Tangle - What's next for the big beautiful bill?

Episode Date: May 21, 2025

On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump met with House Republicans in a closed-door meeting to urge them to vote in favor of a massive spending bill to advance the president’s legislative agenda. The bill, named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was approved by the House Budget Committee 17–16 largely on party lines on Sunday, with four Republicans voting present. Now, the spending package has moved to the House Rules Committee, which House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) wants to approve the bill as it stands so it can be sent to a floor vote via reconciliation.Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What revisions would you support for this bill? Let us know!Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer, Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Solland. On today's episode, we are talking about the one big beautiful bill Donald Trump and Republicans pushing forward on what could be their marquee legislative achievement of the year, if they can land the plane. We're going to talk about where things are, what's in the bill, what to make of it,

share some views from the left and the right. And then I got my take today, which I would say one of the more pointed takes I've had in a little while because I'm seeing some stuff that's hard not to be frustrated by. So we'll talk more about that in a few, but without further ado, I'm going to hand it over to John Law, executive producer, Tangle Media for today's main topic.

Thanks, Isaac. And welcome, everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, some breaking news. Representative Gerald Connolly, the Democrat from Virginia, died on Wednesday. Connolly was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in November. Number 2. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recalled the top members of Israel's negotiating team from hostage and war talks in Qatar. The United States has reportedly pushed both sides to accept a 45-60-day ceasefire in exchange for the release of

10 living hostages and an unspecified number of imprisoned Palestinians. Separately, the United Kingdom halted trade talks with Israel and announced new sanctions on West Bank settlers in response to Israel's expanded military operation in Gaza. Leaders at the Food and Drug Administration announced the agency would adopt stricter guidelines for approving new COVID-19 vaccines, requiring randomized, controlled trials for approval for healthy children and adults under 65. Number four, a federal judge said the Trump administration's decision to deport a group of migrants to South Sudan on Tuesday may have violated a previous

order and suggested he could hold the administration in contempt of court. Number five, the Senate unanimously passed a bill that would eliminate federal taxes on tips. The bill now goes to the House, where it can be either voted on individually or as part of the larger budget bill. And number six, a spokesperson for former president Joe Biden said Biden's last known screening for prostate cancer was in 2014. Well, it's great to be with you, Lawrence. I will definitely be staying up tonight because I am testifying at that 1 a.m. hearing a great sign as you pointed out that you're attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people is when you schedule a hearing to begin at one o'clock

in the morning. The House Committee is meeting right now as lawmakers dig through the Republicans budget package the one that President Donald Trump calls his big beautiful bill. Past hour we've heard from House Speaker Mike Johnson, who now says the House is aiming for a vote on this. Later today, the president, of course, on Capitol Hill,

trying to rally a splintered House GOP caucus behind the measure, which has big impacts for his domestic agenda. We're not touching anything. All I want is one thing. Three words, we don't want any waste, fraud or abuse. Very simple. Waste, fraud, abuse. Other than that, we're leaving it. On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump met with House Republicans in a closed door meeting

to urge them to vote in favor of a massive spending bill to advance the President's legislative agenda. The bill, named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was approved by the House Budget Committee 17-16 largely on party lines on Sunday, with four Republicans voting present. Now the spending package has moved to the House Rules Committee, which House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to approve the bill as it stands so it can be sent to a floor vote via reconciliation. Republicans are seeking to pass the bill via reconciliation, a legislative process spelled out in the Congressional Budget Act, to expedite

legislature that changes spending, revenues, or federal debt limit. Reconciliation requires the House and Senate to agree on a budget resolution, setting requirements for spending targets that individual committees must meet. Once out of committee, a bill under reconciliation heads to a simple majority floor vote in each chamber, which allows the Senate to bypass the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is currently 1,116 pages long, and it includes an overhaul of tax policy,

increased spending for border security and immigration, work requirements for Medicaid, and more. Features of the proposed tax policy, increased spending for border security and immigration, work requirements for Medicaid, and more. Features of the proposed tax policy include a permanent extension of the 2017 tax cuts, an increase to the standard federal tax deduction, an expansion of the child tax credit, no tax on tips, and a state and local tax deduction increase. If passed, nonpartisan analysts say the spending bill will increase the national debt by about $5 trillion over the next decade. Speaker Johnson said the bill would be modified to appease Republican holdouts who are concerned

about the fiscal impact and are pushing for more cuts to Medicaid and green energy programs. Two of the four budget committee holdouts also sit on the Rules Committee. Representative Ralph Norman from South Carolina said that he planned to vote for the bill in committee as is, while Representative Chip Roy from Texas said he will not. Meanwhile, House Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, which they say will take away benefits and only help the wealthiest Americans. They are literally trying to take health care away from millions of Americans at this very moment in the dead of the night, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Monday.

In the Tuesday meeting on Capitol Hill, President Trump pushed blue state Republicans to accept the bill without increasing the assault deduction and told the gathered Republicans not to approve any changes to Medicaid. We're not touching anything. All I want is one thing. Three words. We don't want any waste, fraud, or abuse," President Trump said ahead of the meeting. If the bill passes the Rules

Committee and the House of Representatives, it will still require 50 Senate votes before it is sent to President Trump for approval. Senate Republicans have signaled their intent to make significant changes to the current version of the House bill. Today, we'll cover what the right and the left are saying about the bill, and then Isaac's tape. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, first up, let's start with what the right is saying. Many on the right support the bill's provisions and criticize the House GOP holdouts. Some suggest those with holding support on salt grounds are undermining President Trump's

agenda. Others worry that the bill does nothing to rein in spending. In the Daily Caller, Jason Lewis wrote about reconciling reconciliation. Much of America is tuned out to the inside baseball over a reconciliation package that aims to preserve existing tax cuts, control federal spending, boost energy supplies, and strengthen border security. But should it fail, the country will start paying attention very quickly," Lewis said. It goes without saying that Democrats want to let the clock run out on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Since many of its provisions expire at the end of the year, no action on the reconciliation bill means a massive tax hike on the American economy. That is, as usual, what liberals desire. Yet what's really threatening the domestic centerpiece of Trump's second term is once again Republicans circling the wagons and shooting inward. Having far less to do with principle and far more to do with self-preservation, GOP moderates on the left and a few Linos, libertarians in name only, on the right, are holding the one big beautiful bill hostage," Lewis wrote.

Getting the tax cut extensions to the president's desk is not a heavy lift, no matter what baseline you're operating off. Indeed, finding modest budget reductions from federal outlays that will total over $54 trillion through 2035 shouldn't be difficult. There are more than enough offsets to comply with pay-go provisions to get the job done. In Blaze Media, Christopher Bedford explained why the GOP is so frustrated trying to negotiate with the SALT caucus. The self-styled SALT caucus lacks formal structure, but its members share a common trait. They all represent deep blue, high-tax states like New York,

New Jersey, and California," Bedford said. The funny thing about the Salt Faction's rejection of a $20,000 hike is they've not provided an actual number that would please them. They've only said that $30,000 is insulting and that without their votes for the president's budget, the caps expire along with Trump's 2017 tax cuts. They'll tell you this fact makes their hands stronger, but the reality is that tax cuts expiring would mean a massive tax hike, and the small number of wealthy but influential citizens who would benefit from no cap would end up paying more in the wash.

If you don't have a proposal, just to demand for more, it's hard to see how you're actually in a caucus at all, unless the salt caucus is just united by opposition to Trump's budget. How for example are they different from the California Republicans who don't want the Congress to talk away former President Joe Biden's energy handouts, or those who want this tax credit or that one, Bedford asked. Don't forget, this whole thing is going to the Senate when the House is finished. Several Republican Senators have signaled they're a no on the House bill right now. And that's fine, because guess what? It's going to be changing.

In National Review, Veronique de Rugy called it the big but not so beautiful bill. The bill has two redeeming features. It extends expiring provisions of the 2017 tax cuts, preventing a major tax hike on working Americans. It also holds the line against Bernie Sanders-style tax increases on high earners and small businesses. But that's where the good news ends, DeRouge wrote. This isn't tax reform. It's a political spending spree wrapped in a tax cut ribbon. There's barely any Medicaid

reform, not even immediate work requirements, and forget about other health care subsidies. Republicans are either capitulating to left-wing talking points or protecting special interests. Everyone in Washington admits it now. We're on a ruinous fiscal path. The national debt is racing past $30 trillion. Annual deficits are nearing $2 trillion. If rates settle closer to 5.5% instead of the CBO's 3.8% forecast, debt service will explode, triggering a vicious cycle of rising deficits, rising interest payments, and rising inflation risk, Durushi said.

And what are Republicans doing in response? Not targeting the $26 trillion in tax expenditures. Not ending wasteful programs. Not repealing open-ended regulatory statutes. Not even trying to claw back Biden's bloated spending. All right, that is it for what the rest of the show is about. I'm your host, David. I'm your host, David. I'm your host, David.

I'm your host, David. I'm your host, David. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. The left criticizes the bill's tax plan as fiscally irresponsible. Some say the GOP's refusal to compromise may doom their effort. Others question whether Republicans can get the bill over the finish line. In the New York Times, Jason Furman called the bill's tax plan more complicated, less fair, and totally unaffordable. There was much to dislike in the package of large and regressive tax cuts

advanced by President Trump in his first term, but I'll give it this. By expanding the standard deduction, it simplified the process of figuring out what you owe, and by cutting the corporate tax rate, it made American businesses more competitive, Furman wrote. The latest effort, which I can think of only as tax deform, is a tremendously expensive effort to make the tax code less efficient, less fair, and more complicated. The House bill is estimated by Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to lower tax revenue by $3.8 trillion over 10 years, but even that eye-popping figure understates

its likely cost. Between now and then, the uncertainty about the outcome would make it harder for businesses to plan and invest, and if the push would succeed, it would bring the total cost of tax cuts to over $5 trillion, Furman said. The consequences for ordinary Americans would be severe. The growing debt would drive up interest rates, forcing families to pay more for mortgages and restricting the funds businesses need to invest and grow.

The United States would depend more on foreign lending, which would swell our trade deficit. All of this would lead to slower economic growth. In the Atlantic, David A. Graham wrote about congressional Republicans versus reality. The Budget Committee voted again on Sunday, and this time advanced the bill, an unusual weekend vote, in which four hardliners agreed to vote present, rather than nay.

Few details have emerged about what exactly had changed to satisfy or at least pacify them, Graham said. But none of the structural contradictions in the bill have gone away. They are, in fact, the bill's essence. Republicans are determined to extend Trump's tax cuts, most of which were set in his first term to expire at the end of 2025. But they are unwilling to raise other taxes, notwithstanding the president's flirtation with a millionaire's tax.

They are also unwilling to really make spending cuts. Though they plan to slash Medicaid, they realize that attacking Medicare and Social Security is politically toxic. The Republican bill still has quite a long way to go before it passes the House, much less the Senate. The fact that Republicans scheduled a Rules Committee vote for 1 a.m. on Wednesday does not suggest a great deal of confidence in either the substance or the viability of the bill.

When markets opened this morning, stocks sank, the dollar was down, and yields on Treasury bonds rose, a sign of dropping confidence in the U.S. government, Graham wrote. Congress is trying to wrangle this while Trump's tariffs have drastically increased the chances of recession, a truth that many of his aides refuse to acknowledge. Reality can be denied, but it always gets the last word. In Slate, Jim Newell asked, Can House Republicans govern? The bigger question before the House GOP this week is one that has been asked of the party

since November's election. Can this majority, with its notoriously vocal factions and historically slim margin for error, function? A significant reason all of this is packed into one bill instead of two or three is that there were doubts about the House's ability to pass multiple pieces of major partisan legislation, Newell said. The centerpiece of the bill is an attempt to permanentize expiring tax cuts from the

GOP's 2017 tax reform law. It also introduces new temporary tax cuts pushed by Trump on overtime and tips while giving seniors a bonus, and it increases spending on defense and border and immigration enforcement. The Senate finds much of what the House is doing to be adorable. Look at them, playing grown-up legislature. The Senate fully intends to sand off the sharp edges of whatever overly aggressive product the House sends its way, and takes great pleasure in doing so. This will certainly be the case on the House's Medicaid cuts, Newell wrote.

Which is to say, so many of the final decisions being made in the House to be more aggressive on various fronts are unlikely to reach the finish line. Their main effect will be to produce more material for House campaign ads next fall. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So in 2017, President Trump passed a tax bill that even according to his critics simplified the tax code and spurred economic growth. Today, the president is steamrolling through Congress a bill that will worsen our debt and deficit. It will cost millions of Americans their health insurance by breaking Trump's promise not

to touch Medicaid, and it will pass tax reforms that benefit the rich more than the poor or middle class. It is, in simple terms, a nearly complete betrayal of his campaign promises. Let's take these issues individually, starting with the debt and deficit. For decades, Republicans have been warning, rightly, that our routine federal deficits are stacking our national debt to insurmountable heights, and yesterday, President Trump called himself the biggest fiscal hawk in Washington. Even some liberal economists have joined the chorus and started to panic about the national debt. In short, the fiscal issue has generated a lot of real urgency.

Well, here's a roundup of how this bill responds to that urgency. The Joint Committee on Taxation says it will increase deficits by $3.8 trillion by 2034. Penn Wharton's budget model projects a 10-year deficit increase of almost $3.3 trillion, even with generous economic assumptions. Moody's rating says that extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts by itself would add $4 trillion to the deficit in the next decade. Typical political language calling these numbers a problem or a small increase or saying we're continuing

the unsustainable path we are on doesn't do the situation justice. If passed, this spending bill would cause the largest legislative increase of the debt and deficit ever. It would be a complete budget buster. And these estimates assume that many of the proposed tax cuts will expire after four years, which is unlikely, or that the economy will be strong, which is unknown. I'll remind you that similar budget models estimated that Trump's 2017 tax cuts would spur growth,

although not enough to pay for themselves, as the Trump administration claimed at the time. Their models were correct. The Trump administration was not. Trump, despite claims he is making this week, has never been a fiscal conservative, and on the campaign trail, he never promised to balance the budget. But he did promise to course correct, reduce waste and fraud, reduce spending, and improve

our fiscal standing. He is not. On the basic numbers, the fiscal reality, this bill provides an insubstantial veneer of budget cuts to accompany a decrease in federal revenue, a basic arithmetic that will spur our debt and deficit dumpster fire to conflagration. I do not want to be hyperbolic. A bill like this, passed as is, takes us perilously close to a debt spiral that has the potential

to upend the U.S. economy. Let me make it more tangible. Consumer interest rates closely track the treasury's rate. So if our debt grows, our interest rates will grow, and you'll pay more for mortgages or credit card debt or any other kind of loan. The federal government will need to spend more money servicing our debt and devote fewer resources to investing in growth or services or infrastructure, which is likely to cause an economic slowdown, which means layoffs and more slowdown and a higher deficit as a percent of GDP,

which also means the legislation is very likely to increase the debt and deficit to a higher degree than economic forecasters are estimating. Next up is Medicaid. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly and overtly promised he would not touch Medicaid. This makes sense. Many of Trump supporters number among the 72 million Americans who rely on Medicaid for health insurance. Just yesterday, Trump again told Republicans unequivocally not to touch Medicaid.

His language was a little more evocative. He claimed he is only going to cut waste and fraud. The waste and fraud doge has such a hard time finding, which, since he's pressing Republicans to pass the bill, as is, invites the question, does he know this bill itself cuts $625 billion in Medicaid spending? Republicans in the House are ramming through reforms that according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office would cause

more than seven million Americans to go uninsured. They nearly did this last week in a mere 72 hours. Trump, who promised that he wouldn't touch the program, is simultaneously asking members of Congress to uphold that promise and pressuring them to pass a bill that would cut more than half a trillion dollars from the program. Finally, there's tax reforms.

Trump has also promised that his administration, and this bill specifically, would take care of those forgotten men and women of America struggling with low wages. He pledged to graciously accept a tax increase for the rich while giving tax cuts to the lower class. Maybe he'll follow through eventually, but this bill, his administration's first real piece of significant legislation, does none of that. It offers no tax increase on any wealthy Americans,

nor does it close any of the many loopholes for wealthy hedge funds and private equity managers that Trump said he would close. Let me make this issue more tangible too. If this bill does indeed get ratified, the 1 million American households with incomes above 1 million dollars a year will pay 96 billion dollars less in taxes in 2027 than they pay right now. More than what the combined savings will be for the 127 million Americans making less than $100,000 a year. On average, it's a tax cut of about $750 per person in the lower and middle class and $82,000 per millionaire earners. That, of course,

is as much a commentary on our vast income inequality as it is on Trump's tax bill. But as a share of income, the tax breaks are larger for the rich than the middle or lower classes. This all just makes clear that he is not doing what he promised. Now, to his credit, Trump successfully mainstreamed no tax on tips to the point that it passed the Senate unanimously last night.

House Republicans also pulled together a higher standard deduction for seniors, which they said they would do. So the nearly complete betrayal of their campaign promises is just that, nearly complete. I just don't know how they can justify all this. None of the above even gets into the reality that the actually named Big Beautiful Bill Act doesn't simplify the tax code, continues the unfair and absurd salt deduction, and is packed with devilish little unrelated provisions like preventing federal courts from enforcing contempt rulings against federal officials. Of course, this isn't over. The bill will go to the Senate and we'll see how much

spine is left in the upper chamber. Populous senators like Josh Hawley have promised not to cut Medicaid. Longtime fiscal hawks like Rand Paul know the reality of the numbers. Senator Tom Tillis doesn't want cuts to renewable energy subsidies. I'm unsure if one or all of them will do anything about it, but I'm also confident this bill, if it passes, isn't the one we'll see signed into law. And for that, we should all, for now, be grateful. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, that is it for my take.

Next up is your questions answered. This one's from Joe in Westmont, Illinois. Joe said, how does Supreme Court decisions come about? Obviously hearings are held and arguments are made, but what about after that? Do the justices go their separate ways to come to their decisions? Do they collaborate as a group, like a jury? Do they discuss in smaller groups,

maybe within their partisan divides? Okay, so this is a great question actually. We've discussed before how cases work their way through the federal judiciary to the Supreme Court, but not what happens after a case makes it to the court. So first, the court hears or arguments. It keeps a surprisingly regimented routine. They discuss Monday cases on Wednesday,

confer over Tuesday and Wednesday cases on Friday, always start their conferences by shaking hands, then always speak in the same order. While the nine justices may discuss the cases before the court with their law clerks, only the court justices may discuss the cases before the court with their law clerks, only the court justices participate in the private conferences. These conferences begin with a discussion of which cases the court should hear, before

getting into the arguments the court has heard that week. Each justice states their current opinion on the case uninterrupted, starting with the chief justice and then proceeding in order of seniority. Then the chief justice calls a vote, which also proceeds by seniority, and then proceeding in order of seniority. Then the Chief Justice calls a vote, which also proceeds by seniority, and then either the Chief Justice, if they're in the majority, or the most senior justice in the majority, selects the person who will write

the court's majority opinion. At this point, the court is only part way to reaching its final decision. The justice authoring the opinion will circulate their draft to the other justices for them to suggest edits, add their concurring or dissenting opinions, and eventually sign on to the final result. These opinions may circulate among the court until the deadline at the end of the court's

term or for unanimous cases. The court's ruling is not final until the written decision is released to the public. Justices may have their minds changed at any point in these deliberations, either in private conference or when considering a written opinion. They confer in private, but outside of that, they can discuss the cases with their colleagues or clerks in whatever manner they choose. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow.

Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar story for today, folks. On Monday, President Trump signed the Take It Down Act, which makes posting real and fake sexually explicit imagery of people online without their consent a federal crime. The law requires social media companies and other websites to remove such images and videos within 48 hours of a victim's request and establishes penalties, including

prison time, for those convicted of intentionally distributing explicit images. Major social media platforms like Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat voiced support for the legislation, though some digital rights groups warned that ambiguities in the law raise free speech concerns. NBC News has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright next up is our numbers section. The current projected federal deficit in fiscal year 2034, assuming the 2017 tax cuts expire, is $2.67 trillion. The projected federal deficit in fiscal year 2034, if the House GOP bill becomes law, is

$2.95 trillion. The estimated number of U.S. taxpayers who used some form of a state and local tax deduction in 2022 was 15 million. The average annual salt deduction before the $10,000 cap was instituted in 2017 was $13,000. The percentage of Americans who say they worry a great or fair amount about federal spending and the budget deficit is 81%, according to a March, 2025 Gallup poll.

The percentage of Americans who say they worry a great or fair amount about federal spending and the budget deficit in March, 2017 was 76%. The percentage of US adults who say tax rates on large businesses and corporations should be raised and lowered respectively is 63% and 19% according to a January-February 2025 Pew Research poll. And the percentage of US adults who say tax rates on household incomes over $400,000 should be raised and lowered respectively is 58% and 19%.

And last but not least our Have a Nice Day story. Chimney Rock Village, a beloved mountain town in North Carolina, was devastated last September by Hurricane Helene. Local and distant communities have rallied to help with over 2,000 volunteers assisting in recovery efforts since the disaster. In particular, an Amish non-profit group in Pennsylvania has played a key role, working every day to rebuild and restore the damaged community. It just fills my heart with joy, watching people get their life back again," one volunteer

said. WCNZ has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off.

Have a great day, y'all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Law. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor, Ari Weitzman, with senior editor, Will K. Back, and associate editors, Hunter Tasperson, Audrey Moorhead, Bailey Saul,

Lindsay Knuth and Kendall White. Music for the podcast was produced by Dyett75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.