A politically explosive week has begun in the Senate for the future of the budget bill nicknamed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the programmatic heart of Donald Trump’s agenda.
First approved by the Senate and then amended by the House of Representatives by a single vote, the bill now returns to the Senate to be scrutinized and honed through the delicate process of budget reconciliation, an extraordinary parliamentary procedure that allows for approval by a simple majority, thus avoiding a Democratic filibuster.
But while reconciliation promises to be an advantage for the Republican majority in numerical terms, there are numerous procedural and political pitfalls. Starting with the Byrd Rule, a seemingly technical but actually very powerful rule that requires every provision in the bill to be directly related to federal spending or revenue. Any “extraneous” element can be expunged by Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, whose technical judgment is not binding but politically very difficult to ignore, and who has already set to work.
One of the most controversial parts of the package is likely to fall under this scrutiny: the revision of the REINS Act, a rule designed to strengthen Congress’s power over federal regulations, which in the new version would instead be profoundly distorted. The proposal included in the “Big Beautiful Bill” would remove Congress’s ability to block federal regulations with significant economic impact, giving the executive branch complete discretion over many administrative and fiscal decisions. If MacDonough were to judge this element irrelevant to the budget, it could be excluded from the final text.
But it is not just the procedure that is heating up the atmosphere. The content of the bill itself deeply divides the Republican Party. Several senators have already expressed reservations or open opposition to two of the plan’s pillars: raising the spending cap and cutting the Medicaid healthcare program. Libertarian Senator Rand Paul has said he is opposed to any increase in public spending, while moderate Susan Collins has declared her opposition to cuts to healthcare services. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is of the same opinion. Senator Josh Hawley, in turn, reported that during a phone call with Trump, the president himself admitted that “whoever cuts Medicaid loses the election.”
But criticism also came from the fiscal right. Ron Johnson and Mike Lee said the proposal does not do enough to reduce public spending and they are opposed to raising the spending cap, while Rick Scott called for even more drastic cuts. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, on the other hand, criticized the removal of clean energy tax credits, arguing that many of those subsidies have a positive impact on economic growth. In short, the Republican coalition is split into at least three factions: fiscal hawks, populists attentive to popular consensus, and institutional moderates.
On the operational front, the committees have already begun their work. Today, the Armed Services Committee met to examine the House version. On Wednesday, it will be the turn of the Public Works and Environment Committee, on Thursday it will be the Commerce Committee, and finally on Friday, the Finance Committee will tackle the most sensitive issue: cuts to Medicaid.
Another crucial unknown concerns the data promised by the Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, the agency created to identify waste and streamline federal spending. Its work, entrusted to Elon Musk in an operation that was as political as it was symbolic, was to serve as the basis for many of the allocations provided for in the bill. However, to date, DOGE has not yet published any official reports, making it difficult to quantify the impact of the savings on which part of the budget is based.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that an increase in the debt ceiling must be approved by mid-July to avoid turmoil in the financial markets. Wall Street, in fact, is watching the situation with growing concern: the fluctuations in the S&P 500 index in recent days reflect uncertainty about a move that could have significant repercussions on the federal deficit.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune reiterated that the goal is to get to a vote before July 4, but also admitted that “there are still many unresolved issues.” In a meeting at the White House, he warned Trump that the majority’s hold is fragile and that forcing the issue could backfire. House Speaker Mike Johnson, despite managing to pass the bill by a single vote, urged caution, aware that even a small setback in the Senate could sink the entire bill.
Next week will be decisive. If Republicans can find an internal compromise, they could achieve a significant legislative victory. But if tensions are not resolved, the “Big Beautiful Bill” risks turning into a political defeat for the entire majority.
