On July 4th, with noticeable fanfare, President Trump officially enacted the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” This legislation lowers taxes while boosting budgets for military, border security, and immigration enforcement, but it also cuts funding for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or Food Stamps. The Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan, indicated that the law’s revenue decline of $4.5 trillion, combined with a $1.2 trillion spending increase, will add around $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, amounting to an eye-watering $36 trillion in government bonds.
Interestingly, despite Trump’s assertion that this bill is popular, recent polls show a different story. Approval ratings have dipped significantly, with recent surveys indicating negative approval ranging from minus 19% to minus 29%. As CNN data analyst Harry Enten pointed out, people generally have a negative view of the law as they learn more about it.
Many Americans seem unaware that certain tax cuts and changes to real estate taxes will mainly benefit wealthier individuals. Notably, there are permanent changes to worker tips and exemptions that reduce overtime and Social Security benefits, which will expire in 2028. Additionally, a delay in the implementation of Medicaid cuts means that 11.8 million people will lose health insurance starting in 2027, without most folks catching on until it’s too late. Legislators appeared to have crafted this timeline to lessen Republican losses in the medium term.
Initially, opposition from purported moderate Republicans and “deficit hawks” seemed like it might derail or at least reshape the bill, but everything ultimately fell into place for its passage.
Elon Musk had previously stated that the “Big Beautiful Bill” was problematic, suggesting it negatively influenced those who voted for it.
Take the case of four Republican representatives who seem to have set aside their principles.
Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) publicly expressed reservations about Medicaid cuts affecting vulnerable populations, yet he still voted for the bill. Following its passage, he voiced concerns about the changes that emerged in the Senate, again reiterating his priority to support the health of Medicaid recipients. Despite claiming he wouldn’t back any version that compromised Medicaid, he ended up voting for a legislation that proposed nearly a trillion dollars in cuts.
Valadao noted that voting on such a contentious bill was quite the challenge. Although he maintained that parts of the law were less than ideal, he justified his vote by claiming it would preserve essential programs for vulnerable groups while also allocating resources to help rural hospitals cope with declining revenues.
In December 2024, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) had firmly resisted Trump’s push to increase the debt limit but later voted in favor of the bill, following an agreement to initiate Medicaid work requirements a year earlier. Roy criticized the legislation for adding to the deficit but seemed to shift positions shortly after discussions with party leadership.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) initially opposed the bill but later claimed there had been assurances of efforts to reduce federal spending back to pre-pandemic levels. Despite his prior stances, he chose to vote for the final bill, suggesting he saw some commitment from the administration.
After the Senate’s vote, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) faced questions about her decision, especially in light of accusations regarding political compromises that may have sacrificed crucial support for her state. When pressed, she admitted there were many issues in the bill that didn’t help her constituents but felt compelled to move forward given the bill’s trajectory.
Murkowski articulated her discontent with the rushed nature of the legislative process, expressing hope that future improvements could still be made. She acknowledged that while the bill included beneficial aspects for her state, it fell short for many across the country.
As we approach the 2026 elections, these politicians will likely face scrutiny from Democrats who aim to highlight the perceived inconsistencies in their values and decisions.
