Senate Republicans are wrestling with major internal divisions over how to reduce the cost of a House-approved bill that aims to advance President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda. The legislation, which has been slammed by billionaire Elon Musk as a “mountain of disgusting pork,” has drawn widespread criticism from fiscal conservatives for failing to make meaningful cuts to the federal deficit.
Responding to nervous investors in the bond market and Musk’s pointed remarks, Republican lawmakers are now exploring previously untouched areas of the federal budget—including Medicare, defense, and the Federal Reserve—for potential savings. Just weeks ago, these areas were considered politically untouchable.
However, every new idea seems to be generating new controversy within the party.
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has taken a firm stance against any reductions to Medicare spending, even though proponents argue the cuts would be limited to curbing “waste, fraud and abuse.” Expressing his reservations, Hawley stated, “I don’t like this idea of fiddling with Medicare at all. I think it’s a bad idea. We should not do that. I’ve counseled against it.”
Hawley suggested a different route for saving money, asking, “How about instead we cap the price [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] is paying for prescription drugs? Why touch Medicare?”
Other GOP members are turning their attention to Medicare Advantage, the program that allows private insurers to provide Medicare benefits. Some senators believe the program is being exploited by questionable health care providers and is costing the federal government unnecessarily.
Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas highlighted a proposal by Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana that targets overbilling by insurance companies participating in Medicare Advantage. This measure could save as much as $275 billion. “No one is more concerned about our national debt than I am. I would like to cut more money on this bill. If it was up to me, we would be going from $7 trillion a year to $6.5 trillion,” Marshall said, aiming for a $500 billion reduction over the next ten years.
Another contentious proposal involves trimming defense spending. Though the House version of the bill includes $150 billion in new funds for the Pentagon—primarily for projects like Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system—many conservatives argue that the defense budget is bloated and needs downsizing.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has been particularly vocal, accusing pro-defense colleagues of using Trump’s bill as a vehicle for excessive military expenditures. “It’s a frustration for those of us who think it ought to be about fiscal restraint and/or cutting taxes, or both. It ends up becoming a spending bill, and the spending is $150 billion on top of [what] they were already increasing the military” in regular appropriations, Paul said.
“If you’re fiscally conservative, you have to be fiscally conservative everywhere. You can’t be for blowing the budget out on the military,” Paul argued.
Marshall echoed this view, remarking, “I’m one of the few Republicans that thinks that defense has more than enough money.”
Nonetheless, any suggestion to cut the Pentagon’s budget is likely to meet resistance from powerful Senate figures. Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Defense Appropriations Chair Mitch McConnell of Kentucky have both insisted that Trump’s proposed military budget is insufficient. Earlier this year, Wicker pushed for $175 billion in new defense funds but later accepted the lower $150 billion figure as the bare minimum.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to face intense scrutiny from McConnell on Trump’s defense budget request in the coming days.
Meanwhile, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has offered a highly ambitious plan: halting interest payments to banks for deposits held at the Federal Reserve. Cruz argues this would save the federal government $1 trillion over the next decade. However, the banking industry is already pushing back hard. According to Bloomberg News, strategists at JPMorgan Chase & Co. warn that ending these payments would destabilize financial markets, casting serious doubt on the feasibility of Cruz’s proposal.
Some of the most controversial cuts in the House-passed bill—nearly $800 billion in Medicaid spending and $267 billion in reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—have hit roadblocks in the Senate. Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Jerry Moran of Kansas have all raised concerns about the social impact of such reductions.
In addition, several senators are pushing back against provisions in the bill that would immediately end renewable energy tax credits. These tax breaks are seen as vital for clean energy investments in Republican-leaning states like West Virginia. If construction on certain projects—such as the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub—doesn’t start before year’s end, those investments could be lost.
Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina, John Curtis of Utah, and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have all warned that abruptly ending the clean energy tax incentives could hurt their local economies and result in job losses.
On the other side of the debate, fiscal conservatives like Senator Mike Lee of Utah argue that the bill doesn’t go far enough—especially when it comes to denying federal benefits to undocumented immigrants. Lee told The Hill, “We’re talking about Medicaid, we’re talking about EITC, earned income tax credit, child tax credit, and eligibility for claiming the benefits of dependents for income tax purposes. Those things should be benefits available to citizens and lawful permanent residents and not others, not illegal migrants.”
Lee insists the legislation fails to completely bar undocumented migrants from receiving federal benefits and declared, “That’s the problem.”
Senator Rick Scott of Florida is also demanding swift action to eliminate clean energy tax subsidies that were part of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. “We got a fiscal crisis,” Scott said. “We have to balance our budget.”
He added, “We should completely eliminate the Green New Deal, that’s No. 1.”
In the end, Senate Republicans are grappling with competing priorities. Some are focused on deficit reduction through sweeping cuts, while others are trying to protect politically sensitive programs that affect their constituents. With criticism from influential figures like Elon Musk and growing pressure from conservative voters, the GOP faces a delicate balancing act as they attempt to reshape Trump’s legislative blueprint into something fiscally palatable and politically feasible.