Republicans Face Backlash for Not Reading Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Before Voting

After Muscling Their Bill Through the House, Some Republicans Have Regrets

When Republicans muscled their sweeping domestic policy bill through the House by a single vote after an overnight debate, they breathed a sigh of relief, enjoyed a celebratory moment at sunrise and then retreated to their districts for a weeklong recess. Not even two weeks later, the victory has, for some, given way to regret. It turns out that the sprawling legislation to advance tax and spending cuts and cement much of President Trump's domestic agenda included a raft of provisions that drew little notice or debate on the House floor. And now, Republicans who rallied behind it are claiming buyer's remorse about measures they swear they did not know were included. Last week, Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska admitted during a town hall meeting in his district that he did not know that the bill would limit judges' power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. He would not have voted for the measure, he said, if he had realized. And as lawmakers returned to Washington on Tuesday after their weeklong break, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said that she had been unaware that the mega-bill she voted for would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section," Ms. Greene posted on social media, calling it a violation of states' rights and adding that she "would have voted NO if I had known this was in there." The remorseful statements highlighted the realities of legislating in the modern age. Members of Congress, divided bitterly along partisan lines and often working against self-imposed political deadlines, have become accustomed to having their leaders throw together huge pieces of legislation at the very last moment -- and often do not read the entirety of the bill they are voting on, if they read any of it at all. At the same time, the polarization of Congress means that few pieces of legislation make it to the floor or to enactment -- and the few "must pass" bills that do are almost always stuffed full of unrelated policy measures that would otherwise have little hope of passing on their own. In the case of the 1,037-page bill the G.O.P. is calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans barely cobbled together the votes to pass it after a protracted fight within their ranks and significant pressure from Mr. Trump to advance some of his top domestic priorities. As a number of disparate factions threatened to withhold their support, the focus remained on Mr. Trump's key agenda items: extending tax cuts, boosting defense and immigration spending and rolling back Biden-era climate initiatives. The effort ended with a sprint to the finish line as Speaker Mike Johnson tried to meet a self-imposed Memorial Day deadline for passing the bill. The final version was not completed and moved to the floor until 10:40 p.m. the evening before it passed, giving lawmakers eight hours overnight to read it and decide how they would vote. By then, it was clear that nearly every Republican was going to toe the party line and vote "yes." With the legislative battle in the rearview mirror and the measure in the hands of the Senate, House Republicans can now turn to a politically expedient excuse that they often used to defend their votes in giant spending bills with small objectionable provisions: that the bill was simply too big. Ms. Greene said she was not sure whether other colleagues had similar concerns about provisions in the bill that they might not have been aware of. "You know, it's hard to read over 1,000 pages when things keep changing up to the last minute before we voted on it," she said. Their criticism was echoed in part by Elon Musk, a staunch Trump supporter who just last week left his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency. On Tuesday, he unloaded on the sprawling measure, which he described as "massive, outrageous, pork-filled" and "a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it," Mr. Musk wrote. "You know you did wrong. You know it." Both Ms. Greene and Mr. Flood have urged Republican senators to strike the provisions that they are concerned about. That may well happen, since both could run afoul of the special rules that Republicans are using to push the legislation through the Senate on a simple-majority vote, shielding it from a filibuster and Democratic opposition. Such bills must comply with strict rules that require that all of their components have a direct effect on federal revenues. Still, Democrats swiftly criticized Ms. Greene and Mr. Flood for failing to properly examine legislation that both of them had backed and at various points championed. "PRO TIP: It's helpful to read stuff before voting on it." Representative Ted Lieu of California said, responding to Ms. Greene's post. And throughout the debate on the bill, Democrats repeatedly voiced their objections to the language that would bar states from setting their own regulations on artificial intelligence. "I even brought this provision up during the debate," Representative Brendan Boyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat, wrote on social media. "I welcome those on the other side to join me in opposition to it." The language that Mr. Flood said he opposed, which could potentially shield Mr. Trump and members of his administration from being held in contempt for disobeying court orders, was part of a larger push by Republicans to address injunctions that have blocked the president's executive actions. The measure was advanced out of committee three weeks before the policy bill passed the House. Still, at a town hall last week, Mr. Flood told constituents in Nebraska that it was "unknown to me when I voted for the bill." Met with boos from the crowd, he added: "I am not going to hide the truth."

Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized for not reading Trump's 'big beautiful' bill

Republican extremist says she would have voted against tax and spending bill if she knew about AI language Republican firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene has drawn widespread criticism from Democratic colleagues for admitting that not only did she not read Donald Trump's tax and spending bill before voting for it, but she would have voted against it had she read thoroughly. Greene revealed she was unaware of a provision in Trump's "one big beautiful bill" (OBBB) that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence systems for a decade. The Georgia representative said she would have voted against the entire bill if she had known about the AI language buried on pages 278-279. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years," Greene wrote on X. "I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there." Democratic lawmakers, who all voted against the bill, responded with incredulity of Greene's admission. "You have one job. To. Read. The. Fucking. Bill," Representative Eric Swalwell wrote in response. Representative Ted Lieu said he had read the AI provision beforehand and "that's one reason I voted no on the GOP's big, ugly bill", he posted on X. "PRO TIP: It's helpful to read stuff before voting on it." Representative Mark Pocan was more forward: "Read the f**king bill instead of clapping for it like a performing monkey. You should have done your job while it was written. You didn't. You own that vote." The AI provision was added just two nights before the bill's markup. It would prohibit state and local governments from pursuing "any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems" for 10 years, unless the purpose is to facilitate deployment of such systems. The language applies broadly to facial recognition systems, generative AI and automated decision-making tools used in hiring, housing and public benefits. Several states have already passed laws creating safeguards around such systems, which could become unenforceable if the bill passes the Senate. It also raises questions about the curious case of Republicans not reading sprawling legislation about provisions in the bill. Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska was booed by voters at a heated town hall last week when he admitted that a provision restricting federal judges' ability to enforce contempt orders was "unknown" to him when he voted for the same bill. "I am not going to hide the truth: This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill," Flood told the audience, prompting shouts from constituents who responded: "You voted for all of it." But Greene and Flood aren't the only unexpected sources to now disapprove of aspects of Trump's "big, beautiful bill": the world's richest man and Trump ally Elon Musk called the legislation a "disgusting abomination" on X Tuesday afternoon. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote, adding that it would "massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion". Democrats have highlighted that the bill includes significant cuts to healthcare and social programs, with reductions to Medicaid affecting millions of Americans and cuts to food assistance programs. In response to Greene's admission, representative Yvette Clarke wrote: "Reading is fundamental! Maybe if your colleagues weren't so hellbent on jamming a bill down our throats in the dead of night, and bending the knee to Trump, you would've caught this, Sis!" Representative Delia Ramirez noted that Greene appeared to have missed other provisions affecting her constituents: "Oh, Marjorie! If you had read the bill, you would've also seen that 149,705 of your constituents could lose their Medicaid." The House energy and commerce committee advanced the reconciliation package last Wednesday. Greene has called for the AI provision to be removed in the Senate, warning that "we have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years".

After muscling their bill through the House, some Republicans have regrets

WASHINGTON -- When Republicans muscled their sweeping domestic policy bill through the House by a single vote after an overnight debate, they breathed a sigh of relief, enjoyed a celebratory moment at sunrise and then retreated to their districts for a weeklong recess. Not even two weeks later, the victory has, for some, given way to regret. It turns out that the legislation to advance tax and spending cuts and cement much of President Donald Trump's domestic agenda included a raft of provisions that drew little notice or debate on the House floor. And now Republicans who rallied behind it are claiming buyer's remorse about measures they swear they did not know were included. Last week, Rep. Mike Flood of Nebraska admitted during a town hall meeting in his district that he did not know that the bill would limit judges' power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. He would not have voted for the measure, he said, if he had realized. And as lawmakers returned to Washington on Tuesday after their weeklong break, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said that she had been unaware that the megabill she voted for would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section," Greene posted on social media, calling it a violation of states' rights and adding that she "would have voted NO if I had known this was in there." The remorseful statements highlighted the realities of legislating in the modern age. Members of Congress, divided bitterly along partisan lines and often working against self-imposed political deadlines, have become accustomed to having their leaders throw together huge pieces of legislation at the very last moment -- and often do not read the entirety of the bill they are voting on, if they read any of it at all. At the same time, the polarization of Congress means that few pieces of legislation make it to the floor or to enactment -- and the few "must pass" bills that do are almost always stuffed full of unrelated policy measures that would otherwise have little hope of passing on their own. In the case of the 1,037-page bill the GOP is calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans barely cobbled together the votes to pass it after a protracted fight within their ranks and significant pressure from Trump to advance some of his top domestic priorities. As a number of disparate factions threatened to withhold their support, the focus remained on Trump's key agenda items: extending tax cuts, boosting defense and immigration spending and rolling back Biden-era climate initiatives. The effort ended with a sprint to the finish line as Speaker Mike Johnson tried to meet a self-imposed Memorial Day deadline for passing the bill. The final version was not completed and moved to the floor until 10:40 p.m. the evening before it passed, giving lawmakers eight hours overnight to read it and decide how they would vote. By then, it was clear that nearly every Republican was going to toe the party line and vote "yes." With the legislative battle in the rearview mirror and the measure in the hands of the Senate, House Republicans can now turn to a politically expedient excuse that they often used to defend their votes in giant spending bills with small objectionable provisions: that the bill was simply too big. Greene said she was not sure whether other colleagues had similar concerns about provisions in the bill that they might not have been aware of. "You know, it's hard to read over 1,000 pages when things keep changing up to the last minute before we voted on it," she said. Their criticism was echoed in part by Elon Musk, a staunch Trump supporter who just last week left his role leading the Department of Government Efficiency. On Tuesday, he unloaded on the measure, which he described as "massive, outrageous, pork-filled" and "a disgusting abomination." "Shame on those who voted for it," Musk wrote. "You know you did wrong. You know it." Greene and Flood have urged Republican senators to strike the provisions that they are concerned about. That may well happen, since both could run afoul of the special rules that Republicans are using to push the legislation through the Senate on a simple-majority vote, shielding it from a filibuster and Democratic opposition. Such bills must comply with strict rules that require that all of their components have a direct effect on federal revenues. Still, Democrats swiftly criticized Greene and Flood for failing to properly examine legislation that both of them had backed and at various points championed. "PRO TIP: It's helpful to read stuff before voting on it." Rep. Ted Lieu of California said, responding to Greene's post. And throughout the debate on the bill, Democrats repeatedly voiced their objections to the language that would bar states from setting their own regulations on artificial intelligence. "I even brought this provision up during the debate," Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., wrote on social media. "I welcome those on the other side to join me in opposition to it." The language that Flood said he opposed, which could potentially shield Trump and members of his administration from being held in contempt for disobeying court orders, was part of a larger push by Republicans to address injunctions that have blocked the president's executive actions. The measure was advanced out of committee three weeks before the policy bill passed the House. Still, at a town hall last week, Flood told constituents in Nebraska that it was "unknown to me when I voted for the bill." Met with boos from the crowd, he added, "I am not going to hide the truth."

Top Democrat needles Republicans for not reading the 'big, beautiful bill'

A top House Democrat is needling Republicans who helped pass President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" through the lower chamber last month, but have since voiced regrets upon learning of certain provisions they didn't know were included in the 1,037-page package. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), the vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, suggested the Republicans -- who have long accused Democrats of ramming massive legislation through Congress before lawmakers can learn what they're voting for -- are hypocrites for seemingly doing the same with Trump's domestic agenda. "Now we see some Republican members who are opposed to it because -- guess what? -- they didn't read the bill," Lieu said Wednesday during a press briefing in the Capitol. With a late push from Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had muscled the president's domestic wish list through the House in the early hours of May 22, following a marathon overnight debate. The vote was 215 to 214, with one conservative skeptic voting "present." Supporters have hailed the legislation as transformative, providing tax cuts for most Americans, cracking down on immigration and expanding domestic petroleum production. But in the weeks since the bill was passed, several Republicans said they've come to regret their support after learning of specific language in the package. Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) turned heads last week during a town hall in his district, where he acknowledged that he was unaware of a provision in the legislation that would restrict the power of federal judges to hold government officials in contempt when they violate a court order. "I am not going to hide the truth: This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill," Flood told a jeering audience, adding that he would have opposed the package if he was aware of the language sooner. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), one of Trump's most vocal congressional allies, piled on this week, saying she also would have voted against the package if she had known it included a 10-year moratorium on states regulating the artificial intelligence industry. She noted that it violates the federalist philosophy that's been a central tenet of conservatism for decades. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years," Greene wrote Tuesday on X. "I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there." Lieu, who has been a leader in Congress's bipartisan effort to examine the societal impacts of artificial intelligence, is no fan of Greene. But on this issue, he said he's behind her 100 percent. "I agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene once every hundred years. This is that time," Lieu said. "I agree that this 10-year provision is extreme. It's going to cause unnecessary harm. And, look, I think the federal government is fine doing preemption when we preempt with something. You can't just preempt with nothing," he added. "This is a bad provision, and I hope the Senate will take out this 10-year moratorium."

Republicans Admit They Didn't Read Their Big Beautiful Bill

For years, Republicans, particularly on the conservative wing of the party, have complained bitterly about the congressional habit of packaging huge amounts of consequential legislation into giant "omnibus" bills hiding controversial provisions that members don't have much of an opportunity to object to or even read. Demands for "a return to regular order," a staple of tea-party-era conservative Republican rhetoric, meant ending the practice of Democratic and Republican congressional leaders cutting thousands of deals behind closed doors and then presenting members with no option but an up-or-down vote with terrible repercussions (e.g., a government shutdown) in the event of failure. But the progress of Trump's intensely partisan Big Beautiful Bill through Congress this year shows you don't need Democrats to commit egregious sins against "regular order." To be clear, budget-reconciliation bills are by design large, unwieldy packages put together on the fly to steamroll legislation past an opposition party that can't stop it with a Senate filibuster. And with the House as closely divided as it is right now, it's inevitable that deals had to be made at the very last minute to secure the BBB's passage by one vote. But it's remarkable that House Republicans are beginning to publicly admit they'd didn't read the damn thing and wouldn't have voted for it if they had understood its contents, as the New York Times reports: Last week, Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska admitted during a town hall meeting in his district that he did not know that the bill would limit judges' power to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. He would not have voted for the measure, he said, if he had realized. And as lawmakers returned to Washington on Tuesday after their weeklong break, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said that she had been unaware that the mega-bill she voted for would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section," Ms. Greene posted on social media, calling it a violation of states' rights and adding that she "would have voted NO if I had known this was in there." What's really going on here is that Flood and Greene are seeking to regain the leverage they exhausted in voting for the BBB by threatening to vote against the ultimate bill that comes back from the Senate and is negotiated by House and Senate leaders. This could get them into the last-minute, behind-closed-doors discussions and dealmaking down the road. But at the same time, they're giving Democrats valuable ammunition in their argument that the BBB is so shameful that it has to be built like Frankenstein's monster in the dark and out of sight. MTG's "I didn't read the bill" confession is also interesting insofar as she has always advertised herself as the ultimate Trump loyalist. No one would be surprised if she told us she wears her MAGA hat to sleep every night. Yet there's no question that Trump himself demanded that House Republicans put aside all their silly quibbles about "policy" and "arithmetic" and vote for the BBB strictly on his word that it would Make America Great Again. So who needs to read the bill? Trump certainly didn't. He has Stephen Miller and Russell Vought to do that for him.

Greene calls on Senate to strip AI provision from 'big, beautiful bill'

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is calling on the Senate to eliminate a provision that would ban state regulation of artificial intelligence from President Trump's "big, beautiful bill," arguing it violates states' rights. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years," Greene wrote in a post on X Tuesday. "I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there." "We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous," the Georgia Republican added. Greene said she will not vote for the bill when it comes back to the House for final approval unless the provision is eliminated, complicating the math for House GOP leaders. In the razor-thin House GOP majority, Republicans can currently only afford to lose three votes on any party-line measure. Two Republicans voted against the bill when it passed the House last month: Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio). "We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power," she said. "Not the other way around. Especially with rapidly developing AI that even the experts warn they have no idea what it may be capable of." Greene's opposition comes as the Senate prepares to tackle Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, which passed the House late last month. The legislation, officially titled the "One Big Beautiful Bill," extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and boosts funding for border and defense priorities, while cutting spending on programs like food assistance and Medicaid. The proposal calls for a 10-year moratorium on state laws regulating AI models, systems or automated decision systems. This includes enforcement of existing and future laws on the state level. Proponents of the moratorium believe a patchwork of state laws can be confusing or burdensome to technology companies to innovate in multiple parts of the country. Several House Republicans supported the measure, though some emphasized the need for a federal framework to preempt state laws. Various Democrats and several tech watchdog groups are concerned a federal framework could take too long and jeopardize the safety of AI systems. Earlier Tuesday, a group of 260 state lawmakers wrote to House and Senate members to sound the alarm over the provision, arguing it would "undermine ongoing work in the states" over the impact of AI. Nonetheless, the provision faces an uphill battle in the Senate, with some members already expressing concerns it may not pass the Byrd Rule, a procedural rule prohibiting "extraneous matters" from being included in reconciliation packages. This includes provisions that do not "change outlays or revenues." The measure was included in a section ordering the Commerce Department to allocate funds to "modernize and secure federal information technology systems through the deployment of commercial artificial intelligence." The Senate parliamentarian will determine whether the moratorium violates the Byrd Rule.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Freaks Out After She Finally Reads Bill She Voted For

The GOP-led House passed the legislation on May 21, despite controversy that it could lead to millions of people getting kicked off of Medicaid or losing eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Although the Georgia Republican voted for the bill, that was apparently before she actually read it, she admitted on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday. But her newfound opposition wasn't because her constituents might suffer from benefit cuts. Nope, her big bugaboo was artificial intelligence. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years," she said. "I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there." Greene noted that "we have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous," and demanded that part of the bill "be stripped out in the Senate." Greene's concerns about regulating AI make a certain amount of sense, but the fact that she couldn't be bothered to read the bill before voting on it made her the subject of much internet mockery. To be fair, Greene isn't the only Republican member of Congress who voted on the bill without being aware of everything in it. Last month, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) admitted to constituents during a town hall meeting that he wasn't familiar with all of the massive tax-and-spending cut legislation he voted for -- including one provision he hated. Flood said he disagreed with a provision that could cut funding for federal courts to enforce contempt citations against federal officials -- potentially preventing judges from stopping future Trump administration power grab.s "I am not going to hide the truth," Flood told attendees. "This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill, and when I found out that provision was in the bill, I immediately reached out to my Senate counterparts and told them of my concern."