Trump's "Big and Beautiful Act": Presidential Authority Overwhelms Voting

Author: Jess Bidgood & Catie Edmondson

Compiled by: Shenchao TechFlow

President Trump's signature legislation may make progress this weekend.

Image source: Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Trump referred to his signature domestic legislation as "One Big Beautiful Bill," but its path to advancement has not been smooth.

This bill aims to extend the tax reduction policy of 2017 and fund these tax cuts by cutting social safety net funding. In the House of Representatives, 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 duty is to ensure lawmakers adhere to 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, "small issues" like not knowing the specifics of a bill or lacking enthusiasm for it may not be enough to stop Senate Republicans from voting in favor of it—voting could even be completed this weekend.

I consulted Katie about the twists and turns of this bill - how it became a policy "hodgepodge," why it makes many Republicans uneasy, and why these issues may not significantly affect its prospects of becoming law.

Republicans are working to salvage portions of the Senate procedural rules that they believe violate the budget bill. 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 the Democratic Party used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and the COVID-19 relief package, lawmakers also rejected important provisions within them, including the proposal to raise the federal minimum wage.

On the other hand, I do believe that this back-and-forth tug-of-war reflects that this legislation has turned into a "policy hodgepodge," some of which has little to do with the budget. This bill includes tax cuts, cuts to Medicaid funding, and nutrition assistance programs, but it also contains provisions that prohibit states from regulating artificial intelligence, relax certain gun laws, and sell public lands.

What role is Trump playing? Do his actions - or inaction - exacerbate the chaos?

Yesterday, President Trump lobbied for support for the bill at the White House, but so far we have not seen him deeply involved in the vote-getting efforts. The "game plan" on Capitol Hill is usually to have him make an appearance in the final stages of key votes to persuade those last-minute opponents.

At the same time, a recurring dynamic is also happening here: legislators who are reserved 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 more difficult for legislators to figure out what he really wants, as his position may change with these conversations.

Currently, this situation is especially reflected in the issues surrounding Medicaid. Some senators believe that the Senate's plan cuts too deeply into Medicaid. This includes Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who, along with a few other senators, brought this concern to the president. After returning, Hawley stated that Trump told them he preferred the House's plan because it retained more Medicaid programs.

The debate over healthcare subsidies is one of several battles within the Republican Party surrounding this legislation. What other internal divisions have been exposed?

The issue of medical assistance is part of a broader debate about federal spending cuts. In the early stages of this process, some fiscal conservatives in the House and Senate expressed their reluctance to vote for any legislation that would increase the deficit, and thus hoped to offset the revenue losses from tax cuts through new spending reductions. However, this situation did not occur in either the House or the Senate. Both chambers' plans would result in a deficit increase of trillions of dollars. This is clearly not the policy path that 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 the 2017 tax cuts are not extended, everyone's tax burden will increase. This bill also includes new tax breaks for tips and overtime, which Trump promised to implement during his campaign. But aside from that, they are essentially maintaining the status quo—namely, the tax cuts established in 2017—while significantly cutting back on some very popular social welfare programs.

If you are preparing to run for re-election in a politically neutral state or district, you would know that the Democrats will definitely attack you fiercely for the content of this bill that cuts Medicaid and food assistance programs. Many Republican lawmakers have already heard voters express their concerns about this at town hall meetings.

So, do the issues we've discussed—various reasons why Republicans dislike this bill and their challenges in maintaining its integrity—really pose a threat to its chances of passing?

I don't think so, although it may complicate their schedule and potentially change the specifics of the final bill. Since the House passed its version, this bill seems to be inevitable.

They may do so through a bill that carries significant political risks but is unpopular with everyone. Why?

This is a vote that may carry political risks, but it is not intended to serve any grand political ideology, which makes it different from some difficult votes that both parties have faced in the past. But this is what Trump is asking for.

I believe that there is a widespread feeling within the Republican Party that they may lose majority control of the House in the midterm elections—historically, this is very likely—which means their time to pass significant legislation is limited. Moreover, they do feel a sense of ideological urgency to extend the tax cuts from 2017. All these factors, combined with the fact that this bill is essentially a straightforward vote of approval or disapproval of the president's agenda, make the possibility of this bill failing utterly negligible.

How much will the "big and beautiful" bill actually cost? That 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 this stuff is actually quite interesting. He explained to us the budgeting "tricks" that Republicans are trying to use to make the numbers look better.

Any budget requires assumptions about the future. For example, how much might I spend on groceries next month? Will I get a raise at work? The answers to these questions can help you answer others, such as: Can I afford this vacation?

Washington operates in a similar way, but on a much larger scale. For a long time, the Republican and Democratic parties have reached a consensus on a set of assumptions about the future national budget—assuming no additional policy changes. They use this as a benchmark to decide whether certain policies, such as 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 seen as a special expenditure; it is generally assumed that over the long term, these tax cuts will expire, taxes will return to their original levels, and government revenue will increase accordingly.

But Senate Republicans believe this assumption is flawed. They advocate for incorporating the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2017 into the long-term budget assumptions. If these tax cuts are redefined in this way, then extending these policies (as they hope to achieve through this bill) will not appear to be new spending.

This is like you originally thought renting a luxury car was just a short-term special expense, but when the lease expires, you don't choose a cheaper option; instead, you tell yourself: I have always planned to pay a higher car fee, so I can definitely rent another luxury car.

Haitian Jiang / The New York Times

Arrival and Departure

The latest photojournalist from The New York Times, Haiyun Jiang, has a special fondness for photographs that can tell stories of power. This week, while accompanying President Trump to The Hague, she captured such moments.

On Tuesday evening, Haiyun and other photographers waited for Trump to arrive at Huis ten Bosch, a Dutch royal palace where he will meet the King and Queen of the Netherlands and spend the night. This kind of ceremonial, grand, and royal-related event is exactly the kind of occasion Trump is fond of.

When Trump arrived in his armored luxury sedan, Haiyun saw a great opportunity to showcase presidential authority.

"I tried to frame his figure with the car window because I knew that the Secret Service agents would open the car door for him. I felt that this was a way to capture power," Haiyun told me.

Later, she seized another opportunity. When Haiyun and the other photographers were hurriedly taken away from the scene, she noticed that the palace guards had begun to clear away the decorations that symbolized power.

Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times