Hey, everyone, I'm David Chalian, CNN's Washington Bureau Chief and Political Director, and welcome to the CNN Political Briefing.

It'll be the biggest bill ever approved in the history of our country, and it'll be the biggest tax cut ever approved in the history of our country.

That's President Trump speaking last week about what he's called the, quote, "big, beautiful bill" that Republicans are drafting to enact his agenda. Now unlike the flurry of executive orders he has signed since his second term began, Trump needs the cooperation of Congress to make this piece of his agenda happen. And with Speaker Mike Johnson pushing for a House vote by Memorial Day, Republicans find themselves in the midst of a critical few weeks of legislating. So what's the GOP strategy to get this done? What challenges could congressional Republicans come up against? And what decisions have party members divided? Manu Raju is CNN's Chief Congressional Correspondent and the anchor of Inside Politics Sunday. He joins me now to break down this sweeping bill and give us the inside look at what's happening with it on Capitol Hill so far. Manu, thanks so much for joining me. Really appreciate it.

Absolutely happy to be here, David.

'So there are a lot of moving parts on the so-called "big, beautiful bill" that President Trump and the Republican leaders in Congress are attempting to move through the legislative process. And let's be clear, this is going to be the singular legislative push of this administration. Should it be successful, it will be the singular, big legislative achievement for President Trump in this term, and if it's not, it will be obviously a setback. There's not much else this size, this scope on the legislative agenda. So take us where we are in the process right now, just from a 30,000-foot view and if the timeline that Speaker Johnson has set forth is still on course.

The latter point is a huge question. The speaker wants to get this approved in the House of Representatives by Memorial Day. And that would be an enormous undertaking given the vast divisions within the House GOP to get this through. Remember, they're trying to pass this along straight party lines, which means that they can only afford to lose three Republican votes. And Republicans are all over the place on what they want in this plan. This is a sweeping proposal. You're right. It is the one piece of legislation that Donald Trump hopes to get through, really, this Congress, which is why Trump, in a lot of ways, and the Republican leaders believe that they can pass this because it's almost too big to fail in so many respects. Not only does it have a significant increase in defense spending to the tune of $150 billion, tens of billions of dollars in new money to deal with border security, new restrictions on migrants coming across the border, asylum seekers and the like. It also is going to include a sweeping overhaul of the tax code to the tune of roughly $5 trillion. And they want to cut spending, federal spending, domestic programs by $1.5 trillion. And it's those latter two points, this massive overhaul of the tax code, plus the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts that has badly divided the Republican conference. There's divisions about what to include in the tax code, whether to make it permanent, meaning that would potentially explode the deficit, and then there's a debate over how much to seek in spending costs, whether to touch entitlement programs like Medicaid, how much to take away from Medicaid and whether to actually go as high as $1.5 trillion. As some swing district Republicans say, that may be a bridge too far. And then you have some who say, all $5 trillion worth of the new tax cuts need to be paid for completely with $5 trillion in spending cuts. So there is such a disagreement within the Republican conference, which makes it really uncertain whether they can get this fractious conference together and pass this big, beautiful bill because David, it is turning into a rather ugly process.

Well you, put a lot on the table there for us to chew over, so let's break this up a little bit. First of all, right now you and I are only talking about the process in the House of Representatives. It obviously is gonna have to go through a process in the Senate as well, should it pass the House. How much is the Senate involved in what the House is doing now so that the Senate process is basically predetermined if this passes the House?

'There's no doubt about it. The senators will have their own plans, own ideas and own changes, which is gonna make things even more complicated. They have a 53-47 Senate, so there's a little bit more cushion for John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, to get this through his chamber. He probably is gonna lose two votes. If I had to guess right now, he's probably going to lose Rand Paul, the conservative Republican who does not believe this is cutting the deficit nearly enough. So there's one vote down right there. Potentially, I think very likely going to lose Susan Collins because of the cuts that she believes are too much. She's of course up for re-election. She's a moderate Republican from Maine. So that's two votes. So that means they can only afford to lose one more vote max. We'll see. Lisa Murkowski is always someone to look out for in this regard, but I don't see where the other vote is coming from. Even Mitch McConnell, who has often bucked Donald Trump this year, I have a hard time seeing him breaking ranks on a bill that could, if it is not approved, could lead to a big tax increase at the end of the year, because remember, this would extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts that are expiring at the of the end year. So there are a lot – so there is still likelihood that it could pass the Senate, David, but they were, a lot of Republicans in the Senate want a whole different slew of tax ideas. They have different ideas on what to cut in spending, other immigration ideas. So this is going to take a while to get this to the president's desk if it gets there.

Well, who's driving the train here? The House Republicans or the Senate Republicans, ultimately?

Yeah, right now it's the House Republicans. And that is one thing that Speaker Johnson has done rather effectively is to get Trump on his side. Remember, the whole debate at the beginning of the year was whether to do this as one big bill or two bills, right? This was the one bill versus two bill debate. John Thune, the majority leader in the Senate, did not want to do this one big, beautiful bill. He thought it would be very complicated, which it turned out it is very, very complicated. They thought they could get a quick victory, and they could deal with immigration, energy issues right off the bat, that could pass, and they could have something to celebrate at the White House. And then they could worry about the tax issue, which is so much more complicated, later on. But given the narrowness of the House majority, Mike Johnson just said that this is only – we only have one bite at the apple to do it this way. And, of course, remember, this is being done through a budget process. On the Hill it's known as reconciliation. The way they can do this is by essentially straight party lines, meaning in the Senate it does not require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. They can pass this along straight party lines in the Senate. But by doing that, it requires them to follow strict budget rules in order to meet the rules of the United States Senate. So there are a lot of complicating factors at play. And Johnson believed that this reconciliation process could only happen one time, one bite at the apple, given the narrowness of the majority. And he convinced Trump that this is the way to go. Trump ultimately agreed, this is a way to go. And this is why the House right now is driving the train. But still, a lot of Republicans in the Senate are looking at that and saying, I'm not sure if they got the right policy and I I have my own ideas.

Let's do the tax piece first here, Manu. You said a complete overhaul of the tax code. Now, it seems to me, is not the biggest chunk of the taxes portion of this the extension, the renewal of the 2017 tax cut that is currently law of the land? It's expiring, but so, is that really an overhaul the tax codes or, you know, is that renewing and extending something that already is on the books?

'Well, it's both because they're both extending it, and they're adding to it, which is going to add to the cost on several things. Remember Trump on the campaign trail repeatedly said that there are going to be no tax on tips. And that is something that's going to be part of this plan. The question is what exactly does that look like and who, is it cash tips? Is it all tips? Exactly what workers does it apply to? Those are big questions that will have a big price tag. So that's one big aspect. There's some discussion about how Social Security is taxed, as well. We'll see what ultimately they agree to there. And then there's this big sticking point about SALT. That's a state and local tax deduction. This is something that was capped in the 2017 tax law, $10,000 for SALT tax deductions. Now, the New York Republicans, in particular, some other California Republicans, as well, in the House, whose constituents pay a lot in state and local taxes, they've been pushing very hard to increase that cap. And that has faced resistance from the hardliners in the House GOP who say, we don't want to give them more of a tax break because they said it costs too much, and it doesn't attack their constituents that much. But there's a debate about how high to go. There's some talk about capping it at $30,000. I just talked to some New York Republicans about that, including Nick LaLota, who said, hell no to that idea. He says they need to go much higher than that. But, of course, if they go higher than that, that's going to increase the cost. So there's that aspect that still is unresolved, David. And then the idea of making the tax cuts permanent. Remember, this is expiring at the end of this year, but John Thune wants to make this permanent so it will not expire again. But if it's permanent, that will explode the deficit potentially. They're trying to argue, though, that it would actually not impact the deficit because it's the current policy of the United States, and so why would that impact the deficit in any way because this is the current of the policy of United States. So they're trying to actually argue that it will have no impact on the deficit. The official congressional budget scorekeepers are weighing whether or not they would agree with the Republican approach, and the Senate Parliamentarian who has to rule on this will have to make a decision about whether or she agrees with the Republican argument that it would not actually have an impact on deficit. So these are all very complicated in the weeds discussions that will have a massive impact, because, ultimately, if they are not made permanent, then they'll have to reach an agreement on how and when to let these expire, and when they let them expire, if it's a 10-year deal, or a 5-year deal, or 4-year deal, that will impact the price of the proposal, and that will impact how many cuts they have to seek.

I mean, wasn't that whole point of the expiration initially in 2017 was to be sure that the price tag didn't become explosive?

Absolutely, and that was the same thing with the Bush tax cuts. Remember they did that twice in the first, in the Bush time? They both expired both times because they just couldn't pay for it. The government could not afford this.

But Manu, we don't get that official scorecard from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office until there's actual legislation for them to score, correct?

Exactly. Exactly, and we won't get that ruling from the Senate Parliamentarian about whether they can actually do this under the process they're employing until that legislation is drafted and before the Senate. So, maybe they'll think they're on the same page, and the Senate Parliamentarian could throw a wrench in this entire process and make things even more complicated.

'As John Thune said, it gets complicated. As you said, it is indeed complicated. We're gonna take a quick break. We'll have a lot more with Manu Raju in just a moment. You highlighted one of the other big stumbling blocks. We talked about the tax code piece of this, but the price tag piece. I mean, some hardline right-wing conservatives, real fiscal hawks inside the conference, are concerned about the total cost and want the total costs offset by spending cuts. They don't wanna do this through deficit spending. And that seems to be, I don't even know, that seems like a total non-starter. I don't understand how they're going to find enough cuts to offset the cost of this to satisfy that concern. So what is Speaker Johnson saying about that?

'Yeah, he's saying somehow they're going to get there, but it's not entirely clear how they're gonna get there. Look, the agreed-upon target in the House's budget blueprint was $1.5 trillion in spending cuts. But, you know, as we discussed, if you add the price of the tax cuts, we're talking about $5 trillion that would need to be offset to satisfy some of those hardliners who say that all the tax costs need to be satisfied. They're having a hard time getting anywhere near $1.5 trillion. And, David, on top of that, they've taken off some of the biggest drivers of the federal deficit and debt out of the equation. We're not talking about touching Medicare. They've said Trump said he would not touch Medicare. Social Security is not part of this discussion either. We're also Medicaid – now that leaves Medicaid. And that is where the big debate is right now within the House GOP. Because Trump has also promised, as has Speaker Johnson, we will not impact people's benefits for Medicaid. So how do you cut all this money without cutting people's benefits? And Democrats say there's no way to do that. Johnson insists there is a way to do that, and some of the hardliners say, look we're going to have to pare back benefits in some way in order to get to these spending targets, and then you have the particularly the swing district Republicans who say we cannot impact people's Medicaid benefits because that is going to hurt, those really impact my constituents, and I will not vote for that. So how do they square that circle? And that is a big, big question right now, and it's one they're currently debating. And one of the big things here is that the Obamacare law expanded Medicaid's federal cost-sharing program with the states. They provided a certain amount of money to state-run Medicaid programs. There was a fight among some of the House Republicans, in particular, to pare back federal dollars given to the states. However, Johnson made a major concession this week to those moderate members to win their support, saying that we will not change that federal cost-sharing program, as known in the Capitol Hill and Washington as FMAP. They're not going to change the FMAP formula. And that caused a lot of anger among the conservative hardliners, saying, well, then what are we going to cut from in order to reach this massive target? So, those are the complications that they're facing right now to reach the level of spending that, on one side say we must reach $1.5 trillion, the other side saying, well, we can't touch this, this, and this, and then where do they get the rest of the money? That is a huge question right now.

And your point about, you know, battleground district Republicans being concerned about benefits not being touched or Trump's promise, you know, it seems to me we're gonna be in this world of one person's benefit is another person's waste, fraud and abuse. And there's gonna be this messaging battle around these cuts as to what is truly a cut to benefits and what is truly taking excess out of the system. I just feel like we're going to be in an endless loop of political rhetoric around that.

There's no question about it, because that is the Republican leadership, Mike Johnson insists there's enough waste, fraud, and abuse to make Medicaid more efficient. If we're not going to impact people's benefits, well, what exactly does that mean? But we have not seen any of the details of any of this. So when and if we do – well, eventually we'll see the details, if they reach an agreement among themselves – and then we can dig down and try to really understand who is going to be impacted by these cuts. And you're right, because the Republicans in those swing districts are very nervous about it because they also remember, they remember past legislation. They remember what, look back to like Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives before they lost the House in the Obama era. She put legislation on the floor of the House to pass a big climate change bill, a cap and trade bill through the House of Representatives. It went nowhere in the United States Senate, and all those House members, a lot of them, lost their seats. Some of them blamed that vote for doing so. A lot of them don't want to walk the plank right now on something like Medicaid that may get reversed by the United States Senate or may not ultimately become law. And that is also one of the things that people are worried about here, if they sign onto something that doesn't become law. Those are all the things they're trying to sort out behind the scenes.

Actually, what you just, you made the Pelosi reference to cap and trade. I mean, remember she was trying to fulfill a promise there even though the White House had already made the determination that healthcare and Obamacare was going to be the bigger priority. And, as you said, she made her members walk the plank even though it was quite clear from the White house that they were gonna use all their political oxygen and capital that they had on healthcare, which brings me to this moment of, these things don't happen in a vacuum, Manu, as you know. These big pieces of legislation like this that are delivery on a major promise, they happen in the context of other things going on. So, given what is happening with the economy and that we may be headed into a recession because of Trump's tariff policy, which is causing a lot of angst, even in his own party with Republicans on Capitol Hill where there are still a significant group of free traders up there in the conference. What does the current environment around the economy, how does that impact the politics of what Johnson needs to accomplish with this conference on this bill?

It's such a good question because it is probably the biggest reason why Johnson thinks they can ultimately get a bill through because the argument the Republicans have been making as they're seeing the economy contract in the first quarter, we're seeing the markets go through this volatile cycle as we're seeing so much consumer confidence tank, and we're seeing the tariffs really upend the global order. They're constantly saying to their constituents, to their voters, to reporters like me: Don't worry, we're going to pass this massive bill. It's going to change things. It's gonna make the economy so much better. We're going provide tax relief and certainty, tax certainty. And then businesses will be able to plan. Families will be able to plan. People will benefit from these tax cuts, in particular, that we are going to approve here. It's gonna be a big economic driver. So their economic argument, which will undoubtedly be the central issue in the midterm campaign, ultimately rests on their ability to pass this bill. So even if there are things that in any comprehensive bill like this, there are going to be a lot of things that a lot of members simply don't like, the opposition is going to find a lot of things to attack their opponents on, no question about it. But at the end of the day, they believe the greater good for the party, for their economic argument hanging in the midterms, is to pass the bill. Maybe hold your nose, vote yes. That may ultimately be what carries the water when it comes time to vote. So that gives them some level of confidence despite all the acrimony we're hearing internally at the moment.

Yeah, I mean, failure truly is not an option for them. I mean this is, everything politically for them is in this basket. And so that is gonna be a clear argument from the White House as they whip votes, that failure is not option. And the other argument that I'm sure we're gonna hear endlessly, I mean we already hear it from the president, from Speaker Johnson, if they don't get this done, Republicans will be complicit in one of the largest tax increases on the American public in history by not extending these tax cuts, and that is anathema to a hundred percent of Republicans.

Yeah, absolutely. And that's one big reason why, that Johnson wanted to tie this all together, because he said, look, if I can't get one piece of this done, I will, you know, at least we can hold the tax hikes, essentially use that as leverage to get their members to bend to things that they don't like because of the concern about this massive tax increase. And there's one other thing that they've folded in here, too, which is to increase the national debt limit. And remember, that is the default – never happened before in the history of this country – a debt default, which could be cataclysmic to the US economy, maybe the global economy, if they default on the debt. The Republicans are including this in this proposal. And if they can't pass this, that means that they, on their own, that means they would have to negotiate a deal with Democrats who are gonna demand a lot, because they have to go through the regular order. They couldn't use this budget process anymore. They have to go through the regular order of increasing the national debt limit, meaning Democrats in the Senate would have leverage to get a lot out of them, which would add a whole different level of complication to all of this, which is why there's so much riding on the Republicans being able to pull this off. But it's still a big question about how, if and when they can do it.

And Manu, as you said, there's gonna be plenty here when the details come out for the opposition, for the Democrats to poke holes in, to put in campaign ads, to use. So even if Republicans succeed and get this done and sign – have the president in a big Rose Garden signing ceremony sign the legislation. By the way, what I'm describing right now, that happened in 2017. And remember, the Republicans still got killed in 2018 in the midterms. So that does not necessarily ensure their own political success going forward, even if they do indeed get this done. So my final question for you, take out your crystal ball. Let's assume for a moment it's going to become law. When? That's what I want your crystal ball to tell me. When is that Rose Garden signing ceremony?

Well, this is, okay, so I have two thoughts on this, two timetables here. One is that I've heard from so many Republicans the real deadline is before the August recess because they can't have this hanging over them all recess long. They gotta get it done and go home and campaign. My personal belief, though, is that this is gonna get so complicated that this may wait until the fall to get it done, especially as we get closer to the expiring tax hikes at the end of the year, and so maybe it ends up as an end of the year exercise, a fall into the winter. However, this is my big caveat, on top of my two caveats, my big caveat, what if the Treasury Department says the debt is going to – there's going to be a default on the national debt by August? Then suddenly they're going to want to try to get this all done so they can increase the national debt limit before the August recess, and that increases the pressure to get this done. So that is the one outstanding question that could affect the timeline. When will we actually default if they don't increase the debt limit? But my guess is that, take that aside, my guess would be a fall to the winter exercise.

My prediction is that you will be back on this podcast with me talking about this very issue at least once or twice more. So, Manu Raju, thank you so much for being with us. Really appreciate it.

Absolutely. Happy to do it. Thanks, David.

That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. Remember, you can reach out to us with your questions about Trump's new administration. Our contact information is in the show notes. CNN Political Briefing is a production of CNN Audio. This episode was produced by Emily Williams. Our senior producer is Dan Bloom. Dan Dzula is our Technical Director, and Steve Lickteig is the Executive Producer of CNN Audio. Support from Alex Manasseri, Robert Mathers, Jon Dianora, Leni Steinhardt, Jamus Andrest, Nichole Pesaru, and Lisa Namerow. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.