
Republicans passed the 'big, beautiful bill.' Will it come back to haunt them?
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's legislative package of tax reductions and Medicaid cuts passed out of Congress on July 3 and will soon be signed into law. Up next for Congressional Republicans: Surviving the midterms.
Many Republicans argue that voters will feel the economic benefits of their bill and reward them by sending them back to Washington. Democrats say the bill is deeply unpopular and they'll use it to clobber the GOP in the November 2026 election.
History, in this case, favors the Democrats' argument. The party that does not hold the White House typically wins the House in the midterm elections as voters express frustrations with the new president's policies. This trend applies regardless of party in modern history, with some exceptions.
And public polling about the Republican bill already indicates voters aren't thrilled about it. A Fox News poll published in mid-June found 38% of respondents favored the legislation and 59% opposed it. Polls from Quinnipiac, The Washington Post, KFF and Pew reflected similar sentiments.
"This will cost Republicans the House," said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Washington, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is responsible for helping Democrats keep and win House seats.
Democrats have their 'script' for 2026
The bill's Medicaid cuts are expected to leave 11.8 million Americans without insurance over the next ten years – a deeply "damaging" result that will drive up healthcare costs for families, DelBene said. Democrats have likened this bill to Republicans' 2017 attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, after which Republicans lost 40 seats in the House.
"People want representatives that are going to stand up for them," she argued, "and this bill is an example of Republicans turning away from their constituents."
Republicans have "written the script" for 2026, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland.
'I'm certainly going to be talking about it all of the time,' he told USA TODAY. 'I mean, nothing could better capture the way that the Republican party just serves Donald Trump and our would-be monarchs and oligarchs.'
It's not just Democrats who have identified the Medicaid cuts as a potential political threat.
During a meeting with House Republicans on July 2, as GOP leadership scrambled to find the votes for the package, Trump said they shouldn't touch three things if they wanted to win elections – Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, according to the news site NOTUS.
One member reportedly responded: "But we're touching Medicaid in this bill."
Campaigning after Medicaid cuts
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Nebraska, represents a swing district and recently announced he plans to retire from Congress. He has been a vocal opponent of the Medicaid cuts in the bill, but he said before the vote that he would approve the measure because it would save the average Nebraskan $141 per month in taxes and pour billions into the defense budget.
Bacon said he believes the Senate's version, which implemented deeper cuts to Medicaid, makes it easier for Democrats to paint the package in a negative light during the midterm elections.
"I could have defended the House bill every day. It was easy," he said. "But in the end, do I want to raise taxes on the middle class? No. Do I want to fix defense? Yes."
Some Republicans are confident they can explain their reasoning to voters, including those who raised concerns about Medicaid cuts.
Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-New Jersey, argued before the vote that his concerns were allayed by provisions in the bill that would allow hospitals in his district to continue to draw down sufficient federal funds.
"I've said all along that we have to do this in an intelligent way. I believe that it seems we've charted a way to do that. Where we started a few months ago, people were saying we're going to gut Medicaid. We're a long ways off from that."
GOP confident tax breaks will carry them
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, said he believed the bill would prop up Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections.
"Every Democrat (in the) House and Senate voted no," Scalise said on July 3. "The American people are going to see great benefits from this bill, and they're going to know which party was fighting for them and which party was literally trying to hold up the vote for hours so that those families couldn't get that relief."
"The Democratic Party still doesn't know why they lost in November. They're going to be reminded of that next year when they lose again," he added.
The bill makes permanent the 2017 income tax cuts implemented during Trump's first term and pours $170 billion in border security funding.
In a memo on the bill, the National Republican Congressional Committee indicated it plans to argue Republicans prevented "the largest tax hike in generations" and delivered a historic funding boost for border security.
'This vote cemented House Democrats' image as elitist, disconnected, snobby, unconcerned with the problems Americans face in their daily lives, and most of all – out of touch," Mike Marinella, NRCC spokesman, said in a statement.
"House Republicans will be relentless in making this vote the defining issue of 2026, and we will use every tool to show voters that Republicans stood with them while House Democrats sold them out.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Your kid is getting a ‘Trump account.' Should you put your money in it?
Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' includes a gift to millions of families: $1,000 in an investment account for every eligible newborn. The new savings vehicles, akin to Individual Retirement Accounts, are designated for children who are U.S. citizens born from 2025 through 2028. In addition to the one-time government contribution, parents and others can chip in as much as $5,000 a year to the accounts, which beneficiaries can access at 18, with some constraints. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. The seed money is a boon for recipients and will grow tax-deferred. Financial planners say parents and guardians might do better putting their money into existing investment vehicles such as a 529 plan, a savings plan designed to cover college expenses. But 529s are limited to education, while backers say the new accounts can help their recipients beyond college. Republican lawmakers call the accounts 'Trump accounts,' though the Senate's plan to officially name them after the president did not make it to the final version of the legislation, which was signed Friday. They deliver on an idea that both Democrats and Republicans have floated for years: to invest money for all children at birth. Withdrawals from a 529 are not subject to state or federal taxes as long as the funds go toward qualified education expenses - a feature the new investment accounts don't share. And in the new accounts, parents' deposits don't qualify for a tax deduction, notes Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University. 'You have this very slight or minimal-to-nonexistent tax benefit,' he said. 'What is the point here?' Financial adviser Amy Spalding of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, said she will continue to steer her clients to 529s. 'It's better from a tax standpoint,' Spalding said. 'And there are more investment options. And then there's a higher contribution limit.' (For 2025, a single person can deposit as much as $19,000 a year into a beneficiary's 529, while married couples can contribute as much $38,000.) Jeremiah Barlow, a financial planner in Santa Barbara, California, said the new accounts could benefit a family that has hit the maximum on their child's 529 and wants to save more, or who like the idea of setting up a fund for their child's first home or as an economic safety net. 'It would likely appeal to our families who want more flexibility for more general-purpose savings for their child's future,' Barlow said. 'You shouldn't rush to just use it because it's out there.' Leiserson cautioned that account holders should understand the tax implications, noting that withdrawals will be taxed at typical income rates, not at the capital gains rate of a taxable brokerage account. 'For most people, this is going to be worse than what they could do in a taxable account,' he said. Though parents don't get a tax deduction when they contribute to a new account, employers can claim a tax break for contributions on behalf of their workers' children or their teenage employees. Nonprofits also can contribute to they accounts. The law requires the new investment accounts to track a U.S. stock index, which means account holders have fewer options than they would in a brokerage account or a 529 plan, which generally offer a range of investment options with varying levels of risk, including stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Leiserson noted that all-stock portfolios come with their own risks, because they're tethered to market conditions. 'If you're saying, 'Okay, I'm going to start school in the fall' - if the market falls over the summer, the planning you were doing about how you were going to pay for college is totally messed up, because the money you thought would be there, isn't." The White House said the accounts 'will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning.' While some experts appreciate the premise of the accounts, they also see flaws in the design, such as the requirement that parents opt-in to the account on their tax return, which means people who don't know this might miss out. In addition, the law includes a penalty of at least $500 if a parent mistakenly claims an account, which could scare off some parents. During the grinding process of crafting the massive tax and spending legislation, the accounts changed both superficially - they were renamed from MAGA accounts to Trump accounts to a yet-to-be-determined name - and in substance. Legislators dropped plans to give account withdrawals favorable tax treatment similar to a brokerage account. Account withdrawals will be taxed at ordinary income tax rates, not capital gains rates. Congress also discarded rules that would have prescribed how beneficiaries could spend the money - on college at 18, on starting a business at 25, on buying a house at 30. Instead, account holders cannot touch the funds until they turn 18. After that, the rules are the same as those of an individual retirement account - withdrawals are taxed like income, plus an additional 10 percent tax penalty on any withdrawals before age 59½ except for certain qualified uses. Those uses include paying for college, supporting themselves if they become disabled, or recovering from domestic abuse or a natural disaster. Beneficiaries also can withdraw as much as $10,000 to buy their first home, and up to $5,000 when they have a new baby themselves. Even one of the Trump accounts' biggest proponents in Congress, Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah), said in an interview that for many parents, the new account design offers more benefits for retirement than for college expenses. 'I would argue that the tax implications of a 529 are far more favorable,' he said, but noted that most families don't have the disposable income to invest in a 529, and the new accounts' $1,000 from the government can benefit people at all income levels. If the account saw a 6 percent rate of return for 18 years, it would be worth $2,854; if the stock market does well, it could be worth even more. 'The most beneficial thing in my opinion about these is that … you're investing from birth into an IRA,' Moore said. 'Most people start investing in an IRA at 30 …. We're talking at birth or at 30. The benefits of investing early into that IRA are significant.' Moore has four sons, and while none will qualify for the government's $1,000 seed money contribution for newborns, the law allows him to open a Trump account as a parent. He says he'll be putting money in it: 'I want my kids having a Trump account so they can take it out when they're 50 or 60 years old.' - - - Jacob Bogage contributed to this report. Related Content Arthur Ashe's knack for reinvention led him to history at Wimbledon Newlywed detained by ICE freed after 141 days and two deportation attempts The Met opens a dazzling wing of non-European art Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk says he's formed the 'America Party.' Mark Cuban and Anthony Scaramucci are interested.
Elon Musk said on X that he's forming a new political party amid a feud with President Donald Trump. He said it would be called the "America Party." Musk has publicly criticized Trump's spending bill, which the president signed on July 4. Elon Musk declared on X the formation of a new political party amid his ongoing feud with President Donald Trump over the "Big Beautiful Bill." "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom," Musk wrote in an X post on Saturday afternoon. The Tesla CEO had said Friday on his social media platform that one way the new party could work is to focus on winning just a handful of Senate seats and House districts that could serve as the "deciding vote" on "contentious laws," given the "razor-thin legislative margins" in Congress. Fellow billionaire Mark Cuban appeared — not for the first time — to support the idea of a new party, replying to Musk's Saturday announcement with a series of fireworks and fire emojis. He added in a separate post: "I work with @voterchoice. They will help you get on ballots. That is their mission." SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci, who briefly served as White House communications director under Trump in 2017, also appeared interested in the party. "I would like to meet to discuss. My DMs are open," he replied to Musk. Musk's "America Party" announcement came after he conducted a July 4 poll, asking X users if they want "independence" from the two-party system. About 65% of the 1.25 million participants voted "Yes." Musk, who was a staunch supporter of Trump's 2024 reelection bid, has been publicly critical of the president's "Big Beautiful Bill," a sweeping domestic policy bill that includes extensive tax cuts and could add more than $3 trillion to the national debt, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Musk has characterized the bill on X as a form of "debt slavery." Just days after stepping away from his work at the White House DOGE Office, which was tasked with cutting spending and reducing the deficit, Musk in June called the legislation a "massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill." Musk then proposed the idea of forming a new political party that represents the "80% in the middle." Musk's repeated attacks on the bill led to a spectacular public fallout between him and the president. Trump even suggested that his office would look into possibly deporting Musk, a South African immigrant. Musk's July 4 poll on X came the same day Trump signed the bill into law. Musk and a White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. Musk's back-and-forth regarding his involvement in political affairs has been followed by volatile times for the CEO of Tesla, his EV company. Wall Street analysts, including Tesla bull Dan Ives, have said that Musk's politics could lead the company astray if the chief executive doesn't snap back into focus. Earlier in June, Baird analysts downgraded the Tesla stock, noting that the Musk-Trump spat adds "uncertainty to TSLA's outlook. Read the original article on Business Insider


Axios
44 minutes ago
- Axios
Tariffs return to April rates on August 1 without deals, Bessent says
Countries that don't make trade deals with the U.S. by August 1 can expect tariff rates to return to the levels announced in April, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday. Why it matters: It's effectively a new deadline for the biggest U.S. trading partners to negotiate an alternative to President Trump 's sweeping global tariffs — even as Bessent insists nothing had changed. Catch up quick: On Friday, Trump said about a dozen countries would receive letters Monday unilaterally setting a tariff rate, with more to come in the following days. Trump has said he preferred those letters to negotiations, after a three-month pause on his most sweeping tariffs netted three deals, rather than the 90 his administration promised. That pause expires this coming Wednesday. What they're saying: Bessent, in an interview with CNN's "State of the Union," said the letters would make clear that absent a deal, the rates would return to the levels Trump announced April 2. "It's not a new deadline. We are saying, this is when it's happening, if you want to speed things up, have at it, if you want to go back to the old rate, that's your choice," he said. The intrigue: Even with the new date in play, Bessent said there will be significant activity in the coming hours, as countries scramble to get something done before the original deadline. "We are close to several deals. As always, there's a lot of foot-dragging on the other side," he said. "I would expect to see several big announcements over the next couple of days." What to watch: Trump's letter threat risks re-igniting the tariff chaos that crushed CEO and consumer confidence earlier this year and sent financial markets plunging.