The Fate of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill
“One Big Beautiful Bill” is the name President Trump gave to the bill passed by the House of Representatives on May 22 , 2025 which now awaits action by the U.S. Senate. To be sure, it’s big—1,116 pages addressing literally hundreds of issues. In addition to its length and breadth of topics covered, it involves some very large sums of money. Taking all of its provisions into account, its net effect has been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the nation’s outstanding indebtedness by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years.
Beauty, of course, “is in the eye of the beholder.” To President Trump, that beauty principally lies in the bill’s following provisions:
An extension of the 2017 tax act which heavily favors corporations and wealthy individuals who provide campaign funding for Trump and other Republican politicians;
Large cuts in entitlement programs like Medicaid and federally funded child care and nutrition programs that will offset approximately $2 trillion of the increases in the national debt that will be caused by the bill’s $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years;
An Increase of over $300 billion in spending for defense and immigration enforcement; and
An increase in the debt ceiling of $4 trillion which, in the absence of unforeseen problems (like being drawn into a war in the Middle East or another infectious disease pandemic), should be sufficient to accommodate increases in the national debt for the remainder of Trump’s presidency.
It’s not just that the bill is long and makes hundreds of changes in existing laws and regulations, it’s crafted in a highly deceptive manner making it difficult to fully comprehend all that is embodied in it. For example, the provisions of the 2017 tax act (60% of the benefits of which inure to the 20% of Americans with the highest incomes) are to be PERMANENTLY extended. Incidentally, the bill doesn’t actually say that the extension is “permanent”; it simply changes in the effective period of that legislation omitting a termination date. By contrast, the highly heralded provisions eliminating federal income tax on tips and overtime compensation (which essentially applies to working class Americans) are only be effective for three years (calendar years 2026 through 2028).
In addition, the cuts to the Medicaid program (estimated to approach $800 billion over the next ten years) are not set forth in the form of a reduction in the appropriation for that program. Rather, they are established through 24 new restrictions regarding the application of that program -- ostensibly intended to cut fraud, waste and inefficiency. In reality, these restrictions simply erect additional hurdles for current program recipients to overcome in order to maintain their coverage. In addition, to making their task of complying with those changes even more daunting, the Trump administration is closing six of the ten regional offices of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and terminating 300 CMS employees whose jobs include counseling Medicaid recipients as to the requirements of the program.
The sad truth is that the bill was purposefully drafted in a manner to obscure and confuse. For example, it addresses literally hundreds of new and existing laws and regulations creating a virtual blizzard of amended legal standards through which only the most determined readers are able to find their way. In addition, rather than set forth the language that will now govern the future actions of individual Americans and their federal government, the bill more often than not simply provides specific wording changes to existing statutes and regulations, making those changes only comprehensible when read in conjunction with the literally scores of existing statutes and regulations that are being modified.
When I read the House bill, I was immediately reminded of when I was in the U.S. Navy in 1962 serving as a communications officer on the staff of the Commander of the 2nd (Atlantic) Fleet. I had been assigned to the watch on the weekend before the onset of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Such in-port weekend watches were normally very quiet and uneventful with the ship only receiving a handful of messages each hour, the vast majority of which concerned changes in weather conditions throughout the Atlantic.
Over that weekend, however, the ship received literally several hundred encrypted messages, virtually all of which were long and classified as “Top Secret.” Like most of the provisions in the House bill, those messages were not written in full sentences, but only included changes in words and phrases to be incorporated in existing “contingency plans” that were only identified by number. These messages were intentionally composed in this manner so that those who might see them (including junior communications officers like me with “Top Secret” clearances) would be unable to discern their import.
That experience leads me to believe that the vast majority of the Republican members of Congress have not actually read the House bill and that the speed at which that bill is being processed is intentionally designed to prevent all others from thoroughly comprehending what’s included in it. Exemplary of this problem is a recent experience of House Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. When questioned at a town hall meeting by one of her constituents, she claimed that she was unaware that the House bill would prohibit the states from regulating artificial intelligence (Section 43,201(c)). She went on to say that she would not have voted in favor of the bill had she been aware of that provision. Although it’s wholly understandable that Representative Greene was not fully aware of the contents of the bill, believing that she would not have supported its passage had she been aware of Section 43,201(c) requires an almost unfathomable leap of faith.
Prior to the bill’s passage, a number of House Republicans had expressed objections to imposing large cuts in the Medicaid program. Since its passage, however, only one Republican, Elon Musk, has openly condemned the bill. Musk call it “a disgusting abomination that undermines efforts to reduce the deficit.” He backed his condemnation with a vow that he would oppose the re-election of any Republican legislator who supported it.
Musk’s assault on Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill sent shock waves through the White House as the bill only passed in the House by a single vote and Senate Republicans cannot pass it if more than three members of their caucus vote against it. This prompted President Trump to issue his own threat; namely that Musk would face “dire consequences” if he tried to unseat any Republican member of Congress who supported the bill. That warning seems to have prompted Musk to reassess his position and led him to quickly remove from his website his exhortation that “Trump should be impeached.”
There has been speculation as to why Musk broke with Trump in such a dramatic fashion. One theory is that (notwithstanding their genial final meeting) Trump had rejected Musk’s request that his tenure with the Department of Government Efficiency (or DOGE) be extended. This precluded him from remaining in a position to personally prevent a handful of federal regulatory agencies from pursuing their pending investigations of him and the companies he controls. Musk is also reported to have been upset over the House bill’s rescission of the provision in the Inflation Reduction Act passed during the Biden administration which provides financial incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles, a market currently dominated by Tesla.
In retrospect, it seems clear that Trump “used” Musk (as he has used so many of his other lieutenants) as the face of his efforts to cut government expenditures. The Executive Branch of the federal government (much less, DOGE) does not possess the power under the Constitution to terminate programs authorized by Congress; nor are most of the actions initiated by DOGE favorably viewed by a majority of Americans. Thus, it’s easy to understand why Trump chose to step aside and appoint Musk to lead his crusade to cut government spending.
Moreover, it was important that such actions be taken quickly and boldly as Trump desperately needed to husband the funds remaining in the U.S. Treasury so as to delay the time when the federal government might be forced to shut down. To appreciate this concern, you need to understand that in January of this year the federal government reached its Congressionally-imposed debt ceiling, prohibiting it from further borrowing. Since then, eliminating or at least deferring expenditures of the federal government has been a major priority of the Trump administration.
The Trump-Musk kerfuffle, however, is not likely to have a significant impact on the ultimate fate of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. First, it is not even clear that Musk will renew his threat to endorse and finance the campaigns individuals seeking to unseat Congressional Republicans who supported the bill. That’s because Musk’s recent effort to endorse and finance the campaign of a Republican candidate running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court resulted in a total disaster. Accordingly, his threat to oppose Republican legislators who vote in favor of the Big Beautiful Bill are unlikely to be viewed as a serious deterrent.
In addition, Trump’s has threatened to heap “severe consequences” on Musk should he chose to proceed with his threat to unseat Republicans who vote for his bill. Trump’s vindictive tendencies are well documented and Musk’s multi-faceted relationships with the federal government make him particularly vulnerable to acts of retribution. Such acts might include (a) resurrecting the investigations of Musk’s companies initiated under the Biden administration, (b) cutting the federal government’s contracts with SpaceX and Starlink and (c) imposing tariffs on auto parts Tesla imports from China.
Still, Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill faces a number of formidable obstacles. First, Republicans hold very slim majorities both houses of Congress, requiring them to obtain near unanimity among the members of their caucuses in support of the bill. While Republican legislative leaders have an enviable record of maintaining party discipline, at least one issue (the growing national debt) will nevertheless give them significant cause for concern.
Republican voters tend to be fiscal conservatives and Republican politicians have long rallied their supporters by campaigning against “reckless” Democratic spending. Although those same politicians tend to downplay the dangers associated with increases in the national debt (which increased by $8 trillion during Trump’s first term) while their party controls the presidency , the current level of the nation’s debt obligations has now reached the point that affirmative steps are required to preventinterest charges from having a significant detrimental impact on the nation’s overall economy.
This problem can more clearly be seen from the fact that annual interest charges on the nation’s outstanding debt have increased from $375 billion as of the end of Trump’s first term as President to over $1 trillion. This makes interest costs second only to annual Social Security expenditures which currently stand at $1.35 trillion (or 22% of the federal budget). This embarrassing reality also explains why House Republicans kept the final terms of its Big Beautiful Bill a closely guarded secret and are now rushing to enact it.
From the very beginning, House and Senate Republicans have differed as to what should be included in the Big Beautiful Bill. Senate Republicans wanted to divide the legislation into two separate bills and House Republicans wanted one large bill incorporating President Trump’s entire legislative wish-list. Underlying their differing concepts for this legislation was the Senate filibuster rule which requires that Senate bills be passed with a minimum of 60 affirmative votes. Although the reconciliation process provides a way around the filibuster rule, it’s only available to legislation that is strictly limited to fiscal matters; and President Trump’s legislative wish-list extends far beyond fiscal issues.
Although this issue was temporarily resolved by the President who pressed for “One Big Beautiful Bill”, it has not gone away. The House bill contains a number of provisions which would prevent the Senate from utilizing the reconciliation process. This prompted Senate Republican leaders to send to House Speaker Johnson a list of the offending provisions. The items included on that list (which are yet to be made public) are scheduled to be addressed by the House next week. While it’s possible that the House may be unable to eliminate all of the offending provisions, that currently seems unlikely as “enactment at any cost” seems to be the principle under which House Republicans are currently operating.
Not unexpectedly there are some Senate Republicans who have voiced concerns (not to be confused with objections) over the terms of the House bill aside from the issues that might preclude their use of reconciliation process. Some Senate Republicans are unhappy over the impact that the House bill will have on increasing the national debt and are pressing for more spending cuts. Others are upset over the projected cuts to the Medicaid program which will not only deny healthcare protection to an estimated 7.8 million Americans, but may also prove fatal to a large number of rural hospitals that mostly reside in Red States. With the possible exception of Senator Murkowski, it’s still a pretty safe bet that all of the Senate Republicans who have voiced an objection to one or more provisions of the House bill will ultimately muster the courage (a term not normally used to describe Republican legislators) to approve it. You may not be shocked to hear that no Senate or House Republican has publicly suggested that the 2017 tax cuts be scaled back, much less allowed to expire.
While the possibility remains that the House and Senate Republicans may not be able to agree on a final version of the bill, that possibility seems remote. Still there is a time factor that remains important. Initially, Republican legislators had hoped to pass Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill by Memorial Day. They are now striving to have a bill ready for the President’s signature by July 4th. The problem is that despite the roughly $20 billion that the U.S Treasury is currently receiving in monthly tariff revenues, Treasury Secretary Bessent has projected that the federal government will run out of available funds “sometime” in August. This means that enactment of the bill may be in jeopardy if it doesn’t take place as currently planned.
That’s because looming ahead is the possibility that the Supreme Court will decide that President Trump lacked the power to impose the tariffs now in effect and will order that they be rescinded. This could accelerate the date on which the federal government would have to suspend its operations. Although the Trump administration volunteered that it would refund all tariffs deemed by the Court to be in violation of the Constitution, it didn’t say how quickly such refunds would be made. It’s also distinctly possible that the Trump-friendly Roberts Supreme Court may choose not to decide the case until the Fall, giving the Trump administration a brief, but likely sufficient, reprieve in which to have the bill (with its debt-ceiling increase) enacted.
Another time factor is the pending rapid decline of public approval of the bill. Although most Americans remain oblivious to the dangers posed by our increasing national debt, they are very much aware of increasing living costs which are soon likely to accelerate as a result of the Trump tariffs. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 57% of all adult Americansand 64% of likely voters already view the House budget bill unfavorably. In addition, the efforts of Democratic politicians to publicize the bill’s cuts in the Medicare, Medicaid and federally-funded nutrition programs will only drive those numbers higher. At present, however, Republican members of Congress seem to fear Trump’s rath more than they fear the growing unhappiness of their voters, but that balance could tip in the other direction if the bill is not enacted by mid-summer.