Republicans are presenting Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill as proof of their governing record at a midterm convention in Dallas, even as the legislation’s first year has brought tax relief for millions alongside cuts to food aid and healthcare, intensified deportations and a projected $3.4 trillion increase in the US deficit.
The sweeping package, signed into law by Mr Trump on 4 July 2025, has become the party’s central legislative achievement as Republicans seek to defend their majority in Congress. Democrats have branded it the “Big Ugly Bill”, while Republicans describe it as common-sense reform.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has argued that the law represents the kind of government Republicans would pursue if voters return them to power after the midterm elections.
“Shamefully, not one Democrat voted for it,” Wisconsin Republican Derrick Van Orden told delegates during the convention’s opening night.
Tax cuts reach millions of Americans
The law extended tax reductions introduced during Mr Trump’s first term, which had been due to expire at the end of 2025, and added new deductions for tips, overtime and certain car-loan interest payments.
It also increased the standard deduction, expanded the child tax credit, created a new deduction for many older Americans and introduced tax-advantaged “Trump accounts” for children.
Figures from the Treasury Department show that 7.5 million tax filers claimed the deduction for tipped income, while 29 million claimed the overtime deduction. More than 35 million people used the enhanced senior deduction and nearly 40 million families claimed the larger child tax credit.
Treasury said nearly 70 per cent of people receiving a tax cut earned less than $100,000. The department said the average tax cut among those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 was more than $815.
But the benefit has not been evenly distributed. Garrett Watson, vice-president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, said the average reduction of about $2,300 could be difficult for many households to notice because it largely prevented tax rises that would otherwise have taken effect.
Average refunds rose by about $350, or 11 per cent, according to the foundation. Mr Watson said the gains had also been offset for some families by the effects of tariffs and other administration policies.
SNAP and Medicaid face tighter rules
The legislation’s largest savings are expected to come from changes to Medicaid, the public health insurance programme, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme, known as SNAP.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measures will reduce spending on the programmes by more than $1 trillion over the decade, partly by expanding work requirements and limiting eligibility.
About four million fewer people are now receiving SNAP, according to federal data compiled by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The organisation said participation had fallen in every state and that more than 800,000 children had lost access to the benefit in at least 13 states with publicly available data.
The work rules apply to a wider group of adults, including some people aged up to 64 who do not have young children. Those affected must work, undertake community service or take part in an education programme for 80 hours a month to retain support.
Medicaid work requirements are being introduced more gradually. A small number of states have begun implementing them this year, while most are expected to follow in 2027.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that more than seven million people could become uninsured as a result of the Medicaid changes. The law provides $50 billion for rural hospitals intended to help them cope with the reductions in federal support.
Republicans say the reforms are designed to tackle waste, fraud and abuse and encourage people into employment. Opponents argue that many recipients who are able to work are already employed and depend on the programmes to cover the gap between wages and living costs.
The budget office concluded that household resources would fall for people at the bottom of the income distribution while rising for those in the middle and at the top.
Funding for defence and deportations
The package also allocated about $350 billion to the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, providing substantially more money for defence and immigration enforcement.
Homeland Security received roughly $175 billion, much of it intended to support Mr Trump’s deportation programme. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has expanded its recruitment, while police departments across the country have received funding to work with the agency.
Immigration arrests reached 49,571 in July, the highest monthly total of Mr Trump’s second term, according to figures provided to the Deportation Data Project. Homeland Security subsequently said arrests rose to nearly 51,000 in August.
The July increase followed a fall in arrests earlier in the year after the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were killed by law enforcement during protests against federal immigration operations in Minneapolis.
The administration has continued to defend the enforcement campaign as necessary to remove people it says are in the country unlawfully, while critics have raised concerns about the treatment of detainees and the impact on families.
Deficit set to grow
Despite the spending reductions, the bill is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the US deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Tax revenues are projected to fall by about $4.5 trillion as a result of the tax measures, partly offset by an estimated $1.1 trillion reduction in spending, mainly through the changes to Medicaid and SNAP.
Annual deficits are running at close to $2 trillion, while total US government debt has reached about $40 trillion.
For Republicans in Dallas, the legislation remains a symbol of the party’s priorities: lower taxes, tougher immigration enforcement and reduced welfare spending. Its first-year record, however, has also left Democrats with a powerful counterargument — that the gains have been concentrated among better-off households while the costs are falling most heavily on poorer Americans.
