Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
This week, as President Trump and some of his prominent allies have promoted his sweeping budget bill, they have repeated a number of claims about the package that contradict expert analysis.
The so-called “one big, beautiful bill” narrowly passed the House last month and now faces major challenges in the Senate, including from holdouts like GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who opposes the bill in its current form. Elon Musk, the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency, has also publicly slammed the bill’s price tag and tried to convince lawmakers to kill it.
In the face of this, the White House and House Speaker Mike Johnson have revived a number of their earlier talking points, claiming that their bill will reduce the nation’s debt and bring substantial tax relief to American workers while not cutting Medicaid benefits to those who qualify.
Here’s a breakdown of the claims:
Johnson said June 2: “I am telling you, this is going to reduce the deficit.”
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said May 22: “The One Big Beautiful Bill also helps get our fiscal house in order by carrying out the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years with $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings.”
Details: Republicans have claimed the bill would reduce the deficit, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggesting it could save Americans nearly $1.6 trillion.
That’s false, according to multiple non-partisan analysts and think tanks. While the bill includes cost-saving policies like new Medicaid work requirements and cuts to federal food assistance programs, analysts have found those savings are outweighed by expensive provisions — like extending 2017 tax cuts, eliminating taxes on tips and boosting border security funding.
The Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ official non-partisan budget scorers, estimated the bill’s $1.2 trillion in spending cuts would be far exceeded by nearly $3.7 trillion in lost revenue, increasing the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. Independent analysts at Penn Wharton and the Tax Foundation estimated that even after accounting for economic growth the bill could create, it would still raise the deficit by $3.2 trillion or $1.7 trillion, respectively.
Asked to explain the discrepancy, a White House official said the CBO “isn’t the most reliable source.” Johnson’s office has not responded.
Mr. Trump said May 31: “If Senator Rand Paul votes against our Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, he is voting for, along with the Radical Left Democrats, a 68% Tax Increase.”
Details: Mr.Trump has repeatedly claimed that senators will be raising people’s taxes by 68% if they do not vote in favor of the reconciliation bill. However, multiple independent analyses show that claim is false.
The bill aims to extend tax cuts passed in 2017 that are set to expire. If those cuts lapse, the average household’s after-tax income would fall by an estimated 2.1%, reflecting a roughly 7.5% tax increase, according to the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
Similarly, the Tax Foundation, an independent think tank, estimated that if the tax cuts aren’t extended and other provisions in the bill, such as exempting tips from taxes, don’t pass, middle-income households would forgo a 4.5% increase in their after-tax income.
The White House did not respond to a request for clarification on the president’s claim.
Alex Muresianu, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said the president may have been referring to the share of taxpayers — about 62% — who would face a tax increase if the bill isn’t passed. Other Republicans framed the statistic this way, including Kentucky Rep. Andy Barr who said opponents of the bill are voting for a “tax increase on 68% of Americans.”
Mr. Trump said June 2: “There will be NO CUTS to Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. … The only ‘cutting’ we will do is for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, something that should have been done by the Incompetent, Radical Left Democrats for the last four years, but wasn’t.”
Johnson said June 2: “We’re not cutting Medicaid. What we’re doing is strengthening the program. We’re reducing fraud, waste and abuse that is rampant in Medicaid to ensure that that program is essential for so many people.”
Details: Mr. Trump previously promised that his administration was not going to introduce cuts to Medicaid benefits and now claims the House-passed budget bill only targets “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the program. Johnson has echoed the claim.
However, that’s not true, according to non-partisan analyses.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill would cut over $600 billion from Medicaid in the next decade. Only a fraction of that would come from anti-fraud measures such as increased efforts to verify enrollees aren’t enrolled in multiple states, according to Alice Burns, the associate director at the non-partisan KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured.
Roughly half of the savings would come from imposing new work requirements on recipients without young children or disabilities. Supporters say this encourages able-bodied enrollees to contribute to their communities. However, most Medicaid enrollees under 65 already have jobs, according to KFF. The change doesn’t address waste, fraud or abuse in health care as defined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service.
The bill would also require states to charge copayments of up to $35 for some medical services for people with incomes above the poverty level — a cost-saving move with little bearing on program integrity. In current law, states are allowed to charge out of pocket costs to low-income enrollees but they are typically minimal.
Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa defended herself Monday after drawing attention for telling a town hall attendee worried about proposed changes to Medicaid that “we all are going to die.”
“I’m very compassionate, and you need to listen to the entire conversation,” Ernst told CBS News on Monday.
Ernst’s now-viral musings on mortality came during a contentious town hall meeting Friday, as attendees grilled the senator about a GOP-backed domestic policy bill that passed the House last month. The legislation — titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, after President Trump referred to the measure that way — would impose work requirements on some Medicaid recipients, among other changes.
At one point, as Ernst defended some of the legislation’s changes to the low-income health insurance program, a person appeared to yell that people will die.
“People are not — well, we all are going to die, so for heaven’s sakes,” Ernst responded.
Ernst went on to say that she will “focus on those that are most vulnerable” and added, “those that meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid we will protect.”
The senator later dug in and posted a sarcastic apology video to Instagram.
“I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this Earth. So, I apologize,” Ernst said in the video. “I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the Tooth Fairy as well.”
The town hall comments drew criticism from some opponents of Ernst, who is up for reelection next year. Nathan Sage, who is running for the Democratic nomination for Senate, said Ernst is “not even trying to hide her contempt for us.” And Democratic state Rep. JD Scholten announced Monday he’s entering the race, saying in an Instagram post he wasn’t planning to launch his campaign now but “can’t sit on the sidelines” after Ernst’s town hall.
As passed by the House, the domestic policy bill would add restrictions to Medicaid, including a work, volunteer or schooling requirement for non-disabled adults without children. The bill would also add more frequent eligibility checks, cut funding for states that use the Medicaid system to cover undocumented immigrants, freeze provider taxes and ban coverage for gender transition services.
The bill’s proposed changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, could save hundreds of billions of dollars, which would help pay for extending Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and boosting border security.
But before it reaches Mr. Trump’s desk, the bill still needs to pass the Senate, where some Republicans are pushing to roll back some of the Medicaid cuts. In last week’s town hall, Ernst said she agrees with parts of the legislation passed by the House, but “the bill will be changing.”
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Washington — The Senate is expected to take a key procedural vote Monday evening on a crypto regulation bill after Democratic opposition tanked an initial attempt to advance the measure earlier this month amid concern over ties between the digital asset industry and the Trump family.
The first-of-its-kind legislation, known as the GENIUS Act, would create a regulatory framework for stablecoins — a type of cryptocurrency tied to the value of an asset like the U.S. dollar. After the measure advanced out of the Senate Banking Committee with bipartisan support in March, Senate GOP leadership first brought the measure to the floor earlier this month. But the measure had lost Democratic support in the intervening weeks amid concerns about President Trump and his family’s business ventures involving cryptocurrency.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the upper chamber would try again to advance the legislation on Monday, while criticizing Democrats for blocking the measure from moving forward earlier this month, saying “this bill reflects the bipartisan consensus on this issue, and it’s had an open and bipartisan process since the very beginning.”
Thune, a South Dakota Republican, argued that Senate Democrats “inexplicably chose to block this legislation” earlier this month, while adding that “I’m hoping that the second time will be the charm.”
Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images
Since the failed vote earlier this month, negotiators returned to the table. And ahead of the procedural vote Monday, the measure saw backing from at least one Democrat as Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia advocated for the measure, calling it a “meaningful step forward,” though he added that it’s “not perfect.”
“The stablecoin market has reached nearly $250 billion and the U.S. can’t afford to keep standing on the sidelines,” Warner said in a statement. “We need clear rules of the road to protect consumers, defend national security, and support responsible innovation.”
Still, Warner pointed to concerns he said are shared among many senators about the Trump family’s “use of crypto technologies to evade oversight, hide shady financial dealings, and personally profit at the expense of everyday Americans,” after it was announced earlier this month that an Abu Dhabi-backed firm will invest billions of dollars in a Trump family-linked crypto firm, World Liberty Financial.
Warner said senators “have a duty to shine a light on these abuses,” but he argued “we cannot allow that corruption to blind us to the broader reality: blockchain technology is here to stay.”
Whether the measure can advance in the upper chamber this time around remains to be seen. The measure fell short of the 60 votes necessary to move forward earlier this month, with all Senate Democrats and two Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri — opposing. Paul has reservations about overregulation, while Hawley voted against the bill in part because it doesn’t prohibit big tech companies from creating their own stablecoins.
Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, who sponsored the legislation, defended the measure on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Monday. He outlined that a lack of regulatory framework, which the bill would provide, makes for uncertainty — and results in innovative technology moving offshore. The Tennessee Republicans urged that “this will fix it,” while arguing that the bill has strong bipartisan support.
“We have broad policy agreement, Democrats and Republicans,” Hagerty said. “The question is can we get past the partisan politics and allow us to actually have a victory.”
Senate Democrats and the Biden administration dropped plans to set drug price caps based on the amount paid in other high-income countries, during talks years ago to push through the law that empowered Medicare to negotiate down the cost of prescription medications.
A version of the idea was revived by President Trump in the executive order signed Monday, which called on the Department of Health and Human Services next month to draw up regulations to impose price restrictions tied to lower amounts paid in other developed nations, if drugmakers did not voluntarily reduce what they were charging in the U.S.
“Democrats could have done this a long time ago. They have fought like hell, for the drug companies. And they knew they were doing the wrong thing,” Mr. Trump told reporters, speaking at a White House event to announce the move.
For Democrats on Capitol Hill, this kind of approach to price controls has roots in a bill their own party successfully passed under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019.
As part of giving Medicare the ability to negotiate the price of costly drugs it covered, the bill passed by House Democrats wanted the maximum price to be tied to an average based on prices paid in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom.
“We were hoping to get Trump. Trump said, ‘I want to negotiate.’ But then Republicans in Congress got to him,” said Wendell Primus, who served for nearly two decades as Pelosi’s top aide on health policy.
The bill did not make it through the Senate at the time, which was controlled by Mr. Trump’s party. After Democrats flipped control of the Senate, the idea ran into headwinds years later, as Biden aides and lawmakers tried to incorporate the measure into the Inflation Reduction Act.
Multiple Democrats involved in the talks on Capitol Hill at the time blamed a series of meetings in early 2021 with the staff from the Senate Finance Committee and party leadership for scuttling the idea.
Staff on the committee said that they were worried that moderate Democrats like then-Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona would not support the bill if it included the measure, Primus said. Menendez and Sinema are no longer in the Senate.
“Members did not want to have something referencing foreign countries. They wanted it to make a function of the manufacturer’s price here, what drug companies were offering to commercial insurers,” Primus said.
One former Biden White House aide involved in the talks said that there were several senators who understood that drug prices were too high, but they worried those price caps could undercut innovation from drugmakers in the U.S.
Instead, the deal struck by lawmakers and White House aides to pass the law in 2022 ultimately turned to a different formula: capping them using calculations based on the price previously paid by Medicare and a fixed discount off the list price in the private U.S. market.
“President Biden and Democrats in Congress cared about getting something done, and so there was a compromise on the table that wasn’t perfect, but it was going to make a huge amount of difference. And so that’s the law they ultimately enacted,” said Christen Linke-Young, deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council under Mr. Biden.
Medicare has gone on to implement the law, resulting in talks that are continuing under the current Trump administration to lower the maximum price that the federal insurance program will pay for a growing list of costly drugs.
“It’s a good thing for prescription drug costs in this country to be lower, we need to continue to work on that. And one of the ways to do that is actually put a proposal before Congress and get it enacted, so it has the force of law,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under Mr. Biden.
Meanwhile, as the White House was working with their allies in Congress to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration moved to formally scrap a bid by Mr. Trump to impose caps tied to lower prices in other high-income countries using executive power during his first term.
Called the “most favored nation” model, Trump officials had directed Medicare to only reimburse hospitals and clinics for some costly drugs based on the lowest price paid for in other high-income countries.
CMS under Mr. Biden ultimately rescinded that move in 2022, after a legal fight that had blocked the proposal on the grounds that the Trump administration had unlawfully shortcutted the normal rulemaking steps to finalize the policy.
“The proposal was always pretty transparently illegal. The statute says that Medicare has to pay for prescription drugs in one particular way, and the Trump administration proposal was that we are going to ignore the statute and pay for drugs in an entirely different way. If the statute allowed that, a president before Donald Trump would have done it,” Linke-Young said.
A White House official under Mr. Trump disagreed with the accusation that their initial proposal was unlawful, arguing that the initial authority they used for the “demonstration” model in Medicare used powers that were broadly written by Democrats.
While they are not planning to go down the exact same path, the official said, saying that they “learned certain things from that first demonstration,” the Trump administration believes they “absolutely have that authority in our pocket.”
“We are confident that we have authorities within our government programs to do this. And any dispute from the Biden administration is an intentional misinterpretation of the statute for political reasons, because they are the ones that walked away,” the White House official said.
Trump administration officials have painted their second run at the “most favored nation” idea as even broader in scope than their first term, which had been limited to only some costly drugs administered by healthcare providers through Medicare Part B.
The White House official said Wednesday that they “firmly believe” they have the ability to pursue wider actions to push drugmakers to lower their prices within Medicare. They cited other authorities in the law being considered like section 402, which affords HHS powers to “develop and engage in experiments” which could affect payment rates in Medicaid as well.
Asked this week on Fox Business Network whether the president’s promise of steep drug price cuts would also extend to Medicare Part D, which covers the broad swath of prescriptions filled at drug store pharmacies, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said “they absolutely will.”
“They’ll apply to Medicare, and they’ll apply in the private market as well,” Kennedy said.
Asked Tuesday whether he supported the president’s plan, Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he thought “it’ll be the subject of probably multiple lawsuits, and I think the courts will probably have something to say about it.”