Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

House passes 1,100-page spending and tax bill, raising debt by up to $4 trillion

News

House passes 1,100-page spending and tax bill, raising debt by up to $4 trillion

US Capitol

Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

Early Thursday morning the House passed H.R. 1: One Big Beautiful Bill Act — yes, that’s it’s official title — a 1,100+ page bill with large cuts to both spending and taxes. We know the big picture but little about the details because it hasn’t been available for long enough for anyone to actually read it.

This is the “reconciliation” bill, the first signature legislation moved by Republicans in Congress and President Trump. This bill has special rules that make it immune to the Senate filibuster, so it can pass the Senate if a simple majority vote for it.


Here’s the bottom line: The bill has very large cuts to federal government spending, but it has even greater cuts to taxes. So overall, it’s projected to increase the yearly federal deficit by around $230 billion or 10%. (That’s so large that the global bond market has begun to reassess U.S. bonds, making the national debt even more expensive to keep up interest payments.) The last provision of the bill increases the statutory limit to the national debt by $4 trillion.

Some of the biggest cuts are in the low income food assistance program SNAP and medical assistance program Medicaid, in part through cuts and in part by making it harder for Americans to get the assistance.

But about half of those savings to the federal government are offset by increased funding for the military, border barriers (presumably on the border with Mexico), immigration enforcement, and immigration detention facilities, based on the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate.

The biggest change is to taxes: higher for low-income earners and lower for high-income earners. CBO estimated that “household resources,” meaning mostly household income but also federal benefits, would decrease by around 4% for the lowest earners and increase by the same amount for the highest earning households. That includes a higher “SALT” tax deduction, which benefits high income earners in high-tax states, restoring it to roughly how it was before President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts. The tax cuts are the main reason the bill adds to the deficit.

Other changes include repeals of laws and funding for green energy, bans on transgender care (originally limited to minors, then expanded to all people) and abortion. The bill also includes a provision limiting the enforcement of court orders against the government (see text in bill).

The Senate filibuster doesn’t apply to this bill if the Senate limits the bill to changes in taxes and spending, and not broad policy changes, at least according to the reconciliation rules. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian had the last word on what’s allowed. But there’s some indication the Senate may change the rules to pass broader policy changes: The Senate passed some “Congressional Review Act (CRA)” bills this week in contravention of the ruling of the Parliamentarian related to CRA’s rules. While the situation is a little complicated, it suggests that if the Senate majority doesn’t like the Parliamentarian’s ruling on what counts as spending or taxes, they may quash a filibuster on H.R. 1 anyway, or fire the Parliamentarian. This would be a significant change to Senate practice.

The text of H.R.1 on GovTrack is out of date. The “ manager’s amendment ” to H.R. 1, the result of the House Rules Committee meeting held at 1 a.m. Wednesday morning ( yes, that’s 1 a.m.), was published only around 9 p.m. Wednesday night (less than 12 hours before the House began voting on the bill around 4 a.m. Thursday). The amendment is 42 pages long and contains some significant changes to the original text.

There will probably be time to read it before the Senate begins its debate.

H.R. 1 passed the House 215-214, with two Republicans and all Democrats voting against.

Editor's Notes: House passes 1,100-page spending and tax bill, raising debt by up to $4 trillion, was first published by GOVTRACK.us

Joshua Tauberer is the founder of GovTrack.us and created the site initially as a hobby in 2004.

Amy West has been the GovTrack research and communications manager since February 2017.

Read More

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority
the capitol building in washington d c is seen from across the water

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority

The unprecedented power grab by President Trump, in many cases, usurping the clear and Constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, appears to leave our legislative branch helpless against executive branch encroachment. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has ample authority to reassert its role in our democracy, and there is a precedent.

During the particularly notable episode of executive branch corruption during the Nixon years, Congress responded with a robust series of reforms. Campaign finance laws were dramatically overhauled and strengthened. Nixon’s overreach on congressionally authorized spending was corrected with the passage of the Impoundment Act. And egregious excesses by the military and intelligence community were blunted by the War Powers Act and the bipartisan investigation by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho).

Keep ReadingShow less
In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Person speaking in front of an American flag

Jason_V/Getty Images

In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Nearly 14 years ago, after nearly 12 years of public service, my boss, Rep. Todd Platts, surprised many by announcing he was not running for reelection. He never term-limited himself, per se. Yet he had long supported legislation for 12-year term limits. Stepping aside at that point made sense—a Cincinnatus move, with Todd going back to the Pennsylvania Bar as a hometown judge.

Term limits are always a timely issue. Term limits may have died down as an issue in the halls of Congress, but I still hear it from people in my home area.

Keep ReadingShow less
“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Approaching a year of the new Trump administration, Americans are getting used to domestic militarized logic. A popular sense of powerlessness permeates our communities. We bear witness to the attacks against innocent civilians by ICE, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we naturally wonder—is this the new American discourse? Violent action? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offers hope that there may be another way.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist, was elected as mayor of New York City on the fourth of November. Mamdani’s platform includes a reimagining of the police force in New York City. Mamdani proposes a Department of Community Safety. In a CBS interview, Mamdani said, “Our vision for a Department of Community Safety, the DCS, is that we would have teams of dedicated mental health outreach workers that we deploy…to respond to those incidents and get those New Yorkers out of the subway system and to the services that they actually need.” Doing so frees up NYPD officers to respond to actual threats and crime, without a responsibility to the mental health of civilians.

Keep ReadingShow less