President Trump's "Super Bill" has left many Republicans feeling uneasy, but that may not be enough to stop it from becoming law.
Authors: Jess Bidgood & Catie Edmondson
Translation: Deep Tide TechFlow
President Trump's signature legislation may make progress this weekend.
Image Source: Kenny Holston/The New York Times
Trump refers to his signature domestic legislation as "One Big Beautiful Bill," but its path to advancement has not been smooth.
The bill aims to extend the tax cuts from 2017 and pay for these tax cuts by cutting funding for the social safety net. In the House, the bill barely passed; in the Senate, it was significantly modified. In recent days, a key Senate official rejected several provisions in the bill, whose job is to ensure that lawmakers comply with the rules of the budget bill, forcing senators to scramble to reintroduce some of the content.
Moreover, as my colleagues Carl Hulse and Catie Edmondson wrote today, no one really likes this bill.
But this is Washington under Trump. Here, not knowing the specifics of the bill or a lack of enthusiasm for it—such "minor issues"—may not be enough to stop Senate Republicans from voting in favor of it—possibly even completing the vote this weekend.
I consulted Catie about the twists and turns of this bill—how it has turned into a "policy hodgepodge," why it makes many Republicans uneasy, and why these issues may not significantly impact its prospects of becoming law.
Republicans are working to salvage parts of the bill that the Senate parliamentarian deems in violation of budget rules. You have been covering congressional affairs since Trump's first term and have witnessed many legislative "making processes." Is this chaotic situation normal?
To some extent, this is indeed a common phenomenon in the legislative process, and both parties have faced similar challenges in the past. For example, when Democrats used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and COVID-19 stimulus plan, the parliamentarian also rejected key provisions, including proposals to raise the federal minimum wage.
On the other hand, I do think this back-and-forth reflects that this legislation has turned into a "policy hodgepodge," with some content having little to do with the budget. The bill includes tax cuts, cuts to Medicaid, and funding for nutrition assistance programs, but it also contains provisions to prohibit states from regulating artificial intelligence, loosen certain gun laws, and sell public land.
What role is Trump playing? Have his actions—or inactions—exacerbated the chaos?
Yesterday, President Trump sought support for the bill at the White House, but we have not yet seen him deeply involved in the lobbying effort. The "game plan" on Capitol Hill is typically to bring him in at the last minute during key votes to persuade those last holdouts.
At the same time, there is a recurring dynamic happening here: lawmakers who are hesitant about the bill will call the president, hoping he will support their position. And President Trump usually tells them he agrees with their views. This situation makes it harder for lawmakers to figure out what he really wants, as his positions may change with these conversations.
Currently, this situation is particularly evident regarding Medicaid. Some senators believe the Senate's proposal cuts Medicaid too severely. This includes Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri, who, along with several other senators, brought this concern to the president. Hawley later reported that Trump told them he preferred the House's proposal because it preserved more Medicaid programs.
The debate over Medicaid is one of several internal Republican struggles surrounding this bill. What other divisions within the party have been exposed?
The Medicaid issue is part of a broader debate about the extent of federal spending cuts. Early in this process, some fiscal conservatives in both the House and Senate expressed reluctance to vote for any legislation that would increase the deficit, thus hoping to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts with new spending cuts. However, this did not happen in either the House or Senate. Both chambers' proposals would increase the deficit by trillions of dollars. This is clearly not the policy path these fiscal conservatives want to take while controlling Congress and the White House.
Does anyone really like this bill?
Republicans believe they must pass this legislation because if they do not extend the 2017 tax cuts, everyone's tax burden will increase. The bill also includes new tax breaks for tips and overtime, which is something Trump promised to do during his campaign. But beyond that, they are essentially maintaining the status quo—continuing the tax cuts established in 2017—while significantly cutting some very popular social welfare programs.
If you are preparing to run for re-election in a politically neutral state or district, you know that Democrats will certainly attack you fiercely for the bill's cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs. Many Republican lawmakers have already heard voters express concerns about this in town hall meetings.
So, do the reasons we discussed—why Republicans dislike this bill and their challenges in maintaining its integrity—really threaten its chances of passing?
I don't think so, although it may complicate their timeline and change the specifics of the final bill. Since the House passed its version, this bill seems to have become inevitable.
They may pass a bill that carries significant political risks but is unloved by anyone. Why?
This is a vote that could carry political risks, but it is not meant to serve some grand political ideology, which makes it different from some tough votes both parties have faced in the past. But this is what Trump is asking for.
I think there is a general feeling among Republicans that they may lose the House majority in the midterm elections—which is very likely based on historical trends—meaning their time to pass significant legislation is limited. Moreover, they do feel an ideological urgency to extend the 2017 tax cuts. All these factors, combined with the fact that this bill is essentially a simple vote of approval or disapproval of the president's agenda, make the possibility of this bill failing utterly negligible.
How much will the "Big Beautiful" bill actually cost? It depends on how you calculate it—and where you start counting. I asked my colleague Andrew Duehren, who covers tax policy, about this, and he swore that studying these matters is actually quite interesting. He explained to us the budget "tricks" Republicans are trying to use to make the numbers look better.
Any budget requires making assumptions about the future. For example, how much might I spend on food next month? Will I get a raise at work? The answers to these questions can help you answer other questions, like: Can I afford this vacation?
Washington operates similarly, just on a much larger scale. For a long time, both Republicans and Democrats have reached a consensus on a set of assumptions about the future national budget—assuming no additional policy changes. They use this as a baseline to determine whether certain policies, like tax cuts, can be afforded.
Senate Republicans want to change the way Washington makes these assumptions about the future. For decades, temporary tax cuts have been viewed as a special expenditure; it is typically assumed that these tax cuts will expire in the long term, and tax revenues will return to previous levels, thus increasing government revenue.
But Senate Republicans believe this assumption is wrong. They argue for incorporating the temporary tax cuts passed in 2017 into long-term budget assumptions. If these tax cuts are redefined in this way, then extending these policies (as they hope to do with this bill) will not appear as new expenditures.
It's like thinking that renting a luxury car is just a short-term special expense, but when the lease expires, you don't choose a cheaper option; instead, you tell yourself: I always planned to pay a higher car fee, so I can totally rent another luxury car.
Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
Arrival and Departure
The New York Times' latest photographer, Haiyun Jiang, has a passion for capturing moments that tell stories of power. This week, she captured such moments while accompanying President Trump to The Hague.
On Tuesday evening, Haiyun waited with other photographers for Trump to arrive at Huis ten Bosch, a royal palace in the Netherlands where Trump would meet the King and Queen of the Netherlands and spend the night. This ceremonial, grand, and royal-related event is exactly the kind of occasion Trump enjoys.
When Trump arrived in an armored luxury sedan, Haiyun saw a perfect opportunity to showcase presidential authority.
"I tried to frame his figure with the car window because I knew the Secret Service agents would open the door for him, and I thought it was a way to capture power," Haiyun told me.
Later, she seized another opportunity. As Haiyun and other photographers were hurriedly escorted away from the scene, she noticed that the palace guards had begun to clear away the decorations that symbolize power.
Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
