
Fact-checking three key claims about Trump's mega-bill
How much would the bill cost?
The White House has said the bill "reduces deficits by over $2 trillion" - but senior Democrats have insisted it would actually add trillions.BBC Verify has examined various independent studies about the bill's impact and interviewed six tax experts who all agreed that it would increase the national deficit.The deficit is what happens when the US government spends more than it collects through taxes and other forms of revenue.Musk criticised lawmakers who "voted for the biggest debt increase in history" when it was being passed in the US Senate.The debt is the overall sum of money owed by the government - essentially the accumulation of past budget deficits - which means it has to borrow money and pay interest on this.Trump's mega-bill heads for final vote in overnight US House sessionA look at the key items in Trump's sprawling budget bill'Our food doesn't even last the month' - Americans brace for Trump's welfare cutsThe US national debt is currently about $36tn (£26tn) - of which about $29tn is money owed by the government to investors around the world.Larger deficits and a bigger debt can theoretically result in higher interest rates - the idea being that investors worry more about a country's capacity to pay its debts as those rise and they therefore demand higher interest payments.That can feed into higher interest rates for consumers which make things like housing and cars less affordable, and restrict business investment and therefore productivity and jobs.The current version of the bill is estimated to add about $3.3tn (£2.4tn) to the US deficit over the next 10 years, despite an initial economic boost, according to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - the government agency which provides independent analysis of spending.
The CBO said the spending cuts proposed in the bill would be outweighed by the tax cuts.An analysis from the Tax Foundation think tank concluded that the bill "would increase economic output but worsen deficits". It projects that the bill would increase the level of US GDP by around 1% after 10 years relative to where it would otherwise be, but that it would also add $3.6tn (£2.6tn) to the deficit over the same period.Some banks have said they are in favour of the bill - with the American Bankers Association writing an open letter to lawmakers saying it provides "much needed tax relief" which would boost the economy.The experts BBC Verify spoke to said although the bill may provide some economic growth, its cost would be significantly more than this boost."Most analysis finds that the bill will produce a small, temporary, short-lived boost – but that over time the bill will actually be a drag on the economy," says Bobby Kogan, a federal budget expert at the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan policy institute.And Mark Zandi, an economist at the financial consultancy Moody's Analytics, says: "It will result in continued massive budget deficits, and a high and rising debt load."
What impact would the bill have on Medicaid?
"We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill and you're not gonna feel any of it. Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same," Trump claimed at an event about the bill last week.However, various studies show there will be significant reductions to Medicaid under the bill.Medicaid is the government-run scheme which provides healthcare insurance for about 71 million low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and people with disabilities.Analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) - an independent health policy research group - found that the bill would cut $1tn (£729bn) from future Medicaid spending over the next 10 years.The White House has said the bill "removes illegal aliens, enforces work requirements, and protects Medicaid for the truly vulnerable".The CBO estimates that nearly 12 million Americans would lose health insurance by 2034 under the terms of the Senate bill - with just 1.4 million of these being people "without verified citizenship, nationality, or satisfactory immigration status"."The largest Medicaid cut in American history came in President Reagan's first year in office… These Medicaid cuts would be at least four times the size," said Mr Kogan.
What about the impact on taxes?
Trump has repeatedly said that not passing the bill would lead to massive tax rises on Americans - in part because the tax cuts passed during his first-term in office are due to expire at the end of this year."If it's not approved, your taxes will go up by 68%," the president said last week.We asked the White House for the calculations behind Trump's claim - they responded saying the bill "prevents the largest tax hike in history" but didn't answer our question on where the specific figure comes from.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that not extending tax cuts introduced under Trump in 2017 would lead to a hike of 7.5% on average.The body also says roughly 60% of tax payers would have to contribute more if they expire."The 68% figure is incorrect… It could be roughly drawn from a count of taxpayers that would see an increase in taxes, as opposed to an estimate of the actual tax increase," says Elena Patel, a tax policy expert and assistant professor at the University of Utah's business school.Overall, the tax changes in the bill would benefit wealthier Americans more than those on lower incomes, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis. About 60% of the benefits would go to those making above $217,000 (£158,000), it found."There is no question that this bill will result in a massive redistribution from the poorest to the richest," says Ms Patel.
What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
Hashtags

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


The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Charlie Kirk, who bashed Murdoch media ‘hit job, tapped to host Fox & Friends Weekend
Fox News has tapped MAGA activist Charlie Kirk to guest host the right-wing network's weekend version of its flagship morning program, a network spokesperson confirmed to The Independent . This will be the Turning Point USA founder's first time hosting a show on Fox News. As Axios first reported, Kirk is set to join regular Fox & Friends Weekend co-hosts Rachel Campos-Duffy and Charlie Hurt on the curvy couch this coming Saturday and Sunday. With the dog days of summer upon us, cable news networks are reaching deep into their benches to fill out hosting slots, as this is prime vacation time for anchors and reporters. Therefore, it isn't surprising to see Fox News turn to outside personalities for one-off hosting gigs during this time of year, especially someone with a well-established audience like Kirk, who hosts a radio show and a top-rated podcast. What does make this stand out, though, is that Kirk was one of the MAGA influencers who was highly critical of the Wall Street Journal's bombshell story on the 'bawdy' birthday card Donald Trump allegedly sent deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. According to the WSJ , the card included a hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, with Trump's signature mimicking pubic hair. The report, which Trump immediately described as 'fake,' led to the president suing the Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News. Meanwhile, the story appeared to dissipate the MAGA uproar over the Epstein files, as prominent conservatives who had grown increasingly frustrated with the administration's handling of the saga quickly rallied around the president over their shared disdain of the mainstream media. MAGA podcaster and TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk is set to serve as a guest co-host on Fox & Friends Weekend this coming Saturday and Sunday. (Getty Images) 'This is not how Trump talks at all. I don't believe it,' Kirk tweeted in response to the Wall Street Journal story shortly after it was published. He would go on and share other social media posts from Vice President JD Vance, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Donald Trump Jr. blasting the report as defamatory. Kirk would be even more outspoken about the story on his radio show this week, where he fumed that the WSJ 'attempted a terrible drive-by… of our phenomenal president' while applauding Trump for his $10 billion lawsuit against Murdoch. 'As soon as I read this story, I said this is the dumbest, obviously fakest thing. I don't believe it,' he declared. 'Now I quickly, and we quickly, came to the president's defense because this thing was obviously a hit job. Obviously, a drive-by shooting trying to go after President Trump and trying to tie some of the Epstein news to President Trump to try to bring down his approval rating.' Meanwhile, the MAGA backlash against the WSJ as Trump comes for Murdoch has put Fox News in something of a bind, especially considering that the conservative cable giant shares a symbiotic relationship with the president and has helped staff up his administration. Left without the option of doing what is the network's standard modus operandi, which is parroting Trump's attacks on the mainstream media, Fox News has also decided against defending its sister publication and its owner. This has resulted in the network largely ignoring both the WSJ's blockbuster article and the president's lawsuit, mentioning both only a handful of times since last week. Additionally, the network has also devoted significantly less airtime to the Epstein controversy than its cable news rivals and even other right-wing outlets. After the president began ordering his supporters to 'stop talking about' Epstein, Fox News has pulled way back on its coverage of the drama surrounding the administration's handling of the flies, prompting MAGA media competitors to outright mock the 'terrified' network for not wanting to 'p*ss off' Trump. Sharing common ground with Fox News on the issue, Kirk has also sought to heed the president's demand that the MAGA base move on from Epstein and instead concentrated on the various seeming distractions he's tossed out into the ether, such as changing sports teams' names back to racist caricatures or reigniting the 'Russia Witch Hunt' conspiracy and demanding 'Barack Hussein Obama' be charged with treason. After hosting a TPUSA student event that featured young activists railing against Trump over the DOJ memo that concluded Epstein died by suicide and didn't keep a 'client list,' Kirk returned to his podcast that Monday and said he was 'done talking about Epstein' and would instead 'trust my friends in the government.' That announcement came shortly after it was reported that Trump personally called Kirk to ask him to ease up on the criticism of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had come under intense fire from MAGA loyalists over the memo, particularly because she had previously said she had the so-called 'client list' on her desk for review. Kirk would later backtrack from his proclamation that he was moving on from Epstein, declaring the following day that he had merely meant 'yesterday' when he said 'for the time being,' grousing that the 'fake news' had taken him out of context.


The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron sue far-right podcaster Candace Owens over false claims French president's wife is a man
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte Macron have filed a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens over the far-right influencer's 'relentless and unjustified smear campaign' falsely accusing Brigitte of being a man. The 219-page defamation complaint filed in Delaware state court on Wednesday accuses Owens of proliferating 'demonstrably false' claims through her platforms, including in an eight-part podcast and on social media, designed to feed a 'frenzied fan base' in 'pursuit of fame,' the Macrons allege. 'These lies have caused tremendous damage to the Macrons,' according to the lawsuit, which names Owens as well her business entities, which are incorporated in Delaware. The false claims have subjected the Macrons to a 'campaign of global humiliation, turning their lives into fodder for profit-driven lies,' the complaint says. 'Owens has dissected their appearance, their marriage, their friends, their family, and their personal history — twisting it all into a grotesque narrative designed to inflame and degrade,' the complaint alleges. 'The result is relentless bullying on a worldwide scale. Every time the Macrons leave their home, they do so knowing that countless people have heard, and many believe, these vile fabrications. It is invasive, dehumanizing, and deeply unjust.' The Independent


NBC News
18 minutes ago
- NBC News
Rep. Mike Lawler won't run for governor in New York as Elise Stefanik's decision looms
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., is skipping a bid for governor and will instead run for re-election after President Donald Trump urged him to do just that, giving Republicans a battle-tested incumbent in one of the most competitive House races in the country — and clearing the way for one of Lawler's House colleagues to run for governor if she so chooses. Lawler made his announcement Wednesday morning in an interview with The New York Times and an appearance on Fox News, noting that 'keeping the House majority is critical' and that his seat has been 'determinative of control of the House' during recent elections. 'I'm proud to run for re-election on my record and win next November and keep the House Republican majority,' he said. In a post on social media, he added that he's skipping a gubernatorial bid despite the fact that "I fundamentally believe I am best positioned to take on" Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul. Republicans are protecting a narrow House majority in the 2026 midterms. Democrats would need to a net gain of just three seats to flip the chamber, and Lawler represents one of the three House Republican districts carried by then-Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump in the 2024 election. Lawler had been openly considering a gubernatorial bid for some time, but Trump endorsed him for re-election in May, before the congressman made his announcement. That endorsement came weeks after reporting that Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., a Trump ally who had been tapped to become his United Nations ambassador before that nomination was pulled amid concerns about the slim GOP majority in the House, was weighing a gubernatorial bid of her own. Stefanik responded to Lawler's decision by praising the congressman's commitment to "protecting the House Republican majority," adding she'd announce her plans after the fall elections. Stefanik started a political action committee last month aimed at supporting "Republican candidates across New York in 2025, and laying the groundwork to save New York by firing Kathy Hochul in 2026." Hochul is running for re-election and faces a primary challenge from her lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado. Addressing Lawler's decision not to run on social media, Hochul criticized Lawler for having "caved to Trump" by supporting the GOP's major tax cut and spending bill, and posting a photo of a box of dog bones, calling Lawler " Donald Trump's Good Boy." Lawler's decision helps House Republicans defend their narrow majority next year, as they'll be able to rally behind the incumbent in a difficult district that Harris narrowly won in 2024. But Lawler is expected to face significant competition as Democrats look to win back control of the House.