Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill: Is It Really A “Disgusting Abomination”?

An illustration by David Bowers depicting the OBBBA.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) is a fresh budget reconciliation bill in the 119th United States Congress, and its purpose is simple: promote economic growth and reduce government spending. Introduced by House Republicans to extend vital provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it was passed in the House of Representatives (215-214-1 vote) due to concerns that the favorable tax provisions, primarily benefiting the wealthy, would expire in late 2025.

Some of the most substantial spending cuts the OBBBA includes are almost exclusively on non-defense federal government spending. If enacted, there will be massive decreases in spending on many federal government programs to which people have grown accustomed. For example, there will be reduced spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Less will also be spent on Medicaid, though indirectly, by increasing eligibility thresholds. The tax rates for individuals and corporations will be lowered permanently as well.

Following the 2024 United States elections, in which the Republicans retained a majority in the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate, President Trump proposed a "one big, beautiful bill" to initiate sweeping changes in American life. Education, healthcare, tax, and welfare will all be affected by this bill. Trump’s forceful pursuit of economic growth at the cost of social welfare for millions of Americans may turn out to be harmful. However, no one can predict what exactly will become of a world with weak social institutions that much of society depends on.

Examining the education provision of the bill, Trump's proposals reduce opportunities and welfare assistance for poor students, as the eligibility criteria for Pell Grants are being revised. Students only need 12 credit hours to become eligible for the maximum Pell Grant benefits, but with this bill, the requirement will increase to 15 credit hours per semester. This essentially denies eligibility for many, so some students, particularly struggling students, will not meet the new criteria, thus shutting some of America's brightest minds and underrepresented communities out of quality education. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these tighter standards would impact over 3 million students, with 700,000 losing eligibility entirely and more than half of existing Pell Grant recipients getting lower amounts. But what is the purpose of this?

First, by requiring students who rely on Pell Grants to take additional courses, the educational system might end up with fully dedicated students who will contribute extra to the economy and be even more employable. But the reality is that the current 5.6 million Pell Grant undergraduate students will experience reduced aid, increased financial stress, and instead over-rely on private loans rather than federal support. Dependence on student loans could become a chronic condition, especially as the OBBBA ends Federal Direct Subsidized Loans to undergraduates and limits the U.S. Secretary of Education's capacity to regulate based on gainful employment.

Another possible explanation is reducing government spending on Pell Grants will allow for more money to be diverted to security spending and tax cuts, two of the Big Beautiful Bill's key selling points. The OBBBA has come under severe criticism from experts, with the tax portion of the bill being a special object of scorn because it keeps most of Trump's tax cuts and economic policies in substantial measure. Most of the tax reductions are regressive, meaning they will disproportionately benefit higher-income individuals, thereby increasing wealth inequality.

Essentially, the OBBBA proposes to achieve the macroeconomic objective of economic growth at the expense of social welfare services and making wealth inequality worse. However, supporters argue that the bill actually does a lot to increase social welfare. For example, it offers parents incentives, particularly through the "money accounts for growth and investment" (MAGA) savings account. Through this account, $1,000 will be deposited per child at birth, and the money will be invested into a diversified U.S. stock index fund. Trump claims that the MAGA savings account will build the long-term economic well-being of millions of American children by not only instilling good financial literacy and saving habits at a young age but also providing them with capital to start their own businesses or pay for education. However, the overall lack of progressive action in the bill only serves to widen the income inequality gap between American families. The MAGA savings account will do little to increase social welfare if the OBBBA attacks important government programs.

In addition, the House version of the OBBBA also raises the state and local tax (SALT) deduction limit from $10,000 to $40,000 for most taxpayers. A rise in the SALT deduction limit is particularly detrimental to social welfare, as taxpayers can deduct a larger portion of their federal taxable income. Of course, it sounds good on paper: fewer taxes due, and therefore, greater consumer spending. While the final leap to $40,000 will undoubtedly provide greater relief to tax-burdened American families, it has the consequence of benefiting wealthier taxpayers, who typically give up a higher percentage of their income to taxes. As a result, with an increase to $40,000, they can easily subtract an extra $30,000 from their taxable income—if they have correctly itemized deductions—and save more money than someone in a lower tax bracket would. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) notes that most of the SALT deduction benefits already go to the top 20% of earners, as they pay the most in state/local taxes. Thus, a higher deduction limit of $40,000 will only make this disparity worse. By increasing the SALT deduction cap, the OBBBA aims to reduce taxes for American families and improve social welfare. However, simply providing relief to low and middle-income families and disproportionately greater relief to wealthier ones only diverts more federal revenue that would have been spent on social welfare programs. Because of all these tax cuts and reduced federal revenue, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) and the CBO, which are both nonpartisan, estimate that the OBBBA would raise the national debt by anywhere from $2.4 trillion up to $5 trillion over the next decade.

Topically, the debate over the One Big Beautiful Bill has spiraled into high-profile public confrontations. Trump defends the bill as a cornerstone of financial freedom and his “America First” vision, reducing federal dependency, promoting self-reliance, boosting the domestic economy, and safeguarding American consumerism through tax reforms. In direct opposition to Trump’s belief is Elon Musk, who very passionately denounced the OBBBA as a “disgusting abomination.” He warned that the cuts for corporations and social welfare programs will undermine the social safety net that millions of Americans rely on. He was also concerned about the increase in national debt the bill would lead to. This highly publicized falling-out and now feud between Trump and Musk underscores the deeper ideological divide in the debate of the One Big Beautiful Bill. 

So, is the bill, as Elon Musk says, really a “disgusting abomination”? Well, it depends on your perspective and how you interpret the bill. While advocates believe that the bill will lead to economic revival, critics caution that long-term societal harm is inevitable. Ultimately, we need to remember that this bill has only passed the House of Representatives (at the time this article was published), and it still has a long way to go. It’s likely that during this process, the One Big Beautiful Bill will be edited and revised numerous times. Regardless, the rebirth promised by rigid, regressive, and exclusionary policies may only embolden the flames of the collapse of the American social safety net, challenging the nation to pursue a more viable approach that, with a fair and inclusive society, harmonizes robust economic growth and competitiveness.