The highly anticipated One Big Beautiful Bill is set to encounter a significant obstacle in the Senate, where Republicans enjoy a 53-47 majority. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) has made it clear that he, along with several colleagues, will firmly oppose the bill.
Senator Scott stated, “There’s not a chance” the bill will succeed in the Senate.
After months of contentious discussions, the House managed to pass the budget reconciliation bill by a mere vote on Thursday.
President Trump has emphasized the necessity of the budget reconciliation bill for various initiatives—ranging from tax cuts for the working class to funding his secure border and mass deportation agenda, all while striving to usher in the so-called “Golden Age of America.” On Tuesday, during a meeting with House Republicans on Capitol Hill, he reportedly urged lawmakers to abandon the protracted negotiations and expedite the bill to his desk.
As reported by , Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) added his voice to the chorus of skepticism, asserting that the One Big Beautiful Bill lacks the requisite votes to advance in the Senate. “I think we have enough to stop the process until the President gets serious about spending reductions and tackling the deficit,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper.
In a conversation with Charlie Kirl on Tuesday, Senator Scott confirmed his intention to “absolutely” vote against the bill, declaring, “there’s not a chance it would get to 51 votes,” underscoring the uphill battle ahead.
Kirk: What’s your perspective on the current status of the big, beautiful bill that has passed the House? Are you on board, or do you see the need for changes?
Scott: Look, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and I—we all want a bill that secures the border, supports President Trump’s agenda, and strengthens our military. We want to incorporate all the opportunities to cut costs into this bill. However, Democrats have been busy inflating the budget by over 50% in the past five years. The House Bill proposes a meager spending cut of less than 2% over the next decade. It doesn’t even come close to balancing the budget. We have a large group ready to fight tooth and nail to achieve a balanced budget. We need to eliminate the Green New Deal funding. Why should people who opt not to work receive free healthcare funded by others? Why do wealthier states get healthcare funded by poorer states? It’s all quite nonsensical. We are committed to ensuring that any bill we pass actively contributes to balancing the budget, and we can do it swiftly. You balance your budget, and part of that will come through this reconciliation bill. The mandatory components will be addressed through the budget process in September, focusing on discretionary spending. We will get this done.
Kirk: So, Senator, to clarify, if no changes are made to the current bill, would you still vote no?
Scott: Oh, absolutely. If they brought it to the floor right now, I can assure you it wouldn’t stand a chance of securing the 51 votes it needs. We all recognize the necessity of balancing the budget. We know the challenges of selling our treasuries and the rising interest rates. Achieving a balanced budget is crucial for bringing down interest rates and controlling inflation. I did it every year during my time as governor. States often claim to balance their budgets, but they, too, resort to borrowing—just like the federal government. I broke that cycle. I managed to pay off a third of our state debt while serving as governor. That’s the approach we should adopt at the federal level. It’s essential for reducing interest rates and controlling inflation, which is currently hurting the most vulnerable families in our country. Our spending exceeds our income by $2 trillion, and it’s not due to inadequate tax revenue. Our spending is simply excessive.
Kirk: That’s a significant assertion, and we all want to see this bill passed. What can be done moving forward? Because our audience is confused; they thought it passed the House. Are you suggesting that the Senate can modify it? Then there’s a reconciliation process between the House and the Senate, correct?
Scott: We will indeed make changes. We will draft our own version, and it will go back to the House, where they will hopefully pass our bill. I firmly believe we will substantially reduce mandatory spending to balance the budget swiftly, which is what we committed to. Like President Trump, I recently went through an election cycle, and we all pledged to balance the budget.
Kirk: In conclusion, let’s discuss the positive elements of the bill, as I’m sure there are aspects you wouldn’t want to eliminate: Energy independence, a $1,000 Trump account for every newborn, enhanced border security, tax incentives for middle-class families, and the introduction of work requirements for Medicaid. However, we need to ensure we don’t dismantle the entire bill. What is your stance on keeping these beneficial components while also implementing necessary spending cuts?
Scott: We will pursue significant spending cuts. I am committed to this. Our discussions with the Republican Senate have focused on essential reforms. Take Medicaid, for instance. Should we allocate more funds for able-bodied adults who refuse to work, or should we prioritize the care of poor children, which was the original intent of Medicaid? I can recall my brother not receiving the healthcare he needed because we lacked Medicaid back then. Currently, states have manipulated the system through provider taxes, resulting in disproportionate spending on able-bodied adults, while disadvantaged children remain neglected. We must return Medicaid to its core purpose: caring for the chronically ill, the disabled, and the underprivileged children who cannot afford healthcare. That’s the objective I am committed to achieving.
Kirk: What would a realistic compromise look like, given that you won’t secure everything on your wishlist? What would the 80% principle entail in practice?
Scott: It will be part of this bill; the reconciliation aspect will involve the budget. This year, it seems we will gather about $5.5 trillion in revenue. Hence, our spending should not exceed $6.5 trillion this year. Next year, we aim to further tighten our budget as the economy rebounds under Trump. Over the next three years, we should be able to balance the budget. Our target is to reduce spending to around $6.5 trillion, which is entirely feasible.
