The ‘Big Beautiful Bill’: A Pathway to Prosperity or a Mountain of Debt?

The One Big Beautiful Bill: An In-Depth Analysis of a Transformative Legislative Act

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), signed into law on July 4, 2025, represents one of the most ambitious and polarizing legislative undertakings in recent American history.¹ This 887-page omnibus bill serves as the legislative centerpiece of the second Trump administration, weaving together vast tax cuts, a fundamental re-engineering of the nation’s social safety net, and a massive reallocation of federal resources toward national security and immigration enforcement.²

This investigative article will provide a politically neutral analysis of the OBBBA. It will dissect the bill’s complex architecture, chart the political machinations that enabled its passage, weigh the competing economic forecasts, and assess the tangible impacts on American households. A special focus will be dedicated to the bill’s profound, and often contradictory, implications for the nation’s ongoing struggle with addiction.

The OBBBA is more than a budget reconciliation law; it is the codification of a distinct political and economic philosophy. This report will illuminate the core tenets of that philosophy and the ideological fault lines it exposes in American society.

The Architecture of the Act

The OBBBA is a sprawling piece of legislation that reorders significant portions of the U.S. tax code, federal spending priorities, and regulatory landscape. Its provisions can be understood through four key pillars of policy.

The Tax Revolution – Permanence and Populist Appeals

The bill’s tax provisions are its financial core, containing approximately $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over ten years.³ These changes blend permanent structural reforms favored by conservatives with temporary, populist tax breaks.

The central tax feature is the permanent extension of the individual and business tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which were set to expire at the end of 2025. This makes permanent the lower individual income tax rates and brackets that have been in place since the first Trump administration.¹ For businesses, the bill makes permanent or restores key provisions designed to encourage investment, such as allowing companies to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research and development (R&D).⁴ It also makes the 20% pass-through deduction for small businesses (under Section 199A) permanent and expands it to 23%.⁷

Alongside these permanent changes, the bill introduces several new, temporary tax deductions aimed at working- and middle-class voters. These include deductions for tip income (up to $25,000), overtime pay, and interest on some auto loans, all of which are set to expire in 2028.¹ This structure—making pro-business tax cuts permanent while making populist tax breaks temporary—is not an arbitrary collection of policies. It is a calculated legislative strategy. By setting popular provisions to expire, the bill’s official 10-year cost as scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is reduced. This creates a “fiscal cliff” several years down the line, setting up a future political battle where Congress will face immense pressure to extend the popular but temporary tax breaks, thereby masking the true long-term fiscal impact of the policies.⁹

For families and seniors, the bill permanently increases the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $2,200 per child. However, the refundable portion of the credit, which is what allows the lowest-income families to receive the benefit, is not increased, meaning the full benefit does not extend to them.¹ It also creates a new $6,000 deduction for older adults earning less than $75,000 annually, a gesture toward the administration’s pledge to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits.³ A key provision secured to win votes from lawmakers in high-tax states, the bill temporarily quadruples the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years for taxpayers with incomes under $500,000.¹

To partially offset these costs, the bill includes a 1% tax on remittances (money sent abroad by individuals) and a new tax on the investment income of large private university endowments.¹ It also establishes “Trump Accounts,” a new tax-deferred child savings program seeded with a government deposit.¹

The Social Safety Net – Reshaping Medicaid and SNAP

The OBBBA enacts a fundamental reshaping of the nation’s two largest safety-net programs, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. The changes represent what the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) calls the “largest cut in the program’s history”.¹³ The White House disputes the term “cuts,” arguing instead that the reforms “protect and strengthen” these programs by eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” and refocusing resources on the “truly vulnerable,” defined as pregnant women, children, seniors, and people with disabilities.¹⁰

These changes go beyond simple budget adjustments; they represent a deliberate philosophical shift in the social contract. The administration’s own language about restoring the “dignity of work” and ending abuse by “able-bodied adults” signals a move away from an entitlement-based system toward one where benefits are contingent on work.¹⁰ The bill mandates that states impose strict work requirements, compelling “able-bodied” adults to document at least 80 hours per month of work, volunteering, or job training to maintain their Medicaid and SNAP benefits.⁵ The Senate version of the bill expanded this requirement to parents of children over the age of 13.¹³

In addition to work requirements, the bill introduces a series of new administrative hurdles that critics have labeled “sludge” designed to increase “friction” and reduce enrollment.¹³ These include requiring Medicaid expansion enrollees to re-verify their eligibility every six months instead of annually and eliminating automatic re-enrollment procedures for many beneficiaries.¹³ These measures are not primarily designed to save money on a per-person basis but to reduce the total number of people on the rolls by making the programs harder to access and stay on. This approach is a deliberate effort to narrow the scope of these programs and make access conditional on specific behaviors for a large segment of the low-income population.

For SNAP, the bill enacts a major structural change. Historically a fully federally funded program, the OBBBA will now require states to share in the cost of benefits if their payment error rate exceeds 6%.⁵ The administration argues this promotes responsibility and restores SNAP to its original mission as “temporary help” for those in tough times.¹⁰

“Peace Through Strength” – Funding Defense and the Border

The bill allocates approximately $350 billion in new spending for national defense and immigration enforcement, reflecting the administration’s “Peace Through Strength” agenda.³

A massive funding injection is directed at immigration and border security. This includes over $46 billion for the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and $45 billion to expand migrant detention capacity to 100,000 beds. The bill funds the hiring of 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, offering $10,000 signing bonuses, with the stated goal of facilitating the deportation of up to 1 million people per year.⁴ This spending is partially offset by new fees on immigrants, including a $100 fee for those seeking asylum.⁵

The Pentagon receives billions for shipbuilding, modernizing munitions systems, and improving quality of life for service members. A signature priority is the $25 billion allocated for the development of the “Golden Dome” missile defense system.⁴

Energy and Environment – Reversing the Green Agenda

The OBBBA systematically rolls back many of the clean energy initiatives enacted in the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles, the installation of home energy efficiency upgrades, and the development of renewable energy projects from wind and solar are either phased out or eliminated entirely.¹ The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, notes this rollback raises about $517 billion in revenue and is a “commendable,” though partial, repeal of what it terms “distortionary tax preferences”.⁹

In contrast, the bill actively promotes fossil fuels. A new 2.5% tax credit is established for metallurgical coal, which is used in steelmaking.¹

The Political Battlefield – How the Bill Became Law

The passage of the OBBBA was a feat of political maneuvering, party discipline, and legislative strategy, accomplished against unified Democratic opposition and with razor-thin Republican majorities.

The bill’s success was fundamentally enabled by the Republican “trifecta”—control of the White House, the House, and the Senate. This allowed the use of the budget reconciliation process, a procedural tool that bypasses the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold and allows a bill to pass with a simple majority. This meant that no Democratic support was necessary.²

President Trump’s personal investment and immense pressure on lawmakers were critical. He set a firm July 4th deadline, and with most of his vocal Republican critics having retired or lost re-election, a highly loyal congressional party made his priority its own.² The political fate of Senator Thom Tillis, who announced his retirement shortly after opposing the bill and drawing Trump’s public ire, served as a powerful example to any potential dissenters.²

This loyalty was tested by the narrow majorities in both chambers. The bill passed the House by a single vote, 218-214, and required a tie-breaking vote from the Vice President to pass the Senate.¹⁸ This placed enormous pressure on House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who ultimately delivered the victory for the White House.² To secure the necessary votes from skeptical Republicans worried about the bill’s impact on the national debt and its cuts to popular programs, leadership engaged in significant deal-making. Key concessions included quadrupling the SALT deduction cap to win over New York Republicans, adding a $50 billion fund for rural hospitals to appease senators from rural states, and providing specific carve-outs for Alaska to secure the crucial vote of Senator Lisa Murkowski.²

The legislative strategy for the bill’s healthcare provisions appears to have been directly shaped by the lessons learned from the failed 2017 attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with the American Health Care Act (AHCA). The 2017 AHCA was a direct, full-frontal assault on the ACA that failed publicly and spectacularly, partly due to widespread backlash against the prospect of millions losing insurance coverage.² The OBBBA takes a more subtle approach. It avoids a direct repeal of the ACA’s most popular elements, like protections for pre-existing conditions.²¹ Instead, it pursues what critics call a “functional repeal” or a “dismantling piece-by-piece” of the ACA’s coverage expansions.²¹ It does this by making Medicaid and ACA Marketplace coverage harder to obtain and maintain through new administrative burdens and funding changes. This strategy is politically more sophisticated, as it shifts the potential blame for coverage losses from a single, high-profile congressional vote to a more diffuse, bureaucratic process administered at the state level.²¹

Lacking the votes to stop the legislation, Democrats focused on highlighting its unpopularity and using procedural tactics to delay its passage. They argued the bill was a giveaway to the wealthy financed by cuts to programs for the poor and vulnerable.⁵ Their strategy included forcing a nearly 16-hour reading of the entire 887-page bill on the Senate floor, betting that the cuts to Medicaid and SNAP will become a potent political issue in the 2026 midterm elections.²

Dueling Visions – Economic and Fiscal Consequences

The debate over the OBBBA’s economic and fiscal impact exposes a fundamental divide in economic philosophy, resulting in starkly different projections from government bodies and independent think tanks.

The Pro-Growth Argument (The Right’s Perspective)

Proponents argue that the bill will unleash a wave of economic growth. The President’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) projects massive benefits, including a 4.6% to 4.9% increase in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a 7.3% to 10.2% surge in investment, and a boost in annual after-tax pay for a typical family of up to $10,900.²³ The CEA contends that this “extraordinary growth,” when combined with deregulation, will generate trillions in new tax revenue, leading to significant deficit reduction compared to the CBO’s baseline forecast.¹⁰

The right-leaning Tax Foundation offers a more moderate pro-growth analysis. Its model projects the final Senate bill will increase long-run GDP by 1.2% and create over 900,000 full-time equivalent jobs.²⁴ The Tax Foundation identifies permanent full expensing for business investment as the most potent pro-growth provision.⁹ However, it also acknowledges that the bill adds to the national debt and contains numerous “political gimmicks and carveouts” that are not economically efficient.¹² The conservative Heritage Foundation supports making the 2017 tax cuts permanent but criticizes specific provisions like the expanded SALT deduction, which it views as a $377 billion subsidy for high-tax states that produces little economic growth.⁶

The Deficit and Inequality Concerns (The Left’s and Center’s Perspective)

Critics and non-partisan analysts project a far more troubling fiscal and social outcome. The official, non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the OBBBA will add between $2.8 trillion and $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.¹

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities describes the bill as causing “widespread harm” by financing massive tax cuts for the wealthy with cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.¹³ Their analysis suggests that up to 14.4 million people are at risk of losing Medicaid due to the work requirements alone.¹³ The non-partisan Tax Policy Center (TPC) projects that the bill’s tax cuts are highly regressive. In its first year, the TPC estimates the lowest quintile of earners will receive an average tax break of $150, while the middle quintile gets $1,750 and the top quintile receives $10,950.³ The TPC, along with the Penn Wharton Budget Model, projects only modest GDP growth, far below the administration’s optimistic forecasts.²⁵

The vast gulf between these projections is not merely a matter of political opinion but stems from a fundamental disagreement over economic modeling. The CBO and TPC primarily use “static” scoring, which assumes that tax changes have minimal feedback effects on the broader economy. Their projections of a multi-trillion-dollar deficit increase reflect this conservative assumption.¹ In contrast, the White House CEA and the Tax Foundation rely heavily on “dynamic” scoring, which assumes that tax cuts will significantly boost economic growth, thereby generating new tax revenue that partially offsets the initial cost. The CEA claims this growth will offset trillions in deficits, while the Tax Foundation projects a more modest 19% to 22% offset.²³ Critics have labeled this reliance on dynamic effects “magic math” or an “accounting gimmick,” arguing it is an attempt to ignore the true cost of unpaid-for tax cuts.⁴ This debate over the OBBBA’s fiscal impact is, in essence, a proxy war over economic ideology, fought through the technicalities of econometric models.

Metric (10-Year Projection)	Congressional Budget Office (CBO)	White House (CEA)	Tax Foundation	Tax Policy Center / Penn Wharton
Long-Run GDP Impact	0.4% ²⁵	+4.6% to 4.9% ²³	+1.2% ²⁴	+0.7% to 0.8% ²⁵
10-Year Deficit Impact	+$2.8T to $3.3T ¹	Deficit Reduction (due to growth offsets) ²³	+$3.0T (Dynamic) ²⁴	+$2.5T (Conventional) ²⁵
Uninsured Population Change	+10.9M to 11.8M ¹	N/A	N/A	N/A

Note: Figures represent analyses of different versions of the bill (House/Senate) and use varying methodologies (conventional vs. dynamic). This table provides a general comparison of the divergent analytical conclusions.

The Human Impact – Health Coverage and Household Finances

Beyond the abstract numbers, the OBBBA’s provisions are projected to have profound and direct consequences for the health and financial stability of millions of American families.

The Future of Health Insurance – The ACA Under Pressure

Independent analyses project that the OBBBA, combined with the expiration of enhanced ACA subsidies at the end of 2025, will trigger a dramatic increase in the number of uninsured Americans. The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates a total increase of about 17 million people, which would represent the “biggest roll back of health insurance coverage ever due to federal policy changes”.²⁸ The CBO projects that the bill’s provisions alone will cause 10.9 to 11.8 million people to lose coverage by 2034.¹

This projected loss of coverage stems from several key mechanisms. The CBO attributes 7.8 million of the losses to the changes in Medicaid, with 5.2 million resulting from the new work requirements and another 2.2 million from other provisions like the mandated six-month eligibility re-verifications.¹³ Another 3 million are projected to lose coverage from the ACA Marketplaces due to new administrative hurdles, a shortened open enrollment period, and the elimination of special enrollment periods that help low-income individuals sign up for plans throughout the year.¹⁵

Projected Change in Uninsured Americans by 2034 Under OBBBA and Related Policies
Cause of Uninsurance	Projected Number Losing Coverage
Medicaid Work Requirements	5.2 million ¹³
Other Medicaid Provisions (e.g., frequent redeterminations)	2.2 million ¹⁶
ACA Marketplace Provisions in OBBBA	3.1 million ²⁹
Expiration of Enhanced ACA Subsidies	4.2 million ²⁹
Total Projected Increase (approx.)	~17 million ²⁸

Sources: Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). Numbers are estimates and may overlap or interact.

For those who manage to keep their insurance, costs are expected to rise significantly. An analysis by the Center for American Progress estimates that a 60-year-old couple earning $85,000 per year on an ACA marketplace plan could see their annual premiums increase by more than $15,000 if the enhanced subsidies expire as scheduled.³¹

The Financial Strain on Low-Income Families

The bill’s impact is projected to fall heaviest on low-income households. The CBO’s distributional analysis of the House version concluded that the legislation would cost the poorest 20% of households an average of $1,600 per year, primarily due to the loss of benefits from Medicaid and food aid.⁴

The new work requirements and state cost-sharing provisions for SNAP are projected to result in 3 million people losing their food assistance benefits.⁴ This is expected to increase rates of food insecurity and place a severe strain on the resources of local food banks and charities.³² Furthermore, while the bill increases the Child Tax Credit to $2,200, the failure to also increase the refundable portion means that the lowest-income families—those with little to no federal income tax liability—will not receive the full benefit of the increase, limiting its poverty-reduction impact.¹

Special Investigation – The Collision of Addiction Policy and Fiscal Policy

The OBBBA arrives at a critical moment in the nation’s fight against the addiction and overdose crisis. The bill’s provisions create a stark and revealing paradox, simultaneously strengthening one aspect of the anti-drug effort while potentially crippling another.

The ACA’s Critical Role in the Opioid Crisis

Prior to the OBBBA, the Affordable Care Act had become the financial and structural cornerstone of the public health response to the addiction crisis. By mandating that substance use disorder (SUD) services be included as an Essential Health Benefit and by allowing states to expand their Medicaid programs, the ACA transformed Medicaid into the single largest payer for behavioral health and SUD treatment in the United States.³³

The impact of this transformation is well-documented. Multiple studies show that Medicaid expansion is directly associated with declines in opioid overdoses and heroin-related mortality, primarily by increasing access to life-saving Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) like buprenorphine and methadone.³⁵ An estimated 1.6 million Americans with a substance use disorder gained health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion alone.³⁴

A Contradictory Approach – Closing a Fentanyl Loophole While Cutting Treatment Funding

The OBBBA contains a widely praised, bipartisan provision that closes the “de minimis” trade loophole. This loophole allowed packages valued at less than $800 to enter the U.S. with minimal customs scrutiny, a pathway that drug traffickers exploited to import illicit fentanyl and its precursor chemicals from countries like China.³⁶ Advocacy groups like Shatterproof and law enforcement organizations applauded this measure as a crucial step to curb the supply of deadly drugs into American communities.³⁶

This creates a central paradox: this supply-side measure to fight the fentanyl crisis is enacted in the very same bill that makes historic cuts to Medicaid, the primary funding mechanism for addiction treatment—the demand side of the crisis. The bill attempts to choke off the supply of illicit drugs while simultaneously dismantling the infrastructure designed to treat the millions of Americans already suffering from addiction. This is not an accidental oversight but rather reflects a coherent, if controversial, worldview that prioritizes law enforcement and interdiction over public health-based treatment. The legislation approaches the drug crisis less as a medical disease and more as a problem of crime and border security.

The “Exemption” Trap – Why Work Requirements Threaten SUD Patients

The bill’s text includes a specific exemption from the new Medicaid work requirements for individuals diagnosed with a substance use disorder.³⁰ On paper, this appears to protect this vulnerable population. However, policy experts and analysts warn that this exemption is likely to be ineffective in practice.³⁷

The process of formally proving one has an SUD and navigating the bureaucracy to claim the exemption will likely involve significant administrative hurdles, complex paperwork, and frequent re-verification. Historical precedent from state-level experiments with Medicaid work requirements, such as in Arkansas, demonstrates that thousands of eligible people, including those who should have been exempt, lost their coverage simply because they could not successfully navigate the red tape.³⁷ Individuals actively struggling with addiction are often among the least equipped to handle such complex administrative tasks due to co-occurring mental illness, housing instability, and the general chaos that accompanies the disease. For this population, uninterrupted access to treatment is essential; any gap in coverage can lead directly to relapse, overdose, and death.³⁷

The Downstream Crisis – Impact on Providers and Public Health

The potential consequences of this policy collision are severe. The Center for American Progress estimates that, despite the official exemption, over 1.6 million Medicaid enrollees currently receiving treatment for SUD could become uninsured as a result of the new work requirements and administrative burdens.³⁷

The loss of Medicaid reimbursement would be devastating for SUD treatment providers, particularly the safety-net and rural clinics that disproportionately serve this population. This could lead to clinic closures, longer waiting lists, and fewer available services, creating “treatment deserts” across the country.⁴¹ The public health consequences would likely include a surge in emergency room visits, preventable hospitalizations, and incarcerations for issues related to untreated addiction, reversing years of progress made in fighting the overdose crisis and ultimately shifting higher costs onto local governments and hospital systems.⁴¹

Conclusion: A Nation Redefined

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a legislative behemoth that delivers on long-standing Republican goals of permanent tax cuts and a re-engineered social safety net, while simultaneously embracing a high-spending, populist nationalism in its approach to defense and the border. It is a document that codifies a fundamental conflict between two competing visions of American government: one that sees lower taxes and reduced regulation as the primary engine of prosperity, and another that views robust social programs and public investment as essential for both economic stability and social equity.

The analyses from across the political spectrum agree on the bill’s transformative nature but diverge dramatically on its ultimate consequences. Whether it ushers in an era of “extraordinary growth” as its proponents claim, or one of rising debt, deepening inequality, and increased hardship for the nation’s most vulnerable, as its critics fear, is the central question that will define the American political and economic landscape for the next decade. The full impact of this “big beautiful bill” is yet to be seen, but its passage has undeniably set the country on a profoundly different course.

Works Cited:

One Big Beautiful Bill Act – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act
Takeaways as Congress sends big tax bill to Trump’s desk | AP News, https://apnews.com/article/takeaways-tax-cuts-trump-big-beautiful-bill-congress-cc4e9225643840a1e24df54db264b983
House GOP struggles to win over holdouts on Trump’s tax bill in late-night session, https://apnews.com/article/big-beautiful-bill-trump-tax-cuts-3b525482be43fdf956366cebd84dcaac
What’s in the big bill that Trump has signed into law | AP News, https://apnews.com/article/what-is-republican-trump-tax-bill-f65be44e1050431a601320197322551b
‘Biggest bill ever signed’: Donald Trump’s first comments after ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ passes US Congress, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/biggest-bill-ever-signed-donald-trumps-first-comments-after-big-beautiful-bill-passes-us-congress/articleshow/122238190.cms
SALT Subsidies Are Crowding Out Positive Tax Reforms in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/salt-subsidies-are-crowding-out-positive-tax-reforms-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-act
Capitol Hill Touts Benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill – The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/capitol-hill-touts-benefits-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill/
The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Endorsements – The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/obbb/endorsements/
Senate Big Beautiful Bill: More Growth, More Subsidies, More Debt | Cato at Liberty Blog, https://www.cato.org/blog/senate-big-beautiful-bill-more-growth-more-subsidies-more-debt
Myth vs. Fact: The One Big Beautiful Bill – The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/06/myth-vs-fact-the-one-big-beautiful-bill/
Here’s what’s in Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” passed by Congress – CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-trump-big-beautiful-bill-senate-version/
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – Tax Foundation, https://taxfoundation.org/blog/one-big-beautiful-bill-pros-cons/
By the Numbers: Senate Republican Reconciliation Bill Takes Health Coverage Away From Millions of People and Raises Families’ Costs, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/by-the-numbers-senate-republican-reconciliation-bill-takes-health-coverage-away
One Big Beautiful Bill Act calls for major changes to Medicaid, the ACA, and SNAP, https://www.communitysolutions.com/resources/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-calls-for-major-changes-to-medicaid-the-aca-and-snap
Fact Sheet: One Big Beautiful Bill Act Would Significantly Reduce Availability of Coverage in the Health Insurance Marketplaces | AHA, https://www.aha.org/fact-sheets/2025-06-05-fact-sheet-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-would-significantly-reduce-availability-coverage-health-insurance
One Big Beautiful Bill Act: Winners and Losers in the Medicaid Provisions, https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/06/26/one-big-beautiful-bill-act-winners-and-losers-in-the-medicaid-provisions/
What’s in the latest version of Trump’s big bill moving through the Senate, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tax-cuts-bill-republicans-medicaid-snap-4ff35843e6a5247f37d048bde9b1f5ee
Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Cements GOP Dominance | TIME, https://time.com/7300059/trump-bill-house-medicaid-republican/
American Health Care Act of 2017 – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Health_Care_Act_of_2017
American Health Care Act of 2017 – Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/American_Health_Care_Act_of_2017
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” is an Attack on the Affordable Care Act’s Vision of a Health System that Works for Everyone, https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/06/11/the-one-big-beautiful-bill-is-an-attack-on-the-affordable-care-acts-vision-of-universal-coverage/
Fears in Massachusetts that Trump’s bill could unravel health safety net, https://apnews.com/article/trump-tax-bill-massachusetts-health-care-f72936c7dfccbbd03c6da6a36ca87d01
The One Big Beautiful Bill: Legislation for Historic Prosperity and Deficit Reduction | The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/The-One-Big-Beautiful-Bill-Legislation-for-Historic-Prosperity-and-Deficit-Reduction-1.pdf
One Big Beautiful Bill Act Tax Policies: Details and Analysis, https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/big-beautiful-bill-senate-gop-tax-plan/
Don’t Expect Much Growth From The One Big, Beautiful Bill | Tax Policy Center, https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/dont-expect-much-growth-one-big-beautiful-bill
“One Big Beautiful Bill Act” House GOP Tax Plan: Details and Analysis, https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/big-beautiful-bill-house-gop-tax-plan/
Senate passes Trump’s big tax and spending cuts bill as Vance breaks a 50-50 tie, https://apnews.com/article/congress-tax-cuts-trump-big-bill-bf3f94471b13db3e5d50f0cd1f8fe793
About 17 Million More People Could be Uninsured due to the Big Beautiful Bill and other Policy Changes | KFF, https://www.kff.org/quick-take/about-17-million-more-people-could-be-uninsured-due-to-the-big-beautiful-bill-and-other-policy-changes/
How Will the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Affect the ACA, Medicaid, and …, https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/how-will-the-2025-budget-reconciliation-affect-the-aca-medicaid-and-the-uninsured-rate/
Assessing Medicaid Coverage Losses Under House Reconciliation Bill – FactCheck.org, https://www.factcheck.org/2025/06/assessing-medicaid-coverage-losses-under-house-reconciliation-bill/
House Republicans’ Big, ‘Beautiful’ Bill Would Make Health Care More Expensive for Americans With Medicare and Other Insurance, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/house-republicans-big-beautiful-bill-would-make-health-care-more-expensive-for-americans-with-medicare-and-other-insurance/
Here’s When Each Part of Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Takes Effect – Newsweek, https://www.newsweek.com/when-trumps-big-beautiful-bill-takes-effect-2094718
Substance Abuse and the Affordable Care Act | The White House, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ondcp/healthcare
The Affordable Care Act Transformation of Substance Use Disorder Treatment – PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5308192/
How Medicaid Helps People with Substance Use Disorders, https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/02/19/how-medicaid-helps-people-with-substance-use-disorders/
Shatterproof Statement on the Passage of the Big Beautiful Bill, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shatterproof-statement-on-the-passage-of-the-big-beautiful-bill-302497973.html
How the Big, ‘Beautiful’ Bill Would Undermine Access to Life-Saving Substance-Use Disorder Treatment – Center for American Progress, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/how-the-big-beautiful-bill-would-undermine-access-to-life-saving-substance-use-disorder-treatment/
Buyer Beware: Bad Actors Exploit De Minimis Shipments, https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/buyer-beware-bad-actors-exploit-de-minimis-shipments
Whitehouse, Graham Introduce Bipartisan Closing the De Minimis Loophole Act, https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-graham-introduce-bipartisan-closing-the-de-minimis-loophole-act/
Trade Ranking Member Sánchez introduces bill to close de minimis loophole, https://lindasanchez.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/trade-ranking-member-sanchez-introduces-bill-close-de-minimis-loophole
One Big Beautiful Bill Clears Congress, Making Feared Medicaid Reforms a Reality, https://bhbusiness.com/2025/07/03/one-big-beautiful-bill-clears-congress-making-feared-medicaid-reforms-a-reality/
Adams County Commissioners Expose the Real Costs of Cuts: “Big Beautiful Bill Act” Increases Costs for Local Communities by Slashing Access to Healthcare and Food, https://adcogov.org/news/adams-county-commissioners-expose-real-costs-cuts-big-beautiful-bill-act-increases-costs-local