The Consequences of Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’: An Insight by Robert Pollin
Last week, a striking piece of legislation known as the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill,’ launched by Donald Trump, was approved and made into law. Esteemed economist Robert Pollin, recognized worldwide for his progressive thinking, provides a comprehensive breakdown of what is referred to by many as a ‘distasteful’ federal budget bill. Serving as a distinguished economics professor and co-executive of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Pollin has his finger on the pulse of such matters. The newly enacted ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ spearheaded by Trump has managed to fulfil long-standing ultra-conservative pledges, including substantial tax reliefs and severe reductions to essential public welfare programs.
Within this expansive bill, one can find plenty of regressive elements. This includes hundreds of billions of dollars intended to support Trump’s anti-immigration agenda and undermine the progression towards clean energy. In place of greener alternatives, there is a notable boosting of the fossil fuel industry. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has suggested that the lowest 20 percent of earners will see an average saving of $40 from Trump’s tax provisions by 2026.
On the contrary, the wealthiest 1 percent stand to become richer by $66,000. This brings to mind the notable quote from Anatole France in 1894, depicting the irony in the law’s equal treatment of both the rich and the poor. However, even these statistics don’t capture the entire narrative. Factoring in Trump’s import tariffs, recognized as a tax on foreign goods, those in the lowest 20 percent income bracket are likely to lose their $40 savings. In fact, they will end up approximately $300 worse off; while those in the richest 1 percent still gain around $58,000.
Lower-income individuals are likely to feel the brunt of this financial blow, particularly through budget reductions in facilities like Medicaid, a health insurance program relied upon by 85 million underprivileged and disabled individuals, and through cuts in other health funds. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that at least 17 million individuals will lose their coverage from this program by 2034 due to Trump’s initiative. Federal food security program (SNAP) cuts, a lifeline for 42 million citizens, could revoke this aid from nearly 5 million people as well.
Trump’s strategy, which primarily aims to enrich the affluent while depriving healthcare and food access for individuals with lower income levels, comes on the heels of nearly half a century of neoliberal policy dominance, which has already critically tipped the scales of income and wealth inequality. Our attention should be turned to the key metric that indicates how much debt the government will cover — i.e., the interest paid on U.S. Treasury bonds. By the end of 2024, interested creditors were paid close to $900 billion by the government. This sum equaled 3.8 percent of the GDP, which is less than the 4.9 percent paid during the tenure of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
During that period, prominent Republican politicians like Reagan and Bush did not raise an alarm about a potential economic downfall. Furthermore, the economy did not experience a downturn in their time. Even so, the near $900 billion that the government had to fork out as interest payments in 2024 was more than the combined spending on education, scientific research, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and humanitarian aid on a global scale.
As grim as the situation might seem, current circumstances present feasible opportunities for significant policy victories on climate right at the state and local levels, even when confronting a Trump-fronted opposition. A prime example of this was the successful implementation of the Climate Change Superfund law. The law was passed in New York state last December, just before Trump assumed office.
Under the specifics of this environmental legislation, oil and gas corporations are expected to pay an average of $3 billion annually over the course of the next quarter-century towards climate adaptation and resilience efforts across the state. This triumphant legislative move in New York came on the back of a similar successful campaign that resulted in enacting a similar statute in Vermont as early as 2024.
As is evident, comparable bills are also making headway in other states such as Massachusetts, California, and Maryland. These examples serve to illustrate the potential for achieving substantial policy victories to deal with climate change. Despite the setbacks represented by new legislation at a federal level, hope and opportunity clearly exist for progressive change at the state and local levels of administration.