Trump Orders Senate: 'No Vacation' Until Massive Spending Bill Passes

Paul Riverbank, 6/25/2025Senate Republicans face mounting pressure to finalize their trillion-dollar spending package before Thursday's vote. The legislation confronts multiple hurdles, including parliamentary reviews and internal disputes over tax provisions and Medicaid funding, while leadership maintains that failure isn't an option despite the compressed timeline.

I've watched countless spending bills move through Congress, but this one's different. The sheer scope of what Republicans are attempting – combining tax reform, immigration overhaul, and energy policy into a single reconciliation vehicle – practically begs for procedural complications.

The most immediate hurdle? Elizabeth MacDonough's office. The Senate Parliamentarian's "Byrd bath" review isn't just some technical footnote – it's already knocked out several provisions, including some creative approaches to food-aid penalties that Republicans had hoped would survive scrutiny.

"I think we'll eventually pass something, I just can't tell you when," Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told reporters, in what might be the most honest assessment I've heard all week. Kennedy's candor reflects a growing recognition that the Thursday target date was perhaps more aspirational than realistic.

The numbers alone are sobering. We're looking at potential deficit impacts exceeding $2.4 trillion over a decade, according to CBO projections – and that's before counting interest costs. It's the kind of figure that would have sparked outrage in earlier eras of Republican politics.

Donald Trump's intervention adds another layer of complexity. His Truth Social directive for senators to "lock yourself in a room if you must" might play well with the base, but it oversimplifies the genuine policy disputes at play. Take Sen. Markwayne Mullin's ongoing negotiations over the SALT deduction cap – these aren't simple yes-or-no propositions that can be resolved through sheer force of will.

The rural hospital funding proposal offers a perfect example of how these negotiations actually work. Sen. Josh Hawley's carefully worded support – "I am absolutely happy with a rural fund" – comes with the crucial caveat that it might not be enough to address broader Medicaid concerns. This is the kind of nuanced position-taking that often gets lost in the rush to meet artificial deadlines.

House Republicans aren't making things easier. Speaker Johnson's preference for minimal changes to the House version collides with Senate realities, while Freedom Caucus warnings about House support serve as a reminder that any Senate compromises could create problems in the other chamber.

Having covered Congress for years, I'm struck by how this process mirrors past reconciliation attempts – ambitious goals meeting procedural realities, with leadership trying to hold together a coalition that spans from pragmatists to hardliners. The difference this time? The stakes feel higher, the timeline tighter, and the political pressure more intense.

Whether Thursday's target holds or not, one thing is clear: Senate Republicans are attempting something remarkably complex under challenging circumstances. The coming days will test not just their policy preferences, but their ability to navigate the intricate rules and relationships that govern Senate operations.

The Senate's Republican leadership finds itself in an increasingly precarious position as Thursday's deadline looms for their ambitious spending package. Having dubbed it their "big, beautiful bill," GOP senators are now grappling with the harsh realities of legislative sausage-making.I've watched countless spending bills move through Congress, but this one's different. The sheer scope of what Republicans are attempting – combining tax reform, immigration overhaul, and energy policy into a single reconciliation vehicle – practically begs for procedural complications.The most immediate hurdle? Elizabeth MacDonough's office. The Senate Parliamentarian's "Byrd bath" review isn't just some technical footnote – it's already knocked out several provisions, including some creative approaches to food-aid penalties that Republicans had hoped would survive scrutiny."I think we'll eventually pass something, I just can't tell you when," Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana told reporters, in what might be the most honest assessment I've heard all week. Kennedy's candor reflects a growing recognition that the Thursday target date was perhaps more aspirational than realistic.The numbers alone are sobering. We're looking at potential deficit impacts exceeding $2.4 trillion over a decade, according to CBO projections – and that's before counting interest costs. It's the kind of figure that would have sparked outrage in earlier eras of Republican politics.Donald Trump's intervention adds another layer of complexity. His Truth Social directive for senators to "lock yourself in a room if you must" might play well with the base, but it oversimplifies the genuine policy disputes at play. Take Sen. Markwayne Mullin's ongoing negotiations over the SALT deduction cap – these aren't simple yes-or-no propositions that can be resolved through sheer force of will.The rural hospital funding proposal offers a perfect example of how these negotiations actually work. Sen. Josh Hawley's carefully worded support – "I am absolutely happy with a rural fund" – comes with the crucial caveat that it might not be enough to address broader Medicaid concerns. This is the kind of nuanced position-taking that often gets lost in the rush to meet artificial deadlines.House Republicans aren't making things easier. Speaker Johnson's preference for minimal changes to the House version collides with Senate realities, while Freedom Caucus warnings about House support serve as a reminder that any Senate compromises could create problems in the other chamber.Having covered Congress for years, I'm struck by how this process mirrors past reconciliation attempts – ambitious goals meeting procedural realities, with leadership trying to hold together a coalition that spans from pragmatists to hardliners. The difference this time? The stakes feel higher, the timeline tighter, and the political pressure more intense.Whether Thursday's target holds or not, one thing is clear: Senate Republicans are attempting something remarkably complex under challenging circumstances. The coming days will test not just their policy preferences, but their ability to navigate the intricate rules and relationships that govern Senate operations.