Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill: Hidden Cuts, Legislative Tricks, and Who Really Pays the Price

Opinion

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill: Hidden Cuts, Legislative Tricks, and Who Really Pays the Price

President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the One, Big Beautiful Bill Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House on July 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump received a great Fourth of July present -- he signed his administration’s signature piece of federal legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is a sweeping tax cut and spending package. The law makes Trump’s massive 2017 tax cuts permanent and boosts defense and border patrol funding. It attempts to offset some of these costs by making deep cuts to spending on Medicaid, food assistance programs, student loans, and clean energy programs. Depending on whose hype you listen to, the Trump tax and spend deal is either the greatest in history or it will cause the fall of Western civilization.

For the average person, it's quite challenging to understand how this law will impact their own individual situation. This was a complex piece of legislation with numerous moving parts, and the White House designers employed several legislative tactics and strategies to obscure the impact on those who would be helped or hurt. Both the Republican and Democratic sides have their own “experts” who, of course, do not agree, but even within Republican and conservative circles, there has been much disagreement over likely impacts.


GOP economist Kevin Hassett says the new law will be good for average Americans because it will spur economic growth and investment, as he claims the first Trump tax cuts did in 2017. But conservative economist Oren Cass says, “That’s not true. The two-year stretch that followed [the Trump tax cut] passage saw slower growth than any other two-year period of the economic expansions in the 1990s and 2000s.”

Senator Susan Collins from Maine, one of the few Republicans to vote against the bill, said, “My vote against this bill stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes.” The Medicaid program has been an important health care safety net for nearly 60 years, which has helped people with disabilities, children, the mentally ill, and low-income families.

Democrats call the bill “tax breaks for billionaires” while Republicans say it is a tax cut for “working- and middle-class Americans.” Who’s wrong, who’s right? The law is so massive that the White House can highlight any features it wants you to know about. Certainly, there are some benefits in it for working- and middle-class Americans, such as:

Tax breaks. It provides income tax breaks on overtime pay and tips, as well as a deduction for interest on loans for automobiles assembled in the US. While helpful, those tax breaks are only temporary, lasting through 2028. Meanwhile, independent analysts have found that taxpayers with the highest incomes will by far benefit the most from the permanent income tax cuts. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, individuals making over $1 million per year will benefit from about $90,000 in tax cuts, while poor people are actually going to lose money, once you factor in the Medicaid and food assistance cuts.

Pro-family? Maybe, yes; maybe, no; it depends on the family. The law expands the child tax credit to $2,200, which is helpful. But that’s not that much money for many families, especially since they will lose out on other provisions of the law. Trump’s law is giving with one hand and taking with the other.

The law also creates “Trump baby bonds,” which aim to help low- and middle-income families build long-term savings by providing a modest government bonus of $ 1,000 for each newborn. That money can be added to, invested, and grow tax-free. It’s well-meaning, but it will most benefit higher-income families who can afford to contribute more money to the account. This new benefit is also temporary and will expire in 2028.

Senior deduction. Seniors over 65 with a middle income (up to $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for married couples) will be allowed to deduct up to $ 6,000 more from their adjusted gross income for tax purposes, which will reduce their taxes owed by a few hundred dollars.

But any benefits that some people will receive will be counter-balanced by the downsides, such as:

Higher Deficits and Debt. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that the law will increase the federal deficit by nearly $3.8 trillion over the next decade. This will significantly add to the national debt, with the interest paid on that debt already $882 billion per year, the second-largest US budget expenditure, surpassing spending on the military or Medicare. Republicans used to portray themselves as deficit hawks and fiscal conservatives, but their claim has lost credibility.

Millions of low-income Americans hurt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has reported that up to 11.8 million people will likely be left without health insurance over the next decade due to $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts. The law adds work requirements to receiving Medicaid and food assistance (SNAP), which are useful in theory. In practice, most of the recipients of these two programs are elderly, disabled, mentally ill, or taking care of dependents. For those beneficiaries, work requirements don’t make much sense, and failure to meet the requirements will eventually result in millions of beneficiaries losing their benefits.

Undermine Social Security? Little discussed is that, while the $ 6,000 senior deduction will result in some middle-income seniors paying less in taxes, it will also include paying less into the Social Security trust fund. That’s a problem, since those revenues are needed to keep the already-strained Social Security program solvent. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, this senior deduction will accelerate the projected insolvency date for Social Security to 2032, up from the currently projected date of 2033.

When you add it all up, according to the Yale Budget Lab, the combination of income tax cuts with Medicaid and SNAP spending and other cuts will result in an income decline of 2.9% (about $700) for the bottom 20% of US income earners, but an increase of 1.9% for the top 1%. A Penn-Wharton Budget Model analysis came to a similar conclusion, saying “The top 10% of the income distribution receives about 80% of the total value of the legislation… lower-income households and some in the middle class are worse off.”

Legislative gimmicks and tricks hide the football

To make things even more confusing, the Trump administration budget designers were clever. They employed legislative tactics to structure the law in a way that front-loaded the tax cuts, allowing Americans to receive them immediately, and the White House would then take credit. However, they postponed the implementation of Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefit cuts, as well as the closure of hospitals, nursing homes, and other aspects of the legislation that would affect millions of people, until after the November 2026 midterm election. Some benefits cuts won’t be phased in until after 2028, when Trump will no longer be president.

Much like Obama once said “If you like your health care plan you can keep it”—which came back to haunt him in the 2010 election -- Donald Trump has claimed that under his law “your Medicaid is left alone.” But that is clearly not the case for millions of Americans. Meanwhile, wealthier Americans will be happy to see their income taxes cut. Unfortunately, this law has created winners and losers, pitting Americans against each other.

Will Trump and the Republicans pay a political price? With 16 months until the November 2026 midterm elections, it’s too early to say. Though recent polls suggest the cuts are unpopular with many voters. Either way, Donald Trump’s big beautiful law has taken another giant step toward dismantling America’s New Deal society, long a right-wing fantasy. What the future holds from here, nobody knows.

Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.


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