House Approves Budget Plan to Support Trump’s Initiatives

WASHINGTON—On February 25, the U.S. House of Representatives approved House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) outline for a significant budget package aimed at advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The resolution was passed with a narrow 217–215 vote. It empowers pertinent House committees to identify at least $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, and a $4 trillion increase to the debt ceiling.

Only one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), opposed the measure, while one Democrat, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), was absent for medical reasons.

The vote took place shortly after leadership announced unexpectedly that the proposal would be pulled from the floor. Many lawmakers who had begun to leave the Capitol had to rush back to participate in the vote.

In an effort to delay the vote, Democrats opted to use paper ballots instead of the quicker electronic method, so that all available members could return in time to vote against the resolution.

Applause erupted among Republicans once the final GOP ballot was cast, illustrating their relief after days of uncertainty and speculation surrounding the proposal. Many approached Johnson to personally congratulate him, celebrating the political achievement amid skepticism from both Senate Republicans and political commentators.

“We got it done,” Johnson stated in brief comments to the media.

Johnson recognized that “a lot of work remains to be done.”

“But let’s celebrate tonight. Tomorrow, we’ll roll up our sleeves and get back to it,” he added.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized the resolution after its passage, arguing that it would increase costs for those already struggling financially.

With the resolution’s approval, the task now shifts to various House committees to identify potential spending cuts and draft legislative initiatives concerning border security, defense, energy, and taxes.

The successful vote signifies merely the first phase in what promises to be an extended battle to unify the narrow Republican majority in the House behind a comprehensive package to implement Trump’s agenda. Given the current House dynamics, Republicans can afford only one dissenting vote during critical decisions.

This situation has shaped Johnson and House Republicans’ strategy of a unified package, intending to advance all significant Republican priorities within one large bill.

However, Johnson’s success in progressing this proposal belies the complexities of the challenges he faces ahead.

In a conference comprising both Republicans from blue districts and those from strongly conservative rural and suburban regions, achieving consensus on any substantial issues—much less a package likely to be fraught with contentious elements—is far more complex than it sounds.

Republicans Divided on Cuts

Before the initial vote on the blueprint, this issue was evident as several Republicans voiced opposition for varying, sometimes conflicting reasons.

For example, Reps. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.), Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), and Don Bacon (R-Neb.) expressed serious concerns about the proposal’s implications for Medicaid.

The blueprint requires the House Energy and Commerce Committee to discover at least $880 billion in spending cuts across various programs and agencies, including Medicaid.

Achieving nearly $1 trillion in reductions would almost certainly necessitate cuts to the widely valued healthcare entitlement program—cuts that could politically jeopardize some Republicans representing heavily Medicaid-dependent districts.

Conversely, members from the more conservative wing of the party, such as Reps. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) and Massie, also articulated their concerns.

Spartz specifically called for further investigation and reductions in Medicaid funding, suggesting it is potentially rife with misuse due to its automatic funding mechanism.

Massie highlighted that the budget plan—which proposes $4.5 trillion in tax reductions compared to $1.5 trillion in spending cuts—could negatively impact the deficit in the long run.

Nonetheless, all these dissenting voices, except for Massie, ultimately aligned with the proposal—though existing ideological rifts among them are likely to persist as the House embarks on the lengthy process of crafting a final bill.

Senators Have Doubts

Senate Republicans have openly expressed skepticism regarding Johnson’s ability to see the process through.

Last week, the Senate approved the first version of its two-part budget plan, which sidesteps the tax dispute while implementing immediate changes to budget and policy concerning border security, defense, and energy.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) mentioned that the Senate’s alternative proposal is merely intended to offer “optional paths” to the White House.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a key player in the Senate’s dual-track strategy, has explicitly stated his view that Johnson will likely struggle to pass a single package through the House.

After four years as the minority party, Republicans now hold a slim 53-seat majority in the upper chamber.

Nevertheless, both Thune and Graham have suggested that they would prefer a comprehensive single package if Johnson manages to achieve it.

The ultimate decision on whether Congress adopts the House or Senate framework will largely depend on the outcomes of the upcoming weeks of negotiations and discussions within the House Republican conference.

Prior to the vote series on Tuesday, Johnson informed The Epoch Times that he does not view the Senate draft as a “Plan B.”

“There is no Plan B,” Johnson asserted. “This is the only plan we’re pursuing.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodie Arrington (R-Texas) indicated to reporters that he anticipates the next several weeks will involve negotiations between Johnson and Thune to reconcile their budget proposals.

“I think [Senate Republicans] were waiting to see if we could pass it, and I think that’s acceptable, but we’ve proven it now,” Arrington remarked.

Johnson aims to finalize work on the package by April, with hopes of securing passage through both chambers by May.