Politics in D.C. has a funny way of making everything feel like a high-stakes poker game. Honestly, most days it’s just noise, but then you get a Tuesday like this one—January 13, 2026—where things actually get a little spicy on the Senate floor. People are frantically searching for who were the two republicans that voted no today, and the answer tells you a lot about the current fracture in the GOP.
While the majority of the Republican conference was busy trying to push through a new 3% GDP deficit target resolution, two familiar faces decided to walk the other way.
The Senate Rejection: What Went Down
Basically, the Senate just rejected S.J.Res. 84. It was a 47-52 vote, which means it didn't even get a simple majority, let alone the 60-vote threshold often needed for big moves. But the real headline isn't just that it failed; it’s that it was a Republican-led effort that couldn't even keep its own house in order.
When you look at the roll call, two specific Republicans joined the Democrats to kill the measure.
The two "no" votes from the Republican side were Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Thomas Massie—wait, Massie is House, let me get that right—it was actually Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Mike Lee.
👉 See also: Trump on Gun Control: What Most People Get Wrong
Now, if you follow fiscal policy at all, this shouldn't actually surprise you. These guys aren't voting "no" because they love spending money. It’s actually the opposite. They usually think these resolutions are "fake math" or don't go nearly far enough to actually slash the federal budget.
Why Paul and Lee Broke Ranks
You’ve gotta understand the mindset of the "Hard Right" fiscal hawks. For them, a 3% deficit-to-GDP target feels like a surrender. To someone like Rand Paul, saying "we only want to overspend by 3%" is like a doctor telling a patient they should only smoke one pack of cigarettes a day instead of two. It's still bad for you.
- Rand Paul's Stance: He has a long history of voting against his own party's budget resolutions. He often argues that these targets aren't legally binding and are basically just "press release" legislation.
- Mike Lee's Logic: Lee is similar. He often demands a "Balanced Budget Amendment" rather than a sliding scale target based on GDP. He’s famously skeptical of anything that gives the government "wiggle room" to keep the printing presses running.
It creates this weird dynamic where the most conservative members of the party end up voting with the most liberal Democrats, but for completely opposite reasons. The Democrats voted no because they want to protect social spending; Paul and Lee voted no because they want to burn the spending down to the ground.
The Healthcare Side of the Coin
While the deficit resolution was the big math problem of the day, there was also a huge blowback regarding health care. Senate Republicans also successfully blocked a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution today. This was an attempt by Democrats—led by Mark Warner and Ron Wyden—to overturn a Trump-era rule regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces.
✨ Don't miss: Trump Eliminate Department of Education: What Most People Get Wrong
In this case, the Republicans held the line. They stayed unified to keep the "Marketplace Integrity and Affordability" rule in place. This rule is controversial, to say the least. CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) has projected that it could cause roughly 1.8 million people to lose their coverage because of new paperwork hurdles.
Democrats are calling it "red tape." Republicans are calling it "fraud prevention." It’s the classic D.C. stalemate.
The House is Dealing with its Own Drama
Over on the House side, things were just as chaotic. While we're focusing on who were the two republicans that voted no today in the Senate context, we can't ignore that House Republicans are currently releasing a massive "Reconciliation Blueprint."
Chairman James Comer also dropped a bombshell today, announcing contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton. Apparently, Clinton defied a subpoena related to a deposition that was supposed to happen this morning.
🔗 Read more: Trump Derangement Syndrome Definition: What Most People Get Wrong
It’s a lot to keep track of. You've got deficit targets failing in the Senate, healthcare rules being protected by a razor-thin margin, and a former President being hit with contempt charges all in the span of eight hours.
What This Means for Your Pocketbook
Honestly, when these resolutions fail, it usually means the "status quo" wins. Without a hard deficit target, the government is likely to keep operating on "Continuing Resolutions" (CRs).
We have a funding deadline coming up on January 30, 2026. If they can't agree on these smaller resolutions now, the chances of a government shutdown at the end of the month start to skyrocket.
For the average person, this stuff feels like "inside baseball," but it affects things like interest rates and inflation. If the market sees that Congress can't even agree on a target for the deficit, it loses confidence that they’ll ever actually balance the books.
Actionable Insights: What to Watch Next
If you're trying to stay ahead of the curve on how this affects the 2026 election cycle and your own finances, keep an eye on these three things:
- The January 30 Deadline: This is the big one. If a CR doesn't pass, federal offices close. If you're planning travel or need a passport, get it done now.
- The ACA Rule Implementation: Since the CRA failed today, that "Marketplace Integrity" rule is staying. If you get your insurance through the exchange, expect more "verification" emails in your inbox soon. Don't ignore them, or you might lose your subsidy.
- The Paul/Lee Effect: Watch to see if other Republicans start joining Paul and Lee. If the "No" caucus grows to 4 or 5 members, the GOP leadership won't be able to pass anything without begging Democrats for help.
The vote today proves that "Republican" isn't a monolith. Sometimes the biggest hurdles for the GOP aren't the Democrats across the aisle, but the guys sitting right next to them who think the party has gone soft on spending.