“The Big Beautiful Bill”: What’s Really in It, What’s Likely to Pass, and What It Tells Us

We don’t talk much about TV or sports at my house. Our dinner table is usually a mash-up of topics like: my eldest son's running commentary on AI and the moral arc of video games, my youngest son’s digital dispatches from his post-college trek across Japan (equal parts neon and existential), and my wife and I debating backsplash options for our long-overdue kitchen remodel.

Lately, however there’s been a new contender for conversational dominance: the Big Beautiful Bill. And since I’m the resident Political Scientist in my home, it’s apparently my job to explain what it is, what it does, and whether we should actually be worried.

So here it is—a plainspoken breakdown of what this bill proposes, what might realistically get passed, and what kind of government it seems designed to shape.

Spoiler: it’s not all that beautiful.

A Fiscal Grab Bag Disguised as Reform
At its core, the bill is a budget reconciliation measure laced with permanent policy changes. It includes:
​

• Deep tax cuts for corporations and top earners, including expanded pass-through income deductions and new depreciation rules for capital investments (CRFB, 2025)
• Reductions in funding for Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, FEMA, and veteran services (CBO Analysis, 2025)
• Looser federal court oversight guidelines, including a clause that curtails contempt powers against federal officials—a legal shift that critics warn could erode accountability
• Changes to student loan repayment rules and forgiveness pathways, favoring income-share agreements and privatized servicing models (EdWeek, 2025)

Some of the provisions—like the denial of Medicaid for undocumented immigrants—are not new. They already exist in federal policy and administrative practice. So why include them again? The answer appears to be less about legislative necessity and more about symbolic politics. These reassertions serve as red meat for the administration’s supporters, offering visible victories in areas already shaped by precedent. It’s less about changing the law and more about broadcasting allegiance to a specific worldview.

It is, as one pundit described, a “smorgasbord of ideological victories” dressed in fiscal packaging.

Will It Pass?
The Senate is the firewall—at least that is how things were envisioned by our founding fathers, who masterminded the "Great American Experiment" between 1760s and 1787. 

​Under the more recent (1985) Byrd Rule, provisions related strictly to federal revenue and spending can pass through the budget reconciliation process with a simple majority (51 votes, including the Vice President as tiebreaker). That’s how the Trump Administration hopes to push through the financial and tax sections of the bill (CRS, 2024).

However, the more radical judicial and social policy tomfoolery—like limits on court contempt powers or structural changes to loan forgiveness—are not budgetary in nature. These typically require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and proceed to a vote. This distinction is crucial, because it means the bill, as written, almost certainly cannot pass.

Unless those policy provisions are stripped out or diluted significantly, the bill would face strong opposition in the Senate. Moderate Republicans and Democrats alike have signaled resistance, particularly to cuts in disaster relief, SNAP, and veterans’ programs—many of which remain popular with constituents across all party lines.

What’s At Stake
Healthcare, in particular, is already on the chopping block. As I discussed in an earlier post (How Sick Will America Get?), the bill could roll back many protections under Medicaid expansion, erode HHS oversight authority, and prioritize short-term cost savings over long-term population health outcomes. These aren’t just policy tweaks—they’re foundational shifts that would limit access and reduce public accountability.

On top of that, proposed cuts to FEMA disaster preparedness and VA care would have direct consequences. In an age of climate-driven emergencies and an aging veteran population, these cuts are not only deeply unpopular—they’re dangerous.

Does The Administration Care?
That’s the cynical but unavoidable question. The bill reflects a time-tested pattern: legislate in a way that shifts wealth and influence toward those that already have it, while weakening safeguards that protect the rest of us. The court reforms, in particular, are not about reducing bureaucracy—they’re about reducing oversight.

Enriching loyalists through tax codes, deregulation, and public-private mechanisms appears to be the through-line. Whether through expanded tax shelters or privatized education and health services, the bill rewards aligned actors while dismantling public-facing institutions.

Conclusion: What’s Real, What’s Rhetoric
It’s unlikely this bill passes in its current form. The Senate will almost certainly strip out or stall the most controversial items, particularly those unrelated to the federal budget. Yet the danger lies in what can still get through via reconciliation—and what it signals about governance should a second Trump term come to pass.

It’s not just about what’s in the bill. It’s about what kind of country this bill envisions—and who it leaves behind.

Sources & Citations

• Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (2025)

 

• Congressional Budget Office – May 2025

 

• Congressional Research Service – Byrd Rule (2024)

 

• Education Week – Student Loan Provisions (2025)

 

• My prior healthcare-focused post