Just as the House did back in May, the Senate narrowly passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Tuesday, July 1. What emerged from the upper chamber after a week of strife and more than a day-long vote-a-rama is not the same product the lower chamber cleared – it even lost its name! But assuming the GOP lawmakers can stomach the new version, the budget reconciliation package is at the final step of its journey before landing on the Resolute Desk for the big man’s signature. Will it make it home in time for Fourth of July festivities?
Don’t Say Big Beautiful Bill!
“This is not a ‘big, beautiful bill’ at all,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters Tuesday. “That’s what it’s called. But it’s really the ‘big ugly betrayal,’ and the American people know it. This vote will haunt our Republican colleagues for years to come.”
Schumer, after leading days of hours-long battles against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act only to lose by a single vote, settled for stripping the reconciliation package of its name just before passage. He raised a point of order against lines three to five on the first page of the proposal, which read: “SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act.’” He argued the title of the bill itself violated the Byrd Rule, and his case was apparently compelling. Now it’s simply known as “the act.”
After blatantly using delay tactics, like forcing a 14-hour-plus reading of the full bill on the floor, this might seem like pure spite. And perhaps it was – but that’s not what Sen. Schumer says. When asked by reporters if he had planned this move to be a dig at Trump, he claimed it had nothing to do with that. “I didn’t even think of President Trump. I thought of the truth,” he explained. “This is not a beautiful bill.”
Can You Spot the Differences?
The key component – the core, really – of “the act” is the extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, most of which is already the same across both passed versions of the package. But there’s a lot of change from there. There are other differences, of course – the bill is almost a thousand pages long, after all – but these are the biggies. The House version that passed in May allowed workers to exempt tips and overtime pay from income taxes. However, the Senate version set limits: only the first $25,000 of tips and the first $12,500 of overtime pay could be exempted, with a total cap of $150,000 for both – plus, the exemption would expire in 2029.
State and Local Tax (SALT), senior tax, and standard deductions, as well as the child tax credit, look a little different, too. The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap significantly, while the Senate not only matches this increase but also adds a small annual bump for several years before reverting to the previous cap. For seniors, the House offered an extra deduction for those over 65 with moderate incomes, and the Senate boosted that amount even further. The standard deduction for married couples is increased in both chambers’ versions, but the Senate aims to make the change permanent. As for the child tax credit, the House temporarily raises the amount per child for several years before returning to the previous level, while the Senate opts for a slightly smaller but permanent increase, with future adjustments for inflation.
Green energy subsidies are cut in both versions. The House bill ends the tax credit for electric cars on December 31, 2025. The Senate’s version moves that date up to September 30.
But the biggest news – and the greatest risk to reconciliation – are the changes to Medicaid and SNAP benefits. The House-passed package aims to trim $625 billion over the next ten years from Medicaid by eliminating fraud. It would also cut SNAP spending by $300 billion over a decade, while adding a work requirement for people aged 55 to 64 and prohibiting illegals from getting funds. The Senate version ups the Medicaid cuts to $1 trillion and requires more state funding for SNAP.
Budget Reconciliation Is Back in the House
The House announced Tuesday that it would take up the Senate’s package on Wednesday, July 2, at 9 a.m. Eastern. How quickly it will pass or fail its test, however, remains to be seen. If the past is prologue, don’t expect a quick resolution, or one with much margin to spare.
Congress did pass the first version of this bill on May 22 with a 215-214 vote – a squeaker of a win, but a win, nonetheless. However, pushing that young bill through the legislature was no mean feat, and with the significant changes made by the Senate, there’s no guarantee all those who backed it before will do so again. Just like in the upper chamber, the House GOP can only lose three votes without falling short of the simple majority needed. In its prior incarnation, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky joined all the Democrats in opposition. This time, Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC) spoke against the newer version. “What we ought to do is take exactly the House bill that we sent over and go home and say, ‘when you’re serious, come back,’” he argued. Andy Ogles of Tennessee called it a “dud,” adding that it “guts key Trump provisions.”
“The changes the Senate made to the House-passed Beautiful Bill, including unacceptable increases to the national debt and the deficit, are going to make passage in the House difficult,” according to Indiana Republican Marlin Stutzman. Chip Roy of Texas called the upper-chamber changes “a deal-killer of an already bad deal,” and Rep. David Valadao of California said, “I’ve been clear from the start that I will not support a final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid.”
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) argued the bill might make it, but not by the Independence Day deadline. “The bottom line is this is not ready for prime time,” he explained in an interview on Fox News. “The bottom line is the House will have its say, and this will not sail through the House. We’re going to have to negotiate with the Senate one more time.”
Whether these representatives will swallow their objections and accept reconciliation, however, must be weighed against how badly they want to be done with the bill. Will they take one for the team and give the president his Independence Day win, or stand their ground and demand a rewrite?
