Claim: H.R. 1, the budget omnibus bill U.S. President Donald Trump called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” will add trillions of dollars to the national debt. Rating: About this rating True

Amid the U.S. Congress’ voting and deliberations over the annual budget bill in June and July 2025, which President Donald Trump deemed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” was — as usual — some conversation around how the proposed changes would affect the national debt.

In particular, posts on social media popped up claiming that the bill would add “$3.9 trillion to the national debt.”

The number in the claim, theoretically, comes from nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports. The office is required by federal law to provide estimates on how major legislation would affect the federal budget, including the budget bill — H.R. 1.

However, the numbers in those reports change as legislators workshop and amend the bill. For instance, on June 18, the CBO’s report on the version of H.R. 1 passed by the House of Representatives found the bill would increase the federal debt by about $2.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Meanwhile, on June 29, the CBO released data on the Senate’s version of the bill that found it would increase the federal debt by about $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years.

In this case, the $3.9 trillion estimate appeared to come not from the CBO but from the Committee for a Responsible Budget, a nonprofit group that advocates for cutting government spending and reduce the national debt.

While the number in social media posts was not based on CBO reports, the claim that the CBO found Trump’s budget bill would add trillions of dollars to the national debt over the next 10 years was true.

The federal government’s budget surplus is calculated by subtracting the amount of money the government spends in a given year from the amount of money it raises. When the government spends more than it earns, the budget is in a deficit, as has been the case since 2001.

The debt is the total of the yearly deficits. According to the Treasury Department’s website, the national debt is $36.21 trillion, as of this writing. (The government also must pay interest on the debt.)

On July 1, the Senate passed the bill — Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined all Democrats to vote no, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the 50-50 tie.

The bill returned to the House of Representatives to reconcile the two versions. The House passed it in a 218-214 vote (two Republicans joined all Democrats to vote against it) on July 3. Trump said he would sign the bill on July 4.

US House passes Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ tax and spending bill

The US President’s allies on Capitol Hill have celebrated its passage as a victory, with Johnson saying it “gets Americans back to winning again”.

It now heads to the Senate, which will have the chance to approve or change provisions of the bill.

Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” passed with a vote of 215 votes to 214, with two Republicans joining Democrats to oppose it and one voting present.

House Republicans have passed a sweeping multi-trillion dollar tax breaks package, a narrow victory for President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson after weeks of negotiations with conservative hold-outs.

Long a policy priority of Trump’s, the legislation extends soon-to-expire tax cuts passed during his first administration in 2017, as well as provides an influx of money for defence spending and to fund the president’s mass deportations.

It also temporarily eliminates taxes on overtime work and tips – both key promises Trump made during his successful 2024 presidential campaign.

“What we’re going to do here this morning is truly historic, and it will make all the difference in the daily lives of hard working Americans,” Johnson said on the floor before the vote.

Additionally, the bill makes significant spending cuts, including to the Medicaid healthcare programme for lower-income Americans as well as Snap, a food assistance programme used by more than 42 million Americans.

These cuts were the subject of intense friction among Republicans, which was finally overcome after the President travelled to Capitol Hill on Tuesday. He privately told lawmakers to put aside their objections or face consequences.

Democrats also fiercely opposed the bill and warned that the cuts could have dire consequences for millions of lower-income Americans.

“Children will get hurt. Women will get hurt. Older Americans who rely on Medicaid for nursing home care and for home care will get hurt,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, said on the House floor.

“People with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to survive will get hurt. Hospitals in your districts will close. Nursing homes will shut down,” he added. “And people will die.”

The next day, a statement from the White House warned that the administration would see a failure to pass the bill as the “ultimate betrayal”.

The legislation, however, comes with a massive price tag. It is estimated to add $5.2tn (£3.9tn) to US debt and increase the budget deficit by about $600bn in the next fiscal year.

Those eye-popping figures – and the prospect of ballooning interest payments on the debt – were among the reasons that financial rating agency Moody’s downgraded the US credit rating last week.

The lengthy document of over 1,000-pages was released just hours before lawmakers were asked to vote on it, meaning there could be other provisions and line items yet to be discovered.

The Senate must also approve the bill and could make some changes in the process. If lawmakers there do, it will return to the House for another high-stakes vote with potential to go wrong.

On Truth Social, Trump urged the Senate to send the bill to his task “as soon as possible”.

One of the first items senators will have to tackle is a report from the Congressional Budget Office that the debt increase in the House bill would trigger a provision of a 2011 law that mandates approximately $500bn in spending cuts to Medicare, the health insurance programme for the elderly.

Trump had pledged not to touch that popular government service – and Republicans would likely face a political price if they don’t tweak the rules to avoid the mandatory reductions.

Democrats are pledging to use today’s vote against Republicans in next year’s midterm congressional elections, highlighting other spending cuts – including to the low-income health insurance programme, government research and environmental spending – and tax reductions for the wealthy.

Even Congressional Republicans celebrate a win, the narrowness of the Republican House majority is vulnerable to even small shifts in public sentiment. The midterms could flip control of that chamber to the Democrats and grind Trump’s legislative agenda to a halt.

Federal judge temporarily halts Trump’s sweeping government overhaul

toggle caption Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

A federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s sweeping overhaul of the federal government.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee, came after a hearing Friday in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, nonprofits and local governments.

The plaintiffs argue in their complaint that President Trump’s efforts to “radically restructure and dismantle the federal government” without any authorization from Congress violate the Constitution.

Illston agreed with the plaintiffs, asserting in the hearing that Supreme Court precedent makes clear that while the president does have the authority to seek changes at agencies, he must do so in lawful ways.

Sponsor Message

“[T]o make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies,” she wrote in her ruling Friday evening, “any president must enlist the help of his co-equal branch and partner, the Congress.”

Illston issued a temporary restraining order pausing further implementation of Trump’s Feb. 11 executive order directing agencies to begin major reorganizations, as well as subsequent memos from his administration instructing agencies how to comply. Her order applies to 20 federal agencies, including the Departments of State, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Government Efficiency.

Her order explicitly pauses the implementation of any existing reduction-in-force (RIF) notices, delaying while her order is in effect final separation for any employees who have received such notices. The order also pauses the issuance of any future RIF notices and the placement of additional employees on administrative leave.

During Friday’s hearing, Illston said a temporary restraining order was necessary “to protect the power of the legislative branch.”

She noted that in his first term, Trump did in fact seek Congress’ approval for similar restructuring plans. “He could have done that here, but he didn’t,” Illston said.

The order is in effect for 14 days, through May 23. Although temporary restraining orders, intended to be stop-gap measures, are generally not appealable, the Trump administration nevertheless filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hours after Illston issued her decision.

Sponsor Message

The case is just the latest in a string of court battles testing the limits of Trump’s executive authority.

In court filings, his administration has argued that he has “inherent authority” to exercise control over those executing the nation’s laws.

The government argued a temporary restraining order was inappropriate

In court on Friday, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton, argued the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order was inappropriate given how much time has lapsed since Trump first signed the executive order to reshape the government.

“Plaintiffs are not entitled to any TRO because they waited far too long to bring this motion and any ’emergency’ is thus entirely of their own making,” he and other attorneys wrote in an earlier court filing.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued that only now have they been able to ascertain what agencies are doing to carry out Trump’s directives, given the secrecy with which his administration has been operating.

“They’re trying to insulate from judicial review an unlawful set of instructions by not making public how they’re being implemented,” plaintiffs’ lawyer Danielle Leonard told the court on Friday.

As part of her ruling, Illston ordered the Trump administration to provide the court and the plaintiffs with the restructuring plans submitted by the agencies named as defendants in the case, as well as such plans already approved by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management, by Tuesday, May 13.

Another argument Hamilton raised was one the government has cited in numerous other cases involving federal employees: that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Instead, matters involving personnel issues within the federal government must be brought to the bodies Congress created to hear such complaints, he said.

Illston appeared unpersuaded by that argument, questioning Hamilton over whether the matter at hand — a radical overhaul of the entire government — was one Congress intended to go through those administrative channels.

Sponsor Message

Relief sought as layoffs had begun

The plaintiffs in the case, including the American Federation of Government Employees and several of its local branches, the American Public Health Association and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore and San Francisco, had sought relief as agencies had already begun mass layoffs.

Already, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argued, agencies including the Departments of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs are executing plans “not based on their own independent analysis or reasoned decision-making” but instead in accordance with the president’s executive order and accompanying instructions from Elon Musk’s DOGE team, the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget.

The Trump administration has defended the executive order, arguing it merely provides direction in very broad terms, while making clear any actions taken must be “consistent with applicable law.”

“This type of directive is a straightforward way for a President to exercise his undoubted authority to require a subordinate agency to determine what the law allows and then take whatever action is legally available to promote the President’s priorities,” the government’s attorneys wrote in court filings.

In court, Leonard said the government’s take was not an accurate description of the executive order.

“This is a mandatory order instructing agencies to begin RIFs now and to do so in the manner the president is directing,” she said.

Judge Illston’s 14-day temporary restraining order applies to the following agencies: