logo
Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' passes the US House of Representatives

Trump's ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' passes the US House of Representatives

Al Jazeera3 days ago
After nearly 29 hours of debate, the United States House of Representatives have passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill', an enormous tax cut and spending package that represents a pillar of President Donald Trump's agenda.
The lower house of the US Congress voted by a margin of 218 to 214 in favour of the bill on Thursday.
All 212 Democratic members of the House opposed the bill. They were joined by Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who broke from the Republican majority.
After the bill's passage, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, the top Republican, applauded his fellow party members.
'I believed in this vision. I believed in the group. I believe in America,' Johnson said to applause.
The bill now heads to the White House for Trump to sign it into law. The Republican president had called on his fellow party members to pass the legislation before July 4, the country's Independence Day.
As a result of the new legislation, the US will lift its debt ceiling — the amount the federal government is allowed to borrow — by $5 trillion.
The bill also pours tens of billions of dollars into immigration enforcement, one of Trump's top priorities, and it will also cement the 2017 tax cuts that Trump championed during his first term as president.
To pay for those expenditures, the bill scales back social initiatives like Medicaid — government health insurance for low-income households — and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill will increase the number of people without health insurance by 17 million over the next 10 years.
It also projected that the country's deficit — the amount of money the US owes — would climb by about $3.3 trillion over the same period.
Democratic lawmakers had slammed the bill as a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, noting that the tax cuts will mainly benefit the wealthiest earners.
Republican supporters like Trump have countered that the bill will fuel growth and cut waste and fraud in programmes like Medicaid.
Yet, not all conservatives initially backed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' as it wound its way through the chambers of Congress. There were several Republican holdouts who feared how the Medicaid cuts would impact low-income and rural communities, and some fiscal conservatives objected to the increase in the national debt.
'FOR REPUBLICANS, THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY YES VOTE,' Trump said in a social media post on Wednesday night. 'RIDICULOUS!!!'
Even Trump's erstwhile ally, billionaire Elon Musk, has publicly opposed the bill over provisions he described as 'pork'.
A record-breaking speech
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, Democrats attempted to stall, with the stated aim of allowing voters more time to contact their local representatives in protest.
The face of that effort was Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who exercised a privilege known as the 'magic minute' that allows party leaders to speak as long as they want from the House floor.
Jeffries stretched that privilege into an hours-long appeal to Republicans to stand up against what he described as Trump's harmful policies. He started at around 4:53am local time (8:53 GMT) and ended past 1:39pm (17:39 GMT).
It was the longest speech ever delivered on the House floor, approximately eight hours and 44 minutes.
'I'm here to take my sweet time on behalf of the American people,' Jeffries told the House, his voice wavering at points during the speech.
He directed his remarks to the speaker of the House, a leadership role normally occupied by Johnson.
'Donald Trump's deadline may be Independence Day. That ain't my deadline,' Jeffries said. 'You know why, Mr Speaker? We don't work for Donald Trump. We work for the American people.'
Jeffries warned that the 'One Big Beautiful Bill', which he dubbed the 'One Big Ugly Bill', 'hurts everyday Americans and rewards billionaires with massive tax breaks'. The legislation, he added, was simply reckless.
He called his colleagues across the aisle to 'show John McCain-level courage', dropping a reference to the late Republican senator from Arizona, known for standing up to Trump on the question of healthcare.
McCain has often been cited as a symbol of bipartisanship in Congress, and Jeffries urged his Republican colleagues to reach across the aisle.
'We acknowledged the election of President Donald Trump, offered to work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle whenever and wherever possible in order to make life better for the American people,' Jeffries said.
'But the route, Mr Speaker, that has been taken by House Republicans is to go it alone and to try to jam this One Big Ugly Bill — filled with extreme right-wing policy priorities — down the throats of the American people.'
In a poll last week from Quinnipiac University, for example, just 29 percent of respondents indicated they were in favour of the legislation, while 55 percent were against it.
Jeffries later added, 'We're not here to bend the knee to any wannabe king,' comparing resistance to Trump to the US's revolutionary war era. When he finally said he would yield back the floor, Democrats exploded into applause, chanting his name: 'Hakeem! Hakeem! Hakeem!'
Republicans rally in final stretch
In order to reach Thursday's vote, the House had remained in session overnight, as part of a marathon session.
But in the minutes before the dramatic vote took place, Speaker Johnson himself briefly spoke to the House, rallying Republicans to show a unified front.
He also took a jab at Jeffries's record-breaking speech, 'It takes a lot longer to build a lie than to tell the simple truth.'
'We've waited long enough. Some of us have literally been up for days now,' Johnson continued. 'With this One Big Beautiful Bill, we are going to make this country stronger, safer and more prosperous than ever before, and every American is going to benefit from that.'
He added that the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' would make programmes like Medicaid 'stronger with our reforms'.
Still, at the final hurdle, two Republicans did break away from their party caucus to vote against the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'.
One of the nay-votes, Representative Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, released a statement saying he had previously voted to 'strengthen Medicaid'. The Senate version of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill', he argued, did the opposite.
'The original House language was written in a way that protected our community; the Senate amendments fell short of our standard,' Fitzpatrick wrote.
'I believe in, and will always fight for, policies that are thoughtful, compassionate, and good for our community.'
Massie, meanwhile, had been a consistent holdout from the start. His sticking point, he said on social media, was the increase to the national debt.
'I voted No on final passage because it will significantly increase U.S. budget deficits in the near term, negatively impacting all Americans through sustained inflation and high interest rates,' he wrote.
A months-long process
It has been a long road for Republicans to reach Thursday's vote, stretching back months. The House first passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' on May 22, in another overnight vote.
In that May vote, the legislation passed by the narrowest of margins, with 215 voting in favour and 214 against. Representatives Massie and Warren Davidson of Ohio joined a unified Democratic front in voting against the bill at that time, and Maryland's Andy Harris voted 'present'. Two more Republicans missed the vote entirely.
That propelled the bill to the Senate, where it faced another uphill battle. The 100-seat chamber has 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats and left-leaning independents.
To avoid facing a Democratic filibuster, Republicans subjected the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' to the Byrd Rule, which allows legislation to pass with a simple majority.
But in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, Republicans had to strike provisions that had little to no budget impact or increased the deficit outside of a 10-year window.
Still, the revised Senate version of the bill faced a nail-biter of a vote. On July 1, after another all-nighter, the vote was 50 to 50, with three Republicans siding with the Democrats. Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaker to advance the bill.
Democrats did, however, notch a small symbolic victory, with Senator Chuck Schumer knocking the name 'One Big Beautiful Bill' off the final piece of legislation.
It was the Senate's version of the bill that the House voted on Thursday. At least one Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has expressed distaste for the legislation since voting for its passage.
'It is the people of Alaska that I worry about the most, especially when it comes to the potential loss of social safety net programs — Medicaid coverage and SNAP benefits — that our most vulnerable populations rely on,' she wrote in a statement earlier this week.
'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.'
The bill is expected to be signed into law on July 4 at 5pm US Eastern time (21:00 GMT) at a White House ceremony.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ukraine's sovereignty was violated long before Trump
Ukraine's sovereignty was violated long before Trump

Al Jazeera

time7 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Ukraine's sovereignty was violated long before Trump

On June 16, the Ukrainian government started the process for opening bids for foreign companies to mine lithium deposits in the country. Among the interested investors is a consortium linked to Ronald S Lauder, who is believed to be close to United States President Donald Trump. The bid is part of a minerals deal signed in April that is supposed to give the US access to Ukraine's mineral wealth. The agreement was negotiated over months and was touted by Trump as 'payback' for US military support for the Ukrainian military. The final text, which the Ukrainian side has celebrated as 'more favourable' compared with previous iterations, paves the way for US investment in the mining and energy sectors in Ukraine. Investment decisions will be made jointly by US and Ukrainian officials, profits will not be taxed and US companies will get preferential treatment in tenders and auctions. Trump's demand for access to Ukrainian mineral wealth was slammed by many as infringing on Ukrainian sovereignty and being exploitative at a time when the country is fighting a war and is highly dependent on US arms supplies. But that is hardly an aberration in the record of relations between Ukraine and the West. For more than a decade now, Kyiv has faced Western pressure to make decisions that are not necessarily in the interests of its people. Interference in domestic affairs Perhaps the most well-known accusations of Western influence peddling have to do with the son of former US President Joe Biden – Hunter Biden. He became a board member of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma in May 2014, three months after Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian president of Ukraine, fled to Russia during nationwide protests. At that time, Joe Biden was not only vice president in President Barack Obama's administration but also its pointman on US-Ukrainian relations. Over five years, Hunter Biden earned up to $50,000 a month as a board member. The apparent conflict of interest in this case bothered even Ukraine's European allies. But Joe Biden's interference went much further than that. As vice president, he openly threatened then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko with blocking $1bn in US aid if he did not dismiss the Ukrainian prosecutor general, whom Washington opposed. When Biden became president, his administration – along with the European Union – put pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to give foreign 'experts' a key role in the election of judges for Ukraine's courts. As a result, three of the six members on the Ethics Council of the High Council of Justice, which vets judges, are now members of international organisations. There was fierce opposition to this reform, even from within Zelenskyy's own political party. Nevertheless, he felt compelled to proceed. The Ukrainian government also adopted other unpopular laws under Western pressure. In 2020, the parliament passed a bill introduced by Zelenskyy that removed a ban on the sale of private farmland. Although polls consistently showed the majority of Ukrainians to be against such a move, pressure from the West forced the Ukrainian president's hand. Widespread protests against the move were muffled by COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Subsequently, Ukraine's agricultural sector became even more dominated by large, export-oriented multinational companies with deleterious consequences for the country's food security. Attempts to challenge these unpopular laws were undermined by attacks on courts. For example, the Kyiv District Administrative Court ruled that the judicial reform law violated Ukraine's sovereignty and constitution, but this decision was invalidated when Zelenskyy dissolved the court after the US imposed sanctions on its head judge, Pavlo Vovk, over accusations of corruption. The Constitutional Court, where there were also attempts to challenge some of these laws, also faced pressure. In 2020, Zelenskyy tried to fire all the court's judges and annul their rulings but failed. Then in 2021, Oleksandr Tupytskyi, the chairman of the court, was sanctioned by the US, again over corruption accusations. This facilitated his removal shortly thereafter. With Western interference in Ukrainian internal affairs made so apparent, public confidence in the sovereignty of the state was undermined. A 2021 poll showed that nearly 40 percent of Ukrainians did not believe their country was fully independent. Economic sovereignty In step with interference in Ukraine's governance, its economy has also faced foreign pressures. In 2016, US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt urged the country to become an 'agricultural superpower'. And it appears that the country indeed has gone down that path, continuing the process of deindustrialisation. From 2010 to 2019, industry's share of Ukraine's gross domestic product fell by 3.7 percentage points while that of agriculture rose by 3.4 percentage points. This didn't benefit Ukrainians. UNICEF found that nearly 20 percent of Ukrainians suffered from 'moderate to severe food insecurity' from 2018 to 2020, a figure that rose to 28 percent by 2022. This is more than twice as high as the same figure for the EU. This is because the expansion of agriculture has favoured export-oriented monocrops like sunflowers, corn and soya beans. Although Ukraine became the world's biggest exporter of sunflower oil in 2019, a 2021 study found that the domination of agriculture by intensively farmed monoculture has put 40 percent of the country's soil at risk of depletion. The 2016 free trade agreement with the EU also encouraged low-cost exports. Due to the restrictive provisions of the agreement, Ukrainian business complained that domestic products were often unable to reach European markets while European producers flooded Ukraine. Ukraine had a 4-billion-euro ($4.7bn) trade deficit with the EU in 2021, exporting raw materials and importing processed goods and machinery. Meanwhile, Ukraine's industrial output collapsed under the blows of closed export markets, Western competition and neoliberal economic policies at home. According to the Ministry of Economy, by 2019, automobile production had shrunk to 31 percent of its 2012 level, train wagon production to 29.7 percent, machine tool production to 68.2 percent, metallurgical production to 70.8 percent and agricultural machinery production to 68.4 percent. In 2020, the government under the newly elected Zelenskyy tried to intervene. It proposed new legislation to protect Ukrainian industry, Bill 3739, which aimed to limit the amount of foreign goods purchased by Ukrainian state contracts. Member of parliament Dmytro Kiselevsky pointed to the fact that while only 5 to 8 percent of state contracts in the US and EU are fulfilled with imports, the same figures stood at 40 to 50 percent in Ukraine. But Bill 3739 was immediately criticised by the EU, the US and pro-Western NGOs in Ukraine. This was despite the fact that Western countries have a range of methods to protect their markets and state purchases from foreigners. Ultimately, Bill 3739 was passed with significant amendments that provided exceptions for companies from the US and the EU. The recent renewal of EU tariffs on Ukrainian agricultural exports, which had been lifted in 2022, is yet another confirmation that the West protects its own markets but wants unrestricted access to Ukraine's, to the detriment of the Ukrainian economy. Ukrainian officials worry that this move would cut economic growth this year from the projected 2.7 percent to 0.9 percent and cost the country $3.5bn in lost revenues. In light of all this, Trump's mineral deal reflects continuity in Western policy on Ukraine rather than a rupture. What the US president did differently was show to the public how Western leaders bully the Ukrainian government to get what they want – something that usually happens behind closed doors. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.

What's in Trump's ceasefire proposal and can it end Israel's war on Gaza?
What's in Trump's ceasefire proposal and can it end Israel's war on Gaza?

Al Jazeera

time8 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

What's in Trump's ceasefire proposal and can it end Israel's war on Gaza?

Discussions of a ceasefire in Gaza have picked up in recent days. United States President Donald Trump said last week that Israel agreed to the conditions for a 60-day ceasefire, and negotiators could meet to carve out a path to finally ending Israel's nearly 21-month-long war on Gaza. Hamas said it delivered a 'positive response' to mediators, with amendments, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the Palestinian group's asks 'unacceptable' but sent negotiators to the Qatari capital, Doha, for talks nonetheless. Netanyahu is set to visit Washington, DC, on Monday, where reports say Trump would like a deal. 'There could be a Gaza deal next week,' Trump told reporters on Saturday, adding that he had not been briefed yet about Hamas's counterproposal but that it was 'good' that they had responded. Here's all you need to know: What is Hamas asking for? According to reports, there are three main demands: At least 743 Palestinians have been killed seeking aid at GHF sites in Gaza in recent weeks. In late June, the Haaretz newspaper reported that Israeli soldiers were deliberately ordered to fire on unarmed people waiting for food. Humanitarians have repeatedly said they are able to distribute aid and food to Palestinians in Gaza and have criticised the GHF for furthering Israel's political agenda. 'It makes aid conditional on political and military aims,' Tom Fletcher, the United Nations chief humanitarian, said in May. 'It makes starvation a bargaining chip. It is a cynical sideshow … A fig leaf for further violence and displacement.' Hamas wants the Israeli military to withdraw to the positions it held before it violated the ceasefire in March of this year. In May, the Israeli military began extensive new ground operations in Gaza, killing hundreds of Palestinians, to take 'operational control' of large swaths of the Strip. The Israeli military had already created the Netzarim Corridor, which splits the Gaza Strip into northern and southern sectors, soon after launching the war, and in April, Netanyahu announced the creation of the Morag Corridor in the southern Gaza Strip. In March, Israel unilaterally broke a ceasefire that had been agreed in January, despite the conditions for the ceasefire being upheld by the Palestinian side. This time, Hamas and other Palestinian groups want international assurances that this will not be repeated. Hamas reportedly wants a US guarantee that Israeli air attacks and ground operations, which have killed thousands of Palestinians, will not resume even if the ceasefire ends without a permanent end to the war. What does the original US-backed proposal say? There is reportedly a key focus on the remaining Israeli captives in Gaza. The plan is to release 10 living Israeli captives held by Hamas and the bodies of 18 others in exchange for Palestinians lodged in Israeli prisons. The release would be staggered over a number of days. Fifty captives are still in Gaza, with about 20 reportedly alive. On the question of aid, the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross would contribute to distributing sufficient quantities to Palestinians. Lastly, it calls for phased pull-outs of Israeli troops from parts of Gaza. What is Israel saying? Netanyahu reportedly agreed to the original US proposal but has called Hamas's amendments 'unacceptable'. He has said he will not end the war until all captives are released and Hamas is 'destroyed'. The latter goal has been called impossible by many analysts and is believed to be an open-ended political objective for Netanyahu to continue the war as long as he believes it will serve his personal interests. Netanyahu is on trial for corruption and is still widely blamed in Israeli society for the security failures that led to Hamas's Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023, during which 1,139 people died in Israel and about 250 were taken captive. Analysts believe Netanyahu wants to continue the retaliatory war on Gaza until he can gain enough political leverage to dismiss the cases against him and build enough popular support to remain the leader of Israel. Netanyahu's war has been supported by his far-right ministers, particularly Itamar Ben Gvir, minister of national security, and Bezalel Smotrich, the minister of finance. They want Israel's military operations to be intensified to kill more Palestinians and to stop providing any aid to the besieged and starving people in Gaza. What is life like for Palestinians in the meantime? Israel is still launching deadly attacks on Gaza, with at least 138 Palestinians killed in the last 24 hours, according to the Ministry of Health in Gaza. In the occupied West Bank, bulldozers are demolishing homes, and Israel has killed more than 1,000 people since October 7, 2023. People in the West Bank are also suffering recurring attacks by Israeli soldiers and armed settlers from illegal settlements, as well as severe limitations on movement and access to livelihoods. What are the chances a deal will be reached? Trump appears keen on reaching one, and Palestinians in Gaza are desperate for the Israeli attacks to cease. However, one major roadblock remains. 'Israel and Netanyahu are not interested in reaching a ceasefire,' Adnan Hayajneh, professor of international relations at Qatar University, told Al Jazeera, adding that there is a 'very slim chance' of a ceasefire. 'What Israel wants is clear … a land without a people,' Hayajneh said. 'So Palestinians are given three choices … starve to death … get killed … [or] leave the land, but Palestinians have so far proven they will not leave the land, no matter what.'

Brazil hosts BRICS summit; Russia's Putin, China's Xi skip Rio trip
Brazil hosts BRICS summit; Russia's Putin, China's Xi skip Rio trip

Al Jazeera

time12 hours ago

  • Al Jazeera

Brazil hosts BRICS summit; Russia's Putin, China's Xi skip Rio trip

Leaders of the growing BRICS group are gathering in Brazil for a summit overshadowed by United States President Donald Trump's new tariff policies while presenting the bloc as a defender of multilateralism. The leaders, mainly from the developing world, will be discussing ways to increase cooperation amid what they say are serious concerns over Western dominance at their two-day summit that begins in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday. The BRICS acronym is derived from the initial letters of the founding member countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The bloc, which held its first summit in 2009, later added Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as full members. It also has 10 strategic partner countries, a category created last year, that includes Belarus, Cuba and Vietnam. But for the first time since taking power in 2012, Chinese President Xi Jinping will not be attending in person, instead sending Prime Minister Li Qiang. Russian President Vladimir Putin will also miss in-person attendance as he is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his role in the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Brazil, as a signatory to the Rome Statute, would be required to enforce the arrest warrant. The notable absences are raising questions over the group's cohesion and global clout. Now chaired by Brazil, leaders at the BRICS summit are expected to decry the Trump administration's 'indiscriminate' trade tariffs, saying they are illegal and risk hurting the global economy. Global health policies, artificial intelligence and climate change will also be on the agenda. The BRICS countries say they represent almost half of the world's population, 36 percent of global land area, and a quarter of the global economic output. The bloc sees itself as a forum for cooperation between countries of the Global South and a counterweight to the Group of Seven (G7), comprised of leading Western economic powers. However, behind the scenes, divisions are evident. According to a source quoted by The Associated Press news agency, some member states are calling for a firmer stance on Israel's war in Gaza and its recent strikes on Iran. The source requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Egypt's Abdel Fattah el-Sisi will be attending the Rio summit. However, Al Jazeera's Lucia Newman, reporting from Rio, said the group's aim remains clear. 'The BRICS goal is to exert pressure for a multipolar world with inclusive global governance to give a meaningful voice to the Global South, especially in the trading system,' she said. 'It's not super organised, nor does it have a radical global impact,' Newman added. 'The real question is, can an expanded BRICS whose members have very different political systems and priorities form a sufficiently unified bloc to have any significant impact?'

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