Just two weeks after casting a pivotal vote to approve a sweeping domestic policy bill that will result in approximately $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced a new bill aimed at repealing some of these cuts. In a statement, Hawley emphasized the urgency of preventing any future cuts to Medicaid from being enacted, stating, “Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect.” This unexpected move has drawn ridicule from his colleagues, most notably from Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), who took to social media platform X to question Hawley’s decision: “Just so I’m clear… he’s introducing a bill….to repeal the bill… he voted for….two weeks ago?”
Hawley has expressed concerns that the recently passed megabill could lead to long-term damage if the Medicaid cuts are fully realized. Despite these reservations, he initially supported the legislation because it promises to funnel more funds to hospitals in Missouri during the initial four years. “You can’t get everything you want in one piece of legislation. I like a lot of what we did. I don’t like some of it,” he explained to reporters while unveiling his new measure.
This pattern of contradictory voting has become increasingly common among Republican lawmakers during President Donald Trump’s second term. Many GOP members have voted in favor of legislation that they privately acknowledge as flawed, all while signaling that they may need to address these issues in the future. In some instances, lawmakers have publicly threatened to vote “no” on bills, only to eventually switch their stance and vote “yes.”
This year, the discrepancy between lawmakers’ public statements and their voting records has become more pronounced. As Trump has solidified his influence over the Republican Party, many lawmakers are growing increasingly reluctant to oppose him, fearing for their political careers. This trend is particularly evident among members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, who have repeatedly voiced opposition to bills before ultimately relenting under pressure from Trump.
With the megabill, the Freedom Caucus raised concerns about the projected addition of $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, as indicated by the Congressional Budget Office. Representative Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) criticized the Senate's actions as “unconscionable,” promising to vote against the bill. However, he ultimately sided with the majority after being assured that future legislation would address debt concerns.
In the House, a faction of Republicans representing swing districts voted for clean energy cuts included in the megabill, all the while hoping that the Senate would rectify these issues. Unfortunately for them, the Senate did not make any changes, and nearly all of these representatives supported the final legislation. Across the Capitol, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voiced her struggles with the potential impact of the Medicaid cuts on vulnerable populations, urging the House to amend the bill. However, her calls went unheeded, and the House passed the legislation unchanged before sending it to Trump.
“Do I like this bill? No. But I tried to take care of Alaska’s interests,” Murkowski stated in an interview with NBC News. She acknowledged the negative implications for many Americans, expressing her dissatisfaction with the outcome.
Another notable case is Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), who represents a battleground district with a significant number of Medicaid recipients. He previously threatened to vote against the entire Senate bill if it maintained substantial cuts to the program. “I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on,” he insisted. However, when the Senate bill returned to the House, Valadao ultimately voted in favor of it, contributing to its final passage, although his office did not respond to inquiries regarding this inconsistency.
Ultimately, only three Republicans who had raised concerns about Medicaid cuts voted against the bill: Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), all of whom face challenging re-election campaigns. Additionally, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who consistently opposed the megabill over deficit concerns, is now facing a potential primary challenge backed by Trump.
A similar trend was observed with the recent passage of a $9 billion spending cut package affecting NPR, PBS, and foreign aid, which also faced bipartisan criticism. Ahead of the vote, several Republicans voiced serious concerns regarding the bill's implications for executive branch authority and its potential to hinder bipartisan efforts on government funding. “I suspect we’re going to find out there are some things that we’re going to regret,” said Tillis, who eventually voted in favor of the bill, indicating that he hopes to adopt a positive outlook on how the rescission will be implemented.
Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chair of the Armed Services Committee, expressed his distress over Congress’s lack of transparency regarding program cuts, emphasizing the legislative branch's constitutional responsibilities under Article I. “It concerns me — as perhaps approaching a disregard for the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch,” Wicker stated, despite also voting for the bill.
