《The New York Times》: In the 'Huge Beauty Bill', Trump Overwhelms Voting with Presidential Authority

Original Title: Why a Bill Nobody Loves Feels Inevitable

Original Authors: Jess Bidgood, Catie Edmondson, The New York Times

Translated by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Trump referred to his signature domestic legislation as the "One Big Beautiful Bill," but its path to passage has been anything but smooth.

This bill aims to extend the 2017 tax cuts and offset the cost of these cuts by cutting funding to the social safety net. In the House, the bill struggled to pass; in the Senate, it was heavily amended. In recent days, a key Senate official rejected multiple provisions in the bill, whose role is to ensure lawmakers adhere to budget rules, forcing senators to scramble to reinsert parts of the bill.

Additionally, as my colleagues Carl Hulse and Catie Edmondson wrote today, nobody really likes this bill.

But this is Washington under Trump. Here, not knowing the specifics of a bill or lacking enthusiasm for it—such "minor issues"—may not be enough to deter Senate Republicans from voting in favor of it—possibly as soon as this weekend.

I consulted with Catie on the twists and turns of this bill—how it evolved into a policy "hodgepodge," why it has unnerved many Republicans, and why these issues may not significantly affect its prospects of becoming law.

Republicans are working to salvage parts of the Senate bill that they believe violate the budget rules. You have been covering Congress since the first Trump administration, witnessing many legislative "sausage-making" processes. Is this level of chaos normal?

To some extent, this is indeed a common phenomenon in the legislative process, and both parties have faced similar challenges in the past. For example, when Democrats used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Biden's "Lowering Inflation Act" and the COVID-19 stimulus package, lawmakers also struck down key provisions, including a proposal to raise the federal minimum wage.

However, on the other hand, I do believe that this back-and-forth tug-of-war reflects that this legislation has turned into a "policy hodgepodge," where some elements have little to do with the budget. This bill includes tax cuts, cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance programs, but also provisions banning states from regulating artificial intelligence, relaxing certain gun laws, and selling public lands.

What Role Is Trump Playing? Have His Actions—or Lack Thereof—Exacerbated the Chaos?

Yesterday, President Trump made a push for this bill at the White House, but we have yet to see him get deeply involved in the lobbying effort. The "game plan" on Capitol Hill typically involves bringing him out at the final stages of a crucial vote to sway those last holdouts.

Meanwhile, a recurring dynamic is also playing out here: lawmakers with reservations about the bill will call the president, hoping for his support of their position. President Trump usually tells them he agrees with them. This situation makes it harder for lawmakers to figure out what he really wants, as his stance may shift based on these conversations.

Currently, this dynamic is especially evident regarding Medicaid. Some senators believe the Senate's plan cuts Medicaid too severely. This includes Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who, along with several other senators, brought this concern to the president. Hawley came back saying that Trump told them he preferred the House's plan because it preserved more Medicaid projects.

The debate over Medicaid is one of several battles within the Republican Party over this bill. What other intra-party disagreements have been exposed?

The Medicaid issue is part of a broader debate over the extent of federal spending cuts. Early in this process, some fiscal conservatives in both the House and Senate indicated that they were unwilling to vote for any legislation that would increase the deficit and were looking to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts with new spending cuts. However, this did not materialize in either chamber. Both chambers' plans would add trillions of dollars to the deficit. This is clearly not the policy path these fiscal conservatives hoped to take while controlling Congress and the White House.

Does Anyone Really Like This Bill?

Republicans feel they must pass this legislation because if they do not extend the 2017 tax cuts, everyone's taxes will go up. This bill also includes new tax breaks for tips and overtime, something Trump promised to do during his campaign. But beyond that, they are essentially maintaining the status quo—namely, the 2017 tax cut policy—while significantly cutting some very popular social welfare programs.

If you are preparing to run for re-election in a politically centrist state or district, you know that Democrats will hammer you on the content of this bill—cuts to Medicaid and food aid. Many Republican lawmakers have already heard constituents express concerns about this at town hall meetings.

So, are these discussions we're having—the various reasons why Republicans dislike this bill and the challenges they face in maintaining its integrity—truly going to threaten its chances of passage?

I don't think so, although it may make their timeline more complex and could potentially alter the specific contents of the final bill. Since the House passed its version, this bill has seemed inevitable.

They may end up passing a politically risky but unloved bill. Why?

This is a potentially politically risky vote, but it is not in service of some grand political idea, making it different from some tough votes both parties have faced in the past. But this is what Trump has demanded.

I think there is a widespread sense within the GOP that they may lose their House majority in the midterm elections—which is very likely based on historical trends—meaning their time to pass major legislation is limited. Additionally, they do feel an ideological urgency to continue the 2017 tax cut policy. All of these factors, coupled with this bill essentially being a simple up-or-down vote on the president's agenda, make the likelihood of this bill failing outright very slim.

How much will the "big and beautiful" bill actually cost? That depends on how you calculate it—and where you start counting from. I consulted my colleague Andrew Duehren, who covers tax policy, about this, and he swore that delving into these details is actually quite intriguing. He explained to us the budget "tricks" that Republicans are trying to use to make the numbers look better on paper.

Any budget requires making assumptions about the future. For example, how much will I spend on groceries next month? Am I getting a raise at work? The answers to these questions can help you answer others, like, can I afford this vacation?

Washington works in a similar way, just on a much larger scale. Over time, Republicans and Democrats have come to a set of agreements on assumptions about the future national budget—assuming no additional policy changes. They use this as a baseline to determine if certain policies, such as tax cuts, are affordable.

Senate Republicans want to change how Washington makes these assumptions about the future. For decades, temporary tax policies have been treated as a form of special spending; typically, it is assumed that these tax cuts will expire in the long run, tax revenues will return to their original levels, and government revenue will consequently increase.

But Senate Republicans believe this assumption is wrong. They argue for incorporating the temporary tax policies passed in 2017 into long-term budget assumptions. By redefining these tax cut policies in this way, extending these policies (as they hope to do with this bill) does not seem like additional spending.

This is like thinking that renting a luxury car was just a one-time special expense, but when the lease expires, you don't opt for a cheaper option. Instead, you tell yourself: I always planned to pay a higher car fee, so I can totally rent another luxury car.

Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

Arrival and Departure

The New York Times' latest photojournalist, Haiyun Jiang, has a penchant for capturing photos that can tell a story of power. This week, she accompanied former President Trump to The Hague and captured such a moment.

On Tuesday night, Haiyun joined other photojournalists in waiting for Trump's arrival at Huis ten Bosch, a royal palace where Trump would meet the King and Queen of the Netherlands and stay overnight. These ritualistic, grandiose, and royal-related events are precisely the kind of occasions that Trump relishes.

As Trump arrived in an armored luxury sedan, Haiyun saw a prime opportunity to showcase the president's authority.

“I tried to frame his figure in the car window because I knew the Secret Service agents would open the door for him. I felt this was a way to capture power,” Haiyun told me.

Later, she seized another opportunity. As Haiyun and the other photojournalists were hastily ushered away from the scene, she noticed that the palace guards had begun clearing away the symbols of power.

Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times