What's in Trump's big, beautiful bill? Tax cuts, deportations and more
Here's what's in the Senate's version of the bill:
After taking office in 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered taxes and increased the standard deduction for all taxpayers, but generally benefited high earners more than most. Those provisions are set to expire after this year, but the big, beautiful bill makes them permanent, while increasing the standard deduction by $1,000 for individuals, $1,500 for heads of households and $2,000 for married couples, albeit only through 2028.
The bill has an array of new tax write-offs – but only while Trump is president. Several of the new exemptions stem from promises Trump made while campaigning last year. Taxpayers will be able to write off income from tips and overtime, and interest made on loans to purchase cars assembled in the United States. People aged 65 and over are eligible for an additional deduction of $6,000, provided their adjusted gross income does not exceed $75,000 for single filers or $150,000 for couples. But all of these incentives expire at the end of 2028, right before Trump's term as president ends.
As part of Trump's plan to remove undocumented immigrants from the country, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) will receive $45bn for detention facilities, $14bn for deportation operations and billions of dollars more to hire an additional 10,000 new agents by 2029. More than $50bn is allocated for the construction of new border fortifications, which will probably include a wall along the border with Mexico.
Republicans have attempted to cut down on the bill's cost by slashing two major federal safety net programs: Medicaid, which provides healthcare to poor and disabled Americans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which helps people afford groceries. Both are in for funding cuts, as well as new work requirements. The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates the Medicaid changes could cost as many as 10.6 million people their health care, and about eight million people, or one in five recipients, their Snap benefits.
The bill will phase out many tax incentives created by Congress during Joe Biden's presidency meant to encourage consumers and businesses to use electric vehicles and other clean energy technology. Credits for cleaner cars will end this year, as will subsidies for Americans seeking to upgrade their homes to cleaner or more energy efficient appliances. Wind and solar energy projects are targeted with a new excise tax that the American Clean Power Association, an industry group, estimates would hike consumer electricity rates by between 8% and 10%, and cost businesses between $4bn and $7bn by 2036. However, the tax may be modified as part of the ongoing amendment process.
One of the thorniest issues the bill addresses is how much relief to provide from state and local taxes (Salt), which many Americans must also pay in addition to their federal tax. Several House Republicans representing districts in Democrat-led states withheld their support from the bill until the Salt deductibility cap was raised from $10,000 to $40,000, but Senate Republicans made clear they would change that. The Senate's version keeps the $40,000 cap, but only through 2028.
The bill will increase the US government's authority to borrow, known as the debt limit, by $5tn. The US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has predicted the government will hit the limit by August, at which point it could default on its debt and spark a financial crisis.
Wealthier taxpayers appear set to receive more benefits from this bill than poorer ones, according to The Budget Lab at Yale University. Taxpayers in the lowest income quintile will see a 2.5% decrease in their incomes, largely due to the Snap and Medicaid cuts, while the highest earners will see their incomes grow by 2.4%, the Budget Lab estimated. The impact could change based on what amendments the Senate adopts.
Despite the GOP's attempts to use the bill as a vehicle to rein in government spending, the bill would increase the deficit by $3.3tn through 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Most of that price tag is the extension of the 2017 tax cuts. The heavy budgetary impact could complicate the bill's chances of passing the House, where fiscal hardliners have demanded budget deficit reductions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Washington has crushed Trump's Maga revolution
New presidential administrations often spur talk of revolution in Washington, and that goes double for Donald Trump. Supporters promise an end to the old politics; opponents warn of the end of America as we've known it. But the minute anything needs to be done through Congress, the forces of politics as usual reassert themselves. So it is with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. The gigantic tax and budget bill isn't just the centrepiece of Trump's legislative agenda. Given the narrow Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the power of the Senate filibuster to block party-line bills outside of the tax and budget context, and the disinterest of all sides in forging bipartisan compromise, the bill is likely to be Trump's entire legislative agenda for 2025-26. There was a lot of talk about how the bill would do big, dramatic things and break with Republican policies of the past in favour of a new, populist agenda. Perhaps, Trump suggested, Republicans would raise taxes on the wealthy. There was fierce lobbying to undo some provisions of the 2017 Trump tax bill. But the forces of political gravity are not so easily defied. From the beginning, Republicans understood that this was a must-pass bill. Without it, not only would many of the 2017 tax cuts expire, but the GOP would likely miss the opportunity to satisfy priorities such as funding more immigration enforcement. In the end, the bill passed the House by just one vote, 215-214 (with two Republicans voting no and three others absent or abstaining), and did the same in the Senate, with vice-president JD Vance casting the 51-50 tiebreaker (with three Republicans voting no). The bill's passage followed a 'vote-a-thon' of record length in the Senate, as Senators voted down one amendment after another. When a must-pass bill needs every single yes vote to pass, that's a lot of people who have to be appeased or outright paid off. If the House baulks at the Senate's changes, the same dynamic is apt to repeat itself. So, the broad outlines of the bill look a lot more like traditional conservative policymaking with some Trump flavouring. Tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are preserved, and coupled with working-class tax relief such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and car loans. There's more money for warships and other weapons, and also for the tools of border enforcement (a wall, more agents, and more detention facilities). Poverty programmes such as Medicaid are subjected to work requirements, tightened eligibility rules, and restrictions on benefits for immigrants. The bill cuts back on subsidies for student-loan repayments and green energy. Republican moderates got their own concessions. The deduction for state and local taxes, which effectively subsidises high-tax blue states, was raised from $10,000 to $40,000 (at significant cost to the budget deficit) to secure a few votes from blue-state Republicans, mainly in the northeast. The child tax credit was expanded, which amounts to a payout to many lower-income taxpayers. Alaska was given more generous treatment in some benefits programmes once Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote became a must-have. Hospital and nursing-home lobbies made out like bandits. Fiscal hawks who wanted deeper spending cuts are instead presented with a bill that does nothing to alter the debt-ridden nation's grim fiscal trajectory. Other conservative ambitions were scaled back or ended on the cutting room floor. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood was defunded from the Medicaid programme – a long-time goal of pro-lifers – but the Senate cut the duration of that defunding to one year. The Senate version also cut out plans to ban Medicaid funding for gender transitions, sell public lands in the West, tax third-party funding of lawsuits, or prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence or giving state-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants. A Senate effort to reduce the federal subsidy for Obamacare health insurance plans was scrapped. The end result is a bill nobody likes – which is how lawmaking in Washington usually works. Among Republicans, only the handful of purist fiscal conservatives casting 'no' votes are truly at peace with their votes. Trump and Vance can doubtless sell the deal to Maga diehards as a necessity, and the donor class will be pleased. Democrats are back in their happy place, complaining that Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich and paying for it with welfare cuts for the poor – a hymn they've been singing since the 1930s. Voters instinctively dislike the bill because it's huge and messy, but that's precisely why they're unlikely to remember much about it a year and a half from now at midterm election time other than the Medicaid cuts, which Democrats aim to make the centrepiece of their campaigns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Leader Live
38 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Benjamin Netanyahu vows ‘there will be no Hamas' in post-war Gaza
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Israel had agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza and urged Hamas to accept the deal before conditions worsen. The US leader has been increasing pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas to broker a ceasefire and hostage agreement, and bring about an end to the war. Hamas said in a brief statement on Wednesday that it had received a proposal from the mediators and was holding talks with them to 'bridge gaps' to return to the negotiating table to try to reach a ceasefire agreement. Mr Trump said the 60-day period would be used to work toward ending the war, something Israel says it will not accept until Hamas is defeated. He said that a deal might come together as soon as next week. But Hamas' response, which emphasised its demand that the war end, raised questions about whether the latest offer could materialise into an actual pause in fighting. Hamas official Taher al-Nunu said that the militant group was 'ready and serious regarding reaching an agreement'. He said Hamas was 'ready to accept any initiative that clearly leads to the complete end to the war'. A Hamas delegation is expected to meet Egyptian and Qatari mediators in Cairo on Wednesday to discuss the proposal, according to an Egyptian official. Hamas has said that it is willing to free the remaining 50 hostages, fewer than half of whom are said to be alive, in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war. Israel says it will only agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms and exiles itself, something the group refuses to do. 'I am announcing to you, there will be no Hamas,' Mr Netanyahu said during a speech on Wednesday. An Israeli official said that the latest proposal calls for a 60-day deal that would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a surge in humanitarian aid to the territory.
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Zohran Mamdani isn't as clever as he thinks
A bizarre obsession with the Palestinian issue continues to poison progressive politics – including (surprise!) the campaign of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic nominee for New York's mayoral race has refused to condemn the phrase 'globalise the intifada', despite sharp criticism from fellow Democrats. The phrase, seen by many as a call for violence against Jews, is actually 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights,' said Mamdani, not long before his surprising win. Then, this past weekend, he again declined to decry the phrase. Instead, he meekly noted 'that's not language that I use,' on the news show Meet the Press, before adding that he would serve as a mayor 'that protects Jewish New Yorkers' if ultimately elected in November. Mamdani's equivocations are hardly surprising. Presumably he thinks he's being clever by attempting to reassure Jewish voters, while signalling a quiet approval for some of the darkest rhetoric of the Palestinian cause. But he has actually exposed how sinister his campaign really is. He's made championing Palestinian nationalism a cornerstone of his political career – despite (beyond his Muslim faith) having very little in common with most Palestinians. The son of an Oscar-nominated film-maker mother and university professor father, Mamdani – like so many who voted for him last week – is the product of privilege, with scant experience in politics or holding a job, let alone of real 'oppression'. He exists in a world of feelings and vibes – in place of consequence or facts. And Mamdani has given every indication of believing that calling for 'intifada' – despite its clear association with bus bombings, knife attacks and thousands of Jewish dead (it means uprising in Arabic and is used to refer to two periods of Palestinian violence against Israelis) – is legitimate political discourse. The investor Bill Ackman – who helped take down former Harvard president Claudine Gay – took to X on Monday to ask: 'What if someone called for the killing or suicide bombings of those of a different ethnic background, Zohran, would you not be willing to condemn such a call to violent action? Or is it just for the Jews that you remain silent?' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined the attack, saying Mamdani would 'have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward,' during a weekend appearance on ABC's This Week. 'Globalising the intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing.' Both Ackman and Jeffries could not be more correct. That too many progressives accept effective calls for violence against Jews that they would never tolerate for other ethnicities is not just limited to phrases like 'globalise the intifada'. The double-standard reflects the entire pro-Palestinian movement since the Hamas attack on Israel two Octobers ago. The violent encampments in cities like New York, the wide-scale property damage and, now, the numerous deaths in the United States directly attributed to anti-Semitism somehow avoid the type of critique heaped upon even the most minor affronts against, say, African-Americans or sexual minorities. In 2020, recall that New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned after the paper published an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton that some black staffers felt made them unsafe, merely because it suggested calling in the National Guard during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests. Mamdani, meanwhile, continues to campaign as the Democrat nominee despite refusing to condemn a phrase that Jews rightly perceive as a call for their murder. Will Mamdani eventually clarify his position? Don't hold your breath. Like so many on the extreme-Left, Mamdani exists within a bubble of impunity that ascribes negative motives to anyone who criticises its stances. Question the morality of phrases like 'intifada', goes the thinking, and you're a 'Zionist' whose opinion can be safely discounted. Malicious equivocation is also a veritable party trick for Mamdani. He has refused to say that he supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation. He's said he supports its right to exist 'as a state with equal rights'. But he has added that 'I'm not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else'. We've heard this all before – including from Mamdani's own mother, director Mira Nair, who in 2013 refused to participate in the Haifa International Film festival, saying she would 'go to Israel when the state does not privilege one religion over another'. They conveniently ignore the Muslims and people of other faiths who do, in fact, enjoy equal rights in Israel. Perhaps I've also missed their criticism of the numerous nations that actually do oppress minority religions – either in practice or in law. Saudi Arabia prohibits the public worship of any religion other than Islam. Across much of the Middle East, countries once known for their religious diversity are no longer safe for Jews or Christians. Why are the likes of Mamdani allowed by their interviewers to get away with it? However overwhelmed and underprepared they are, they must know that they are not dealing with normal politicians, but radicals for whom the obsession with Israel has become almost a pathology. Many New York voters – including my fellow New York Jews – have failed to see through Mamdani. But now he has to win over the wider New York electorate, not just the Democratic base. Let's hope that we don't have to wait for him to put his agenda into practice before everyone wakes up to the truth.
