Trump's "one big beautiful bill" is now law, packed with front-loaded goodies and back-loaded pain. As Medicaid cuts loom and interest payments dwarf military spending, Democrats face a brutal fiscal reality. The post Welcome to Trump’s America, Again appeared first on Washington Monthly.
It’s July 7, 2025, and the “One Big Beautiful Bill” is now law. With it, President Trump has reshaped the domestic policy landscape—delivering front-loaded tax breaks while slashing Medicaid and scientific research, launching aggressive immigration crackdowns alongside flashy but fleeting baby bonds. In the first Washington Monthly Politics Livestream since the bill’s passage, contributing editor Anne Kim is joined by Executive Editor-Digital Matthew Cooper and Politics Editor Bill Scher to break down what just happened—and what comes next.
What does $3.3 trillion in new deficits mean for the future of fiscal politics? Will voters feel the pain before the midterms—or the benefits? Could tariffs and immigration raids backfire on Republicans? And what’s Elon Musk doing trying to start a third party?
Below is a transcript of their conversation, lightly edited for readability.
You can subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, and YouTube.
Anne Kim:
Hey, good morning, Matt.
Matthew Cooper:
Good morning, Anne.
Anne Kim:
So, Congress did meet its self-imposed July 4th deadline to pass President Trump’s signature domestic policy agenda. He had a showy signing ceremony at the White House with bombers flying overhead and the band playing the national anthem. For a while, it looked like the House Freedom Caucus—the so-called budget hawks—might balk at a bill that adds $3.3 trillion to the deficit. But that’s not what happened. Were you surprised the House Republicans and some Senate moderates caved?
Matthew Cooper:
Frequent viewers will know I was a tower of Jello about whether this would pass. I thought it might not. But it makes sense—House Republicans are very afraid of Trump and of being primaried. Senator Thom Tillis dropped out of his reelection bid after Trump threatened a primary. Cause and effect? Hard to say, but it looked that way. They passed it, and now they own it. There are no Democratic fingerprints on it. My guess is it’s not going to get more popular.
Anne Kim:
Let’s talk about what they now own. Polling showed a majority opposed the bill before it passed, but many didn’t know what was in it. Trump’s allies believe the front-loaded goodies—like no tax on tips and the misleading promise of no tax on Social Security—can win people over. Do you think this sell job will work, or will Democrats hang the bill around Republicans?
Matthew Cooper:
If I had to guess, it’s going to be tough. A lot of the bill is just continuing current tax cuts, so most people won’t see much change. Some front-loaded goodies exist, but a lot of bad stuff kicks in early. They couldn’t push it all past 2026 or 2028. People will lose Medicaid coverage, there are serious Medicare cuts, and other program cuts. If the economy remains strong, Trump might not suffer politically. But if it dips, people’s opinion of both him and the bill will worsen.
Anne Kim:
The Medicaid cuts fully kick in after the midterms. If Democrats control Congress in 2027, they could be blamed. The goodies expire in 2028. Did you get that misleading Social Security email?
Matthew Cooper:
Yes. It gave the impression benefits are no longer taxed.
Anne Kim:
Which isn’t true. It just expands the deduction to $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples. It might help some seniors, but doesn’t exempt all Social Security benefits. Also, two-thirds of seniors already don’t pay income tax on their benefits because their incomes are too low. So, minimal benefit—lots of hot air.
Matthew Cooper:
Right. Also, state-level pressure is growing. COVID funds are gone, economies are tight. Here in the Mid-Atlantic, D.C. and Maryland face big budget cuts. That will affect the states’ ability to contribute.
Anne Kim:
Exactly. Work reporting requirements kick in after the midterms. States will have to prepare compliance systems, costing money and creating press headaches. Many will lose coverage due to reporting issues.
Matthew Cooper:
Right. Money will go to contractors. Paperwork burdens will hit people with multiple jobs. This has unintended consequences.
Anne Kim:
Substantively, this bill changes the economy, the role of government, and our fiscal health. What worries you most long-term?
Matthew Cooper:
Cuts to scientific research. For 80 years, we’ve invested in grants for universities, leading to breakthroughs in space, tech, and biomedicine. With NIH cuts, top researchers may leave or stop working. That’s bad for the country. And the deficit—these are bigger than during the financial crisis or COVID. This should’ve been a time to reduce it. There’s a limit to borrowing if confidence in U.S. bonds erodes.
Anne Kim:
In 2025, interest on the debt will be $952 billion—more than Medicaid ($607B) or the military ($883B). That’s like credit card interest crowding out spending.
Matthew Cooper:
Yes, and rates may still rise.
Anne Kim:
Bill, what’s the most damaging long-term impact of this bill?
Bill Scher:
It’s harming our health insurance system and SNAP. Democrats will need to campaign on restoring them, which will require new spending. The debt adds pressure. Raising taxes on the rich is politically easy, but if they have to go beyond that, it gets dicier. At some point, Democrats will face a choice: be the party of good governance and take the political hit—or become like Republicans and just hand out benefits without paying for them. That could stress their coalition.
Anne Kim:
Meanwhile, we’ve got these thousand-dollar Trump baby accounts for newborns—for just four years. Maybe not big enough to override criticism, but who knows?
Bill Scher:
It’s hard for Democrats to oppose baby bonds. But because it’s a one-time deposit, upper-income families will benefit most—likely worsening wealth gaps. Democrats may try to expand it, and that’s more spending.
Matthew Cooper:
Right. And unlike Clinton, Obama, or even Biden, future Democrats won’t have low interest rates or big majorities. Cleaning up this mess will be harder.
Anne Kim:
But hey, tariffs will raise revenue, right?
Matthew Cooper:
Unless we “cut great deals,” as Trump claims.
Anne Kim:
Wednesday marks the end of the 90-day pause on the Liberation Day tariffs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says there’s a reprieve until August 1. Trump promised 90 deals in 90 days. We have, maybe, two and a half?
Matthew Cooper:
Yeah. Frameworks, discussions, concepts—no real deals.
Bill Scher:
If tariffs stay high, they bring revenue—helpful for Democrats. But if they make groceries more expensive, that hurts Republicans. Democrats could then campaign to end tariffs—but replacing that lost revenue won’t be easy.
Matthew Cooper:
Tariffs may raise revenue, but they’ll cause layoffs too—dockworkers, car dealers, others. Hard to see a positive outcome.
Anne Kim:
Tariffs are taxes. They’re regressive and hurt lower-income consumers the most—especially for goods from places like Vietnam.
Matthew Cooper:
And businesses that moved production to Vietnam now face high tariffs again. Trump frames it as American vs. foreign goods—but we can’t manufacture everything here, like coffee or electronics. Consumers will pay more.
Bill Scher:
The bill also boosts ICE funding and ramps up immigration enforcement. Combined with tariffs and cuts, this attempt to nationalize the economy could trigger short-term calamity. Economists warn this approach isn’t viable. Immigrants help the workforce and don’t necessarily suppress wages. Democrats could make a strong case for interconnected markets and immigration.
Anne Kim:
Let’s talk about immigration’s political cost. Interior enforcement is ramping up. Detention videos are circulating. One site—Alligator Alcatraz in Florida—was showcased in a bizarre government video. Thoughts?
Matthew Cooper:
It’s cruel and not a real deterrent. People willing to walk through jungles won’t be scared by this. It’s just sadistic.
Bill Scher:
Trump got away with harsh immigration rhetoric because people thought it didn’t affect them. That illusion is fading. In diverse states like Florida, this could backfire.
Anne Kim:
Border crossings are at historic lows. Trump’s 3,000-arrests-per-day target means lots of wrongful detentions.
Bill Scher:
That number requires interior deportations—likely of people working and contributing. Politically risky.
Matthew Cooper:
And Trump’s trying to reassure farm owners, saying seasonal workers are safe. But he’s clearly planning for more mass enforcement.
Anne Kim:
A New York Times article quoted Senator Ruben Gallego advocating for border security, deporting criminals, and a humane path to legal status. Is that a winning formula?
Bill Scher:
That’s been the Democratic position for years. The 2020 debate moment on decriminalizing border crossings confused the issue. But Democrats want an orderly system—secure borders, asylum processing, and worker programs. That’s long been the stance.
Matthew Cooper:
Right. Democrats can modify the “path to citizenship” idea if needed—make it about residency. Still, the broader point is that we need immigrants, even if that means dealing with some unauthorized entries.
Anne Kim:
Quick final question: Elon Musk is flirting with a third party, the “America Party.” How seriously should we take it?
Matthew Cooper:
Not very. Austerity politics won’t sell, especially from a billionaire.
Bill Scher:
Perot got 19% in ‘92 and helped shape the debate. Musk could be a spoiler, but he lacks discipline. Perot had actual policy ideas; Musk doesn’t yet.
Matthew Cooper:
Even pushing the major parties counts as success. But Perot had credibility Musk doesn’t.
Anne Kim:
And deficit politics are a tough sell from someone who pumped Dogecoin. In ’92, it was tied to welfare reform. Not sure that link exists now.
Bill Scher:
If Musk just pushes cuts for the poor, that’s a nonstarter. Perot’s message was about shared sacrifice, not just punching down.
Anne Kim:
If you’re a cynical Democrat, you might welcome the spoiler potential.
Matthew Cooper:
Oh yeah, it’s payday for consultants.
Anne Kim:
What are you watching this week?
Matthew Cooper:
NYC mayoral race—seeing if Cuomo drops out and whether the opposition to Mamdani can organize.
Bill Scher:
The rescissions package due July 18. Big impact on FY26 appropriations. Could determine if we face a government shutdown.
Anne Kim:
No such thing as a sleepy summer. Thanks for joining us! I’m Anne Kim with Washington Monthly, joined by Bill Scher and Matt Cooper. Like and subscribe at washingtonmonthly.com. Have a great week!
You can subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, and YouTube.
The post Welcome to Trump’s America, Again appeared first on Washington Monthly.
