In a last-ditch effort to unify their ranks, House Republican leaders have made substantial revisions to a broad tax and spending bill. These changes, aimed at appeasing both conservative and moderate factions within the GOP, target key issues such as the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, Medicaid reforms, energy tax credits, gender-affirming care, and federal retirement benefits. The updates are part of a manager’s amendment designed to secure enough votes to bring the legislation to the House floor for a vote.
One of the most notable updates involves the timeline for Medicaid work requirements. Originally, the House version of what Republicans dubbed Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” had scheduled these requirements to begin in early 2029. However, under pressure from fiscal conservatives eager to cut spending, the implementation date has been significantly accelerated. Now, the new provisions stipulate that the work requirements must be in place no later than the end of 2025. This push aligns with conservative efforts to discourage Medicaid expansion and tighten eligibility criteria.
Another major change is in the SALT deduction cap, a contentious issue for GOP moderates representing high-tax states. Initially, the legislation proposed raising the cap from $10,000 to $30,000 for households earning up to $400,000. The revised version expands that relief further, increasing the cap to $40,000 for individuals earning up to $500,000. This move came in response to intense pressure from moderate Republicans, who warned that they might oppose the bill unless it provided greater tax relief to their constituents. The SALT deduction, which allows residents to subtract certain state and local taxes from their federal tax obligations, is especially valuable in Democratic-leaning states with higher tax rates.
Energy policy also saw significant adjustments. The updated bill accelerates the phase-out of green energy tax credits, a demand from conservative hardliners who felt the previous timeline was too lenient. The original version allowed projects to begin receiving partial credits through 2032, provided they began producing electricity after 2028. The new versioneliminates these partial credits altogether. Now, any project that starts generating electricity after 2028 will be ineligible for the credits. Moreover, to qualify, projects must commence construction within 60 days of the bill becoming law.
Despite the tougher rules, the revised legislation includes a carve-out for nuclear power. Under this exception, nuclear projects only need to start construction — not electricity production — by the end of 2028 in order to qualify for the credit. This distinction reflects growing Republican interest in promoting nuclear energy as a reliable and non-carbon source of power.
On the issue of gender-affirming care, the changes reflect a broader ideological shift. The original bill sought to block Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for minors. The updated version takes that a step further by extending the ban to adults as well. This amendment underscores the increasing GOP efforts to limit government support for gender-affirming healthcare across all age groups.
Another symbolic but politically charged change is the renaming of “MAGA accounts” — an acronym for “Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement.” These savings accounts, proposed as a tool to promote education, will now be officially called “Trump accounts.” The proposal includes a provision for the federal government to deposit $1,000 into these accounts for each child born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028. The rebranding aligns the bill more closely with the president’s identity and could help rally support from his base.
Environmental and public lands provisions were also revised. In response to backlash, Republicans removed a controversial amendment that would have allowed certain public lands in Utah and Nevada to be sold. In addition, the updated text deletes requirements for expanded oil drilling in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve and eliminates the mandate for a mining road in the state. These changes came after concerns were raised about environmental impacts and the rushed nature of those original additions.
In another key revision, the bill drops a proposal targeting retirement benefits for federal workers — a move that had drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. Initially, the legislation suggested calculating federal pensions based on a worker’s highest five years of earnings, rather than the top three, which is the current law. This would have effectively reduced retirement payouts for many government employees.
Rep. Mike Turner, a Republican from Ohio, vocally opposed this part of the bill. “Making changes to pensions and retirement benefits in the middle of someone’s employment is wrong,” Turner said in a quote obtained by GovExec. “Changing the rules, especially when someone has already been vested in their benefits, is wrong. Employee benefits are not a gift, they’re earned.”
He continued, “I understand the need for reform, and we can certainly have changes occur for the benefits of new hires, but for current employees, to change the rules for people in the middle of the game is just wrong.”
This criticism helped galvanize support for removing the provision. Turner’s comments reflect a broader concern among federal employees and lawmakers who feared the change would undermine the government’s credibility as an employer.
Taken together, the amendments reveal a concerted effort by House GOP leadership to balance competing interests within their caucus. By addressing concerns from both moderates and conservatives, they aim to prevent defections and ensure the bill’s survival. The revised legislation now reflects a more aggressive timeline for cost savings, additional tax relief for higher earners in blue states, sharper restrictions on gender-affirming care, a stronger alignment with Trump branding, and more cautious environmental provisions.
These last-minute updates underscore the high stakes of the legislative battle, as Republican leaders seek to deliver a policy victory that aligns with both their fiscal priorities and their political base. With these changes in place, they hope to move the bill swiftly through the House — though its fate in the Senate remains uncertain.