Bill tests GOP lawmakers’ principles, including Marshall, Schmitt and Hawley’s stance | Opinion

What an embarrassment.

There was never a question whether Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas and Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri would support President Trump’s “big beautiful” budget bill, despite its overwhelming unpopularity with the American public.

They are nothing if not dependable when it comes to MAGA.

So the real question was about how far each man could stretch the bounds of shamelessness to support and sell legislation that will explode the national debt while devastating Medicaid, all to make sure billionaires get to keep their tax cuts.

The answer? Pretty darn far.

Let’s start with Marshall. Like most Republicans, the Kansan has long positioned himself as a fiscal hawk, at least when Democrats run the government. The “beautiful bill” is anything but hawkish, though: Congress’ own budget office says it will add nearly $4 billion to the national debt.

Marshall’s response? No it won’t.

“Look, I actually think this bill will help shrink the debt,” Marshall said on NewsNation’s “The Hill Sunday.” “I think it’s going to grow the economy so much, just like it did under President Kennedy, President Reagan, President Clinton, and then again, under President Trump 45. I think it’ll grow the economy, shrink the debt.”

Pure fantasy, and bad history. Reagan, Trump and George W. Bush all slashed taxes, it’s true. But each left office with a bigger national debt than they inherited.

Which means Marshall should be embarrassed — either for not knowing that history, or for knowing it and trying to pull a fast one on NewsNation viewers. I checked the video: He wasn’t blushing.

Schmitt: What’s the rush?

Then there’s Schmitt. Back when Democrats ran the Senate — just last year! — the Missourian argued that Congress’ upper chamber ought to take more time with appropriations bills, give senators a chance to truly debate the nation’s budget and generally try to give “the world’s greatest deliberative” body more opportunities to actually deliberate.

Too often, Schmitt said in a 2023 speech, spending bills “appear in the middle of the night, no time to read them, that add to our $33 trillion worth of debt, take it or leave it.”

Rather than rush through bills with minimal debate, he said, “let’s spend the time.”

That was then. This is now.

Senate Republicans dropped the text of the Trump budget bill on Friday night, with an eye toward taking a final vote on Saturday afternoon. Democrats managed to slow the process down, but not by much.

Did Schmitt stick to principle and demand a pause so his colleagues — and the public — could read the bill to understand what they are passing?Nah.

Instead, Schmitt spent the weekend golfing with President Trump and taunting Democrats opposed to the bill.

“President Trump’s entire agenda is on the line,” he wrote Sunday, “It’s time to get it done.”

So much for deliberation.

Hawley: Backtracking on Medicaid

Neither Marshall nor Schmitt embarrassed themselves as badly as their colleague Sen. Josh Hawley, the Missourian who a few weeks ago told his fellow Republicans not to cut Medicaid — and then, over the weekend, vowed to vote for the “beautiful” bill that … cuts Medicaid.

The Kansas City Star’s Melinda Henneberger rightly roasted Hawley for that move. My question: What would it look like if Hawley had kept his word?

We got a glimpse Sunday night, when Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina — a conservative Republican — gave a fiery Senate speech lambasting the bill’s Medicaid provisions.

“What do I tell 663,000 people in two years, three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding’s not there anymore,” Tillis asked.

“I respect President Trump, I support the majority of his agenda,” told reporters afterward, “but I don’t bow to anybody when the people of North Carolina are at risk, and this puts them at risk.”

That stand comes with a cost: Tillis also announced he won’t run for re-election next year. Crossing Trump means it would be impossible for him to survive a primary.

Hawley, of course, did not sacrifice his career to protect his Missouri constituents and stay true to his publicly professed principles. Maybe that’s pragmatic instead of embarrassing. But it’s still a shame.

This story was originally published July 1, 2025 at 5:12 AM.