No one likes it but it has to pass: Why can't Trump's "big and beautiful bill" be stopped?

Trump calls his signature domestic legislation a "One Big Beautiful Bill", but its path forward has not been smooth.

The bill aims to extend the 2017 tax cuts and pay for these cuts by reducing funding for the social safety net.

In the House, the bill barely passed; in the Senate, it was significantly modified. In recent days, a key Senate official vetoed several provisions of the bill, whose responsibility is to ensure legislators follow budget bill rules, forcing senators to race against time to reinsert some content.

Moreover, as my colleagues Carl Hulse and Catie Edmondson wrote today, no one really likes this bill.

But this is Washington under Trump. Here, such "minor issues" as not knowing the bill's specific contents or lacking enthusiasm may not be enough to prevent Republican senators from voting to support it—possibly even completing the vote this weekend.

I consulted Catie about the tortuous journey of this bill—how it became a policy "hodgepodge", why it makes many Republicans uneasy, and why these issues might not significantly impact its prospects of becoming law.

Republicans are trying to salvage parts that the Senate parliamentarian considers to violate budget bill rules. You've been reporting on congressional affairs since Trump's first administration and have witnessed many legislative "making processes". Is this chaos normal?

To some extent, this is indeed a common phenomenon in the legislative process, with both parties facing similar challenges in the past. For example, when Democrats used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and COVID-19 stimulus plan, the parliamentarian also vetoed important provisions, including proposals to raise the federal minimum wage.

But on the other hand, I do believe this back-and-forth reflects that the legislation has become a policy "hodgepodge", with some content having almost nothing to do with the budget.

The bill includes tax cuts, reductions in Medicaid and nutrition assistance program funding, but also contains provisions to ban state AI regulation, loosen certain gun laws, and sell public lands.

What role is Trump playing? Are his actions—or inaction—exacerbating the chaos?

Yesterday, President Trump lobbied for the bill at the White House, but we haven't yet seen him deeply involved in vote-gathering. The Capitol Hill "game plan" typically is to bring him out in the final stages of a critical vote to suppress the last opponents.

Meanwhile, a recurring dynamic is also happening here: legislators with reservations about the bill call the president to seek his support for their position. President Trump usually tells them he agrees with their view.

This makes it difficult for legislators to understand what he truly wants, as his stance may change during these conversations.

Currently, this is especially evident in the Medicaid issue. Some senators believe the Senate's proposal cuts Medicaid too severely. This includes Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri, who, along with several other senators, brought this concern to the president. Hawley returned saying Trump told them he prefers the House version because it preserves more Medicaid programs.

The Medicaid debate is one of several internal Republican battles around this bill. What other party divisions have been exposed?

The Medicaid issue is part of a broader debate about federal spending cuts. Early in this process, some fiscal conservatives in the House and Senate said they were unwilling to vote for any legislation that would increase the deficit, thus hoping to offset tax cut revenue losses through new spending cuts.

However, this did not happen in either the House or Senate. Both versions would increase the deficit by trillions of dollars. This is clearly not the policy path these fiscal conservatives hoped for when controlling Congress and the White House.

Republicans believe they must pass this legislation because if they do not extend the 2017 tax cuts, everyone's tax burden will increase.

The bill also includes new tax breaks for tips and overtime, something Trump promised during his campaign.

But beyond that, they are essentially maintaining the status quo—the 2017 tax cut policy—while significantly cutting some very popular social welfare programs.

If you're preparing to run for re-election in a politically moderate state or district, you know the Democrats will fiercely attack the bill's Medicaid and food assistance program cuts. Many Republican lawmakers have already heard voters' concerns about this at town hall meetings.

So, do these things we've discussed—the reasons Republicans dislike the bill and their challenges in maintaining its integrity—truly threaten its passage?

I don't think so, although this may complicate their timeline and potentially alter the final bill's specific contents. Since the House passed its version, the bill seems inevitable.

They might pass a bill that brings significant political risk and is loved by no one. Why?

This is a politically risky vote, but it's not serving some grand political ideology, which makes it different from some difficult votes we've seen both parties face in the past. But this is what Trump demands.

I believe there's a widespread feeling within the Republican Party that they might lose the House majority in the midterm elections—which is very likely based on historical trends—meaning their time for passing major legislation is limited.

Moreover, they indeed feel an ideological sense of urgency to continue the tax reduction policy of 2017.

All these factors, coupled with the fact that this bill is essentially a simple vote of approval or opposition to the presidential agenda, make the possibility of the bill's complete failure extremely slim.

How much will the "big and beautiful" bill cost? It depends on how you calculate it—and where you start calculating.

I consulted my colleague Andrew Duehren, who is responsible for tax policy reporting, and he swore that studying these contents is actually quite interesting. He explained the budget "tricks" that the Republican Party is trying to use to make the numbers look better.

Any budget requires making assumptions about the future. For example, how much might I spend on food next month? Will I get a raise at work? The answers to these questions can help you answer other questions, such as: Can I afford this vacation?

Washington operates similarly, only on a much larger scale. For a long time, Republicans and Democrats have reached a consensus on a set of assumptions about the future national budget—assuming no additional policy changes. They use this as a baseline to determine whether certain policies, such as tax cuts, can be afforded.

Senate Republicans want to change how Washington makes these future assumptions. For decades, temporary tax cuts have been viewed as a special expenditure; it is usually assumed that in the long term, these tax cuts will expire, taxes will return to their original levels, and government revenue will increase accordingly.

However, Senate Republicans believe this assumption is incorrect. They argue for incorporating the temporary tax cuts passed in 2017 into long-term budget assumptions. If these tax cuts are redefined in this way, then continuing these policies (as they hope to do through this bill) would not appear as new expenditures.

It's like originally thinking that renting a luxury car is just a short-term special expense, but when the lease expires, instead of choosing a cheaper option, you tell yourself: I always planned to pay higher car fees, so I can definitely rent another luxury car.