Trump called his signature domestic legislation a "One Big Beautiful Bill," but its path to advancement has not been smooth.

The bill aims to extend the 2017 tax cuts and pay for these cuts by reducing funding for the social safety net. In the House, the bill barely passed; in the Senate, it was significantly modified. In recent days, a key Senate official vetoed several provisions of the bill, whose responsibility is to ensure legislators adhere to budget bill rules, forcing senators to hastily reinsert some content.

Moreover, as my colleagues Carl Hulse and Catie Edmondson wrote today, no one really likes this bill.

But this is Washington under Trump. Here, minor issues like not knowing the bill's specific contents or lacking enthusiasm may not be enough to prevent Republican senators from voting to support it—possibly even completing the vote this weekend.

I consulted Catie about the bill's tortuous journey—how it became a policy "hodgepodge," why it makes many Republicans uncomfortable, and why these issues might not significantly impact its prospects of becoming law.

Republicans are trying to salvage parts that the Senate parliamentarian considers to violate budget bill rules. You've been reporting on congressional affairs since Trump's first administration and have witnessed many legislative "production processes." Is this chaos normal?

To some extent, this is indeed a common phenomenon in the legislative process, with both parties facing similar challenges in the past. For example, when Democrats used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and COVID-19 stimulus plan, the parliamentarian also vetoed important provisions, including proposals to raise the federal minimum wage.

On the other hand, I do believe this back-and-forth reflects that the legislation has become a policy "hodgepodge" with some content having almost nothing to do with the budget. The bill includes tax cuts, reductions in Medicaid and nutrition assistance program funding, but also contains provisions prohibiting states from regulating AI, relaxing certain gun laws, and selling public lands.

What role is Trump playing? Are his actions—or inaction—exacerbating the chaos?

Yesterday, President Trump lobbied for the bill at the White House, but we haven't yet seen him deeply involved in vote-gathering. The typical Capitol Hill "game plan" is to bring him out in the final stages of a critical vote to suppress the last holdouts.

Meanwhile, a recurring dynamic is also playing out here: legislators with reservations about the bill call the president to seek his support for their position. President Trump usually tells them he agrees with their perspective. This makes it difficult for legislators to understand what he truly wants, as his stance may change during these conversations.

Currently, this is especially evident in the Medicaid issue. Some senators believe the Senate's proposal cuts Medicaid too severely. This includes Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri, who, along with several other senators, brought these concerns to the president. Hawley returned saying Trump told them he prefers the House version because it preserves more Medicaid programs.

The Medicaid debate is one of several internal party struggles surrounding this bill. What other partisan divisions have been exposed?

The Medicaid issue is part of a broader debate about federal spending cuts. Early in the process, some fiscal conservatives in the House and Senate indicated they were unwilling to vote for any legislation that would increase the deficit, thus hoping to offset tax cut revenue losses through new spending cuts. However, this did not happen in either the House or Senate. Both versions would increase the deficit by trillions of dollars. This is clearly not the policy path these fiscal conservatives hoped for when controlling Congress and the White House.

Does Anyone Really Like This Bill?

Republicans believe they must pass this legislation because if they don't extend the 2017 tax cuts, everyone's tax burden will increase. The bill also includes new tax breaks for tips and overtime, something Trump promised during his campaign. But beyond this, they are essentially maintaining the status quo—the 2017 tax cut policy—while significantly cutting some very popular social welfare programs.

If you're preparing to run for re-election in a politically moderate state or district, you know Democrats will fiercely attack you for cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs. Many Republican lawmakers have already heard voters' concerns about this in town hall meetings.

So, do these issues we've discussed—reasons Republicans dislike the bill and their challenges in maintaining its integrity—truly threaten its passage?

I don't think so, although it may complicate their timeline and potentially alter the final bill's specific contents. Since the House passed its version, the bill seems inevitable.

They might pass a bill that brings significant political risk and is loved by no one. Why?

This is a politically risky vote, but it's not serving some grand political ideology, which makes it different from some difficult votes we've seen both parties face in the past. But this is what Trump is demanding.

I believe there's a widespread feeling within the Republican Party that they might lose the House majority in the midterm elections—which is very likely based on historical trends—meaning their time for passing major legislation is limited. And they do feel an ideological urgency to extend the 2017 tax cuts. All these factors, plus the fact that the bill is essentially a simple yes or no vote on the president's agenda, make the possibility of the bill completely failing extremely slim.

How much will this "big and beautiful" bill actually cost? It depends on how you calculate—and where you start calculating. I consulted my colleague Andrew Duehren, who covers tax policy reporting and swears researching these contents is actually interesting. He explained the budget "tricks" Republicans are trying to use to make the numbers look better.

Any budget requires making assumptions about the future. For example, how much might I spend on food next month? Will I get a raise at work? The answers to these questions can help answer other questions, like: Can I afford this vacation?

Washington operates similarly, just on a much larger scale. For a long time, Republicans and Democrats have reached a consensus on a set of assumptions about the future national budget—assuming no additional policy changes. They use this as a baseline to determine if certain policies, like tax cuts, are affordable.

Senate Republicans want to change how Washington makes these future assumptions. For decades, temporary tax cuts have been viewed as a special expenditure; it's typically assumed that in the long term, these tax cuts will expire, taxes will return to their original levels, and government revenue will increase accordingly.

But Senate Republicans believe this assumption is wrong. They argue for incorporating the temporary tax cuts passed in 2017 into long-term budget assumptions. If these tax cuts are redefined this way, extending them (as they hope to do with this bill) would not appear as new spending.