Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday to speak about the Senate version of the Republican-backed “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at overhauling government spending and entitlement programs. The bill recently cleared its first procedural hurdle in the Senate.
Speaking to host Jake Tapper, Britt described the bill as the product of months of internal meetings and negotiations, saying it reflects the priorities set out by former President Donald Trump.
“This bill delivers on what we promised,” she said. “We want hardworking Americans to keep more of what they earn. We want stronger borders, a stronger military, and a more stable future.”
Vote Timing and Legislative Process
Senator Britt said the final vote could come as early as Monday, depending on how long the bill’s full text takes to be read aloud in the Senate chamber. Once reading is complete, both Democrats and Republicans will have up to 10 hours of debate time.
“Amendments will follow,” Britt explained. “There’s no cap on how many can be introduced, so we expect a long night. I’m scheduled to preside in the chair between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m.”
She added that while Republicans may not use all of their allotted time, Democrats are likely to speak for the full 10 hours.
Intraparty Divisions Over Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
Some Republican senators have raised concerns about the bill’s approach to entitlement reform, especially regarding Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski agreed to proceed with debate only after securing exemptions for her state. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted against the bill, warning of major financial burdens tied to Medicaid adjustments. Missouri’s Josh Hawley supported the bill but opposed proposed changes to SNAP, saying the GOP shouldn’t cut health care for working-class Americans while offering tax breaks to corporations.
Britt acknowledged the criticism.
“We’re not looking to hurt working people,” she said. “We’re making structural reforms so these programs can survive. If we keep spending at this rate, they won’t last.”
She framed the changes as necessary to preserve safety nets while promoting personal responsibility.
“We want these programs to be safety nets, not hammocks,” Britt added. “People should be supported, but also encouraged to stand on their own.”
Alabama’s Stakes in the Debate
Tapper pressed Britt about the impact on her home state. Alabama has roughly 760,000 Medicaid recipients and over 750,000 residents relying on food assistance, including around 330,000 children.
Britt said the bill includes protections for vulnerable groups.
“Children on Medicaid are covered through CHIP. That’s untouched,” she explained. “Same goes for SNAP—kids aren’t affected. What we’re addressing are able-bodied adults without dependents. They’ll need to work, train, or volunteer for 20 hours a week to qualify for benefits.”
She said the requirement mirrors earlier bipartisan welfare reforms and reflects public sentiment.
On the state level, Alabama would be asked to shoulder more responsibility for monitoring and reducing error rates in benefit distribution. Britt acknowledged that Alabama currently exceeds the 6% error threshold but insisted that the state has time and capacity to improve.
“We have several years to get that number down. And I believe we will,” she said.
Push for Accountability
Britt pointed to concerns about fraud and administrative failures in benefit programs across the country.
“There are states with error rates above 60%,” she said. “That’s not sustainable. We’re asking states to be accountable. Right now, there’s no incentive to get it right.”
Responding to questions about Alabama’s ability to absorb the cost shift, Britt remained confident.
“What we can’t afford is to keep getting it wrong. We need to be accurate and efficient. That’s how we protect these programs for the people who actually need them.”
Looking Ahead
The bill is controversial, even with some Republicans. So, Senator Britt is trying to change the conversation. She’s dodging the immediate controversy by making it all about long-term fiscal responsibility.
Her argument is simple: “This is about preserving these programs for future generations,” she says, framing her position as just being “realistic about what’s sustainable.”
But as the Senate debate heats up, her framing sets the stage for a crucial test: can the GOP leadership whip enough votes and maintain party unity to pass their signature bill?
