Debates among lawmakers regarding the approach to passing President-elect Trump’s agenda are intensifying, particularly concerning whether to adopt one substantial package or break it into two separate bills.
Trump recently expressed a desire for a single comprehensive bill that addresses critical issues like energy, border security, taxes, and possibly the debt limit. However, he contradicted himself shortly afterward by indicating a willingness to consider a two-bill approach, complicating discussions about the party’s direction.
This lack of clarity from Trump is contributing to a more complex debate over strategy on Capitol Hill, where leading lawmakers acknowledge the challenges ahead, regardless of which route is chosen.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) emphasized the difficulty of the task, stating, “This is hard stuff — really hard stuff, very heavy lifting. A lot of hard work ahead of us, but it’s got to get done.”
For several weeks, Republican leaders have expressed differing opinions on how to execute the agenda. Both the House and Senate Republicans are inclined to utilize the reconciliation process to advance portions of Trump’s proposals, which would allow them to bypass the Senate filibuster and rely solely on GOP votes.
Thune suggested a two-bill strategy, with one addressing energy and border issues and another focusing on extending Trump’s tax cuts and addressing additional matters. Meanwhile, House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) has championed the idea of a single, cohesive bill.
Upon returning to Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both chambers interpreted Trump’s comments as support for their respective stances. Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of the Appropriations Committee, anticipated clarity on whether to pursue one or two bills “this week,” expressing a preference for two measures, while Smith indicated that a single bill is practically settled.
Responding to inquiries about Trump’s recent statements, Smith appeared frustrated, asserting, “You guys really like to stir up s‑‑‑.” He reiterated that Trump’s main preference is for the passage of one bill, expressing no concern that Trump might retract his initial stance. “Absolutely not. This is s‑‑‑. Absolutely not,” he stated.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) conveyed that the House’s plan has consistently been to advance a single bill, noting that the current assumption is to proceed with that approach.
He explained that lawmakers are working to determine the most effective and efficient method to advance Trump’s agenda, acknowledging differences in perspective between the Senate and House.
Johnson remarked, “As you all know, we build consensus around these ideas, but we are going to get this mission accomplished. I wouldn’t get too wound up about what the exact strategy is.”
Since summer, discussions about reconciliation have gained traction, as Republicans have been eager to advance their preferred policies without needing Democratic support.
Extending the tax cuts enacted during Trump’s presidency in 2017 is a priority for many members, especially since many are set to expire at year’s end. Additionally, border security remains a pressing issue, having been a key topic during the 2024 campaign.
This weekend, Trump plans to meet with a diverse group of House Republicans, including members of the House Freedom Caucus, GOP lawmakers advocating for the removal of the state and local tax deduction cap, and others.
Some Senate Republicans are firmly aligned with the two-bill strategy, including prominent allies of Trump. Incoming Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has cautioned that postponing border security measures could pose a risk to national security.
Graham stated, “Delaying border security is a dangerous idea,” suggesting that if it were up to him, a border bill would be executed by mid-February. He acknowledged that while passing everything by April might be feasible, he remains skeptical about the timeline.
Over the weekend, Johnson laid out an ambitious timeline for advancing a single reconciliation bill, aiming for the House to pass a budget resolution to initiate the process in early February, followed by the passage of the full package in the first week of April, then sending it to the Senate.
It is noteworthy that Florida is scheduled to hold special elections on April 1 to fill the seat vacated by Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), who is joining the Trump administration, as well as the seat left by former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who withdrew from the attorney general consideration.
Republicans anticipate retaining these seats, which would provide them with two additional votes for this high-stakes package. Johnson remarked that this schedule could allow the bill to reach the president’s desk by late April, though he acknowledged it might slip into May. Many lawmakers view this timeline as overly optimistic.
Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a supporter of both Trump and Johnson, expressed skepticism about meeting the April deadline, suggesting that a timeframe before Memorial Day is more achievable. He noted the complexity of the situation and indicated that the entire process will largely depend on the House’s ability to manage it effectively.
“The House is a very thoughtful but dysfunctional body right now,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what [GOP senators] want. They’ve got to go first. … We can say all we want. We don’t have a vote in that chamber. I don’t disagree with my colleagues that are saying either way. It just isn’t up to us.”
As the one-or-two-bill debate continues, some Republicans are choosing to remain neutral, trusting Trump to make the final decision. “However President Trump wants to do it, I’m fine,” remarked Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), who has golfed with Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance.
He acknowledged the merits of both approaches and stated, “I just want us to be effective.” Schmitt affirmed, “He’s going to be the quarterback on it. He’s going to make the call.”
