House fiscal hawks are reviewing the financial implications of Senate Republicans’ sweeping domestic policy legislation and are expressing concern over the projected impact on the national deficit. As Senate Republicans push for the passage of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill”, they are at risk of violating a budget framework that was previously negotiated with Speaker Mike Johnson. Under this framework, any increase in tax cuts to more than $4 trillion would require a corresponding match of spending cuts beyond the $1.5 trillion in the House-passed bill. The Senate version of the bill adds $651 billion to the deficit, and this figure is projected to double when interest costs are included, according to the Freedom Caucus. The House had initially agreed to a deal in which GOP senators would have to match tax cuts with additional spending cuts. However, the Senate’s plan is significantly out of compliance with the budget framework, and it may require a conference between the two chambers to resolve these differences, potentially delaying the bill’s passage beyond Trump’s July 4 deadline.
Billionaire Elon Musk has recently intensified his criticism of the bill over its impact on the federal budget, expressing that Congress members who campaigned on reducing government spending should be ashamed for supporting a bill that would increase the debt considerably. The House fiscal hawks have emphasized their fiscal red lines, but some now privately worry that they could face pressure from Senate Republicans and Trump to compromise on the bill’s scope. Speaker Mike Johnson has advised Senate GOP leaders to remain as close to the House version as possible. A group of 38 House Republicans, led by Rep. Lloyd Smucker, has also raised concerns over the potential deviation from the fiscal framework laid out by the House. They have warned that any changes to the megabill need to align with the House’s budget plan. It is evident that the Senate bill, as currently structured, fails to meet the House’s fiscal criteria, and it remains to be seen whether the two chambers will find a compromise that satisfies all parties involved.