Congress was on track to avert a government shutdown after the White House moved to clear a final hurdle in negotiations over a spending measure to keep federal agencies running after Friday.

A group of arch-conservatives separately breathed new life into the failed Republican effort to overhaul the healthcare law, teeing up a dramatic close to the week with a potential vote on a replacement plan running parallel to the scramble to ensure the government remains open.

The tense atmosphere on Capitol Hill on Wednesday was characteristic of the unpredictability that has accompanied Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office. Relations between the White House and Congress have vacillated between close coordination one moment and leaving the other in the dark the next.

Angry Trump tells Freedom Caucus to 'get on the team' after healthcare failure Read more

If the week began with the looming threat of a shutdown, by Wednesday the Trump administration had eased off on at least two major sticking points in the negotiations.

The White House appeared to back off its requirement that a spending bill to fund the government include money for the construction of a wall along the US-Mexico border, and a threat by Trump to uphold payments for a critical component of the Affordable Care Act. Both had been non-starters with Democrats.

The White House confirmed to lawmakers on Wednesday afternoon that it would continue to fund subsidy payments under the healthcare law hours after threatening to cut them off. The payments, known as cost-sharing reductions, are paid to health insurance companies to help reduce the out-of-pocket costs for certain low-income people.

The federal government runs out of money on Friday at midnight unless Congress reaches an agreement on a spending package. Underscoring the urgency of the moment, Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, spoke with White House chief of staff Reince Priebus twice on Wednesday.

In a statement, Pelosi said Trump’s border wall and payments under the healthcare law ranked among Democrats’ foremost concerns.

“We’ve now made progress on both of these fronts,” Pelosi said.

“More progress needs to be made on some of our priorities, and we continue to be concerned about poison pill riders that are still in this legislation. Our appropriators are working in good faith toward a bipartisan proposal to keep government open.”

A senior Republican aide said that negotiations are moving apace but that it was still likely that Congress will pass a one-week funding extension to offer lawmakers “a little breathing room”.

Meanwhile, the Freedom Caucus, a group of hardline conservatives who played a critical role in striking Trump’s effort to repeal and replace Obamacare last month, lent its support to a new amendment forged as a compromise with moderates. The group had lobbied for a full repeal of the healthcare law, and its support for the amendment, which falls short of that goal, was seen as a major boost to the prospects of a Republican replacement plan.

“While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower healthcare costs,” the caucus said in a statement Wednesday. “We look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to improve the bill. Our work will continue until we fully repeal Obamacare.”

The so-called MacArthur-Meadows amendment, named after the moderate New Jersey congressman Tom MacArthur, who helped broker the deal with House Freedom Caucus chair Mark Meadows, would allow states to opt out of key Obamacare provisions.

The proposal would pave the way for states to obtain waivers that exempt insurers from the law’s insurance rules, including a requirement that plans cover benefits such as maternity care, mental health care and prescription drugs. Protections for individuals with pre-existing conditions are also at risk under the amendment, with the potential for insurers to charge more for certain enrollees with pre-existing conditions, or those who are older.

Under the initial Republican proposal, which drew opposition from conservatives and moderates alike, 24 million people would have lost health insurance over the course of a decade, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. By removing additional elements of the healthcare law, it is likely that even more Americans would lose insurance coverage under the plan.



Joe Barton, a Freedom Caucus member from Texas, said he expects the group’s support to bring the party within “single digits” of reaching the 216 votes they need to pass the repeal legislation in the House.

Still, a familiar chasm emerged following a meeting to discuss the new health care amendment on Wednesday afternoon. While the negotiations brought on board more of the party’s right flank, their support may well come at the expense of several moderate Republicans.

Florida congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who supported the initial Republican proposal, told reporters he had concerns about how the amendment would affect people with pre-existing conditions. He said he was now undecided about the legislation if the MacArthur-Meadows amendment was adopted.

Jeff Denham, a Republican from California, said he opposed the new language and said the bill does not address the failure to reimburse doctors who serve Medicaid patients.

“I remain a no for the reasons I’ve expressed continually,” said Leonard Lance, a Republican from New Jersey. “I want to see premiums lowered, and I don’t think this does that necessarily.”

Tom Cole, a Republican from Oklahoma, said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the agreement. Members had likely received “an earful” while facing their constituents in the two-week Easter recess, he said, for failing to act upon their promise to dismantle Obamacare, he said.

“[We] probably came back more in the mood to find middle ground than we were when we left.”

Cole also cast doubt on the notion that moderates would ultimately flee the Republican plan amid the proposed change.

“It clearly has gotten us some additional votes,” he said. “But the real question is whether or not it’s enough.”