By MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House has passed the massive tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump calls “beautiful,” getting it to his desk a day before the July 4 deadline that he had set.

Related Articles

EPA puts on leave 139 employees who spoke out against policies under Trump

Medicaid, food aid recipients worry about safety net cuts in bill sent to Trump

Watch: Hakeem Jeffries took his ‘sweet time’ holding the floor to delay Trump’s tax bill

First immigration detainees arrive at Florida center in the Everglades

Melania Trump meets with patients, visits garden at Washington children’s hospital

The 887-page bill includes spending cuts, tax breaks, military spending, money for deportations and other longtime GOP priorities like cuts to Medicaid and renewable energy programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the bill 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 and 3 million more would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.

Some takeaways from Trump’s “big beautiful bill” and the path Republicans took to pass it:

Loyalty to Trump carries the day

By Congress time standards, the bill moved at lightning speed — reaching Trump’s desk less than six months into his term. That was only possible because Trump set a firm deadline, July 4 and pressured Republican lawmakers to get it done.

Few were left to resist, as most of Trump’s Republican critics over the years have either retired or lost reelection. Unfailingly loyal House and Senate Republicans were quick to make his priority their priority.

Plus, GOP lawmakers know they would suffer political consequences for dissent. One senator who did, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, abruptly announced on Sunday that he would retire next year — a day after saying he would oppose the legislation because of its reductions to health care programs.

“Tillis is a talker and complainer, NOT A DOER,” Trump had posted on X of Tillis.

Tillis joined Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky in voting against the bill in the Senate. In the House, Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were the only Republicans to vote against it.

Massie has also faced Trump’s wrath. “Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes “NO” on virtually everything put before him,” Trump posted last month.

‘Trifecta’ for the win

The legislation’s passage was a direct outgrowth of the GOP election sweep that gave them the White House and majorities in both the House and the Senate. The so-called “trifecta” of power only comes around every so often, and Republicans were determined that it not go to waste.

Crucially, holding power in both chambers of Congress gave Republicans the option of using a budget procedure that overrides the Senate filibuster and allows the majority to pass legislation with only 51 votes. That meant no Democratic support was needed and they never had to involve them in the process.

Both parties have used the budget procedure to pass priorities over the years when they have found themselves with a similar trifecta — Democrats to pass the Affordable Care Act under President Barack Obama in 2010, Republicans to pass tax cuts in 2017 during Trump’s first term and Democrats again to pass President Joe Biden’s climate, health care and tax package in 2022.

Thune and Johnson get it done for Trump

The bill was a major test for both House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., both of whom had very narrow majorities to navigate and wanted to show Trump that they could get his legislation passed.

The two initially disagreed on how to move forward — Johnson wanted one bill, Thune wanted two — but they eventually agreed and worked together with Trump to push the bill through each difficult step and win enough votes.

Whatever it takes to get the votes

As Trump pressured the GOP leaders for a big July 4 win, he appeared to be mostly flexible when it came to what was actually in the bill. So Johnson and Thune worked to get the votes by listening to members across the ideological spectrum and adjusting the legislation as needed to ensure that they kept nearly every single Republican on board.

To get that much support, the leaders packed the bill with personal priorities for some of their most skeptical members. House Republicans from New York won a higher cap on state and local tax deductions. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley won long-sought money for those impacted by nuclear development and testing. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski won several provisions to help her sprawling state, including carve-outs for Medicaid and food stamps.

Murkowski was the last holdout in the Senate, and Thune set votes in motion within hours of her commitment to support it.

“Failure is not an option,” he said a month ago. “We’ve got to get to 51.”

Democrats bet big on disapproval

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., have kept up a steady opposition to the legislation and believe that its Medicaid and food stamp cuts could win them new seats, and perhaps a majority, in next year’s midterm elections.

“This vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come,” Schumer said after the Senate passed the bill. “Because of this bill, tens of millions will lose health insurance. Millions of jobs will disappear. People will get sick and die.”

Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz posted on X Wednesday evening that “it is entirely possible that we win the Senate” if the bill passes.

“I hope this bill dies, but if it passes they will pay a steep political price,” Schatz wrote.

Delay, Delay, Delay

With no power to stop the bill, Democrats embraced the powers they did have and forced long delays as Republicans neared passage.

Jeffries tied up the House floor for almost nine hours just as Republicans secured the votes, delaying their big win — and members’ flights out of town for the July 4 holiday — with a speech criticizing the bill and sharing stories of people who would be affected by cuts to Medicaid and other programs. “This is not who we are,” Jeffries said.

Schumer delayed Senate passage as well, forcing Senate clerks to read the entire 887-page bill, a step in the process that leaders usually agree to skip. It took almost 16 hours.

Debt ceiling fight is averted

One huge win for Republicans is that the bill increases the nation’s debt limit by $5 trillion to allow continued borrowing to pay already accrued bills. By adding that provision, Republicans avoided risking a U.S. default and also having to pass the debt limit increase separately, a move that would have required 60 votes in the Senate and Democratic support for passage.

The last time Congress raised the debt limit was 2023, after weeks of high-wire negotiations between the Republican House, the Democratic Senate and President Biden.

Starting at no, ending at yes

Many Republicans had deep concerns about the bill. Almost every one of them voted for it anyway.

Hawley and Murkowski strongly criticized the Medicaid cuts, but voted for the legislation when some of their state priorities were added. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson had once called the legislation “immoral” and “grotesque,” arguing that it would raise deficits. But he also voted for it.

New York lawmakers fought for quadrupling the cap on the state and local tax deduction to $40,000 in the House-passed bill and were unhappy when the Senate went along with that for just five years instead of 10 years. But, in the end, they accepted the change.

“I can’t be a yes on that,” Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said. But when the roll was called, he was.

No ‘John McCain moment’

The late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., famously killed Trump’s attempt to repeal Obamacare when he became the deciding vote with a thumbs down in 2017. With narrow margins in both chambers, any Republican could have similarly killed this effort.

Murkowski, who, like McCain, voted against the Republican health care effort in 2017, was the only undecided senator left in the final hours before the Senate vote. But she ultimately supported it, a decision she called “agonizing.”

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

By MELINA WALLING

The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday put on administrative leave 139 employees who signed a “declaration of dissent” with its policies, accusing them of “unlawfully undermining” the Trump administration’s agenda.

Related Articles

Medicaid, food aid recipients worry about safety net cuts in bill sent to Trump

Watch: Hakeem Jeffries took his ‘sweet time’ holding the floor to delay Trump’s tax bill

First immigration detainees arrive at Florida center in the Everglades

Melania Trump meets with patients, visits garden at Washington children’s hospital

Has ICE ‘gone too far’ in enforcing immigration laws? Here’s what a poll found

In a letter made public Monday, the employees wrote that the agency is no longer living up to its mission to protect human health and the environment. The letter represented rare public criticism from agency employees who knew they could face blowback for speaking out against a weakening of funding and federal support for climate, environmental and health science.

In a statement Thursday, the EPA said it has a “zero-tolerance policy for career bureaucrats unlawfully undermining, sabotaging and undercutting” the Trump administration’s agenda.

Employees were notified that they had been placed in a “temporary, non-duty, paid status” for the next two weeks, pending an “administrative investigation,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Associated Press. “It is important that you understand that this is not a disciplinary action,” the email read.

More than 170 EPA employees put their names to the document, with about 100 more signing anonymously out of fear of retaliation, according to Jeremy Berg, a former editor-in-chief of Science magazine who is not an EPA employee but was among non-EPA scientists or academics to also sign.

Scientists at the National Institutes of Health made a similar move earlier in June, but Berg said he was unaware of any at NIH who have been placed on similar administrative leave.

Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, EPA has cut funding for environmental improvements in minority communities, vowed to roll back federal regulations that lower air pollution in national parks and tribal reservations, wants to undo a ban on a type of asbestos and proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas.

Zeldin began reorganizing the EPA’s research and development office as part of his push to slash its budget and gut its study of climate change and environmental justice. And he’s seeking to roll back pollution rules that an AP examination found were estimated to save 30,000 lives and $275 billion every year.

The EPA responded to the employees’ letter earlier this week by saying policy decisions “are a result of a process where Administrator Zeldin is briefed on the latest research and science by EPA’s career professionals, and the vast majority who are consummate professionals who take pride in the work this agency does day in and day out.”

Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @melinawalling.bsky.social.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By DAVID A. LIEB and GEOFF MULVIHILL

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Supporters of the sweeping tax and spending legislation that Congress has sent to President Donald Trump say the changes to Medicaid, food aid and other programs will encourage personal responsibility and halt those scamming the system.

Critics of the bill, given final congressional approval Thursday, say the requirements will upend lives.

Here’s a look at what people are saying about the bill.

Work requirements added for accessing more federal benefits

To enroll and stay on Medicaid, many ages 19 through 64 would be required to work, go to school or perform at least 80 hours of community service a month.

The Medicaid work requirement would apply to people in 40 states who are enrolled through expanded access that states agreed to put in place since 2014. Ten states, including Texas and Florida, did not expand the program.

For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which already requires adults ages 18 to 55 to work, working would become mandatory for many until they turn 65.

For both benefits, there would be exceptions, including for parents who are caregivers to children under age 14.

Most people covered by Medicaid already meet the work requirement or qualify for an exception.

The requirements are sparking worry for some enrollees

Theresa Gibbs, who lost her job as a school bus driver, is enrolled in both Medicaid and SNAP. She likely would be exempt from the work mandate because she has three children under age 14. But Gibbs said she is applying for jobs anyway.

“I don’t think people should just live off the state if they’re perfectly capable to work,” said Gibbs, 34, of Jefferson City, Missouri.

But the changes worry others.

Amanda Hinton, 39, of St. Martins, Missouri, receives Medicaid and SNAP benefits. She puts in enough hours at a part-time gas station job to likely meet the new requirements but is concerned should her fibromyalgia, which causes pain and fatigue, keep her from working for a time.

“I’m panicked. I mean I have some chronic health conditions that are not curable, and I rely on my medication to help me just get through the day,” she said. “And without my Medicaid, I couldn’t afford these.”

Brittany Phillips, 32, of Greensboro, North Carolina, said being on Medicaid has helped her stay afloat both financially and health-wise while she works a temporary, remote medical services job paying about $600 weekly.

“I do believe that Medicaid should be available for everyone regardless of who they are — regardless of capacity, faculty — everyone should have Medicaid,” she said.

It’s not just the work requirement; it’s also the paperwork

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 11.8 million fewer people could have health insurance by 2034 because of the changes, which also include booting off non-citizens who are not in the U.S. permanently and legally. And that doesn’t include those who could lose coverage for other reasons.

Advocates say that even people who are covered by exceptions to the work requirement could lose their Medicaid coverage. One major reason is a requirement that people’s eligibility would be assessed at least every six months.

“Every additional paper someone has to submit separately from their application,” said Deborah Steinberg, a senior health policy analyst at the Legal Action Center, “you lose people.”

Julia Bennker, who runs an in-home daycare in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, relies on SNAP and Medicaid and has had paperwork issues under existing Medicaid requirements. She said that earlier this year, she didn’t have health coverage for a month after she was told her forms were late — though she believes she submitted them on time.

That meant going a month without therapy and needing to reschedule another appointment with a prescriber.

Some of the conditions that would trigger exceptions — mental illness or substance use disorder — are not currently tallied in Medicaid computer systems.

“It’s not like you wave a magic wand and everyone who should be exempt is exempt,” said Hannah Wesolowski, chief advocacy officer for the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

States will face pressure – and deadlines – to revamp their programs

State health care and social services agencies will have to rework their computer systems to account for the various changes while also dealing with federal funding reductions. That’s cause for concern for some health care advocates.

The legislation requires all states to shoulder more of the administrative costs of SNAP starting in 2027 and, for the first time, could force some states to pay for a portion of food assistance benefits starting in 2028.

Related Articles

EPA puts on leave 139 employees who spoke out against policies under Trump

Watch: Hakeem Jeffries took his ‘sweet time’ holding the floor to delay Trump’s tax bill

First immigration detainees arrive at Florida center in the Everglades

Melania Trump meets with patients, visits garden at Washington children’s hospital

Has ICE ‘gone too far’ in enforcing immigration laws? Here’s what a poll found

States also must implement the Medicaid work requirement by 2027.

“It will be a very tight and difficult timeline for many of these states,” said Sophia Tripoli, senior health policy director at Families USA, a health care advocacy organization. “There’s a huge cost burden on states from the administrative side just to stand up these systems.”

Julieanne Taylor, a lawyer at the Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy in North Carolina, said her organization’s clients already face delays in verifications for the food program.

“To add more to them, it’s going to be a disaster,” she said. “It’s going to cause people to drop off because they’re like, ‘I don’t want to have to do this every year or every six months.’”

Rural hospitals could face financial struggles

The bill could also put rural hospitals at financial risk, experts say, because it seeks to cap the taxes that states impose on hospitals and other health care providers in a way that boosts Medicaid funding.

The nonprofit KFF, which studies health care issues, estimates that Medicaid spending in rural areas would decrease by $155 billion over the next decade under the bill.

“While there are already a number of small and rural hospitals that are vulnerable,” said R. Kyle Kramer, CEO of Day Kimball Hospital in Putnam, Connecticut, “it’s going to lead to a lot of closures.”

The bill includes a $50 billion fund to partially offset those reductions.

Planned Parenthood would lose federal money

Federal taxpayer money is already barred from paying for abortions in most cases.

The bill would also ban federal funds going to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, for other purposes like family planning programs and cancer screenings.

The group says that one-third of its roughly 600 clinics across the U.S. could face closure as a result of the legislation, and that states where abortion is legal would be hardest hit.

At least one other group says it also stands to lose funding because of the provision. Maine Family Planning has 19 sites and subcontracts with other health care organizations, including Planned Parenthood, to provide services at other locations across the rural state.

Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, and Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina, contributed to this report.

By JAIMIE DING and JULIE WATSON, The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Famed Mexican boxer Julio César Chávez Jr. has been arrested for entering US illegally and will be deported to Mexico, where he faces organized crime charges, federal officials said Thursday.

Related Articles

A Q-tip and spotless car were key evidence linking Bryan Kohberger to murders of 4 Idaho students

Michael Madsen, ‘Reservoir Dogs’ and ‘Kill Bill’ star, dies

Denny’s and Waffle House remove egg surcharges as prices fall

Average long-term US mortgage rate falls to 6.67%, the lowest level since early April

For Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, could a lesser conviction mean a greater public rehabilitation?

The arrest comes only days after the former middleweight champion fought in a match against Jake Paul in Anaheim, California. a

The Department of Homeland Security said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Chávez for overstaying a tourist visa that expired in February 2024 after he entered the country in August 2023.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services flagged ICE about Chávez last year, saying he “is an egregious public safety threat,” and yet he was allowed back into the country Jan. 4 of this year, the agency said.

Officials said he has an active arrest warrant in Mexico for his involvement in organized crime and trafficking firearms, ammunition, and explosives and is believed to be an affiliate of the Sinaloa Cartel. ICE agents arrested Chávez in Studio City, California on July 2.

Chavez’s attorney Michael Goldstein said the boxer was picked up by a large number of federal agents while he was riding a scooter in front of his home in Studio City. Goldstein did not know where Chavez was being detained as of Thursday morning, but said they were due in court on Monday for his criminal charges.

The administration said Chavez applied for a green card on April, 2, 2024, based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, who is connected to the Sinaloa Cartel through a prior relationship with the now-deceased son of imprisoned cartel leader Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. The agency said he had submitted multiple fraudulent statements on his application, which led to his arrest.

Chávez had fought just once since 2021 before his bout with Paul, having fallen to innumerable lows during a lengthy boxing career conducted in the shadow of his father, one of the most beloved athletes in Mexican history. The son has failed drug tests, served suspensions and egregiously missed weight while being widely criticized for his intermittent dedication to the sport

He still rose to its heights, winning the WBC middleweight title in 2011 and defending it three times. Chávez shared the ring with generational greats Canelo Álvarez and Sergio Martinez, losing to both.