside enough. Predictably, state costs ran several billion dollars over budget.

The Newsom administration claims that more adults enrolled in the program than expected. But, come on! When free healthcare is offered to poor people, you should expect a race to enroll.

To help balance the books, Newsom proposed $100 monthly premiums. The Legislature reduced that to $30. They both agreed to freeze enrollments for adults starting Jan. 1.

The Legislature also wants to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for even more people who are non-citizens: those with what it considers “unsatisfactory immigration status.” What does that mean? Hopefully it’s being negotiated.

Delta tunnel

And there’s the matter of the governor’s proposed water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Newsom tried to squeeze the controversial issue into the budget process, although it had nothing to do with the budget. But as a budget trailer bill, it could avoid substantive public hearings in the Legislature.

The governor wants to “fast-track” construction of the $20-billion, 45-mile tunnel that would transmit more Northern California water to Southern California. Delta farmers, local residents and coastal salmon interests are adamantly opposed. Fast-track means making it simpler to obtain permits and seize property.

Legislative leaders told the governor absolutely “No”: come back later and run his proposal through the ordinary committee process. Don’t try to fast-track the Legislature.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘A good day’: Detained U.S. citizen said agents bragged after arresting dozens at Home Depot
The visit: Vice President JD Vance rips Newsom, Bass and mocks Padilla during visit to Los Angeles
The L.A. Times Special: Welcome to the deportation resistance, Dodgers. What’s next?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Emmerdale will welcome back a familiar face to the ITV soap in the coming weeks, and now the actor playing the returning character has spoken about what’s ahead

One Emmerdale star has broken their silence on their big return to the ITV soap.

Speaking exclusively to The Mirror, actor Fred Kettle confirmed he was returning as troubled teen Dylan Penders. April Windsor’s pal will now head back to the village, months on from him fleeing to rehab after debuting in huge scenes.

Dylan and actor Fred proved an instant hit with viewers, as he took centre stage in April’s big storyline when she ran away from home. His exit earlier this year left fans gutted but now it’s been confirmed he will soon be back on the show.

Soap boss Laura Shaw had told The Mirror the return was happening prior to our chat with actor Fred. Now, we’ve got the lowdown from Dylan himself, as Fred teased trouble on the way as he makes his comeback.

He spilled: “I am so glad to be back. It is going to be a nice journey for Dylan, given his experiences. But he is going to cause a bit of bother in the village.”

READ MORE: EastEnders’ Oscar Branning returning to soap and will bring the ‘drama’ after 8 years away

Fred also shared how happy he was to have the backing of fans, after the very welcoming response to his debut earlier in the year. Now he’s ready to come back to the show, with all kinds of trouble teased as he reunites with April.

The actor also confirmed there would be some new characters tied in to his return, as teased by Laura previously. But Fred remained coy over who they would be and how they would be linked to Dylan.

He shared: “Yeah, we’ll have to wait and see. Watch this space. I can’t wait for fans to see what happens. It will be interesting to see his return and how the plot develops. But we’ll just have to watch and find out.”

Actress Amelia Flanagan also had her say on the comeback, excited to film with her co-star again. The April actress told us what could be ahead too, with her wondering where this will leave April.

She explained: “April has had an incredibly tough year with what she has been through, with the pregnancy and the homelessness storyline. Dylan didn’t leave on the best of terms with her but I think what is important is now he’s back.

“Who knows what will happen. It will be great to explore that relationship further. I think the fans want to see that which is great.” Emmerdale boss Laura had previously told us what’s ahead for Dylan.

She said: “The lovely Fred Kettle who played Dylan is coming back to the show. He is gonna be bringing his past back to the village with him and that’s going to cause huge problems for April and the family there.

“We’ve got a couple of exciting new castings who are gonna be joining us for that story, but I can’t tell you who they are yet but watch this space. It’s very exciting.”

Emmerdale airs weeknights at 7:30pm on ITV1 and ITVX, with an hour-long episode on Thursdays. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

If you’re a major league team trying to move a $250-million contract, what other team would you likely call first?

The Dodgers, of course.

On Sunday, the Boston Red Sox traded Rafael Devers, a three-time All-Star two years shy of 30. Andrew Friedman said he never heard from them.

That made sense. The Red Sox were no longer using Devers as a third baseman, a decision backed by publicly available defensive metrics and the presence of Alex Bregman. The San Francisco Giants, the team that acquired Devers, say they’ll use him as a first baseman and designated hitter, and the Dodgers are more than covered there by Freddie Freeman and Shohei Ohtani.

But, in the wake of the biggest trade so far this season, I thought back to the mission statement the Dodgers’ president of baseball operations put upon himself last winter. Here we are two weeks from July, and here was that Friedman statement from December: “I do not want to buy in July.”

What Friedman does not want might not matter a month from now. He could see a pretty picture, or he could need a pretty pitcher.

For all the scrutiny of their shortcomings, the first-place Dodgers are in a pretty good spot. They lead the majors in runs, home runs and OPS.

They have won six of their past eight games, all against the teams immediately below them in the National League West standings: the Giants and the San Diego Padres. The Dodgers lead the toughest division in the majors by a season-high 3½ games over San Francisco, 5 games over San Diego.

After the Padres leave town Thursday, the Dodgers play 12 consecutive games against teams with losing records, including the team with the worst record in the NL and the worst record in the American League — the Colorado Rockies and the Chicago White Sox, respectively.

Friedman would rather not trade in July because the cost in prospects tends to be high. However, for the Dodgers, the annual expectation of winning the World Series trumps that.

“It’s been our goal the last three or four years not to buy in July,” Friedman said Tuesday. “It hasn’t necessarily played out according to plan.”

Dodgers manager Dave Roberts chats with outfielder Michael Conforto during batting practice before a game against the Pirates in May.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

On offense, the lone hole is glaring. The only starting position player not performing above league average on offense is left fielder Michael Conforto, who is batting .168 with a .277 slugging percentage and a negative WAR. The Dodgers do have Hyeseong Kim as a wild card on the bench, and on a roster loaded with positional flexibility.

“To date, obviously, Michael hasn’t performed up to what he expected or we expected,” Friedman said. “But, watching the way he is working, watching the progress being made, I would bet that his next two months are way better than his last two months.

“Obviously, like we will with all of our players, we will continue to assess where they are. The important thing is, if we have an injury or (poor) performance, do we feel like we have different ways to maneuver? We do.”

Is there a possibility of trading for a left fielder?

“Never say never,” Friedman said, “but I think we would hold a very high bar and find it very unlikely.”

By the middle of July, the Dodgers would like their starting rotation to include Yoshinobu Yamamoto, the recently returned duo of Ohtani and Clayton Kershaw, and the rehabilitating duo of Tyler Glasnow and Blake Snell.

On paper, that would be a pretty sweet rotation.

On the field, Yamamoto has a 5.65 earned-run average this month. It is unlikely the perennially cautious Dodgers would let Ohtani and Kershaw make every start from now through the end of the season, even if the two stayed healthy. And it is uncertain whether Glasnow and Snell can return healthy and effective by the time Friedman would have to decide whether to trade prospects for a starting pitcher.

No buy in July?

“I’m still optimistic,” Friedman said. “It requires guys coming back on or close to the timelines that we have penciled out.

“We have shown that, if we’re not in position to do that, we’ll be aggressive to add. But our strong desire is not to.”

It is not that the Dodgers consider a bullpen game some sort of failure, or last resort. The Dodgers ran a bullpen game in an elimination game last October. They won that game, and another bullpen game in which they clinched the NL championship.

They have run bullpen games in each of their past four games against San Diego, and they have won three. They’ll essentially run another one Wednesday, since Emmet Sheehan will be activated after four triple-A starts, none of which lasted more than 3⅓ innings.

So far, so good. But the Dodgers are about October, and getting there may not be painless with Jack Dreyer making one fewer start than Glasnow, and twice as many as Snell.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Monday proposed deeper Medicaid cuts, including new work requirements for parents of teens, as a way to offset the costs of making President Trump’s tax breaks more permanent in draft legislation unveiled for his “Big Beautiful Bill.”

The proposals from Republicans keep in place the current $10,000 deduction of state and local taxes, called SALT, drawing quick blowback from GOP lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states, who fought for a $40,000 cap in the House-passed bill. Senators insisted negotiations continue.

The Senate draft also enhances Trump’s proposed new tax break for seniors, with a bigger $6,000 deduction for low- to moderate-income senior households earning no more than $75,000 a year for singles, $150,000 for couples.

All told, the text unveiled by the Senate Finance Committee’s Republicans provides the most comprehensive look yet at changes the GOP senators want to make to the 1,000-page package approved by House Republicans last month. GOP leaders are pushing to fast-track the bill for a vote by Trump’s Fourth of July deadline.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), the chairman, said the proposal would prevent a tax hike and achieve “significant savings” by slashing green energy funds “and targeting waste, fraud and abuse.”

It comes as Americans broadly support levels of funding for popular safety net programs, according to the poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Many Americans see Medicaid and food assistance programs as underfunded.

What’s in the “Big Beautiful Bill” so far

Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” is the centerpiece of his domestic policy agenda, a hodgepodge of GOP priorities that Republicans are trying to swiftly pass over unified opposition from Democrats — a tall order for the slow-moving Senate.

Fundamental to the package is the extension of some $4.5 trillion in tax breaks approved during his first term, in 2017, that are expiring this year if Congress fails to act. There are also new ones, including no taxes on tips, as well as more than $1 trillion in program cuts.

After the House passed its version, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the decade, and leave 10.9 million more people without health insurance, due largely to the proposed new work requirements and other changes.

The biggest tax breaks, some $12,000 a year, would go to the wealthiest households, CBO said, while the poorest would see a tax hike of roughly $1,600. Middle-income households would see tax breaks of $500 to $1,000 a year, CBO said.

Both the House and Senate packages are eyeing a massive $350-billion buildup of Homeland Security and Pentagon funds, including some $175 billion for Trump’s mass deportation efforts, such as the hiring of 10,000 more officers for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

This comes as protests over deporting migrants have erupted nationwide — including the stunning handcuffing of Sen. Alex Padilla last week in Los Angeles — and as deficit hawks such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul are questioning the vast spending on Homeland Security.

Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer warned that the Senate GOP’s draft “cuts to Medicaid are deeper and more devastating than even the Republican House’s disaster of a bill.”

Trade-offs in bill risk GOP support

As the package now moves to the Senate, the changes to Medicaid, SALT and green energy programs are part of a series of trade-offs GOP leaders are making as they try to push the package to passage with their slim majorities, with almost no votes to spare.

But criticism of the Senate’s version came quickly after House Speaker Mike Johnson warned senators of making substantial changes.

“We have been crystal clear that the SALT deal we negotiated in good faith with the Speaker and the White House must remain in the final bill,” the co-chairs of the House SALT caucus, Reps. Young Kim (R-Calif.) and Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), said in a joint statement Monday.

Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis of New York posted on X that the $10,000 cap in the Senate bill was not only insulting, but a “slap in the face to the Republican districts that delivered our majority and trifecta” with the White House.

Medicaid and green energy cuts

Some of the largest cost savings in the package come from the GOP plan to impose new work requirements on able-bodied single adults, ages 18 to 64 and without dependents, who receive Medicaid, the health care program used by 80 million Americans.

While the House first proposed the new Medicaid work requirement, it exempted parents with dependents. The Senate’s version broadens the requirement to include parents of children older than 14, as part of their effort to combat waste in the program and push personal responsibility.

Already, the Republicans had proposed expanding work requirements in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to include older Americans up to age 64 and parents of school-age children older than 10. The House had imposed the requirement on parents of children older than 7.

People would need to work 80 hours a month or be engaged in a community service program to qualify.

One Republican, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, has joined a few others pushing to save Medicaid from steep cuts — including to the so-called provider tax that almost all states levy on hospitals as a way to help fund their programs.

The Senate plan proposes phasing down that provider tax, which is now up to 6%. Starting in 2027, the Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities.

Hawley slammed the Senate bill’s changes on the provider tax. “This needs a lot of work. It’s really concerning and I’m really surprised by it,” he said. “Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.”

The Senate also keeps in place the House’s proposed new $35-per-service co-pay imposed on some Medicaid patients who earn more than the poverty line, which is about $32,000 a year for a family of four, with exceptions for some primary, prenatal, pediatric and emergency room care.

And Senate Republicans are seeking a slower phaseout of some Biden-era green energy tax breaks to allow continued develop of wind, solar and other projects that the most conservative Republicans in Congress want to end more quickly. Tax breaks for electric vehicles would be immediately eliminated.

Conservative Republicans say the cuts overall don’t go far enough, and they oppose the bill’s provision to raise the national debt limit by $5 trillion to allow more borrowing to pay the bills.

“We’ve got a ways to go on this one,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

The star shot to fame later in life but made the most of her time in the spotlight with her unfiltered, outspoken attitude. Here are five times Kim ruffled feathers

The sad news has emerged today that presenter-turned-reality star Kim Woodburn has died at the age of 83. The firebrand, who shot to fame on Channel 4’s How Clean Is Your House with Aggie MacKenzie, passed away on Monday.

Kim had been married to her husband Peter for 46 years, living with her ‘soulmate’ in Nantwich, Cheshire. In a statement, her representative said: “Kim was an incredibly kind, caring, charismatic and strong person. Her husband Peter is heartbroken at the loss of his soulmate.”

From being at the heart of the most explosive row in the history of Celebrity Big Brother to taking on one of the nation’s best-known TV presenters, the star was never one to back down. We take a look back at five of Kim’s most memorable moments…

READ MORE: Kim Woodburn’s real life tragedies that led to call from police with autobiography release

Tensions with Aggie

C4’s How Clean Is Your House? made household names out of Kim and Aggie but the duo famously didn’t get on all that well during the six seasons of the show. Aggie later spilled the beans on their fallout, saying that while the “friction” between the pair had made for good television, appearing on stage together was the final straw.

“We were doing panto in Brighton,” she said. “I was so shocked and upset and angry. I lost my rag with her.” Aggie revealed the pair didn’t speak for the last two series of the show and even said: “Kim was such a big, damaging part of my life. I feel she almost destroyed me”.

Kim, on the other hand, was uncharacteristically silent on the controversy. The star simply said she “never said anything derogatory about Aggie” and was “not going to start now”.

Celebrity Big Brother storm

Kim made a memorable appearance on C4’s Celebrity Big Brother in 2017, when she became embroiled in a heated argument with some of her fellow contestants, including ex-glamour models Nicola McLean and Bianca Gascoigne and former footballer Jamie O’Hara.

Never one to back down, the star warned them: “I’ll cross you so badly and you’ll regret it for the rest of your life!” before famously screaming at Jamie: “You’re an adulterer… you two-timed your wife and she’s got three kids!”.

Kim was removed by the show’s security to calm down the situation and spent the night in the spare room before returning the next day. She finished in a respectable third place in the contest, during the course of which she branded fellow housemates “filthy, dirty scum” and a “chicken livered bunch”.

Loose Women walk-off

Another show to face Kim’s wrath was ITV’s Loose Women. She had fallen out with Coleen Nolan on Celebrity Big Brother after accusing the star and several other housemates of bullying and had been invited on the daytime show with executives hoping for a reconciliation.

Instead, Coleen told her: “You’re a horrible, self-centred, publicity-seeking witch”. Kim branded Coleen “lying trash”, raised her voice and stormed off.

There were a total of 3,000 complaints made to Ofcom accusing the show of picking on Kim. They included model Jodie Marsh, who wrote: “Having watched the Kim Woodburn interview I couldn’t not make a complaint! It was bullying, pure & simple.”

Kim vs Phillip

The TV icon had several on-air spats with presenter Phillip Schofield, who fronted ITV daytime stalwart This Morning for 21 years. At one point, she famously branded Phil a “big phoney” during a heated interview on the show.

The reality TV contestant had taken offence when questioned about her Celebrity Big Brother appearance, insisting to Phil that watching the 45-minute TV edit of the contest was not the same as living it for 24 hours a day. “Don’t think you are going to bully me, I have been around too long,” she told him, with viewers calling their chat “car-crash TV” and the “most awkward TV interview I’ve ever witnessed on This Morning”.

When the presenter wrapped up the chat by telling Kim it had been a delight to interview her she branded him a “phoney”. Six years later, when Phillip left This Morning in disgrace after admitting to an affair with a young colleague on the show, Kim called him “an obnoxious, horrible man”, saying “I don’t know why he’s still on television”.

‘Transphobia’ row

Known for being a gay icon, Kim was accused of transphobia in 2022 when she was interviewed on GB News and asked about unisex changing rooms. Her reply of “a man’s a man, a woman’s a woman” led to accusations of transphobia.

But the outspoken star hit back on social media, insisting her words had been deliberately misinterpreted. “During the show, we never discussed trans people,” said Kim.

“I have always supported the LGTBQ+ community, as you are all aware, and I count each and every single one of you, my friends. I will always be an ally to the community and would never say a bad word about any of you.”