As Republicans prepare for a hectic reconciliation process during Donald Trump’s first 100 days, there’s a growing debate in Congress: One bill or two?
Republicans in both chambers look at reconciliation as a way to circumvent the Senate’s 60-vote threshold and pass Republican policies on the border, the energy sector and taxes. And reconciliation looks like the easiest way to implement those legislative goals, rather than working with Democrats and watering down the GOP’s partisan priorities.
But less than two weeks before Trump’s inauguration, Republicans are having trouble deciding if it’s best to tackle their agenda in one package or two — and whether Trump’s stated preference of one bill is just a preference or a directive.
Although Trump seemed definitive that he wanted a single bill — “Members of Congress are getting to work on one powerful Bill that will bring our Country back,” Trump recently wrote on Truth Social, in his characteristically arbitrary capitalization — he was less absolute on Monday when he discussed reconciliation with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.
“While I favor one bill, I also want to get everything passed,” Trump said. “I’m open to either way, as long as we get something passed as quickly as possible.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told senators privately last year that he intended to pursue a two-bill approach. The first bill — passed as early as February — would address border security, defense and energy. And after securing those early points on the board, lawmakers would have more time to take up a more complicated and time-consuming tax overhaul.
Despite concern that the two-pronged strategy might give conservative holdouts an extra opportunity to hold out, many lawmakers were coming around to the two-bill strategy. Since Trump called into the December policy retreat when Thune debuted his two-step proposal, Republicans presumed the president-elect was on board.
Speaker Mike Johnson endorsed the plan in December, telling NOTUS, “We’ve always been planning to have two reconciliation packages, determining the content of both, and we’ll let you know.”
But in the month since that statement, Johnson has totally changed his tune, lopping off one of the prongs in the two-pronged approach.
At a House Republican retreat on reconciliation over the weekend, Johnson told his conference that Trump wants one “big, beautiful bill.”
“We still remain convinced over here that the one-bill strategy is the best way to go,” Johnson told reporters this week.
Still, Republican senators aren’t so convinced. A handful — including Trump golf buddy Sen. Lindsey Graham and conservative Sen. Ron Johnson — made the Sunday morning media rounds to advocate for two bills. There’s broad agreement in both chambers that excising tax policy from a first reconciliation bill would hasten the legislative process. And given Trump has been clear he wants something passed “as quickly as possible,” many still see merit in the two-bill approach.
“Ultimately, making sure we get some wins on the board early will be important,” Trump ally Sen. Eric Schmitt told NOTUS Monday. “That’s probably the best argument for doing two, right? Do a skinnier one first, and do the bigger one second.”
GOP senators aren’t alone in their support for two bills. Conservatives who spoke to NOTUS also appeared partial to the two-step strategy. While influential Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman said he was still open to a single bill, he emphasized that an earlier non-tax bill would move faster.
“Time-wise, and that’s what you have to consider, tax policy takes a lot of effort, takes a lot of time,” Norman told NOTUS. “I think the president’s objective is to get the border closed, get deportation, and that’ll be taken up first.”
Another Freedom Caucus member, Rep. Andy Ogles, made a similar case.
“If the president wants to move some of his ideas, solutions, priorities quickly, it almost organically has to be in two pieces,” Ogles told NOTUS.
There are potential advantages — and disadvantages — to both approaches. If it’s just one bill, it could be tougher for any one lawmaker to oppose the legislation, given all the priorities in the bill. If one Republican held out support over the tax provisions, they might face a political onslaught over delaying the broadly popular border provisions.
But if it’s two bills, Republicans could potentially get a bill done faster, particularly if it’s shorn of the most controversial elements, like an extension of the 2017 tax cuts. There’s also the potential to use the second bill as a negotiating tool. Lawmakers could extract promises about their individual priorities making it into the second bill — without those provisions necessarily making the final cut.
While the all-or-nothing approach might take longer to get everything done, it also might be the best way to get all the things Republicans want to accomplish. Conversely, delivering an early win — and hashing out the hardest parts, like tax policies — could be the best route.
From a nakedly political perspective, it makes sense that House conservatives might back the two-bill approach. It’s conservatives who are the most likely suspects to oppose one huge bill, given their ideological commitment to deficit reduction. Two bills give them more than one bite at the apple to seek leverage and outsize influence over a tax-specific reconciliation bill.
But House lawmakers advocating for one bill are aware of that dynamic, knowing that deficit hawks might have an easier time opposing a tax bill that only racks up more government debt. Without more popular provisions on the border or energy policies, there may not be enough incentive for some Republicans to vote for a second bill.
“To have a realistic conversation about debt and deficit is gonna be difficult to do in a second reconciliation package when you have nothing to offer some of the hawks,” Rep. Rich McCormick told NOTUS. “And so I’m worried about passing it. You can have two reconciliation bills, but passing two? Good luck.”
Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith, who oversees tax policy, has been perhaps the most bullish on the single-bill approach. The individual tax rates in Trump’s 2017 tax bill, plus some provisions on small businesses, expire at the end of 2025, meaning Congress has to address tax policy one way or another this year; either pass a bill extending the rates or let it lapse and functionally raise taxes.
Smith sees the all-or-nothing approach as the only way to go.
“If you want a successful reconciliation bill, it needs to be the first one, and the first reconciliation bill will pass,” Smith told NOTUS. “If tax is not in it, you won’t pass tax reconciliation.”
Other Ways and Means Republicans are with Smith. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick made the case to NOTUS: To qualify for the reconciliation process, bills must comply with a litany of budget rules. Simply making policy without a budgetary impact, as some Republicans would like to do, could trigger the so-called “Byrd Rule,” which stipulates that policy changes without a significant enough budgetary impact are subject to a 60-vote threshold.
“There’s too many interlinking, connecting parts to all these things,” Fitzpatrick said. “And if it’s reconciliation, and it has to comply with the Byrd Rule, then I think we have to make all these pieces fit together.”
But for all the debate on Capitol Hill, there’s also the reality that Trump’s position very well may dictate the path forward. That’s a challenge given his two requirements for reconciliation — “big” and “quick” — may be mutually exclusive.
Rep. Don Bacon reconciled that discrepancy by calling Trump a “big-picture guy on this stuff.”
“I don’t think he’s hardcore on one bill or two bills. This is really something the speaker and Leader Thune has got to work out,” Bacon said.
Thune and Johnson met Tuesday to reconcile their plans. But the two of them are unlikely to “work out” the plan without Trump’s explicit permission, given that the president-elect is planning to meet with GOP senators on Wednesday.
As the clock ticks without a firm blueprint, some lawmakers fear that lack of clear leadership will just allow intraparty divisions to fester before Trump even takes office.
Still, Trump has left enough wiggle room that both the one- and two-bill camps have cover to continue making their case. And no one wants to be too definitive, as even after Trump makes up his mind or Republicans pursue one path, the plan can change.
As one veteran House Republican told NOTUS, “Members here during the first round know he can change his mind on a whim.”
—
Riley Rogerson and Reese Gorman are reporters at NOTUS.