President Donald Trump wanted a “big, beautiful bill.” Now Republicans are having to take some of the shine off of it.

GOP leaders on Capitol Hill signaled Thursday they are scaling back their tax-cutting ambitions after running into difficulty making deep spending cuts and facing stern warnings from Republican deficit hawks who are threatening to vote against Trump’s sprawling megabill.

On the chopping block could be a litany of Trump demands, including a permanent extension of the tax cuts passed during his first term, as well as second-term campaign promises to provide tax relief to seniors while also exempting taxes on tips and overtime earnings. Those provisions could end up getting enacted only temporarily, according to four Republican lawmakers, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity.

With key committees struggling to meet a $2 trillion spending cut target, Speaker Mike Johnson told a group of House Republicans Thursday he is now targeting $4 trillion of tax cuts. That’s a half-trillion dollars less than many in the GOP had hoped, and it’s likely below the threshold needed to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent — one of Trump’s earliest demands for the party-line megabill.

“Republicans talk a big game … about reining in reckless spending,” House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told reporters. “You won’t get the full permanency in the tax policy on all the provisions if we don’t get to the $2 trillion in savings, and that’s unfortunate.”

That cake is not yet totally baked: Republican leaders are still exploring a request from Trump to increase income taxes on the highest-earning Americans — from 37 percent to 39.6 percent, the level that prevailed before the 2017 law — in order to make room for more tax cuts elsewhere.

The House’s top tax writer, Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), is set to visit the White House Friday as GOP leaders grapple with the idea of a more modest package. Trump posted Wednesday on Truth Social that the bill would deliver “the biggest Tax Cut for Middle and Working Class Americans by far.”

“We are going to do NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON SENIORS’ SOCIAL SECURITY, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, and much more,” he wrote.

Under Johnson’s new $4 trillion tax plan, however, Smith may not be able to deliver on all of Trump’s requests. Many of the desired tax cuts might be in place for only a few years — forcing future Congresses to decide whether to keep them in place.

Time is running out for Republicans to put the puzzle pieces together. Johnson is pushing to have three key committees vote on their portions of the bill next week. And with the committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce and Agriculture all currently slated to convene on Tuesday, the window to make changes to the overall package is closing quickly.

Committee rules give the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is weighing major Medicaid changes, until 24 hours before the meeting Tuesday at 2 p.m. to release final legislative language. Ways and Means is aiming to meet at the same time.

Even if House GOP leaders manage to pull the megabill together, the Senate is poised to revise many of the policies. Many GOP senators have balked at making deep cuts to Medicaid and pushing food aid costs onto the states, which could trim back the cuts further, and Senate tax writers are pushing back on the higher top-earner rate.

“I’m not excited about the proposal, but I have to say, there are a number of people in both the House and the Senate who are, and if the president weighs in favor of it, then that’s going to be a big factor that we have to take into consideration as well,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said Thursday in an interview with talk show host Hugh Hewitt.

Crapo has been an outspoken advocate for essentially writing off the cost of permanently extending the 2017 tax cuts and accounting only for the cost of new tax provisions. But the politics in the House are different, where a cadre of fiscal hawks are demanding that GOP leaders hold spending cuts and tax cuts in rough balance.

Smith had already indicated it would be difficult to make the 2017 bill permanent under the House’s fiscal framework, which envisioned $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in spending cuts. (Fiscal hawks are counting on economic growth and other “dynamic” effects to make up the difference.)

Now that Johnson is planning on $500 billion less in tax cuts, tax writers on the committee will have to make some very difficult choices on what to prioritize. One tax writer, Rep. Ron Estes (R-Kan.), said Wednesday that he expects a number of tax provisions to be temporary, with some extended for four, six or eight years.

Those include various pieces of Trump’s 2017 tax law, such as tax deductions for businesses, individual tax rates and estate taxes. House Republicans have also wanted to restore three critical business provisions, which would cost more than $600 billion to make permanent. Then, Smith has to find room for enacting Trump’s campaign priorities, such as his ideas on tips, overtime and Social Security.

Even with revenue-generating proposals — such as increasing the tax on university endowments and repealing Biden-era clean energy credits — the math is not adding up for Republicans who want to fit it all in.

That’s to say nothing of the push from blue-state Republicans to increase the income tax deduction for state and local taxes. The so-called SALT Republicans presented proposals to Ways and Means members Wednesday, but they left far from a resolution that would satisfy both sides.

On Thursday evening, New York Republicans Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, Mike Lawler and Elise Stefanik rejected one House GOP idea under discussion: increasing the SALT deduction from $10,000 to $30,000. They called the number “insulting.”

“We were on the 25-yard line with about 75 yards to go,” LaLota told reporters Thursday. “We got sacked at that meeting. We probably lost five to ten yards.”

Meanwhile, House GOP efforts to amp up spending cuts have largely faltered. On Medicaid — which had been targeted for as much as $600 billion in savings — Republicans have found consensus on only the more modest proposals, such as adding work requirements in the program, strengthening eligibility checks and booting noncitizens from the rolls.

Johnson ruled out one of the most controversial Medicaid cuts GOP leaders had been pursuing, slashing the federal cost share for the joint federal-state program, after meeting with moderates Tuesday evening. And House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) said a policy intended to lower drug prices in the program that the White House has pitched is likely off the table, too.

Another ambitious cost-cutting proposal — capping the federal payments for at least some Medicaid enrollees — remains an option, though it’s politically explosive.

Ultraconservatives are demanding those kinds of “structural” changes, but moderates are wary. In a report requested by Democrats, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday that a similar policy to what is being discussed could lead to 3.3 million people losing Medicaid coverage and 1.5 million people going uninsured. It would, however, generate $225 billion in savings.

“It’s a sensitive thing,” Johnson conceded Thursday.

House Republicans also still need to convince centrist holdouts to back a controversial proposal to shift some costs of food aid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to states for the first time ahead of the scheduled House Agriculture Committee meeting.

While the pared-down tax cuts might represent a setback for the Trump agenda, some in the White House have been relieved that Congress has stepped back from the most far-reaching proposals for safety-net cuts, according to two people granted anonymity to describe the private reactions, and are privately rooting for the swing-district moderates to win out over hard-liners.

Trump has promised the “largest tax cuts in history,” but he’s also repeatedly pledged not to cut Americans’ government benefits — and he’s recently grown uncomfortable with proposals for far-reaching Medicaid cuts.

Brian Faler and Robert King contributed to this report.