Four obstacles for Republican rebels in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill

In a setback for Donald Trump, his fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives have failed to pass the president's "big, beautiful" package of tax breaks and spending cuts, starkly exposing the party's budgetary divisions.

The 1,116-page bill - officially known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act - failed on Friday to advance through the House budget committee, the final hurdle before a full floor vote.

Trump took to social media to implore Republicans to "stop talking and get it done!" But several of them argued the cuts did not go far enough and torpedoed the measure.

Let's take a look at where the disagreements lie.

Among the primary sticking points in the negotiations is just how much to slash from the budget bill, with several conservative congressmen demanding steeper cuts.

As things stand, the measure's sweeping tax breaks stand at about $4.9tr, partly paid for by cuts to the public health programme known as Medicaid, as well as to green energy tax breaks approved through former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act.

Four right-wing lawmakers withheld their support, arguing that the cuts should be steeper to avoid swelling America's public debt, which currently stands at $36tr. A fifth lawmaker also voted no, citing procedural reasons.

"This bill falls profoundly short," said one of the rebels, Texas Republican Chip Roy. "I am a 'no' on this bill unless serious reforms are made."

Perhaps the most contentious item in the bill are cuts to Medicaid, a healthcare programme aimed at lower-income Americans, partly through work requirements.

Mr Roy and other Republicans - including South Carolina's Ralph Norman, Oklahoma's Josh Brecheen and Georgia's Andrew Clyde - want further cuts to Medicaid and other social security programmes.

The bill would require that states deny Medicaid coverage if able-bodied Americans using the programme are not working at least 80 hours a month or other community options from 2029.

It would also end coverage for those who cannot show they are meeting work requirements.

Roy and other conservatives want those work requirements to start straight away - rather than after President Trump has left office.

Other lawmakers, such as Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley, have argued against any cuts to Medicaid, warning it would affect millions of lower-income constituents.

"This wing of the party wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor," Hawley wrote in the New York Times on 12 May. "But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal."

Dozens of other House Republicans have also voiced concerns.

Another point of contention in the bill is a tripling of a local tax deduction - known as Salt - from $10,000 to $30,000 for couples.

Some lawmakers from states with high-taxes such as New York, California and New Jersey have objected, saying that the proposed cap is not high enough.

In a joint statement earlier in May, New York Republican Congress members Elise Stefanik, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler accused Speaker Mike Johnson of proposing "an amount they already knew would fall short of earning our support".

"It's not just insulting - it risks derailing President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill," the statement added. "We rejected this offer."

Some so-called "Salt Republicans" have publicly called for the cap to be raised to $62,000 for individuals and double for couples filing jointly.

House Republican leaders are reportedly seeking a compromise that would see the cap raised to $40,000 for individuals and $80,000 for joint filers.

Notably, the "Salt Caucus" formed in 2021 is a bipartisan effort that brings together both Democrats and Republicans who hope to repeal the current $10,000 cap.

As part of the bill, House Republicans have called for substantial reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme, or Snap.

More than 42 million Americans currently benefit from the Snap programme, which allows them to use federal funds to buy groceries every year.

The legislation would require individual states to shoulder 5% of the benefit's costs each year, as well as 75% of the administrative costs.

At the moment, states are not responsible for Snap costs and pay half of the administrative costs.

Republicans also hope to expand existing work requirements for recipients, which currently apply to people without dependants between the ages of 18 and 54. The current proposal would expand that to 64.

Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin said the proposal "is a slap in the face" to millions of Americans "who rely on food assistance programme to put food on the table and make sure their kids don't go hungry".

Republicans argue the proposal would reduce government waste, promote work over welfare, and restore "common sense" to the programme.

The House Agriculture Committee has already approved $300m in cuts to the Snap programme to fund tax cuts.

Government data shows that about 12% of Americans received Snap benefits last year, with the figure higher in some Republican-leaning states such as Alabama and Oklahoma.