The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA; OBBB), or the Big Beautiful Bill, is a proposed budget reconciliation bill in the 119th United States Congress. OBBBA passed the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025, in a largely party-line vote of 215–214–1. An amended version passed the Senate on July 1, 2025, in another largely party-line 51–50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.
OBBBA would extend the major provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. It would reduce non-military government spending and would add stricter eligibility requirements for Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) resulting in a reduction in the overall amount spent on said programs. It would also allocate an additional $150 billion for defense spending; scale back many of the Inflation Reduction Act's clean-energy tax credits; extend the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, which is also scheduled to expire in 2025; and increase the SALT deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000. 
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that OBBBA would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt of the United States by 2034 and would cause 10.9 million Americans to lose health insurance coverage. This number has been disputed by multiple Republican Party members, including House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Donald Trump. The CBO later raised the estimated increase in the budget deficit to $2.8 trillion. Some experts have argued that the bill would create the largest upward transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in American history. According to a Pew Research poll, 49% of Americans oppose the bill, 29% are in favor of the bill, and 21% are unsure.
Background.
Following the 2024 United States elections, in which the Republican Party retained the House of Representatives and won the Senate, Republicans began negotiations on passing then-president-elect Donald Trump's domestic policies. In a meeting with Senate Republicans in December 2024, Senate majority leader John Thune outlined an approach involving initial legislation on border security, energy production, and the military while reserving tax policy. Trump, in contrast, advocated for a singular bill to resolve an impending lapse in tax cuts implemented in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, though the strategy faced risks from defecting members. 
In January 2025, Republicans met in Fort Lesley J. McNair; at the meeting, speaker of the House Mike Johnson stated that Trump sought "one big, beautiful bill" to enact his policies. To more easily pass the bill, Republicans chose to use the reconciliation process, which allows them to avoid the 60-vote Senate filibuster (since they hold 53 seats out of 100 in the Senate). It requires the House and the Senate to pass identical instructions before passing the actual reconciliation bill.
Provisions.
The Senate-passed bill is projected to cut approximately $4.46 trillion in tax revenue over a 10-year period.
The defense portion of the bill would allocate an additional $150 billion in defense spending. This includes $29 billion for shipbuilding, $25 billion for a proposed "Golden Dome" missile defense system, $25 billion for munitions, $16 billion for military innovation and artificial intelligence, including money for kamikaze drones, uncrewed aircraft systems, drone boats, and underwater drones, $15 billion for nuclear deterrence, $12 billion for improving military operations in the Indo-Pacific region, and $25 billion in various infrastructure and housing improvements. 
The bill includes $170 billion for spending on border security, creating the capacity to deport up to one million people each year. 
The bill would establish a $100 annual fee to apply for asylum, down from $1,000 in the House bill, a $550 fee to apply for employment authorization for asylum seekers and migrants on humanitarian parole or temporary protected status, and a $500 fee to apply for temporary protected status. It would also increase fees for nonimmigrant visas to $250.
The bill would cut over $1.2 trillion in federal spending, primarily from Medicaid.
The bill contains the following additional provisions:
Provisions removed.
The following provisions were at one point included in the bill, but were removed.
Additionally, many provisions in the House bill were removed to comply with the Byrd rule in the Senate. These included:
Legislative history.
Budget framework negotiations.
Initially, on February 21, 2025, the Senate approved S. Con. Res. 7 by 52–48. This was intended to be the first of two reconciliation instruction bills. The resolution allows for a future reconciliation bill containing $175 billion for immigration and border enforcement and increases the military budget by $150 billion. The resolution would not extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to oppose the resolution. Initially, the Senate intended to allow the House to pass reconciliation instructions first. However, at the time of the bill's passage, the House faced opposition to its one-bill approach from fiscally conservative members.
On February 25, 2025, the House of Representatives approved H. Con. Res 14 by a 217–215 vote. The resolution would allow Republicans to pass a budget containing tax cuts while reducing federal spending. The resolution would also allow Congress to raise the debt limit by $4 trillion. The resolution was briefly pulled due to opposition from fiscally conservative Republicans Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Victoria Spartz of Indiana. However, leadership convinced all but Massie to support the resolution, and the vote happened as scheduled. Initially, some moderate Republicans also expressed opposition over the possibility that the resolution would necessitate cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Massie was the only House Republican to vote against the resolution.
In the early hours of April 5, 2025, the Senate approved an amended version of H. Con. Res 14 by a 51–48 vote. Unlike the House budget resolution, the Senate budget resolution calls for $4 billion in spending cuts; this amount is significantly lower than the $1.5 trillion in cuts called for by the House. The Senate resolution also calls for a $5 trillion raise in the debt limit ($1 trillion more than the House resolution). The House and the Senate resolutions would each extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky joined all Democratic senators in opposing the resolution. After the vote, "Reuters" reported that non-partisan analysts believe that the resolution, if enacted as currently written, would add $5.7 trillion to the national debt of the United States over the next 10 years. Republicans argue that the extension of the 2017 tax cuts, which expire at the year's end, should not be counted as new debt, which means that only $1.5 trillion would be added to the national debt over the next 10 years.
The House had to pass the Senate's amended resolution to continue the reconciliation process. House Republican leadership intended to vote on the resolution on April 9. However, the resolution was pulled due to opposition from 12 fiscally conservative Republicans. The resolution passed the following morning in a 215–214 vote after the Senate pledged also to seek at least $1.5 trillion in cuts. Fiscally conservative Republicans Thomas Massie and Victoria Spartz were the only members of their party to vote against the resolution.
First House passage.
Following markups by various House committees on their relevant portions of the bill, the House Budget Committee met on May 16, 2025 to combine the various markups into a single reconciliation bill. However, fiscally conservative Republicans opposed the bill over a desire for greater spending cuts, and the bill was rejected in a 21-16 vote, with Representatives Chip Roy of Texas, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, and Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma joining all Democratic committee members to vote against the bill. Republican Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania changed his vote from yes to no so that he would be allowed to bring a motion to reconsider the bill at a later time. However, on May 18, 2025, the Budget Committee voted to advance the bill in a 17–16 vote. Reps. Roy, Norman, Clyde, and Brecheen changed their votes to present after House Republican leadership agreed to make Medicaid work requirements—previously scheduled to begin in 2029—kick in sooner and decrease future subsidies for clean energy. Despite this, the four Republicans said they would not support the bill's final passage unless more changes were made. Republicans did not secure these votes until May 21, when the bill was amended.
On the morning of May 22, 2025, the United States House of Representatives passed OBBBA by a vote of 215–214–1, mostly along party-lines. Fiscally conservative Republicans Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson broke from their party to vote against the bill, while Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris of Maryland voted present. Republican Reps. David Schweikert of Arizona and Andrew Garbarino of New York did not vote on the measure. House Democrats unanimously opposed OBBBA.
On June 10, 2025, Republicans announced that they would amend OBBBA through a procedural rule. By using a procedural rule to amend the bill, Republicans voting against amendments would also be voting against consideration of other, unrelated bills. The rule passed by a 213–207 vote, with Thomas Massie being the only present Republican to vote against the rule.
Democratic reaction.
The narrow passage of OBBBA led to internal backlash and division in the Democratic Party. Three elderly Democratic representatives (Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, age 77; Sylvester Turner of Texas, age 70; and Gerry Connolly of Virginia, age 75) died in the first five months of 2025. If any of the three had been alive when the vote was taken, the result of the vote could have been different. Thus, the vote "quickly reignited an intraparty debate about gerontocracy and aging politicians clinging to power".
Senate passage.
Following the House passage of OBBBA, the bill moved to the Senate for consideration.
The Republican-led Senate amended the bill. Fiscally conservative Republican Senators (nicknamed "deficit hawks") such as Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, have pushed for deeper spending cuts. Moderate Republicans such as Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Jerry Moran of Kansas, along with populist Josh Hawley of Missouri, have expressed concerns about Medicaid cuts. Other moderates such as John Curtis of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, along with Murkowski and Moran, have also expressed concerns over the end of green energy tax credits. Defense hawks such as Mike Rounds of South Dakota are opposed to spectrum auction provisions in the bill.
Democrats in the Senate sought to use the Byrd Rule, which prevents reconciliation from being used to pass "extraneous" measures in bills which increase federal spending in the Senate, in order to strip certain provisions from the bill. Democrats argued that the extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, a proposed 10-year ban on state level AI regulations, language that limits the power of federal court to enforce contempt of court citations, a provision to end a tax on the manufacturing of gun silencers, a provision to defund Planned Parenthood, a provision banning Medicaid from funding gender-affirming care for people of all ages and a provision to streamline permits for fossil fuel projects, violated the Byrd Rule. 
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has set a goal of passing the Senate's version of OBBBA by July 4, 2025.
On June 20, 2025, the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that several provisions from the Senate committees on Banking, Environment and Public Works, and Armed Services violated the Byrd Rule and could not be included in a 50-vote reconciliation bill. The bill will no longer be able to include a funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, $1.4 billion in pay cuts to Federal Reserve staff, a $293 million cut in funding for the Office of Financial Research, the elimination of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a repeal of portions of the Inflation Reduction Act, a repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency's "multipollutant emissions standards" for certain vehicles built after the 2026 model year, and a provision to cut funding for the Department of Defense if spending requests are not made on time. By June 24, the Parliamentarian also ruled against a provision that would make it harder for a plaintiff to sue in order to impose injunctions or restraining orders against the federal government, a provision allowing states to conduct enforcement at the United States border, a provision forcing the United States Postal Service to sell electric vehicles, the REINS Act, a provision to allow developers to bypass environmental review by paying a fee, and a provision forcing states to pay at least 5% of SNAP costs. By June 27, the Parliamentarian had ruled against a provision to remove taxes on gun silencers and against a provision to expand Pell grants for short term training programs for workforces.
On June 28, the Senate voted on a procedural motion to begin debate on the bill. Initially, fiscal conservatives Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, along with moderate Thom Tillis, voted against the motion, while fiscal conservatives Rick Scott, Mike Lee and Cynthia Lummis, as well as moderate Lisa Murkowski, withheld their votes. After hours of negotiations, which resulted in Alaska specific provisions for Murkowski and Republican leadership support for an amendment vote that would result in increased Medicaid cuts targeted at the fiscal conservatives, Johnson, Scott, Lee, Lummis and Murkowski voted for the motion. The passage of the motion to proceed began the "vote-a-rama" process, in which senators can propose an unlimited number of amendments to the bill. However, before it could begin, Democrats required the clerks of the Senate to read the entire 940 page bill in order to highlight Medicaid cuts. The vote-a-rama began two days later, on June 30, in the early morning. One of the few successful amendment votes, passing 99–1, removed the proposed AI law moratorium. The vote-a-rama set a record for the most amendment votes in Senate history.
After an over 24-hour vote-a-rama, the bill passed the Senate on July 1, 2025, in a mostly party-line 51–50 vote. Republicans Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, and Susan Collins of Maine broke from their party to vote against the bill. This required Republican Vice President and President of the United States Senate, JD Vance, to provide the tie-breaking vote.
Second House vote.
The House of Representatives needs to pass the Senate version of the OBBBA for the bill to become law. President Trump, Speaker Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader Thune have urged the House to not amend the bill a second time. However, House Republican moderates such as David Valadao of California, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, and Young Kim, who are against Medicaid cuts, Nick LaLota of New York, who is against SALT changes, and fiscal conservatives such as Chip Roy and Keith Self of Texas, who oppose federal deficit increases, have already expressed opposition to the bill in its current form.
Impact.
According to the CBO, OBBBA would add $2.619 trillion to the federal government's $36.2 trillion debt over the next 10 years.
Reception.
Support.
According to the White House, 266 organizations, companies, and individuals have expressed public support for the bill, including AT&T, Comcast, 3M, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, the National Retail Federation, the National Taxpayers Union, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
Opposition.
According to a survey by KFF Health Tracking, nearly two-thirds (64%) of the public has unfavorable views of the OBBBA version passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.
"The Atlantic", CNBC, "The New York Times", and "Vox" argued that the bill would create the largest upward transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in American history, with "Fortune" and CNN nicknaming it the "Reverse Robin Hood Bill". Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) mockingly called the bill the "We're All Going to Die Act", alluding to comments made by Republican Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) at a town hall.
Public health and policy researchers at Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania sent a letter to Senate leaders warning that cuts to health programs in the bill would lead to over 51,000 preventable deaths annually.
The nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation found that the bill’s efforts to dismantle clean energy incentives would cost more than 830,000 jobs across the country. Cutting clean energy incentives would also raise energy costs for households, with wholesale power prices rising by roughly 50 percent by 2035 due to the loss of new generation capacity.  
Moody's, which rates bonds, was the final of the three credit rating agencies to downgrade U.S. debt from AAA, citing efforts to pass the bill.
Polling indicates that an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed its provisions to ban state regulation of artificial intelligence. The provision was seen as irresponsible by researchers who believe that artificial superintelligence is imminent. Others feared that it would prevent regulation of AI-generated child pornography and deepfakes, make certain privacy laws obsolete, and further centralize power in the federal government. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) stated that she would vote against the bill if it returned to the House with the restrictions on AI legislation. 
Elon Musk, then-"de facto" head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), denounced the bill as a massive spending bill; he later called it a "disgusting abomination." Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT) backed Musk's criticism over the bill, with Lee writing that "the Senate must make this bill better". Republican opposition to the bill has been associated with the libertarian faction of the party. As Rand Paul backed Musk's criticism of the bill, others have criticized Paul's Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee proposals for requiring new federal employees to be required to pay a higher FERS contribution rate if they opt for Title 5 benefits while "at will" employees would pay a lower FERS contribution rate. The concern is that the increase in the number of at-will federal employees could allow the president to eliminate a large number of employees for any reason. The bill is credited with starting a public feud between Musk and Trump.
John Hatton, staff vice president for policy and programs at National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), warned about the following:It would tax retirement benefits, creating a 5% pay cut for somebody under the system, while also undermining the merit-based civil service by having an additional 5% cut if you decide to retain those merit-based civil service protections. Those protections don’t exist for the purpose of the employee — they exist to protect against politically based firings of federal employees.American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National President Everett Kelley stated that:This so-called reconciliation bill is in fact a big retaliation bill—retaliation against AFGE and other unions for successfully standing up for our members and fighting this administration’s illegal attempts to obliterate our federal agencies and the patriotic civil servants who run our federal programs. These provisions represent a direct assault on federal employees and their labor unions and will make it that much harder for federal agencies to recruit and retain the qualified employees they desperately need to serve the American public.The 2001 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Joseph Stiglitz, was asked about the OBBBA in an interview with Swiss Radio and Television (SRF) as to how he would describe the legislation, to which he had replied:Outrageous. It exacerbates inequality and social division – one of the main problems of the USA. It deprives vulnerable groups of access to health care. Life expectancy is already declining, and the health differences between rich and poor are enormous. This law exacerbates this.
On June 28, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said of the Senate version of the bill:Although we have not produced a full estimate of the bill, it appears to add roughly $4 trillion to the debt through 2034, including interest – which is roughly $1 trillion higher than the House-passed version of the bill. That cost could rise above $5 trillion if temporary provisions were made permanent.
Also, on June 28, the CRFB also published an analysis concluding that the latest Senate reconciliation bill may violate House reconciliation instruction by more than $500 billion.