logo
When will key aspects of Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' take effect?

When will key aspects of Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' take effect?

Yahoo13 hours ago
President Trump signed his sweeping tax cut and spending package known as the 'big, beautiful bill' into law during a Fourth of July celebration on Friday.
The measure boosts defense and border wall funding and makes Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent, offsetting some of those costs with deep cuts to Medicaid, food assistance programs, student loans and clean energy programs.
Some of the law's key pieces will take effect later this year, while others will not be implemented until well after midterm elections.
Here are when the biggest parts of the new law will take effect:
Among the bill's most contentious parts are its reforms to Medicaid, the joint federal and state program that provides health insurance coverage to low-income Americans.
A number of Republicans were worried about the cuts to Medicaid, with some saying the party risked political backlash by adopting the cuts since many GOP voters could be affected by them.
The question may be how many of those voters feel the effects before November 2026.
Roughly 16 million people could lose their health insurance coverage by 2034 due to cuts to Medicaid and changes to the Affordable Care Act marketplace, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Americans could also lose their coverage due to new work requirements for the program. Under the law, adults between the ages of 19 and 64 will need to work at least 80 hours a month to qualify for Medicaid coverage unless they qualify for certain exemptions.
Some adults will be exempt from the new work requirements if they have dependent children or have certain medical conditions.
Medicaid's funding changes under the law are not scheduled to take effect until 2028, well past the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. Some work requirements could come earlier, however. They are to begin no later than Dec. 31, 2026.
The law will change the country's largest food assistance program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. Like Medicaid, SNAP will also undergo funding and work requirement changes.
In the past, the federal government has funded the program while states have taken on the cost of managing it. Under the bill's conditions, states will be required to partially fund SNAP if they have a payment error rate of 6 percent or higher beginning in 2028 — two years after the midterms.
However, the law also allows states with payment error rates of 13.34 or higher to delay paying for the program for two additional years.
Previously, most adults had to work until age 54 to qualify for SNAP unless they were a parent with dependents. Now, the working age to stay in the program has been raised to 64, and only parents with children younger than 14 are exempt from the requirement, according to the law.
The law does not specifically state when the updated work requirements will begin to take effect, but a spokesperson for the Senate Republicans said there is no 'delayed implementation in the law.' A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Agriculture has yet to respond to questions from The Hill about the new enforcement requirement.
The law paves the way for numerous tax changes, with the most significant being to the cuts Trump enacted during his first term in 2017. Those expiring tax cuts are permanent, effective immediately.
Under the law, Americans living in high-tax states such as New York and California will receive larger income tax deductions for state and local taxes, otherwise known as SALT, beginning this year and lasting until 2028.
Republicans will be selling these tax cuts aggressively, since people who qualify for the cuts will feel them well ahead of the midterm elections.
Some tax provisions will impact working-class voters.
Starting this year, tip amounts of less than $25,000 will be tax-deductible through 2028. There is a cap for the deduction of a $150,000 income or $300,000 for people filing jointly, according to the law.
The law also changes when overtime pay will be tax-deductible. Starting this year, up to $12,500 of extra overtime pay is tax-deductible until 2028. Again, there is an income limit of $150,000 a year for a single person or $300,000 for those filing jointly.
Changes to the child tax credit will also take effect this year. Now, the child tax credit is $2,200 for every qualifying child. The amount will also be adjusted for inflation starting next year.
Changes to the senior deduction also take effect this year. Beginning this year until 2028, Americans older than 65 can deduct an additional $6,000 on their tax returns.
The law eliminates numerous tax incentives from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act for clean energy and energy efficiency programs. Under the law, $7,500 tax credits for electric vehicles will be eliminated starting Sept. 30 of this year — well ahead of the midterms.
It also eliminates a $3,200 tax credit for Americans making energy-improvement changes to their homes beginning in 2026 and ends tax credits for Americans who make investments in clean energy sources for their homes, including solar panels, fuel cells or battery storage technology starting next year.
The law also ends the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which helps finance local emissions-reduction projects, beginning this year. Although it appears that current contracts under the program will remain in place.
The bill will make some changes to how Americans finance higher education.
Grad PLUS loans as well as repayment options like the SAVE Plan and Income-Contingent Repayment and Pay as You Earn plans will be scrapped and replaced with a Repayment Assistance Plan or a standard repayment plan.
Grad PLUS loans will be replaced with new borrowing caps of $100,000 for many grad students and $200,000 for professional students, such as those enrolled in medical schools or law schools.
For undergraduate students, Stafford loans will remain capped, and Parent PLUS loans now have a reduced lifetime cap of $65,000. All of the loan changes are set to take effect in July of 2026.
The law also changes tax rates for colleges based on the size of their endowments. In 2026, schools with higher endowments per student will receive higher tax rates on their endowment. Schools with endowments between $500,000 and $750,000 will have a tax rate of 1.4 percent.
Those with endowments of $750,000 to $2 million now have a tax rate of 4 percent, and those with more than $2 million will be taxed at 8 percent.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Success Of Ryan Poles, Ben Johnson Is Tied To Caleb Williams
Success Of Ryan Poles, Ben Johnson Is Tied To Caleb Williams

Forbes

time40 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Success Of Ryan Poles, Ben Johnson Is Tied To Caleb Williams

Chicago Bears general manager Ryan Poles, right, speaks as head coach Ben Johnson, left, listens ... More before introducing new players Drew Dalman and Dayo Odeyingbo at Halas Hall on March 13, 2025, in Lake Forest, Illinois. (Chris Sweda/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images) Patience has indeed proven to be a virtue with Ryan Poles, the Chicago Bears' fourth-year general manager. He was hired for a four-year term in 2022 and is being rewarded with a contract extension that runs through 2029. This gives Poles an eight-year commitment from Bears ownership and president Kevin Warren despite his having produced a 15-36 record in his first two seasons. His predecessor, Ryan Pace, had a 48-65 record over seven seasons, including a 22-27 mark in his final three. ESPN's Adam Schefter reported on Friday Poles is receiving an extension that gives him the same timing on his deal as head coach Ben Johnson, who Poles hired in January after making Matt Eberflus the Bears' first-ever coach fired in midseason. Poles had hired Eberflus on his third day on the job after inheriting a coaching search that had been run at the same time Chairman George McCaskey was searching for a new GM to replace Pace. It was a dubious process that did little other than to allow the Bears to assemble talent through the draft in the Eberflus years, biding their time in hope of becoming relevant again. That time arrives in 2025, with the Bears hoping for at least a winning season in the deep NFC North. The success of quarterback Caleb Williams, who was taken with the first overall pick in the '24 draft, is critical for both Poles and Johnson, who chose to sign with Chicago after earning respect while building an explosive offense behind Jared Goff in Detroit. Poles has proven to be a skilled negotiator in seemingly upgrading the roster. He rebuilt the offensive line after Williams was sacked 68 times in his rookie season, adding Chiefs All-Pro guard Joe Thuney at the cost of only a fourth-round pick while also signing free agent center Drew Dalman and trading for guard Jonah Jackson. His signature move was the trading of the first overall pick to Carolina in '23, which at the time committed a third season to struggling quarterback Justin Fields, whom Poles had inherited from Pace. Rather than draft Bryce Young or C.J. Stroud, he took wide receiver D.J. Moore and a package of draft pick to allow the Panthers to move from ninth to first overall. Poles turned those picks into Williams, tackle Darnell Wright, cornerback Tyrique Stevenson, punter Tory Taylor and wide receiver Luther Burden III. "Yeah, I feel pretty good," Poles said after selecting Burden in the second round last April. 'I think it's worked out for us.' The moves have certainly worked well for Poles, who had worked in the Chiefs' front office before being hired by McCaskey. The hope is they also work out for the franchise and its fans. Leila Rahimi, the insightful talk show host for WSCR, summed up the feeling in Chicago nicely. 'You just got paid for winning an offseason, not a season,' Rahimi said. 'I want to see a season.'

How latest block of Trump's birthright citizenship order tests legal landscape after Supreme Court ruling
How latest block of Trump's birthright citizenship order tests legal landscape after Supreme Court ruling

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How latest block of Trump's birthright citizenship order tests legal landscape after Supreme Court ruling

A federal judge's decision to temporarily prevent the Trump administration from stripping birthright citizenship for some babies born in the U.S. is an early test of the legal landscape, after the Supreme Court greatly restricted the ability of judges to issue nationwide blocks of presidential policies. On Thursday morning, in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted class action status to a lawsuit that seeks to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship, and granted a temporary block of President Donald Trump's order from going into effect throughout the country. The decision brought hope to pregnant women and groups who were dealt a blow two weeks ago when the Supreme Court largely restricted the ability of federal judges to use one of the strongest tools at their disposal — the use of nationwide injunctions to prevent federal policies from going into effect. The Supreme Court decision would have allowed Trump's executive order to go into effect on July 27 in parts of the U.S. In the aftermath, immigrants and their attorneys pivoted to seeking class action status for immigrant babies and parents in hopes of finding another way to stop the president. 'It was clear that the Supreme Court decision had closed one very important door for challenging policies, but it also in the process opened other doors,' Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow with the Migration Policy Institute, told NBC News. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether Trump's executive order is unconstitutional and multiple lawsuits challenging it remain ongoing. But its decision on June 27 left open an important avenue for plaintiffs to try to stop federal government policies nationwide through the use of class action lawsuits. 'This case is an early test for how litigants will adapt to the legal landscape after the Supreme Court's death blow to national injunctions,' Chishti said. 'It normally takes months, if not years, for an altered landscape to be observed. But since this is such an important constitutional issue, we are getting a chance to revisit the landscape within two weeks.' Under Trump's plan, birthright citizenship would be limited to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The order also denies citizenship to children whose mothers are temporarily in the United States, including those visiting under the Visa Waiver Program or as tourists, or who are students and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. In the written order issued Thursday, Laplante wrote that the court certified class action status to the following group in issuing the nationwide block of Trump's order: 'All current and future persons who are born on or after February 20, 2025, where (1) that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' Laplante, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, had previously denied issuing a nationwide injunction in a similar case earlier this year. Instead, he had issued a narrower order where he only blocked the policy from being enforced on members of groups that would be affected by Trump's order. But his order on Thursday effectively blocked Trump's executive order from being enforced nationwide, at least temporarily. 'This was a ruling that certified a preliminary class of folks across the nation from a judge who was skeptical of nationwide injunctions, and so I think it shows that the class action mechanism is a viable one, that courts are willing to entertain,' said Haiyun Damon-Feng, an immigration and constitutional law professor at Cardozo School of Law. Cody Wofsy, the American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney in the case, said after Thursday's court hearing that Laplante's order was 'going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order.' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement to NBC News that the decision was 'an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief.' 'This judge's decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures. The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement,' Fields said in the statement. The Trump administration has seven days to appeal Laplante's temporary block to a higher court, and the issue could find itself back at the Supreme Court to determine if the judge's order complies with last month's ruling. 'It's not the end right of the birthright question. We are probably going to see more fights take place over procedure, over the question of class certification, as well as the question of birthright citizenship on the merits,' Damon-Feng said. This article was originally published on

Karoline Leavitt Just Made A Trump Claim So Ridiculous That Even Republicans Are Calling It Out
Karoline Leavitt Just Made A Trump Claim So Ridiculous That Even Republicans Are Calling It Out

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Karoline Leavitt Just Made A Trump Claim So Ridiculous That Even Republicans Are Calling It Out

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt managed to unite many on the left and right alike on Thursday with a claim about President Donald Trump so over-the-top that neither side was buying it. Leavitt shared a link on X to a USA Today column arguing that Trump is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Twitter: @PressSec Related: The text of Leavitt's post on X was also the headline of the story: 'Trump deserves Nobel Peace Prize. He's achieved more than those who've won before.' The column argued that Trump's attack on Iran last month stopped the nation from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Trump himself claimed the strike 'totally obliterated' Iran's facilities. Analysts have been more measured, saying the strikes may have only set Iran's nuclear program back by a few months. The column also credits Trump for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, and notes that he is trying to broker one between Israel and Hamas as well. Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had nominated Trump for the honor. The Nobel Peace Prize has been a sore spot for Trump for years. He's complained repeatedly about not getting one, has griped that President Barack Obama has one, and insisted that he should have had 'four or five' of them by now. But critics pointed out that Trump bombed Iran before the ceasefire, and that the United States has been providing Israel with weapons in its various offensives, among other reasons, Trump shouldn't get the prize. They fired back on X: @seanrcallaghan @gamboleer Related: @backavatar @CassandraRules Twitter: @kranbjam @vanranstmarc Related: @thomasstjames3 @evanakilgore @butlerlonney @healthranger @criticerx @voteharrisout Related: @barnes_law @shirokanechoja Twitter: @PatriotJoe13 Twitter: @JonMadison711 Twitter: @DeGeneralDimes This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store