House Speaker Mike Johnson is hoping to proceed with a scheduled Tuesday evening vote on a GOP budget resolution needed to begin moving President Trump’s agenda through Congress, despite at least five Republicans opposed to the plan. 

The Louisiana Republican acknowledged the vote could be delayed as leaders continue to work to sway the holdouts. 

“There may be a vote tonight, there may not be,” he said. “Stay tuned.” 

Mr. Johnson can afford only one GOP defection with his thin majority, given the united Democratic opposition.

GOP Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Victoria Spartz of Indiana, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey are among those against the budget resolution. This is the first step in the reconciliation process Republicans are using to advance their agenda without the threat of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.  

Republican leaders spent the conference’s weekly Tuesday meeting urging members to back the plan, but several members left the closed-door confab unconvinced. 

Mr. Massie, Ms. Spartz and Mr. Burchett said the tax and spending plans laid out in the budget would add to the deficit when Republicans should be reducing it — or at least doing no more harm.

“We’re increasing the deficit this year by over $300 billion and next year as well,” Mr. Massie said. “The only way this is better than the baseline is if you wait 10 years and imagine we don’t increase discretionary spending by more than the rate of inflation, and that we have 2.8% growth every year. It’s like magic fairy dust.”

Mr. Massie said he would prefer the budget have more spending cuts to offset the projected cost of tax cuts Republicans plan to pursue so the blueprint is at least deficit neutral. 

The budget resolution calls for a minimum of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, but after accounting for those — or even a higher level of spending cuts, as Republicans hope to reach at least $2 trillion — it would still allow the tax cuts to net $2.5 trillion to the deficit.

While he refused to rule out any scenario in which he could be swayed, Mr. Massie said, “I don’t know how I can get to yes.”

Ms. Spartz, likewise, said she’s against the budget as written and would be open to supporting it with higher spending cuts, but leadership appears unwilling to consider such a change. 

“They want to talk about governing, but they do not want to govern,” she said. “They don’t really have the courage to govern. And they’re afraid, not of the people, but of the money here [in Washington].”

Mr. Burchett appeared more flexible, saying he wants commitments that the steep spending cuts Republicans talk broadly about will be included in the reconciliation legislation that follows. He said he wants to hear directly from Mr. Johnson on why he should support it, but it’s been hard to get in touch with the speaker.

“They’re anxious to meet with people that are for the thing. I don’t know why they won’t meet with people that aren’t for it,” Mr. Burchett said.

Mr. Davidson wants reassurances baked into the measure on how Republicans would pursue deeper spending cuts ahead of the March 14 deadline to fund the government. 

That deadline is for Congress to approve discretionary spending for the remainder of fiscal 2025 and doesn’t have any bearing on reconciliation legislation. Only mandatory spending can be adjusted through the reconciliation process, but broader nonbinding budget projections in the resolution also account for projections on discretionary spending to paint a full 10-year picture. 

“I want a plan that when you put the whole spending together, it actually spends less money,” Mr. Davidson said. “We’re seeing part of the plan with the budget resolution. We’re not seeing the whole plan.”

Mr. Johnson rejected the deficit hawks’ criticisms, saying Republicans “can’t do it all at once” when it comes to cutting into the nation’s $36 trillion debt, but his objective “has always been deficit neutrality.” 

GOP leaders are assuming economic growth from taxes they cut and government regulations they repeal will ultimately make up for any differences between their tax and spending cuts.

“We’re going to take a big bite out of that,” Mr. Johnson said of the deficit. “We’re going to make a big course correction in this process.” 

Another sticking point for some Republicans is the prospect of steep cuts to Medicaid. The budget instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the government health care program for millions of low-income Americans, to find at least $880 billion in spending cuts. Members of the panel acknowledge Medicaid reforms will have to be part of the spending cuts if they hope to reach that number.

Mr. Van Drew said he can’t vote for the budget unless the $880 billion target is lowered or Mr. Trump personally assures him it will be later in the process. The Senate still has to approve an identical budget, and Republicans there have floated the idea of tweaking the House plan.

Mr. Johnson and his leadership team vowed in the Republicans’ closed-door meeting that Medicaid would not be touched, but some lawmakers were wondering how exactly the Energy and Commerce panel could get where it wants to go without it. 

“I just felt like I was being lied to,” a House Republican told The Washington Times. 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Louisiana Republican, blamed Democrats for false messaging that the GOP budget would cut Medicaid. 

“There is no [mention of] Medicaid in this bill,” he said. “There are no Medicaid cuts in this bill.”

Rep. Juan Ciscomani, Arizona Republican, said he needs more assurances beyond the fact that the word Medicaid is not in the budget about plans for the reconciliation legislation. He said he’s explained to leadership the impact potential Medicaid cuts would have on his district. 

“They’ve been very accommodating to the conversations that I’ve been asking to have,” he said, noting he has met with Mr. Johnson twice and has other meetings planned for Tuesday, including a sophomore class meeting with Mr. Trump. “I feel like we’re in a better place.”

• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.

• Alex Miller can be reached at amiller@washingtontimes.com.