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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less