Republicans are advancing a significant policy bill designed to promote President Trump’s second-term initiatives, but according to a recent estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation could lead to a $2.4 trillion increase in the deficit over the next decade.
The CBO further projected that by 2034, an additional 10.9 million individuals may lack health insurance due to the legislation’s cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The analysis highlights a concerning scenario where the House-passed bill could reduce federal Medicaid spending by $902 billion, resulting in 7.8 million fewer people enrolled in the program that aids low-income Americans.
House Republicans aim to offset some of this by cutting at least $1.5 trillion in spending while planning to raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion. However, the CBO’s projection indicates that only about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will be achieved, juxtaposed with tax cuts that total nearly $3.7 trillion.
Labeling it the “big, beautiful bill,” Trump and Republican lawmakers have put the package into the hands of the Senate following its passage through the House before Memorial Day. Anticipated changes in the Senate could reshape the bill before it is sent back to the House.
In addition to Medicaid cuts, the proposed legislation would eliminate state-funded insurance for 1.4 million individuals lacking verified citizenship or satisfactory immigration status. The Republican leadership has asserted that the CBO’s findings fail to account for potential economic growth and job creation that they believe will arise from their policies. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise emphasized that the bill could ultimately reduce the deficit when viewed through the lens of historical economic expansion.
Notably, cuts to federal food assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are expected to save over $294 billion in the next decade. These savings would be achieved by requiring states to contribute a share of the costs associated with assisting low-income individuals and families with grocery expenses, while also expanding work requirements.
As these discussions unfold, the long-term impact on vulnerable populations and the effectiveness of projected economic growth continue to draw scrutiny. Though there are assertions of potential economic benefits, the proposed cuts raise significant concerns about their impact on millions who rely on these essential programs.
The outcome of this legislative push remains uncertain, but it serves as a poignant reminder of the ongoing debates over fiscal responsibility, social welfare, and health care in America.