The controversy over the bill’s cuts may reveal more about Washington than it does the bill itself.
President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” was met with fierce resistance and backlash before it advanced beyond the walls of Congress. Last week, the bill headed to Trump’s desk after the Republicans scored a narrow victory, 51-50, that required a tie-breaking vote from Vice President J.D. Vance. The bill features spending cuts, work requirements for government-funded programs, and increased funding for border security, but was accused of provisions far beyond that. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spent a record eight-and-a-half hours railing against his GOP colleagues, accusing them of waging “an all-out assault on the health and well-being of everyday Americans.” Despite the opposition from Democrats in Washington, the overall cuts to programs as written in the bill may be far less than initially feared.
According to government forecasters, the federal government was expected to spend $7.3 trillion in 2026, while rising to $8.3 trillion in 2029. Under the reforms in the “big, beautiful bill”, spending would still be close to the projected $7.3 trillion level, but growth would slow to only $8.1 trillion in 2029. The bill does not propose any decrease in current government spending, rather reallocates dollars. The bill does not call for the end to budget growth over the next four years, but cuts some of the more extensive increases instead.
Over the past 25 years, government spending has grown at roughly 108% compared to just a 21% population increase. The spending increases have contributed to the estimated $36.2 trillion national debt, according to U.S. Treasury data. The same data shows the inflation-adjusted national debt has ballooned to double what it was in 2014. Additionally, while tax receipts have grown, it has not kept pace with the level of increased spending out of Washington. The reforms from the “big, beautiful bill” will reportedly keep most tax levels the same as President Trump’s first tax bill in 2017. Some opponents have accused the bill of using cuts to programs like Medicaid and Medicare to finance extreme tax cuts on wealthy Americans. Based on research from the Heritage Foundation, the featured tax cuts actually seen in the bill are minimal. Overall, America’s tax burden has increased by 34% since 2000, outpacing population growth but underperforming national spending levels.
The Committee for a Responsible Budget estimates the tax cuts of just over $5 trillion, which would be offset in part by $3 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. That leaves a 10-year national debt increase of a little over $2 trillion, which is significantly lower than CBS News’ $3.5 trillion estimate. While the bill does impose new spending cuts to weed out fraud and abuse to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a vast majority of the proposed changes are only done by adding certain restrictions for eligibility, such as work requirements, and would have minimal effect on citizens currently relying on either program. The reforms to Medicaid were lower than initially proposed by Senate Republicans, and are spread out over the course of the next 8 years.
The primary change is a provision that required able-bodied and childless adults between the ages of 18-64 to be working at least 20 hours a week or pursuing any kind of degree or community service. Speaker Mike Johnson cited previous figures from the Department of Government Efficiency and the Government Accountability Office’s that showed nearly $50 billions of Medicaid waste, fraud, abuse or improper payments. The goal of the new work requirements, to promote budget reform and lower taxes, is exceedingly popular. Seventy percent of Americans want either or both, according to a Napolitan News Service survey.
