House Republicans Who Opposed Trump Tax Bill Revealed

The Trump tax bill, officially known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), passed the House of Representatives in 2017 with overwhelming Republican support. However, not all GOP members were on board. Twelve House Republicans broke ranks and voted against the legislation, raising eyebrows across Capitol Hill.

This article explores which House Republicans opposed the Trump tax bill, why they voted against their own party, and how their decisions impacted both their political careers and the broader Republican platform.

Why the Trump Tax Bill Was Controversial

The Trump tax bill aimed to deliver the largest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in decades. Its key components included:

• Lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%
• Cutting individual tax rates across multiple income brackets
• Doubling the standard deduction
• Eliminating or capping various deductions, such as the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction

While the bill was praised by many conservatives for stimulating economic growth, it drew criticism for:

• Increasing the federal deficit
• Favoring wealthy individuals and corporations
• Reducing important deductions that benefited residents in high-tax states

These issues became sticking points for several Republicans, especially those from states like New York, New Jersey, and California.

Which House Republicans Voted Against Trump Tax Bill?

Here are the 12 House Republicans who voted against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017:

1. Dan Donovan (New York)
2. John Faso (New York)
3. Rodney Frelinghuysen (New Jersey)
4. Darrell Issa (California)
5. Walter Jones (North Carolina)
6. Peter King (New York)
7. Leonard Lance (New Jersey)
8. Frank LoBiondo (New Jersey)
9. Dana Rohrabacher (California)
10. Chris Smith (New Jersey)
11. Elise Stefanik (New York)
12. Lee Zeldin (New York)

What Were Their Reasons for Voting “No”?

1. State and Local Tax Deduction (SALT) Cap

The most common reason given by these Republicans was the $10,000 cap on the SALT deduction. For constituents in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, and California, the cap meant higher federal tax bills.

Rep. Leonard Lance (NJ) stated:

“This bill punishes residents of New Jersey. It’s a tax hike disguised as a cut.”

Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY) echoed similar concerns:

“My constituents will be hit hard by the elimination of the full SALT deduction.”

2. Impact on Middle-Class Families

Some representatives believed that the bill did not do enough to protect middle-class taxpayers in their districts.

Rep. Walter Jones (NC) was critical of the bill’s long-term effect on the national debt, saying:

“We’re giving huge breaks to the wealthy while adding trillions to the deficit.”

3. Local Economic Interests

Several of the “no” voters had districts where the majority of residents wouldn’t benefit from the tax cuts. They feared backlash from constituents who might see higher tax bills, not lower ones.

Political Fallout: What Happened Next?

Voting against a major party initiative like the Trump tax bill was seen as bold—if not risky.

Re-Election Challenges

Many of the Republicans who voted “no” either:

• Chose not to run for re-election in 2018, or
• Lost their seats in the Democratic wave that year

Examples:

• Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ) announced retirement in 2018
• Leonard Lance (NJ) lost his re-election bid
• Darrell Issa (CA) retired, then later returned to Congress in a different district

Survivors and Party Dynamics

Some, like Elise Stefanik (NY), managed to hold onto their seats and even rose in prominence within the GOP. Her profile dramatically increased in later years as a vocal Trump supporter, showing that one “no” vote did not necessarily damage her political future.

The Bigger Picture: Party Loyalty vs. District Needs

The Trump tax bill vote revealed a deep divide in the Republican Party between party loyalty and constituent representation. For lawmakers from high-tax blue states, the bill posed a direct threat to their constituents’ finances.

This placed them in a difficult position:

• Support the bill and face voter anger at home
• Oppose it and risk being sidelined within the party

It’s a tension that still exists today, especially as discussions continue around the future of the SALT cap and tax reform in general.

How the Bill Has Aged Since 2017

Several years later, economists and analysts continue to debate the long-term impact of the TCJA.

Positives often cited:

• Boost in corporate investment (at least initially)
• Higher stock market performance
• Increased business confidence

Negatives include:

• Federal deficit ballooned by over $1.5 trillion
• Minimal wage growth for middle-class workers
• SALT cap hurt homeowners in suburban districts

The opposition from those 12 Republicans looks, in hindsight, less like rebellion and more like representation rooted in district realities.

SALT Cap Revisions: The Ongoing Battle

As of 2025, the SALT deduction cap continues to be a contentious issue. Some lawmakers have pushed to repeal or raise the cap, arguing that it unfairly punishes states that invest more in public services through taxation.

Several bipartisan efforts have emerged, but full repeal has yet to pass due to concerns over further increasing the national debt.

Some former “no” voters, such as Lee Zeldin (who later ran for Governor of New York), have continued to advocate for SALT reform.

What This Means for Future Tax Debates

The Trump tax bill remains a defining moment in modern GOP economic policy. It set the tone for how the party handles tax reform: prioritizing business and investment over deductions.

But it also serves as a cautionary tale. Any future Republican-led tax bill must now carefully weigh:

• District-level impact
• Economic fairness
• Political consequences

Especially for GOP members in blue or purple states.

Conclusion: A Defining Vote for a Dozen Lawmakers

The vote against the Trump tax bill by 12 House Republicans was not just a matter of policy—it was a stand based on principle, district loyalty, and political calculation.

Their dissent highlighted:

• Internal party tensions
• Regional economic divides
• The challenge of crafting one-size-fits-all legislation in a diverse nation

While most of them paid a political price, their votes sparked important conversations about the role of lawmakers—not just as party members, but as representatives of their communities.

Read Next – Jeffries’ Magic Minute: Bold Move Against Trump Tax Bill