DJ Daniel, an inspiring 13-year-old boy who gained national fame this year, continues to capture attention as he courageously faces new health challenges in his ongoing battle with cancer. Known for his role as an honorary officer across more than a thousand law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Secret Service, DJ exemplifies strength and resilience through his remarkable journey.
This week, DJ Daniel received heartbreaking news about the development of three new tumors, adding a new hurdle to his fight against brain and spinal cancer, with which he was first diagnosed in 2018, as the Daily Caller reports.
Since that time, Daniel has endured over 13 brain surgeries and participated in a research study, which gave his family hope for a recovery.
In March, DJ's story took a thrilling turn when he was sworn in as an honorary Secret Service agent during a historic session of Congress.
President Donald Trump, showing admiration for the young fighter, officially honored DJ by making him a Secret Service agent before the nation’s leaders. At that moment, Republicans stood to applaud while Democrats remained seated, reflecting the divide often seen in the political arena.
Among his many supporters is Elon Musk, who, in a gesture of goodwill, fulfilled DJ’s wish by gifting his family with a Cybertruck. This act symbolizes Musk’s recognition of the boy's determination and courage in the face of adversity.
DJ's interest in law enforcement began when he was just 9 years old, inspired by his father, Theodis, who has a military background. Since then, DJ has been sworn into 1,351 law enforcement agencies across the United States, garnering widespread admiration and support from police departments nationwide.
Despite being given less than five months to live during one poignant early moment in his journey, DJ defied the odds and continued his quest across various law enforcement agencies.
His unyielding spirit is not just inspiring to those who know his story but also serves as a poignant reminder of the power of hope and perseverance.
DJ’s father, Theodis, recently delivered an emotional update regarding his son's condition to the White House. This news prompted a response as the nation continues to rally around DJ in his time of need.
“We’re lifting up Agent DJ Daniel in prayer,” the White House stated, showing solidarity with the family as they navigate this challenging chapter.
In recounting the moment his son was made an honorary Secret Service agent, Theodis described the experience as overwhelming and unexpected, stating that they were unaware of the recognition that was to come on that significant day.
It was an emotional moment for DJ and his family, providing a beacon of hope amid their struggles. As DJ embarks on this new leg of his journey, support from public figures and the broader community continues to flow in.
This network of encouragement plays a crucial role in lifting the spirits of DJ and his family as they face the latest updates in his battle with cancer.
The young fighter’s courage has caught the attention of numerous prominent figures, such as Trump, who praised DJ's determination and expressed personal admiration for his quest to be part of law enforcement. Trump's gesture of officially swearing him in highlighted an extraordinary milestone in DJ’s journey.
DJ's story is not just about his diagnosis but about the strength and resilience he embodies. He has become a symbol of bravery for those facing similar battles and continues to inspire all who hear of his indomitable spirit.
The encouragement and support DJ Daniel receives are powerful testaments to his impact on those around him. Through every trial, he symbolizes perseverance, setting an example for others with his unwavering hope and positivity.
As DJ continues his fight, he remains an honorary officer not only in title but in heart, with his journey marked by unmatched courage and the hope for a brighter future.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has sparked controversy with his latest remarks on Republican-backed legislation, expressing frustration over fiscal policies under President Donald Trump’s administration. In a preview of an upcoming CBS interview, Musk took aim at the GOP’s so-called “big beautiful bill,” raising concerns about its economic impact.
According to Breitbart, Musk stated that the bill, championed by Trump, fails to address the growing budget deficit while undermining efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The tech billionaire’s comments come as Republicans push forward with expansive spending measures, drawing criticism from fiscal conservatives and business leaders alike.
Musk’s critique highlights a growing divide between some conservatives and the administration over fiscal responsibility. While Trump has touted the bill as a major legislative victory, skeptics argue it prioritizes short-term political gains over long-term economic stability. The debate underscores tensions within the GOP as it navigates competing priorities ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Elon Musk did not mince words when discussing the bill’s financial implications, calling it a disappointment. “I was like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not decrease it and undermines the work the DOGE team is doing,” he told CBS correspondent David Pogue. His remarks suggest frustration with what he perceives as misplaced priorities in Washington.
Pogue echoed Musk’s concerns, noting that the bill’s spending could negate progress made by the DOGE, an agency tasked with streamlining government operations. “I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along, I mean, like, everything he’s done on DOGE gets wiped out in the first year,” Pogue said. The exchange highlights skepticism about whether the legislation aligns with conservative fiscal principles.
Musk further questioned the bill’s branding, quipping, “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don’t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.” His comments reflect broader unease among fiscal hawks who argue that unchecked spending could harm economic stability, even as the administration defends the bill as necessary for growth.
Republicans have pushed back against criticism, arguing that the bill delivers on key promises while stimulating economic growth. Supporters contend that strategic investments in infrastructure and defense justify the increased spending, framing it as a necessary step to maintain U.S. competitiveness. The White House has dismissed concerns over the deficit, emphasizing job creation and national security benefits.
However, fiscal conservatives within the party remain wary. Some lawmakers have voiced concerns that the bill strays from traditional Republican values of limited government and balanced budgets. The internal debate highlights a rift between pragmatic legislators focused on immediate wins and ideologically driven members demanding fiscal restraint.
Trump’s allies have downplayed Musk’s remarks, suggesting the billionaire’s business interests may color his perspective. Yet, the criticism from a high-profile entrepreneur adds pressure on the GOP to justify its spending decisions, particularly as inflation and debt concerns persist among voters.
Musk’s comments have reignited debates over government spending, with both sides seizing on his remarks to bolster their arguments. Fiscal conservatives have praised his stance, using it to push for greater accountability in federal budgeting. Meanwhile, Democrats have capitalized on the discord, portraying the GOP as divided and fiscally irresponsible.
Public opinion remains split. A recent poll cited by Breitbart shows that 57% of Americans support military action to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, suggesting national security remains a top priority. However, growing concerns over debt and inflation could shift voter focus toward fiscal issues as the next election cycle approaches.
The controversy also raises questions about Musk’s role in politics. Having previously aligned with Trump’s administration, his latest critique signals potential friction. Whether this marks a broader break or a momentary disagreement remains unclear, but his influence ensures his words will resonate in policy discussions.
Elon Musk’s criticism of the GOP’s spending bill underscores tensions between business leaders and policymakers over fiscal responsibility. His remarks, aired in a CBS preview, challenge the administration’s narrative of disciplined governance while fueling debates over deficit spending. The clash highlights broader ideological struggles within the Republican Party as it balances growth initiatives with conservative principles.
As the interview’s full release approaches, scrutiny over the bill’s economic impact will likely intensify. With midterm elections on the horizon, both parties face pressure to address voter concerns over spending and debt. Musk’s intervention adds a high-profile voice to the debate, ensuring fiscal policy remains a contentious issue in the months ahead.
The fallout from Musk’s comments may influence future legislative efforts, particularly as Republicans seek to unify their base. Whether the administration adjusts its approach or doubles down on its agenda could determine the GOP’s electoral fortunes—and the nation’s fiscal trajectory—in 2026.
Democratic powerbroker Charles Rangel’s name has long echoed through New York politics, but his story has taken a final turn. When the influential Harlem congressman died at 94, his passing instantly sparked debate about his complicated political legacy, touching on decades of activism, controversy, and reform.
According to Breitbart, Rangel died Monday at a New York hospital, his family confirmed, closing the book on a congressional career that spanned nearly half a century. He was one of the last political titans of his era and the final living member of Harlem’s storied “Gang of Four.”
Rangel’s rise from humble beginnings—surviving the Korean War and then unseating the legendary Adam Clayton Powell in 1970—was both dramatic and unlikely. He became a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and, in 2007, broke barriers as the first Black chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Yet, scandals and ethical missteps would ultimately break his hold on power.
Rangel’s career began in the trenches of Harlem activism, mixing a gravel-voiced charisma with relentless advocacy for his district’s poorest. He entered Congress in 1971 after defeating Powell, a political icon who had become mired in scandal. That win marked Rangel’s emergence as a force in New York Democratic politics and on Capitol Hill.
His service record shaped his worldview. Rangel was a high school dropout who earned a Purple Heart and Bronze Star during the Korean War. Returning home, he leveraged the G.I. Bill for degrees at New York University and St. John’s Law School, translating battlefield grit into political ambition.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Rangel cemented his reputation by speaking out for his Harlem constituents, often championing tax incentives for businesses in blighted areas and authoring the “Rangel amendment,” which targeted U.S. companies investing in apartheid South Africa. Those early victories built his reputation as a fighter for civil rights and the “little guy.”
Rangel’s crowning achievement came after Democrats regained the House in 2006 when he was tapped to chair the Ways and Means Committee. The post gave him immense influence over federal tax policy, Social Security, and Medicare. But his tenure would be short-lived.
In 2010, a House ethics committee found Rangel guilty of 11 violations, including failing to pay taxes on a vacation villa and improperly soliciting donations from corporations with business before his committee. He was forced to step down as chairman and was censured by the full House—the most serious punishment short of expulsion.
The ethics scandal cast a shadow over his legacy, even as Rangel insisted he was “committed to fighting for the little guy.” Many critics claimed his downfall was the product of his own hubris and disregard for House rules, while defenders argued that Rangel’s work for Harlem and his longevity set him apart.
As news of Rangel’s death spread, reactions reflected the breadth of his impact. Allies emphasized his decades of advocacy and activism, while critics recalled his ethical lapses and bare-knuckle political style.
Rev. Al Sharpton, a longtime friend and ally, paid tribute to Rangel’s activism and shared history, saying: “Charlie was a true activist — we’ve marched together, been arrested together and painted crack houses together.”
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries captured the sentiment of many Democrats, calling Rangel “a patriot, hero, statesman, leader, trailblazer, change agent and champion for justice who made his beloved Harlem, the City of New York and the United States of America a better place for all.”
Yet not all remembered him as a hero. Rangel’s feuds, including a bitter exchange with then-Vice President Dick Cheney over the Iraq War, became legendary. Rangel once remarked that he hoped Cheney was “sick rather than just mean and evil,” to which Cheney retorted that Rangel was “losing it.” The sharp words reflected a career spent both making allies and sparring with opponents.
Rangel’s death marks the end of an era in Harlem and New York politics. As the last surviving member of the “Gang of Four”—which included former Mayor David Dinkins, Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton, and deputy mayor Basil Paterson—he helped shape the city’s political landscape for a generation.
His story was always larger than his scandals. Rangel’s voice was unmistakable, his humor equally so, and his commitment to Harlem unwavering despite personal and professional setbacks. Throughout his career, he worked to bring empowerment zones and low-income housing tax credits to his district, always claiming to measure each day against surviving the Korean War.
Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is raising eyebrows after comments on national television stirred speculation about the fate of President Donald Trump’s latest budget proposal. During an appearance on CNN, Johnson spoke candidly about the internal GOP resistance brewing in the Senate.
According to The Daily Caller, Johnson predicted that enough Republican senators are prepared to stall Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” unless their demands for spending cuts are addressed. His remarks highlight growing divisions within the party, even as Trump urges Republicans to pass his narrow House-approved package.
Johnson’s warning arrived just days after the bill barely cleared the House by a single vote. With the Senate on the horizon, the budget’s prospects now hinge on whether GOP critics will force major concessions or risk derailing a top White House priority.
Tensions over the budget began escalating last Thursday when Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” squeaked through the House with a 215-214-1 vote. Republican representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio joined Democrats in voting no, while House Freedom Caucus leader Andy Harris voted present. The narrow outcome underscored deep unease about the bill’s spending levels.
On Sunday, during CNN’s “State of the Union,” host Jake Tapper pressed Johnson for insight on how many GOP senators might join him in opposing the bill. Johnson didn’t offer a specific number but insisted there were enough to “stop the process until the president gets serious about spending reduction and reducing the deficit.”
Johnson’s comments are significant because Senate Majority Leader John Thune has acknowledged he can’t afford to lose more than three Republican votes if the package is to pass. The fate of the legislation may depend on whether party leaders can satisfy conservative holdouts demanding substantial fiscal reforms.
For Johnson and like-minded senators, the issue goes beyond politics. He argued that the current budget process is fundamentally flawed, warning that the country faces an “unprecedented level of increased spending, 58% since 2019, other than World War II.”
Johnson insists this is a pivotal moment to cut spending back to pre-pandemic levels. He told Tapper:
This is our moment. We have witnessed an unprecedented level of increased spending, 58% since 2019, other than World War II. This is our only chance to reset that to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending.
He criticized the legislative routine of rushing through complex appropriations with little transparency. Johnson warned that relying on Congressional Budget Office projections without considering the broader context, such as an estimated $22 trillion in additional deficit over the next decade, was “completely out of context with anything that really we ought to be talking about.”
President Trump and his allies have pressed for swift passage, emphasizing the bill’s importance for border security and defense. Despite this, some Senate Republicans are standing firm. In addition to Johnson, Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, John Curtis of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota have all expressed concerns about various provisions.
Johnson’s position is not new. Earlier this month, he wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the bill’s “unsustainable federal spending” should prompt Congress and the president to reconsider. He advocated for a two-step process: first, pass a bill based on the Senate’s original budget resolution to secure $850 billion in spending reductions, then extend current tax law to avoid automatic increases and prevent default with a modest debt ceiling hike.
Senate Majority Leader Thune remains optimistic, recently stating there’s a “workable path” to 51 votes by July 4. Still, he faces the challenge of uniting a fractured caucus without further alienating members demanding budget discipline.
The upcoming Senate vote puts both the White House and congressional Republicans under the microscope. For Trump, securing passage of the bill is vital to demonstrating control of the legislative agenda and delivering on campaign promises to his base. For Johnson and fellow skeptics, the moment offers a rare opportunity to demand meaningful spending restraint.
If Johnson and his allies succeed in delaying or amending the bill, it could reshape the fiscal debate in Washington for years to come. Alternatively, failure to resolve the impasse could risk a government shutdown or force another round of tense negotiations.
With the Senate poised for what could be a dramatic showdown, all eyes turn to how party leaders manage the competing pressures. The coming weeks will test not only the resolve of fiscal conservatives but also the unity of the GOP as Trump’s presidency enters a critical legislative phase.
In a significant shake-up within the legal world, four distinguished attorneys have announced their departure from the eminent law firm Paul Weiss to establish a new legal practice.
This decision comes in the wake of a recent agreement between Paul Weiss and President Donald Trump aimed at maintaining the firm's operations and political neutrality, as the Washington Examiner reports.
Karen Dunn, Jeannie Rhee, Jessica Phillips, and William Isaacson, who held notable roles within Paul Weiss, are the attorneys set to embark on this new venture.
The group conveyed their departure to colleagues in a heartfelt message, expressing gratitude for their time and experiences at the firm.
Dunn and Rhee are well-known for their involvement in significant legal and political affairs, including representing high-profile political figures and participating in notable investigations.
Karen Dunn, for instance, has played a pivotal role in preparing Democratic Party candidates for debates for over a decade, beginning in 2008. Jeannie Rhee, another departing lawyer, has a robust history of representing prominent figures such as Hillary Clinton and was instrumental in Robert Mueller's investigation into allegations surrounding Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Both lawyers bring significant political and legal experience to their new venture.
Jessica Phillips and William Isaacson round out the group, each with notable credentials. Phillips has provided legal representation for major technology companies like Apple and Oracle, showcasing her expertise in handling complex corporate legal matters. Isaacson's recognition as “Litigator of the Year” in 2016 further underscores the team's accomplished backgrounds.
The timing of their departure is particularly notable as it follows closely on the heels of Paul Weiss’ agreement with President Trump. In mid-March, the firm secured a deal prompting Trump to rescind an executive order that threatened to sever ties with law firms engaging in perceived partisan activities. The agreement necessitates that Paul Weiss, alongside eight other law firms, represents a wide array of clients while fulfilling specific pro bono commitments.
This arrangement includes a $40 million pledge directed towards crucial pro bono work. Projects under this initiative will focus on aiding veterans, supporting justice initiatives, combating anti-Semitism, and other mutually agreed causes. Paul Weiss' effort to maintain an apolitical stance aligns with this agreement, as emphasized by Trump's remarks highlighting the firm's commitment to merit-based hiring and representing clients across the political spectrum.
Paul Weiss' partnership with Trump comes amid a backdrop where other law firms have either joined or distanced themselves from the administration's directives. Notably, Jenner & Block has actively opposed Trump's executive orders, with a federal judge recently declaring such mandates unlawful. This diverse response from the legal community highlights the ongoing tension between maintaining political neutrality and navigating the contemporary political landscape.
For the departing lawyers of Paul Weiss, their new endeavor presents a fresh chapter. While expressing their best wishes to their former colleagues, they remain optimistic about potential future collaborations. They acknowledged the valuable relationships and experiences cultivated at Paul Weiss, underscoring the respect and admiration shared among their peers.
As the legal industry observes these developments, the implications for both Paul Weiss and the wider legal field continue to unfold. The departing lawyers' new venture will likely generate interest due to their influential reputations. Moreover, these changes invite speculation on how Paul Weiss will navigate the ongoing political climate while fulfilling its commitments to neutrality.
Although the attorneys are venturing into new territory, their departure marks a pivotal moment for Paul Weiss. The firm's future trajectory will depend on its ability to uphold the obligations outlined in its agreement with Trump's administration and adapt to evolving legal and political environments.
Senate Republicans are gearing up to overhaul President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, underscoring their intention to make significant changes after its narrow approval in the House of Representatives.
The bill's provisions, which include extensions of Trump's 2017 tax cuts and funding for immigration initiatives, face scrutiny from some in the upper chamber over deep Medicaid cuts and a substantial projected increase in federal debt and they are seeking a version of the legislation that balances fiscal responsibility with political feasibility, as U.S. News and World Report explains.
Republican senators have expressed notable apprehension about the current form of the bill, particularly regarding its impact on health benefits and financial integrity. The bill, which also targets green-energy incentives and alters eligibility for certain health and food benefits, has sparked debates about the implications of its financial provisions.
Following the House's narrow passage of the bill, Senate Republicans, holding a 53-47 majority, plan to leverage special legislative rules going forward. These rules allow for a simple majority vote and enable the party to propose significant alterations without needing to secure 60 approvals. This strategic move reflects their resolve to address lingering concerns before finalizing the legislation. A key focus of the Senate's impending revisions is the anticipated trillions in federal debt.
Republican voices, like Sens. Rand Paul and Ron Johnson, have voiced trepidations about insufficient spending cuts, emphasizing the necessity for a responsible fiscal approach. Paul has specifically criticized the proposed $4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling, implying reluctance to approve the bill unless certain conditions are altered.
As the Senate debates potential changes, discussions have spotlighted Medicaid's future. Senators such as Josh Hawley and Susan Collins are particularly attentive to the effects of the Medicaid reductions on low-income communities. These apprehensions underline the broader discourse on balancing budget constraints with the needs of vulnerable populations.
Meanwhile, financial prudence remains a top priority for other GOP members. North Carolina's Thom Tillis advocates for deeper spending reductions, seeking a clearer path toward reducing the federal deficit. Simultaneously, he emphasizes the importance of moderating the impact on green-energy initiatives to avoid undermining critical environmental progress.
Trump, cognizant of the urgency to advance the bill, is exerting pressure on Senate Republicans. He has publicly called for swift Senate action, leveraging political influence to expedite the legislative process. Trump's advocacy highlights the significance he places on finalizing the legislation and aligning party support around it.
Once the Senate completes its Memorial Day recess, negotiations are anticipated to intensify. Senate Republicans will be tasked with negotiating a version of the bill that harmonizes their modifications with House priorities, creating a unified legislative path forward. Consequently, deliberations are expected to be robust, given the varying perspectives within the party.
A critical component of the forthcoming navigation involves addressing economic growth forecasts and budget assumptions embedded in the bill. Senator Mike Rounds has raised skepticism regarding these projections, emphasizing the need for realistic financial strategies. This illustrates the multifaceted discussions expected to transpire as lawmakers refine the bill's provisions.
In the words of Senate Republican leader John Thune, the House's effort yielded a foundational legislative product. However, he noted that Senate Republicans aim to chart their own course, indicating that substantial revisions are likely on the horizon. This dynamic underscores the intricate balance of political strategy and policymaking within the Senate.
As Senate Republicans deliberate potential amendments, the broader context of intra-party dynamics comes into play. Efforts to harmonize diverse perspectives while maintaining Republican unity will inevitably shape the final contours of the bill. The endeavor reflects a critical phase in advancing fiscal priorities amidst complex legislative realities.
Moving forward, the interplay between maintaining social safety nets and pursuing fiscal responsibility remains a central theme. Lawmakers face the challenge of mitigating impactful reductions while advancing fiscal discipline -- an intricate balance that will define the legislative trajectory in the coming weeks.
A new political storm is brewing in Washington, and President Donald Trump is at the center of it. With his latest legislative push, Trump has reignited a fierce debate over taxpayer funding, transgender rights, and the future of Medicaid coverage.
President Trump’s ambitious “one big, beautiful, bill” has passed the House of Representatives by the slimmest of margins and now heads to the Senate. According to Breitbart News, the bill would strip Medicaid funding for all gender transition procedures, ending coverage for treatments ranging from puberty blockers to hormone therapy and surgery.
The measure, which originally focused on banning Medicaid coverage for minors, was amended late Wednesday to remove age restrictions. Now, the bill targets all Medicaid recipients seeking gender transition treatments, regardless of age. Supporters hail the move as a fiscal and cultural victory, while critics argue it’s a direct attack on a vulnerable population.
The House passed President Trump’s reconciliation budget by a razor-thin 215-214-1 vote early Thursday morning, demonstrating just how contentious the issue has become. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed deep emotions, with the bill’s substance and scope evolving until the last minute.
Initially, the measure sought to prohibit Medicaid from covering “gender transition procedures” only for minors. But a late-night amendment struck the words “minors” and “under 18 years of age,” sweeping all adults under the new regulations as well. This turn of events widened the bill’s impact significantly, raising the stakes for both its supporters and opponents.
A 2023 study cited in the debate found that 25 percent of gender-affirming surgeries in the United States were paid for by Medicaid, with over 12,000 out of 48,019 patients relying on the program. That figure underscores just how many Americans could be affected if the bill becomes law.
Supporters of Trump’s bill see it as a major victory for taxpayers and traditional values. Groups like the American Principles Project have praised the measure, arguing that taxpayer dollars should not be spent on what they call controversial medical procedures.
Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, applauded the bill’s passage, referencing public opinion on the use of government funds for gender transition treatments. He argued that most Americans are uncomfortable with taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care, especially for procedures involving children.
Proponents also argue that the measure will restore fiscal sanity to Medicaid, a program that has faced mounting costs in recent years. They view the bill as a necessary step to ensure government health programs focus on what they see as core medical needs.
On the other side, critics of the bill warn of dire consequences for thousands of Americans. Advocacy groups and medical professionals have argued that gender-affirming care is essential for transgender individuals and that stripping Medicaid coverage could lead to increased suffering and health disparities. Transgender comedian Stacy Cay was among those who spoke out forcefully, calling the move an “attempt of genocide.”
Many in the medical community have echoed these concerns, pointing to studies that show improved mental health outcomes for transgender individuals who can access gender transition care. They fear that eliminating Medicaid funding will make these treatments financially impossible for low-income Americans.
Opponents also criticize the decision to remove age restrictions from the bill, claiming that it disproportionately impacts adults who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare needs and who have no other options for covering these costly procedures.
As the bill heads to the Senate, both sides are preparing for a high-stakes showdown. Some senators have already signaled concerns about the impact on rural and low-income Americans, especially those living in red states where Medicaid is a critical healthcare lifeline.
In a statement, American Principles Project’s Terry Schilling praised the House version and urged senators to maintain its core provisions. Meanwhile, advocacy groups are mobilizing supporters, warning that the bill could set a precedent for further restrictions on transgender healthcare.
Senate Republicans are expected to push for swift passage, while Democrats and some moderates may seek amendments or attempt to block the bill entirely. With the country watching closely, the Senate’s decision could shape the national conversation on healthcare, gender, and government spending for years to come.
An all-night session and weeks of bitter infighting left Speaker Mike Johnson grinning in the Capitol halls while President Donald Trump celebrated a razor-thin legislative victory.
In a dramatic early morning vote, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives narrowly approved the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping legislative package advancing President Donald Trump’s tax and immigration agenda. According to ABC News, the measure passed 215-214, with just one Republican voting present and all Democrats in opposition.
The bill’s passage came after intense internal GOP negotiations, last-minute changes, and a marathon debate that stretched through the night. Speaker Johnson, flanked by Republican allies, declared the moment “morning in America again,” while President Trump took to social media to call it “the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!”
Deep rifts among House Republicans threatened the bill’s survival up until the final moments. Speaker Johnson, holding a fragile three-vote majority, was forced to appease both hardline conservatives and moderate members from high-tax states. The narrow margin reflected weeks of wrangling and highlighted the party’s ongoing struggle to unify behind Trump’s priorities.
Negotiations centered on Medicaid work requirements and the cap on state and local tax deductions, issues that nearly derailed the bill. Some Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted against the measure, while Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, voted present. The final tallies triggered an outburst of celebration among supporters, with Queen’s “We Are The Champions” briefly playing on the House floor.
President Trump and his aides worked behind the scenes to secure support, with the White House describing a critical meeting between Trump and House conservatives as “productive.” The president pressed the urgency of passing the bill before Memorial Day, framing it as essential for the nation’s economic and security interests.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” delivers on several of Trump’s campaign promises. It features major tax cuts, including the elimination of federal taxes on tips and overtime, expanded tax deductions for Americans who purchase vehicles made in the United States, and the creation of new “Trump Savings Accounts”—a rebranding of the originally proposed “MAGA Accounts.” The bill also raises the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 for households earning under $500,000, a key concession to members from states like New York and California.
Healthcare reforms are central to the package. The legislation accelerates the start of new Medicaid work requirements to no later than December 31, 2026, three years earlier than initially proposed. This change, demanded by budget hawks, is expected to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while a new incentive discourages states from expanding Medicaid coverage.
On immigration, the bill appropriates $12 billion for border security reimbursements to states for costs linked to Biden-era policies, with grants available through September 2029. The Department of Homeland Security gains new authority to assist with enforcement, reflecting a key priority for House Republicans.
House Democrats, unified in their opposition, denounced the bill as extreme and harmful to working-class Americans. They argued that the Medicaid changes would strip coverage from vulnerable groups and that the tax cuts would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Democratic leadership accused Republicans of prioritizing campaign promises over bipartisan solutions.
Some moderate Republicans also voiced concern, especially over the Medicaid provisions and the expedited phase-out of clean energy tax credits originally expanded under President Biden. The bill requires new clean energy projects to break ground within 60 days or be operational by the end of 2028 to access remaining credits, a move designed to offset the cost of other tax breaks.
Despite the House victory, the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where the Republican majority is expected to propose revisions in the coming weeks. Senate Republicans have signaled that Medicaid work requirements and state tax deduction changes may be points of contention. President Trump and Speaker Johnson have called for swift action, but the path forward remains fraught with political risk.
Speaker Johnson relished the moment after the vote, addressing the media alongside top House Republicans and committee chairs. He insisted that the bill’s passage proved doubters wrong and signaled a return to conservative priorities in Washington. “The bill gets Americans back to winning again, and it's been a long time coming,” Johnson said. “It quite literally is again morning in America, isn't it, all right?”
President Trump’s public praise for Johnson and House Republicans underscored the high stakes of the legislative battle. Trump wrote in a social media post: “Great job by Speaker Mike Johnson, and the House Leadership, and thank you to every Republican who voted YES on this Historic Bill!”
The House vote marks only the first stage of the legislative process. As the reconciliation bill moves to the Senate, both parties prepare for another round of debate and amendment. Republicans hope for a quick Senate turnaround, but Democrats have vowed to fight provisions they view as punitive or regressive.