5 possible changes that could hold up Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ in the Senate

The Senate has long been signaling that changes to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” are coming, and as Congress barrels toward President Donald Trump’s July 4 deadline, the contours of those changes are beginning to take shape.

Senators met for over two hours on Wednesday to hear updates from committee chairs about proposed changes to certain portions of the House-approved package. Very few details are locked in, but senators received an overview of the general direction the provisions in the bill are taking.

“Imagine a jigsaw puzzle with 3,000 pieces and no picture. So that’s what we’re trying to put together,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the bill would rein in the cost of government and put federal programs on a more sustainable fiscal path to a degree “I think a lot of people never thought was possible.”

“This will be the biggest spending reduction, mandatory spending, in history, so we are working to that end,” Thune said on “The Will Cain Show.”

Here’s a look at how some of the major provisions of this bill are taking shape.

SNAP

Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., the chairman of the Senate agriculture committee, which oversees the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, signaled there would be changes in the bill to lessen the burden on the states imposed by the House’s SNAP proposal.

Boozman said that unlike the House bill that would require states to share 5% of the cost of SNAP, the Senate proposal does away with the cost-share, though states with high error rates would still have an obligation to share costs.

Work requirements for families of young children to qualify for SNAP would also change, now being implemented for families with children over 10 instead of children over 7.

The changes to the House proposal would mean that the savings from SNAP changes implemented in the bill are about $20 billion less than the House’s version, per Boozman.

SALT

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., gave House centrists a win by upping the cap on state and local tax deductions from $10,000 to $40,000. Senators left Wednesday’s meeting suggesting they plan to lower that cap.

The Senate has not coalesced around a new cap, but senators have signaled the number will be well beneath $40,000.

“There was never a number specially discussed other than that the House is 40, and it’s a lot. No surprise that there’s an interest in reducing it,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.

“It’s likely we will do less, and that’s how specific it got,” Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., echoed.

From the Senate GOP’s calculus, lowering the SALT cap is an easy win since it helps to cut costs from the bill and there are virtually no Senate Republicans from blue states with especially high state and local taxes.

But slashing the SALT cap could make for a perilous path forward in the House, where a number of centrist Republicans have threatened to withhold support if the Senate touches the cap.

“There isn’t much interest in the Senate in going back on SALT,” Thune said during a Fox News interview. “Having said that, they need the votes in the House. We understand that, and we are looking at ways that we can adjust and dial those provisions.”

Border funding

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is one of the Senate’s biggest fiscal hawks and, as such, one of the bill’s biggest naysayers. He’s also the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and responsible for charting a path forward on the border provisions in the package.

Paul told reporters he advocated lowering the amount of money allocated for border security.

“I presented my ideas that we shouldn’t immediately accept the $150 billion for border security, that we should look at how much a wall costs to build,” Paul said.

Paul said a number of his colleagues came along to his way of thinking but that he didn’t win over everyone in the room.

“Maybe we can find some savings there, but Sen. Paul’s numbers are just not realistic,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

Medicaid

Medicaid changes remain somewhat of an open question.

Thune said he is “working on” getting Republicans on the same page about Medicaid cuts, especially with members such as Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Ark., who made the issue their line in the sand when it comes to supporting the bill.

“The House made a good effort, trying to pare back the use of provider taxes and the way they have been gamed and used in the past,” Thune said, suggesting that provider tax credits have been manipulated by residents of blue states.

“And the Senate is trying to build upon that, but obviously it is an issue that we need to have 51 votes for in the Senate, they need to keep 418 in the House,” he said, suggesting the Senate could step over Hawley’s stipulations. “At the end of the day, this is a program that is right for reform.

“The things we are going to do are going to strengthen it and improve it and make it available for whom it was intended,” Thune concluded. “It shouldn’t be available for illegal immigrants. There are people who are ineligible, able-bodied males, who are working age — there ought to be a work requirement attached to it.”

Energy tax credits

Multiple senators have signaled they plan to toy with transferability of expiration dates of certain Inflation Reduction Act energy tax credits.

“There are certain newer tools where businesses have made large capital investments where we hopefully can extend the runway or the landing strip a little bit for them,” Cramer said. “It comes down to things, like when the credit kicks in versus when it runs out, when it expires.”