
US Senate passes Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill', sending it to the House
Lawmakers passed the bill by a 51-to-50 vote in the Republican controlled-chamber on Tuesday, after Vice President JD Vance broke the tie.
The successful vote ended what was a marathon 27 hours of debate in the upper chamber. Three Republicans joined with Democrats to vote against the bill, which would enshrine many of Trump's signature policies, including his 2017 tax cuts, reductions for social safety net programmes, and increased spending on border enforcement and deportations.
Critics on both sides of the aisle have taken aim at the estimated $3.3 trillion the bill would add to the national debt.
Others have blasted reductions to programmes like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They argue that the bill takes support away from low-income families to finance tax cuts that will primarily help the wealthy.
Trump, however, has pressed for the bill to be passed by July 4, the country's Independence Day. The legislation — informally known as the One Big Beautiful Bill — now heads back to the House of Representatives for a Wednesday vote on the updated version.
The president found out about the Senate's passage in the midst of a news conference in south Florida, where he was touting his crackdown on immigration.
Despite tight odds in the House of Representatives, Trump struck an optimistic tone about the upcoming vote.
' I think it's going to go very nicely in the House,' Trump said. 'Actually, I think it will be easier in the House than it was in the Senate.'
The president also downplayed one of the most controversial provisions in the bill: cuts to Medicaid, a government health insurance programme for low-income families. About 11.8 million people are anticipated to lose their health coverage in the coming years if the bill becomes law.
'I'm saying it's going to be a very much smaller number than that, and that number will be all waste, fraud and abuse,' Trump said.
Criticisms in the Senate
Trump was not the only Republican to be celebrating the passage of the omnibus bill. In the Senate, leading Republican John Thune touted the bill as a victory for American workers.
'It's been a long road to get to today,' Thune said from the Senate floor. 'Now we're here, permanently extending tax relief for hard-working Americans.'
But not all Republicans were as enthused about the bill. Three party members — Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine — all voted against its passage. And even a critical vote in favour, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, appeared to express regret in the aftermath.
'Do I like this bill? No,' she told a reporter for NBC News. 'I know, that in many parts of the country, there are Americans who are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that.'
She later took to social media to criticise the haste of its passage. 'Let's not kid ourselves. This has been an awful process – a frantic rush to meet an artificial deadline that has tested every limit of this institution.'
Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, said that Republicans had 'betrayed the American people and covered the Senate in utter shame'.
'In one fell swoop, Republicans passed the biggest tax break for billionaires ever seen, paid for by ripping away healthcare from millions of people,' said Schumer.
Still, Schumer announced one symbolic victory on Tuesday, writing on the social media platform X that Trump's name for the legislation — 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — had been struck from its official title.
Republicans currently hold a trifecta in US government, with control of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House, giving Democrats reduced power in legislating.
But the Republicans have narrow majorities in Congress, leading to uncertainty about the bill's fate. In the Senate, they hold 53 of the chamber's 100 seats. In the House, where the bill heads now, they have a majority of 220 representatives to the Democrats' 212.
'Not fiscal responsibility'
The bill is therefore likely to face a razor-thin margin in the House. An early version that passed on May 22 did so with just one Republican vote to spare.
The House Freedom Caucus, a group of hardline conservatives, has continued to baulk at the bill's high price tag and could push for deeper spending cuts in the coming days.
'The Senate's version adds $651 billion to the deficit — and that's before interest costs, which nearly double the total,' the caucus wrote in a statement on Monday.
'That's not fiscal responsibility. It's not what we agreed to.'
Billionaire Elon Musk, whose endorsement and funding helped propel Trump to victory in the 2024 presidential election, has also been a vocal opponent of the bill.
'What's the point of a debt ceiling if we keep raising it?' Musk asked on social media on Tuesday. 'All I'm asking is that we don't bankrupt America.'
Musk has threatened to fund primary challenges against Republicans who support the bill and even floated on Monday launching a new political party in the US.
Trump, however, has brushed aside Musk's criticism as a reaction to the elimination of tax credits for electric vehicles: The billionaire owns one of the most prominent manufacturers, Tesla.
The president also threatened to use the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which Musk helped to found — to strip the billionaire's companies of their subsidies.
'DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,' Trump said as he travelled to Florida.
Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera correspondent Alan Fisher said that public support has been slipping as a clearer picture of the bill has emerged.
'The longer this has been talked about and the more details that become public, the fewer Americans support him,' Fisher said.
Several recent polls have shown a majority of Americans oppose the bill. A survey last week from Quinnipiac University, for example, found just 29 percent of respondents were in favour of the legislation, while 55 percent were against it.
Increase to national debt
All told, the legislation in its current form would make permanent Trump's 2017 cuts to business and personal income taxes, which are set to expire by the end of the year.
It would also give new tax breaks for income earned through tips and overtime, a policy promise Trump made during his 2024 campaign.
At the same time, the bill would provide tens of billions of dollars for Trump's immigration crackdown, including funding to extend barriers and increase technology along the southern border. The bill would also pay for more immigration agents and build the government's capacity to quickly detain and deport people.
Beyond cuts to electric vehicle tax breaks, the bill also guts several of former President Joe Biden's incentives for wind and solar energy.
Faced with criticism about the knock-on effects for low-income families, Republicans have countered that the new restrictions to Medicaid and SNAP — formerly known as food stamps — would help put the programmes on a more sustainable path.
Many Republicans have also rejected the Congressional Budget Office's assessment that the legislation would add $3.3 trillion to the country's already $36.2 trillion debt.
Nonpartisan analysts, meanwhile, have said the increase in debt has the potential to slow economic growth, raise borrowing costs and crowd out other government spending in the years ahead.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US-Israel talks aim 'to impose outcome later'
US-Israel talks aim "to impose outcome later" Quotable Video Duration 01 minutes 37 seconds 01:37 Video Duration 01 minutes 11 seconds 01:11 Video Duration 01 minutes 06 seconds 01:06 Video Duration 01 minutes 01 seconds 01:01 Video Duration 01 minutes 06 seconds 01:06 Video Duration 01 minutes 13 seconds 01:13 Video Duration 01 minutes 26 seconds 01:26


Al Jazeera
8 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran has not agreed to inspections or given up enrichment, says Trump
United States President Donald Trump has said Iran has not agreed to inspections of its nuclear programme or to giving up enriching uranium. He told reporters on board Air Force One on Friday that he believed Tehran's nuclear programme had been 'set back permanently', although he conceded Iran could restart it at a different location. Trump said he would discuss Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the White House on Monday, where a potential Gaza ceasefire is expected to top the agenda. Trump said, as he travelled to New Jersey after an Independence Day celebration at the White House, 'I would think they'd have to start at a different location. And if they did start, it would be a problem.' Trump said he would not allow Tehran to resume its nuclear programme, adding that Iranian officials wanted to meet with him. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Friday it had pulled out its inspectors from Iran as a standoff deepens over their return to the country's nuclear facilities that were bombed by the US and Israel. The US and Israel say Iran was enriching uranium to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies wanting to produce a nuclear bomb, reiterating for years that its nuclear programme has been for civilian use only. Neither US intelligence nor the UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said they had found any proof that Tehran was building a nuclear weapon. Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago, with the US intervening on the side of its staunch ally by launching massive strikes on the sites on June 22. The IAEA's inspectors have been unable to inspect Iran's facilities since the beginning of the conflict, even though Grossi has said that it is his top priority. Grossi stressed 'the crucial importance' of holding talks with Iran to resume its monitoring and verification work as soon as possible. Distrust of IAEA In the aftermath of the US and Israeli attacks, Iran, which has said it is still committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), made painfully clear its burgeoning distrust of the IAEA. Since the start of the conflict, Iranian officials have sharply criticised the IAEA, not only for failing to condemn the Israeli and US strikes, but also for passing a resolution on June 12 accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations, the day before Israel attacked. On Wednesday, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered the country to cut ties with the nuclear watchdog. A bill to suspend cooperation had already been passed in the Iranian parliament and approved by the country's Guardian Council. Guardian Council spokesperson Hadi Tahan Nazif said the decision had been taken for the 'full respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran'. The bill itself says the suspension 'will remain in effect until certain conditions are met, including the guaranteed security of nuclear facilities and scientists', according to Iranian state television. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran. On Monday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi summarily dismissed Grossi's request to visit nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the US. 'Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,' Araghchi said. The US claims military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what had happened to much of Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg (880 pounds) enriched to up to 60 percent purity, a closer step but not in the realm of weapons grade at 90 percent or more.


Al Jazeera
16 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Migrants in US detention lose appeal against deportation to South Sudan
Eight migrants in United States custody have lost a last-ditch attempt to avoid deportation to South Sudan, a country facing ongoing criticism for human rights abuses. On Friday, Judge Brian Murphy of Boston denied the eleventh-hour appeal, which has been the subject of a flurry of legal activity throughout the day. The appeal argued that repeated efforts under President Donald Trump to deport the men to South Sudan was 'impermissibly punitive'. It pointed out that the US Constitution bars 'cruel and unusual punishment'. In the past, the US Department of State has accused South Sudan of 'extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and cases of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment'. It advises no American citizen to travel there due to an ongoing armed conflict. But the US Supreme Court has twice ruled that the Trump administration could indeed deport the men to countries outside of their homelands. Its latest decision was issued on Thursday. The US Department of Justice indicated that the eight men were set to be flown to South Sudan by 7pm US Eastern Time (23:00 GMT) on Friday. They hailed from countries like Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam. The last-ditch appeal was filed on Thursday night, shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its decision. Initially, the case was assigned to US District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, DC, who signalled he was sympathetic to the deportees' request. He briefly ordered the deportation to be paused until 4:30pm Eastern Time (20:30 GMT), but ultimately, he decided to transfer the case back to Murphy, the judge whose decisions helped precipitate the Supreme Court's rulings. Murphy had previously issued injunctions against the deportations to South Sudan, leading to successful appeals from the Trump administration. The eight men, meanwhile, had been held at a military base in Djibouti while the courts decided their fate. Before he transferred the case back to Murphy, however, Judge Moss said it was possible the deportees could prove their case that the Trump administration intended to subject them to abuse. 'It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical wellbeing is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others,' Moss said during the hearing. Lawyers for the Trump administration, meanwhile, argued that the deportation's continued delay would strain relations with countries willing to accept migrants from other countries. Murphy, who denied Friday's request, had previously ruled in favour of the deportees, issuing an injunction against their removal to South Sudan and saying they had a right to contest the deportation based on fears for their safety. The Supreme Court first lifted the injunction on June 23 and clarified its ruling again on Thursday, giving a subtle rebuke to Judge Murphy. The Trump administration has been pushing for rapid removals as part of its campaign of mass deportation, one of President Trump's signature priorities. Opponents have accused the administration of steamrolling the human rights of undocumented people in order to achieve its aims, including the right to due process under the law. But the Trump administration has framed undocumented migration as an 'invasion' that constitutes a national security crisis, and it argued that its strong-armed efforts are needed to expel criminals. The eight migrants slated to be sent to South Sudan, it said, were 'barbaric, violent criminal illegal aliens'. It added that they had been found guilty of crimes, including first-degree murder, robbery and sexual assault. 'These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a news release on Thursday.