The Big Ugly Battle Over the Big Beautiful Bill

Summary

Summary of "The Big Ugly Battle Over the Big Beautiful Bill" – The Daily

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Daily
• Host/Author: The New York Times
• Description: Delivered by top journalists, The Daily presents the most significant stories of our time in a concise, engaging format.
• Episode: The Big Ugly Battle Over the Big Beautiful Bill
• Release Date: June 5, 2025
• Duration: Approximately 37 minutes

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Daily, host Michael Barbaro engages in a comprehensive discussion with congressional correspondent Katie Edmondson about the contentious legislative maneuvering surrounding the so-called "Big Beautiful Bill." This bill, touted by President Trump as his administration's most crucial legislative achievement, aims to advance his domestic agenda through a singular, sweeping piece of legislation. However, as the bill progresses from the House to the Senate, it ignites significant turmoil within the Republican Party, prompting deep introspection about the true identity and direction of Trumpism.

---

Navigating Legislative Obstacles

Initial Challenges and Public Backlash

Katie Edmondson opens the conversation by highlighting the tumultuous first 48 hours of the bill's journey. The introduction of vehement criticism from prominent figures like Elon Musk, who labeled the bill a "disgusting abomination" (02:05) set a negative tone. Additionally, backlash from within the Republican ranks emerged when voters expressed anger towards Representative Mike Flood during a public forum.

Notable Quote:

"If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted to support." – Rep. Mike Flood (02:08)

This internal dissent stems from insufficient transparency, as some legislators were unaware of specific provisions within the bill until moments before the vote, leading to regret and reconsideration of their support.

Fiscal Implications and Party Unity

The discussion progresses to the bill's financial ramifications, with Katie referencing an analysis from the independent budget scorekeeper projecting an increase of $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade (02:33). Despite acknowledgment of these fiscal challenges, the bill's passage remains likely, albeit in a modified form. The Republican Party faces a pivotal moment, grappling with reconciling their fiscal strategies with the evolving needs and identities of their constituents.

Notable Quote:

"This is going to force Republicans to confront a lot of really tough questions about who this legislation is for." – Katie Edmondson (02:36)

---

Components of the Big Beautiful Bill

Tax Cuts and New Provisions

At its core, the bill encompasses extensive tax reforms, reiterating and expanding upon the 2017 tax cuts. Key elements include:

• Individual Tax Cuts: Reduction of tax rates across nearly all income brackets.
• Corporate Tax Cuts: Decrease in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.
• New Tax Eliminations: Removal of taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits.

Katie notes that these tax measures are expected to escalate the deficit by $3.6 trillion over the next decade (06:57), underscoring the bill's substantial financial impact.

Increased Spending

The bill also earmarks significant new spending in two primary areas:

1. Military Enhancements: Allocation of $150 billion to the Pentagon, targeting shipbuilding, strengthening presence in the Indo-Pacific, and other defense initiatives.
2. Immigration Enforcement: An additional $175 billion intended for constructing the southern border wall and implementing advanced border security technologies.

Notable Quote:

"Republicans really are in widespread agreement over [new spending provisions]." – Katie Edmondson (07:07)

---

Republican Party's Internal Struggle

Conflict Over Spending Cuts

A central conflict within the Republican Party revolves around identifying areas to offset the bill's exorbitant costs. The primary debate is whether to reduce programs established under Democratic leadership that now benefit Republican voters, such as those from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Quote with Attribution:

"Republicans are defending sections of the IRA because they benefit their constituents." – Katie Edmondson (09:08)

For instance, in Arizona, Representative Juan Siskamani supports preserving IRA-established tax credits for clean energy projects critical to his district's economy, despite initial Republican opposition to the legislation.

Implications for Constituents

Representative Siskamani illustrates the dilemma faced by Republicans who support the bill despite potential harms to their districts.

Notable Quote:

"Let's use a scalpel. Right. Because these are very important industries that are popping up in our districts." – Congressman Siskamani (10:37)

However, House Republican leaders push for a unified vote on the bill, encapsulating loyalty to President Trump over specific constituent needs.

Notable Quote:

"They wanted to force these lawmakers to take one single up or down vote, essentially on President Trump himself." – Katie Edmondson (13:19)

---

Senate Dynamics and Broader Implications

Republican Senators' Hesitations

As the bill moves to the Senate, some Republican senators express reservations about cutting the IRA's clean energy tax credits, recognizing their bipartisan benefits. Senators like Lisa Murkowski and John Curtis advocate for more nuanced adjustments rather than outright repeals.

Notable Quote:

"The well of resistance around, again, trying to gut this law entirely is actually deeper than I had anticipated." – Katie Edmondson (14:46)

This unexpected resistance suggests that bipartisan elements have entrenched certain Democratic initiatives within Republican-held districts, complicating pure partisan strategies.

Medicaid Cuts and the Working Class

A critical component of the bill is the imposition of stringent work requirements for Medicaid recipients, projected to disenroll approximately 10 million Americans (19:03). This aspect directly impacts the working class, a key demographic that President Trump has successfully aligned with the Republican Party.

Notable Quote:

"Republicans have just made really remarkable inroads in winning over working class voters. Why would we... betray those voters?" – Josh Hawley (23:20)

Senator Josh Hawley's stance underscores the internal conflict between maintaining fiscal conservatism and upholding commitments to the working class.

---

Democratic Critique and Political Ramifications

Democrats vehemently oppose the bill, framing it as an unjust redistribution of wealth from the most vulnerable populations to the affluent. They argue that the bill undermines essential social safety nets established under legislation like the Affordable Care Act.

Key Points:

• Fairness and Equity: Democrats highlight the bill’s role in exacerbating economic disparities by cutting Medicaid and other social programs while providing significant tax cuts to corporations and high-income individuals.
• Electoral Impact: The proposed cuts are anticipated to resonate negatively with working-class voters, potentially eroding the Republican Party’s recent gains in this demographic.

Notable Quote:

"This is a piece of legislation that fundamentally takes from the poorest, the most vulnerable, to give to the wealthiest." – Katie Edmondson (31:48)

Historical precedents, such as the failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2018, inform Democratic strategies to mobilize voter opposition effectively.

---

Conclusion

The "Big Beautiful Bill" epitomizes the current ideological and strategic fractures within the Republican Party, revealing tensions between traditional fiscal conservatism and the newer focus on the working class propelled by Trump's leadership. As the bill advances through legislative processes fraught with internal opposition and external criticisms, its ultimate passage poses significant implications for American fiscal policy, social welfare, and the political landscape heading into the midterm elections.

Final Notable Quote:

"I hope this bill will get refocused on delivering relief for working families. That's what we ought to be doing." – Senator Josh Hawley (23:34)

The episode underscores the high stakes involved, illustrating how a single piece of legislation can serve as a battleground for broader ideological debates and potentially reshape the future dynamics of American politics.

---

Disclaimer: This summary is based on the transcript provided and is intended for informational purposes. For a complete understanding, listeners are encouraged to access the full episode of The Daily.

Transcript

[Katie Edmondson]

This message comes from Capital One. Your business requires commercial banking solutions that prioritize your long term success with Capital One. Get a full suite of financial products and services tailored to meet your needs today and goals for tomorrow. Learn [e-mail] Commercial Member FDIC.

[Michael Barbaro]

From the New York Times, I'm Michael Balbaro. This is the Daily President Trump has called it the most important piece of legislation in his second term, a single bill that would unlock his entire domestic agenda. But as that bill heads from the House to the Senate, it's raising existential questions among Republicans about who Trumpism is really. For today, my colleague, congressional correspondent Kennedy. Katie Edmondson on the big messy battle over the big beautiful bill. It's Thursday, June 5th. Hey Katie.

[Katie Edmondson]

Hey, Michael.

[Michael Barbaro]

Katie, as we speak with you on Wednesday afternoon in Washington, D.C. where you are, the big beautiful bill is navigating what looks like some big ugly obstacles.

[Katie Edmondson]

Yeah, that's not an overstatement. It has been a very difficult, very trying 48 hours for this piece of legislation. And that really began when Elon Musk came out yesterday and called it a, quote, disgusting abomination, unquote. So it all kind of went downhill from there, I would say. An auditorium full of voters venting their.

[Michael Barbaro]

Anger at Representative Mike Flood.

[Katie Edmondson]

This provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill. We're hearing from some Republican lawmakers now who are saying, yes, I voted to support it, but actually this is a terrible bill. We don't get the full bill text until very close to the time to vote for it. And so that was one section that was two pages that I didn't see. If I knew then what I knew now, I wouldn't have voted to support.

[Michael Barbaro]

The old if I'd read the bill, I might not have voted for the bill.

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, sure, of course, here's a lesson for us all. No matter what political party holds office and is in charge, we should all watch carefully the bills that we pass. And then I guess just a few hours ago, a new and analysis came out from the independent budget scorekeeper here in Washington that found this bill is going to add $2.4 trillion trillion with a T to the national debt over the next decade, which was not entirely unexpected, but is nonetheless a very big number. So, yeah, I think it's safe to say it's already been an incredibly messy week for, for this piece of legislation. And you know, I think even though this legislation, it seems as though it's going to be headed for passage in the next few weeks in some iteration, I Also think it's forcing Republicans to confront a lot of really tough questions about who this legislation is for, who their own constituency that they need to serve is, what it means to be a Republican in this moment, and who really they need to be looking out for.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, those are some very big existential questions for Republicans. So tell us what has made this bill trigger all those questions. What's in it?

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, I think we should start with what this bill is called.

[Michael Barbaro]

We're trying to come up with a name. And I said, why don't we just call it the great big beautiful bill? That's what everyone, you know. So we're gonna probably do that.

[Katie Edmondson]

Which is, you hear President Trump referring to it a lot as the big, beautiful bill. It's very big.

[Michael Barbaro]

It's the big beautiful bill.

[Katie Edmondson]

And in fact, Republic have decided to formally call it One big Beautiful Bill Bill.

[Michael Barbaro]

We love that bill. I won't like it if it doesn't pass.

[Katie Edmondson]

Neither will you. And it's an unusual piece of legislation. It is not normally the type of bill that we talk about, you and I talk about on this show.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right.

[Katie Edmondson]

Typically, you have me on to talk about the spending bills that fund the government on the sort of edge of government shutdowns. This bill is not related to that whatsoever. This is a bill that is being shepherded along through the reconciliation process, which is really a special process that is unlocked when one party wins a trifecta in Washington, the House, the Senate, and the White House. So when one party wins the House, the Senate, and the White House, they're able to use reconciliation to push through legislation with major tax and spending implications through the House and through the Senate and on the Senate, what's really important is that it's a simple majority vote. They can avoid the filibuster. Right.

[Michael Barbaro]

And in that sense, this bill really doesn't require any involvement from Democrats who can and probably will all vote against it. It just requires, like you said, a simple majority of Republicans in the House and the Senate to get on board.

[Katie Edmondson]

Yes, that's exactly right. We don't, in fact, expect a single Democrat to support this measure in the Senate. No Democrat supported it in the House. And with the slim margins that Republicans have in both the House and the Senate, that is why it is so important for them to find unity on this legislation.

[Michael Barbaro]

Okay, so back to the substance of what's actually in this big, beautiful bill.

[Katie Edmondson]

There's a lot crammed in there. We expect senators to want to change some aspects of it. But in terms of what is in The House passed bill, the centerpiece of it really are tax cuts, and that's extending the tax cuts that President Trump signed into law during his first administration in 2017. And as a reminder, those cuts reduce the tax rates for individuals at almost every individual income bracket, as well as for corporations, reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. And then there are some new tax cuts as well. You'll remember, Michael, that on the campaign trail, President Trump spoke a lot about wanting to eliminate taxes on tips, on overtime, and on Social Security benefits. And so all of those policies are included in this legislation.

[Michael Barbaro]

And given just how many tax cuts we're talking about, how much do they add up to? How much do they cost?

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, the number that we just got today from the nonpartisan budget office is that it will add to the deficit $3.6 trillion over the next decade.

[Michael Barbaro]

That's how much the tax cuts would cost by reducing how much the US treasury brings in.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right.

[Michael Barbaro]

Got it.

[Katie Edmondson]

And then the second big element of this bill, I think, is actually new spending, and that's really in two categories. One is for the military. So it allocates a new $150 billion in funding for the Pentagon. And that has been earmarked for specific areas, including trying to jumpstart the nation's shipbuilding capabilities, trying to bolster our presence in the Indo Pacific. And then there's an additional $175 billion again over that 10 year period in immigration enforcement money. So that is money to continue building the wall on the southern border, another one of President Trump's big campaign promises, as well as things like drones technology to be able to enforce additional border security measures.

[Michael Barbaro]

So taken together, the widespread tax cuts and higher spending for the military and for immigration enforcement makes this bill sound very expensive so far.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. Now, all of those provisions are items that Republicans really are in widespread agreement over. They all want to do these things, but they also know that it would be politically terrible for them to vote for a bill with a hugely expensive price tag. And so really, the central fight around shaping this bill became what? Where are they going to find the cuts to offset these big, beautiful provisions that they want to pass?

[Michael Barbaro]

And so far, where have they found those cuts?

[Katie Edmondson]

So I think the really interesting dynamic here is that a lot of the drama and infighting around cutting programs here really comes down to a debate over whether Republicans should cut programs that were passed when Democrats were in power that now benefit a lot of Republican voters.

[Michael Barbaro]

Hmm. Such as?

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, the first example Here is the Inflation Reduction Act. That was President Biden's signature landmark climate change health care policy legislation that Democrats actually passed using the reconciliation process, using the process Republicans are using now. And one of the major elements of that bill was establishing tax credits for clean energy projects. Now, a lot of those clean energy projects have sprung up in districts and states that are held by Republicans. And so what we've seen actually is a surprising number of Republicans both in the House and the Senate say, hey, I know we all want to repeal the things that President Biden did, but there are actually some good things in that particular law and we would very much prefer if you did not roll back these tax credits that our constituents have come to rely on.

[Michael Barbaro]

Hmm. And what's an example of a program passed through the Inflation Reduction act that Republicans are now relying on or invested in to the degree that they would be pretty upset to see it rolled back?

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, I think a great example is actually in Arizona. It is in the Tucson based district of Congressman Juan Siskamani. He flipped his seat in 2022. He is considered one of the majority makers. He was considered really the best recruit that Republicans had that cycle in the House.

[Michael Barbaro]

So he's a Republican who flipped a Democratic held seat and contributed to the Republican majority.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. And he has a major electric vehicle company in his district called Lucid Motors and they actually expanded significantly their factory in his district, bringing in additional workers, creating new job jobs under the assumption that they were going to be able to reap the benefits of these clean energy tax credits created by the ira. Now, obviously they're looking at losing those tax credits that is going to take a hold to their profit and loss sheet. And they have been quite outspoken in wanting to make sure that these tax credits weren't entirely stripped away from them in this legislation. And in fact, Congressman Siskamani himself was pretty outspoken in asking Republican leaders to. To ensure that didn't happen. He and a number of his colleagues in the House who really were all across the political spectrum, these weren't just moderate Republicans, signed a letter asking House Republican leaders to do exactly that. They said, please do not take a sledgehammer to these tax credits to this legislation. Let's use a scalpel. Right. Because these are very important industries that are popping up in our districts. These create jobs for our constituents and we owe these businesses certainty.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. And by the way, districts like mine are the reason you have a majority. So be careful.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. But what ends up happening is House Republican leaders do end up taking the sledgehammer to this legislation, to these tax credits. And by the time the bill comes to the floor and House Republicans are being pressured by President Trump to vote for it, all of these lawmakers who signed on to that letter, including Congressman Suskamani, end up voting for this bill that is carrying really, the centerpiece of President Trump's domestic agenda.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. And so that's the way in which, thinking back to what you said at the beginning of this conversation, this bill becomes a kind of existential question for some of these lawmakers about what it means to represent Republican constituents. I mean, this Congressman Siskamani is being asked, in some sense, to show his loyalty to the president over the workers in this district.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. And by the way, that's one of the reasons why House Republican leaders wanted to contain all of these provisions into one big, beautiful bill. Right. They did it because they wanted to force these lawmakers to take one single up or down vote, essentially on President Trump himself.

[Michael Barbaro]

Fascinating. In other words, just take one hard vote on behalf of your president and then you're off the hook.

[Katie Edmondson]

Or, more cynically, you get one chance to show whether you're with us or against us.

[Michael Barbaro]

Hmm. So the president managed to overcome the reservations of House Republicans when it came to gutting the Inflation Reduction Act. Now that this bill is headed to the Senate, which must pass it for this bill to ever have a shot of becoming law, what are senators saying about these IRA cuts?

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, we're hearing a lot of the same concerns. We will be going through, I think, a fair amount of changes over here on the Senate side. Senators like Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, for example. There are a lot of things that I'm watching very carefully. I'm very public about my view of how we should treat the energy tax credits. And it's not that I feel like we shouldn't touch them, but I just think we should be thoughtful and John Curtis of Utah. But even in the past couple of days, Michael, there have been additional Republican senators who have started to come out of the woodwork to say that there are clean energy projects in their states as well that they want to protect in a way that has actually been quite surprising to me. I think the well of resistance around, again, trying to gut this law entirely is actually deeper than I had anticipated.

[Michael Barbaro]

Suggesting in a way that I don't think I quite understood, that President Biden's most important single piece of legislation has really woven itself into the fabric of this country in a pretty meaningful bipartisan way.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's Right. And by the way, not a single one of those Republican senators voted for that law. Yet here we are three years later and you have all of these Republicans defending it. And that, I think was part of the idea behind the law itself, was the idea that so many of these projects would go to Republican districts, to Republican states. There would be a bipartisan mandate to protect it even if a Republican won the White House.

[Michael Barbaro]

Hmm.

[Katie Edmondson]

So that is one Democratic law that is proving to be harder for Republicans to kill than maybe some had anticipated.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right.

[Katie Edmondson]

But I think that fight is really going to pale in comparison, honestly to what I think is the marquee fight at the center of this legislation, which I think is going to be Republicans efforts to cut into another major Democratic initiative which was expanding access to Medicaid.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. And we will talk about what it means to touch that third rail after the.

[Katie Edmondson]

There'S nothing normal about paying a fortune for wireless. Mint Mobile has plans that start at just 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text. Get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. Go to mintmobile.com thedaily that's mintmobile.com thedaily Upfront payment of $45 for three month 5GB plan required equivalent to $15 per month. New customer offer for first three months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. In case you missed it, YouTube is the number one streaming platform in watch time in the US ahead of Netflix, Disney and Prime Video. For the second year in a row, the world's biggest creators, the world's biggest moments, all delivered to the world's biggest collection of passionate Fans. There's only one YouTube.

[Michael Barbaro]

So Katie, tell us more about the proposed cuts within this bill to Medicaid and for those who are not intimately familiar with it, exactly what Medicaid does.

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, Medicaid is really one of three major programs that make up the heart of the social safety net here in the United States. Right. There's Social Security, there's Medicare and there's Medicaid. And right now Medicaid provides health insurance for about 71 million disabled and or low income Americans.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. It's a really big deal.

[Katie Edmondson]

It is a big deal. And the proposal that this legislation puts forward would impose new work requirements on people who receive health care coverage through Medicaid. And Michael, these are the most stringent work requirements that Congressional Republicans have ever put forward.

[Michael Barbaro]

In other words, these are requirements that say you don't get your Medicaid unless you have some form of employment.

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, it actually even goes further than that. It allows states to say you can't enroll in Medicaid unless you can prove to us in some cases that you've been working for six months or even a year prior to your attempt to enroll in the program.

[Michael Barbaro]

And this, of course, plays into a long running Republican critique of the US Social safety network, which is that it does not require, many Republicans would argue, enough of those receiving the benefits.

[Katie Edmondson]

I think it's fair to say that the idea of work requirements is broadly very popular amongst Congressional Republicans. But where we're seeing major concerns is from Republicans who are now looking at the numbers of what some of the consequences of these new policies would be and are starting to feel pretty skittish about voting for it. And Michael, the number that comes to mind is that that nonpartisan budget office has projected that these changes are going to lead to about 10 million Americans losing their health care insurance.

[Michael Barbaro]

Wow, that's a lot of people suddenly without health insurance.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. And look, this was the major Democratic initiative of President Obama's term that through the Affordable Care act, through Obamacare, the number of people who could benefit from Medicaid was drastically expanded to the point where we now have 40 states plus DC that have opted into the Medicaid expansion program, essentially. And what happened was that those expansions created a lot of new constituencies on Medicaid. And so what we're seeing now is that you now have a lot of Republican voters who are benefiting from the expansion. And you have a lot of rural hospitals, again in some of these more conservative areas that have really come to rely on Medicaid.

[Michael Barbaro]

Hmm. So a lot like the proposed cuts to the Inflation Reduction act, these proposed cuts to the expansion of Medicaid run up against the reality that Republicans and Republican voters have become big stakeholders in this thing in Medicaid.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. And you know, Michael, earlier this year I went out to a Republican held district in California in Bakersfield. And that is a district that is always politically hotly contested. It is held right now by a Republican, David Valado. And Michael, two thirds of Congressman Valado's constituents get their health coverage through Medicaid.

[Michael Barbaro]

Oh, my name is Melissa.

[Katie Edmondson]

I will be the anthem tonight. I am the. I went to a town hall that was sort of rallying around trying to protect the program. In our district, over 500 people are supported by the Medicaid system. And it really was a stunning array of different types of people, honestly, who came out to that event.

[Michael Barbaro]

When you have a disabled star, nobody wants to take care of it because.

[Katie Edmondson]

It'S a lot of work. There were moms of disabled kids who were talking about how important the program was in ensuring that their kids got the services they needed. Meeting our veterans, meeting of USD here in the room. There were a number of veterans who were there who are reliant on Medicaid. Come on, dude, people voted for you.

[Michael Barbaro]

And we are counting on you.

[Katie Edmondson]

And it's something that Congressman Valadao was acutely aware of. I've heard from countless constituents who tell me the only way they can afford health care is through through programs like Medicaid. And I will not support a final reconciliation bill that risks leaving them behind. Congressman Valadao actually went to the House floor to say that he was not going to lend his vote to any legislation that cut the benefits his constituents received from Medicaid. But work requirements, things like that, are things that we look at as a way to protect those who are need it and should be on it. And so we're having that dialogue. There's a lot. He also made the case that imposing work requirements wouldn't really cut benefits for any quote, unquote worthy or needy recipients. I mean, I know you hear it a lot, waste, fraud and abuse. But there are people who are on the program that shouldn't be on the program. And so at the end of the day, when the bill comes to the floor, Congressman Valadao votes to pass the.

[Michael Barbaro]

Bill much the way Siskamani did when he voted for this bill, despite knowing it would probably hurt the auto company in his district in Arizona. In both cases, you've got these Republican House members backing this bill that on some level they know is going to hurt their constituents.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. And it's actually an argument that we're starting to hear over in the Senate made by at least one Senate Republican very forcefully. It is wrong to cut health care for the working poor. And that's what we're talking about here with Medicaid. My state is a Medicaid and that's Josh Hawley of Missouri, and I'm totally opposed to that. Republicans now, thanks to Donald Trump, are the party of the working class. Mano you reference. And his whole argument essentially is that Republicans have just made really remarkable inroads in winning over working class voters.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right.

[Katie Edmondson]

His argument is why would we as Republicans immediately turn around and push through legislation that would hurt them. I hope this bill will get refocused on delivering relief for working families. That's what we ought to be doing.

[Michael Barbaro]

And that, of course, dovetails with what our colleague Shane Goldmacher just told us a couple of days ago on the daily, which is that Trump has expanded the Republican share of the working class vote in each of the last three presidential races, more each time, thereby, as Hawley has said, cementing the Republican brand as the political party of the American working class. And it seems what Hawley is asking is why would you ever betray those voters? Why would you give up that extraordinary electoral advantage that Republicans have created?

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. And he has some very recent political history to back him up on this. Right. If you remember, in 2018, Republicans again had a trifecta. They had used that trifecta to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That effort failed. But Democrats made the strategic decision to run exclusively really on health care during that midterm cycle. And look, there are a number of congressional Republicans who distinctly remember that blue wave in 2018. And one of them is actually the congressman we were just talking about. David Valadao of California, who was in Congress in 2017, voted to repeal the Affordable Care act and actually lost his election. He came back, but he lost in 2018 after he took that vote. So here we are again, and we're already seeing some previews of how this could play for them in the midterms. We saw Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, for example. That's because they're not currently eligible by the original definition of Medicaid. And they will be being asked at a town hall in her state about the impacts of these cuts to Medicaid eligible. The constituent said, people are going to die as a result of these cuts. To which Senator Ernst responded with, well.

[Michael Barbaro]

We all are going to die.

[Katie Edmondson]

We're all going to die.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. An unusual response.

[Katie Edmondson]

It ignited a firestorm in a normally pretty reliably conservative state, I think, because it came off as sounding pretty callous given the stakes. And so there's a sense among Democrats that this is going to be an extraordinarily resonant issue among voters.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. I mean, it would seem like the only reason for Republicans to back these work requirements that would end up kicking so many of their working class voters off of Medicaid is that it puts a real dent in the new spending from this bill. But from what you said at the beginning of our conversation, the bill is not balanced. It's adding to the deficit. So how much money would these Medicaid changes actually save?

[Katie Edmondson]

Well, the number that we got today from the budget office is that just the health care changes would save $1 trillion. But the problem for a lot of Republicans is that that still leaves that $2.4 trillion hole in this legislation.

[Michael Barbaro]

Right. Which is where you get your critique from the Elon Musk's of the world.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. And it's not just Elon Musk. It would be a lot easier for Republicans if it was limited to Elon. But there's actually a number of Republican senators right now who are saying that they do not want to vote for this bill that is going to saddle their grandchildren with debt.

[Michael Barbaro]

The math doesn't really add up.

[Katie Edmondson]

One of the things this big and beautiful bill is, is it's a vehicle for increasing spending for the military. Those are Republicans like Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. We have to reduce the deficit and so we need to focus on spending, spending, spending. So what, you don't defeat the deep state by funding it. Right. So what changed? They are tremendously disappointed, to use a nice word, in the number of spending cuts contained in the House passed bill. They've said they want to agitate for even more. Look, I want to vote for it. I'm for the tax cuts. I voted for the tax cuts before, but at the same time, I don't want to raise the debt ceiling. And you even have some Republicans like Senator Paul saying that there's actually an additional provision of this legislation that he despises, which is a provision that would lift the debt limit by about $4 trillion, which would basically get us over the midterm elections. Because Senator Paul is one of a number of Republicans in Congress who do not want to add to the nation's debt problem, who have sort of a existential problem with lending their vote to any piece of legislation that raises the debt ceiling.

[Michael Barbaro]

And we should say it is not just scattered congressional Republicans who have raised questions about the fiscal impact of this legislation. There are economists and there are prominent people in American finance who regard this bill as a genuine threat to America's financial future.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right.

[Michael Barbaro]

And as a result, you can now argue, and some Republicans are, that the bill betrays two different kinds of Republican Party values and identities. A new one and an old one. It betrays the party's new conception, as Josh Hawley said, of itself as champions of the working class by kicking so many people off Medicaid. And it portrays the party's old conception of itself as the steward of, of fiscal responsibility. And in that way, I'm now very much understanding your point. Early on in this conversation that this bill really does raise questions about what it means to be a Republican when Trump is pushing this version of Republicanism.

[Katie Edmondson]

That's right. I think we always knew that there was going to be kind of open warfare between the two factions. Right. That you just talked about the Republicans like Senator Hawley who are saying we simply can't pay for tax cuts at the expense of working class voters who, by the way, voted for us and that we knew that he was going to be clashing with senators like Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Rand Paul, who again, want those deep spending cuts to be able to vote for a deficit neutral bill. Now, I think it's most likely that neither of them are going to get their way here and that instead they are going to end up unifying around this big, beautiful bill that no one thinks is really that beautiful because they know they have this opportunity to deliver for President Trump and that he is going to demand that they deliver for him.

[Michael Barbaro]

Throughout this episode, Katie, we have quite understandably been talking about the battle within the Republican Party over the spill, because that's where the votes are to get it passed. And from everything you're saying, the president will twist the arms and apply the pressure required to get this through the Senate. And if it has to go back to the House, ultimately the House. And I wonder if we can talk a bit more about the Democratic critique here because there is more to it than just criticism of the cutbacks to Medicaid. Fundamentally, Democrats argue that this bill represents an extraordinary transfer of money from those who have the least in this country, including those on Medicaid, to those who already have the most, who are going to be getting from this bill, corporate tax breaks and big income tax breaks. And that as a result, this bill is just extremely unfair. And I wonder what the Republicans putting this bill together and voting for it, have to say to that.

[Katie Edmondson]

Republicans know that they are going to face a lot of political attacks from Democrats on this. And frankly, there's a lot for Democrats to attack beyond the cuts to Medicaid that we've been talking about, beyond the sort of repeals of these clean energy tax credits. This bill also contains new work requirements for recipients of food stamps or SNAP that are projected to result in 3 million people losing access to food stamps. Now, at the end of the day, I think Republicans are fundamentally banking on the idea that tax cuts are broadly popular, that that is really something that they can sell to their voters, especially the provisions relating to eliminating tax on tips, eliminating tax on overtime. But I think Democrats really feel that they have an opening here to try to win back some of that support from the working electorate that moved over to support Republicans. And we've seen them distill this huge bill into one very simple talking point. This bill is a scam, a tax scam designed to steal from you, the American people, and give to Trump's millionaire and billionaire friends. Which, Michael, to your point is this is a piece of legislation that fundamentally takes from the poorest, the most vulnerable, to give to the wealthiest. It seems that nothing is off limits and everything is on the table to get that done, including meals for hungry families, working families, health care, and the incredible gains that we have made to get more families affordable coverage. And even beyond that, to put a finer point on it, that this is a piece of legislation that guts very popular programs that we as Democrats created and that you, the voters, have been benefiting from. We have to stand up for these people. I came to Congress to be a voice for people who need, who need things like Medicaid, who need things like SNAP benefits. And I think that is a message that we are going to hear over and over and over again that I think is going to be plastered across the airwaves as we get closer to the midterm elections.

[Michael Barbaro]

Well, Katie, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[Katie Edmondson]

Thanks for having me, Michael.

[Michael Barbaro]

We'll be right back.

[Katie Edmondson]

I'm Emily Badger. I'm a reporter with the New York Times. Since the pandemic, empty office buildings have become much more common in many cities. Why can't we just turn them into housing? It's actually a really complicated question. To answer this question, you have to find a developer trying to turn an office building into apartments. Ride a rickety elevator to the 30th floor of a construction site to see the interior guts of a building, finds an expert in incandescent light bulbs who can explain to you how they fundamentally change office buildings. And that's just the beginning of what you have to do when you subscribe to the New York Times. You are sending reporters like me out into the world to ask questions of dozens of different experts to go and visit places most people don't get to go to, try to come back with answers and then turn all of that into something that anyone can understand. If you'd like to become a subscriber, head to nytimes.com subscribe. You need to see the animated floor plans in this piece.

[Michael Barbaro]

Here's what else you need to know today. Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely.

[Katie Edmondson]

And reliably vet and screen those who.

[Michael Barbaro]

Seek to enter the United States. That is why on Wednesday night, President Trump banned citizens of 12 different countries from traveling to the United States, most of them from Africa and the Middle east, saying in a brief speech that it was necessary to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism. We will not allow people to enter.

[Katie Edmondson]

Our country who wish to do us.

[Michael Barbaro]

Harm, and nothing will stop us from keeping America safe. The travel ban revives a controversial immigration policy that defined the opening weeks of Trump's first term. It covers, among other countries, Afghanistan, Chad, Haiti, Libya and Sudan. Citizens from seven other countries will be barred from permanently immigrating to the U.S. including Cuba, Venezuela and Sierra Leone. Both measures are expected to face immediate legal challenges and wildfire. Smoke from Canada and desert dust from the Sahara are smothering large portions of the United States, creating hazy skies and and hazardous air quality from the Northeast to the Southeast. On Wednesday, the National Weather Service issued air quality alerts for New York City and many surrounding suburbs, including those in New Jersey and Connecticut. Officials said that those sensitive to air pollution should limit the time that they spend outdoors. Today's episode was produced by Rob Zypko and Eric Krupke. It was edited by Rachel quester and Liz O' Ballin, contains original music by Pat McCusker, Marion Lozano, Dan Powell and Rowan Iamisto and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landmark of Wonderlady that's it for the Daily I'm Michael Balbaro. See you tomorrow.

[Katie Edmondson]

Your new beginning starts now. Dr. Horton has new construction homes available in Ellensburg and throughout the greater Seattle area. With spacious floor plans, flexible living spaces and home technology packages, you can enjoy more cozy moments and sweet memories in your beautiful new home. With new home communities opening in Ellensburg and throughout the Seattle area, Dr. Horton has the ideal home for you. Learn more at Dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal Housing Opportunity Builder.