On Tuesday, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act, a massive alteration to climate change, health care and tax policy. Although the bill passed both chambers without any Republican votes, most of its major provisions have bipartisan backing, according to new data from the University of Maryland.
While Biden and congressional Democrats will claim passage of the IRA as the latest in a string of policy victories for their side, others view this as a win for the American people despite a polarized government.
Over the 20 components studied by PPC and Stanford University's Deliberative Democracy Lab, the vast majority have support among the general public and 13 items garnered backing of both Democrats, Republicans and independents.
“Majorities support 19 of 20 major proposals in the legislation,“ said Steven Kull, director of the school’s Program for Public Consultation, which produced the report. “While there has been grave concern about the state of our democracy, the movement of this bill should give Americans hope that our system can and does work, and that Congress is acting to reflect the will of the people.”
PPC broke the proposals down into four categories: energy and environment, workforce development, taxes and health care. While the concepts tested in public surveys are not a 100 percent match to the final legislation, they are similar enough to provide an indication of people’s stance.
The bulk of the proposals fall into the energy and environment category. Of the 14 items, nine of them had bipartisan support:
- Tax credits for equipment used to produce clean energy.
- Tax credits for producing clean energy.
- Tax credits for small-scale clean energy projects.
- Tax credits for building energy-efficient residences.
- Tax credits for energy-saving improvements to homes and commercial buildings.
- Tax credits for energy-efficient improvements to heating and air conditioning systems.
- Additional tax credits for improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings.
- Tax credits for the production of heavy-duty electric vehicles such as buses.
- Tax credits for farmers to construct biogas (a type of biofuel) facilities.
Both items under the “workforce development” heading received bipartisan backing:
- Increased funding for cities and states to train people for clean energy jobs.
- Tax credits for businesses that offer apprenticeships.
Two of the three health care items were supported by Republicans and Democrats.
- Allowing Medicare to negotiate some drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.
- Extending increased Affordable Care Act subsidies for low-income earners.
Only one proposal fell under the taxes category – increasing IRS funding for tax enforcement – and that failed to get a majority of Republicans’ support. (Although it did get the backing of 68 percent of independents, in addition to 88 percent of Democrats.)
And just one area failed to get at least 50 percent from any of the three partisan groups: increasing tax incentives for carbon-producing power plants to store their carbon emissions.
Some want to see the IRA as a launching pad for other legislation.
“While the Inflation Reduction Act passed along party lines, members of both parties should use this as a moment to finally make achieving deficit reduction a prioritized and regular part of the policy making process,” said Mike Murphy, director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's FixUS program. “From here, Congress should take this moment as an example, prioritizing deficit reduction as the normal, everyday aspect of governing it ought to be.”
Meanwhile, Erik Olsen, co-founder of the Common Ground Committee, is skeptical that the survey indicates Republican respondents want the entire bill to pass, given Congress’ recent track record in passing legislation with bipartisan support.
“I wouldn’t look at this and say Congress can’t find a way to work together,” he said.
The data from the three health care items came from polls conducted by the Deliberative Democracy Lab. The other 17 items were tested by the PPC.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.