# One Year Into the Big Beautiful Bill, Who Really Won, Who Paid the Bill > Exactly one year ago, on July 4, 2025, Donald Trump put his signature on the Big Beautiful Bill, the budget law meant - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Column - Published: 2026-07-06 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/un-an-apres-le-big-beautiful-bill-qui-a-vraiment-gagne-qui-a-paye-la-facture ## Introduction: an anniversary the White House would rather not celebrate too loudly ### A year already since the July 4, 2025 signing Exactly one year ago, on July 4, 2025, **Donald Trump** put his **signature** on the **Big Beautiful Bill**, the **budget law** meant to embody the economic revival promised on the campaign trail. Twelve months later, **detailed analyses** are starting to roll in, and the picture emerging is far from the triumph the **administration** keeps touting in public. According to an in-depth analysis published by **Forbes** on July 4, 2026, the law did deliver substantial benefits, but wildly unevenly: the wealthiest households have reaped permanent **tax** cuts, while millions of low-income Americans have watched their social safety net fray badly. ### A transfer of **wealth** on a historic scale This column takes an unsparing look at this first year of the **Big Beautiful Bill** in action, drawing on **available data** covering health care, **food assistance**, **immigration**, and **taxation** — four areas where the law's effects are already being felt very concretely in the **daily lives** of Americans. What this data reveals is a country increasingly split between winners and losers of the same budget policy, a fracture that could well weigh heavily at the ballot box in the **midterm elections** later this year. *A year after its triumphant signing under the July 4 flags, this record looks a lot more like a steep bill for the most **vulnerable** than the economic victory promised to all Americans without exception.* ## Permanent tax cuts, the law's biggest winner ### The 2017 cuts carved permanently into law The heart of the **Big Beautiful Bill** rests on making permanent the **tax** cuts adopted in 2017 during **Donald Trump's** first term, known as the **Tax Cuts and Jobs Act**. Those cuts, originally set to expire, were locked in for good by this new **budget law** signed last year. For the wealthiest households, that permanence represents a considerable and predictable **long-term financial gain**, sparing them the tax uncertainty that had loomed for years over the future of these breaks, while durably cementing their wealth advantage over the rest of the American population. ### A benefit concentrated at the top of the pyramid Available economic analyses converge on one point: the vast majority of the law's tax benefits flow disproportionately to the wealthiest **taxpayers**, a finding documented by several independent budget research organizations that have combed through the complex fiscal provisions of this legislation. This concentration of benefits at the top of the **income pyramid** fuels criticism of a historic transfer of **wealth**, orchestrated by an **administration** that nonetheless promised on the campaign trail to defend the interests of the American **middle class** first. *Locking in tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy, while slashing the safety nets that protect the poorest, is not balanced economic policy. It is a deliberate ideological choice with very real social consequences.* ## The quiet collapse of Medicaid coverage ### Millions of Americans stripped of their health coverage The flip side of this fiscal coin shows up directly in the health care sector. According to **Washington Monthly**, millions of low-income Americans have lost their **Medicaid** coverage or their health insurance subsidies since the law took effect, a direct consequence of the **budget cuts** baked into the text adopted last year. These coverage losses hit **vulnerable** populations especially hard, notably older adults, single-parent **families**, and part-time **workers** who don't have employer-provided **health insurance**, suddenly leaving them without **adequate medical protection** against the ordinary risks of daily life. ### **New York**, the visible epicenter of this crisis Both the **Guardian** and **Time** documented, in early July 2026, the particularly troubling situation in **New York** State, where roughly 500,000 moderate-income New Yorkers lost their **health insurance** on July 1, a date that lines up directly with new budget restrictions taking effect under the **Big Beautiful Bill**. Projections cited by those same outlets estimate that up to 5 million additional Americans could lose their **health coverage** by the end of 2026, a figure that gives some sense of the true scale of this quiet health care crisis unfolding across the country. *Losing your health insurance overnight because of a budget decision made thousands of miles away — that is the blunt reality already facing hundreds of thousands of ordinary American **families**.* ## The SNAP program hit head-on ### Millions of Americans cut off from food assistance Beyond health care, the **SNAP** **food assistance** program, a **lifeline** for millions of low-income American **families**, has also taken a direct hit from this budget law. More than 3.5 million Americans have lost their eligibility for the program since the new restrictions imposed by the **Big Beautiful Bill** took effect. These food assistance cuts are landing even as the **cost of living** keeps climbing in many parts of the country, pushing numerous American families into deeper food **insecurity** — a cruel irony for a law originally sold as a vehicle for shared **prosperity** for all Americans. ### A disproportionate impact on **children** and **seniors** Anti-**poverty** organizations point out that these cuts disproportionately hit **children** and older adults, two particularly **vulnerable** populations when it comes to food insecurity, for whom access to adequate nutrition remains absolutely essential to long-term physical and cognitive well-being. This has fueled a growing **critique**: that a budget law dressed up as fiscal responsibility is, in reality, sacrificing the well-being of the most vulnerable Americans to fund durable tax advantages for the country's wealthiest **taxpayers**. *Cutting food assistance to **children** and **seniors** to fund permanent tax cuts for the rich reveals priorities that I find simply indefensible on moral grounds, no matter what budget rationale gets trotted out.* ## A massive hardening of the immigration enforcement machine ### Tens of billions for immigration law enforcement The **Big Beautiful Bill** also allocated roughly **191 billion dollars** to the **Department of Homeland Security** to strengthen immigration law enforcement, a massive investment that funded the hiring of 10,000 new **immigration** agents across the country over the past year. This unprecedented injection of funds directly contributed to a 25% jump in **immigration**-related arrests since the law took effect, according to available data, confirming the **Trump administration's** stated intent to considerably harden its immigration policy during this second year in office. ### Immigrant communities under constant strain For immigrant communities across the **United States**, this intensified enforcement has created a **climate of constant tension** and uncertainty, with entire families living in permanent fear of arrest or deportation, even in cases where their immigration status remains legally complex or in the process of lawful regularization. Immigrant rights organizations denounce an approach they consider disproportionate and at times brutal, while supporters of the administration's hard line instead praise what they see as a necessary restoration of order and security at America's borders. *I recognize the need for secure borders and better-managed immigration, but the way this policy is being carried out on the ground, with its wave of mass arrests, deserves far more rigorous **critique** than it has received so far.* ## Trump Accounts, a symbol of a far more modest promise ### A thousand dollars for every new American baby Among the most heavily publicized measures in this law are the **Trump Accounts**, a program offering **1,000 dollars** in seed capital for every new American baby, officially launched on July 4, 2026 to coincide with the first **anniversary** of the budget law's signing. Presented by the administration as a flagship measure meant to encourage long-term savings from birth, the program nonetheless remains modest in financial scale compared with the savings reaped by the wealthiest taxpayers through the permanent tax cuts included in the same budget legislation. ### A symbol more than a structural solution Economic critics point out that this program, while symbolically interesting, does nothing to offset the far more substantial losses suffered by low-income families in **health coverage** and food assistance over the same period the law has been in effect. This contrast between a heavily publicized symbolic gesture and much deeper cuts to social safety nets illustrates, according to several **analysts**, a political communication strategy aimed at deflecting attention from the most painful consequences of this budget law for the most vulnerable Americans. *A thousand dollars per newborn is a nice symbolic gesture, but it replaces neither lost health insurance nor months of scrapped food assistance for families who urgently and genuinely needed it.* ## The Senate and the heated debate that preceded passage ### Political tensions right down to the final vote The passage of the **Big Beautiful Bill** last year was anything but unanimous, the law having been approved after **heated debates** in the U.S. **Senate**, where several lawmakers, including within the **Republican Party**, voiced reservations about the scale of the cuts planned for essential social programs. Senator **Sheldon Whitehouse** and other **Democratic** lawmakers had publicly denounced, as soon as the law passed, what they called a tax giveaway to billionaires financed by cuts to **Medicare** and **Medicaid**, a critique that now, a year later, appears largely borne out by the data on the ground. ### A debate resurfacing a year later This initial political debate is now resurfacing with renewed intensity, as the law's concrete consequences become increasingly visible to American voters, reigniting partisan tensions ahead of the **midterm elections** scheduled later this year. Political strategists on both sides are watching closely how **public opinion** shifts on this issue, aware that the record of this budget law could become a central campaign issue in upcoming legislative races across several key states. *The warnings raised by some lawmakers when this law first passed are now looking largely justified. That should inspire more humility among those who brushed off those criticisms with a wave of the hand last year.* ## A looming blow to Medicare over the next decade ### Hundreds of billions in projected cuts According to a report released by Senator **Sheldon Whitehouse's** office, this budget law could trigger a **536 billion dollar cut** to the **Medicare** program over the next decade, an alarming projection for a program on which millions of older Americans depend for basic **health coverage**. This potential cut is especially worrying for advocates for **seniors**, who fear that the baby boomer generation, already facing rising health care costs, could find itself with reduced access to essential medical care just as their health needs naturally increase with age. ### Structural changes to Medicaid also at play The law firm **Crowell** has also documented in detail the structural changes this law made to the **Medicaid** program, including new work requirements for beneficiaries and stricter eligibility restrictions that, according to **analysts**, explain a significant share of the coverage losses already observed on the ground. These structural changes, combined with the broader **budget cuts** affecting **Medicare**, paint a troubling health care picture for this law a year after its passage, calling into question the administration's initial promise to protect essential social programs for the most vulnerable Americans. *Sacrificing the health of seniors and vulnerable families on the altar of budget discipline, while scrupulously preserving tax advantages for the wealthiest, reveals political choices that deserve to be called out clearly for what they are.* ## Why Trump remains a necessary evil despite these domestic missteps ### An essential distinction between foreign policy and domestic policy It is important to maintain an essential distinction here: on the geopolitical stage, facing **China**, **Russia**, and **Iran**, **Donald Trump** remains a necessary strategic actor for preserving the **West's** position in an increasingly fierce **global competition** between democracies and authoritarian regimes. But that strategic necessity on the world stage should never serve as an excuse to ignore or downplay the very real missteps of his **domestic policy**, especially when those missteps translate concretely into lost health coverage and food assistance for millions of ordinary Americans. ### A critique that must remain factual and measured This column does not seek to demonize the entirety of the **Trump** administration's record, but rather to factually document the concrete consequences of one specific budget law, relying exclusively on verifiable data rather than partisan judgments unmoored from the available facts. It is precisely this demand for factual rigor that allows for a credible, constructive critique, rather than a reflexive opposition disconnected from the economic and social realities experienced by Americans a year after this controversial law's passage. *Supporting some of Trump's strategic choices on the world stage does not stop me from firmly denouncing the painful social consequences of his **domestic policy**. Intellectual consistency demands that nuance, however uncomfortable it may be for some.* ## Democratic voices trying to capitalize on this record ### An obvious political opening for the opposition Unsurprisingly, **Democratic** lawmakers quickly seized on this first anniversary to sharpen their criticism of the **Big Beautiful Bill**, seeing an obvious **political opening** ahead of the **midterm elections**, where health care and purchasing power could play a decisive role in the outcome. Several Democratic candidates have already folded this critical record into their campaign platforms, promising to roll back some of the law's most controversial provisions if they win a sufficient majority in **Congress** in the upcoming legislative elections. ### A communication challenge for the Trump administration Facing this Democratic political offensive, the **Trump** administration will face a considerable communication challenge in convincing voters that the long-term benefits of this budget law justify the social sacrifices already well documented by multiple independent analyses published in recent weeks. This political and communication tug-of-war promises to be one of the central issues of the upcoming campaign, with each side seeking to impose its own narrative about the true legacy of this signature budget law of **Donald Trump's** second presidential term. *No matter who wins this communication battle, families who lost their health insurance or their food assistance are already living the very real consequences of this law, regardless of whichever political narrative ends up dominating **public opinion**.* ## The overall economic impact, still hard to fully measure ### Macroeconomic effects that will take time to reveal themselves On the broader macroeconomic front, **economists** agree it remains too early to fully measure the overall impact of the **Big Beautiful Bill** on American economic growth, job creation, and the trajectory of the federal **deficit** over the medium and long term. Some preliminary indicators suggest a modest boost in consumption among the wealthiest households, direct beneficiaries of the permanent tax cuts, without that boost clearly translating into broad-based economic growth benefiting the American population as a whole. ### A federal deficit that keeps widening At the same time, several independent budget analysts point out that this law, despite its stated goal of fiscal responsibility, could actually contribute to widening the American federal **deficit** further over the next decade, a contradiction the law's defenders struggle to convincingly explain in the face of criticism. This troubling budget trajectory could, over time, limit the federal government's room to maneuver in responding to future economic or social crises, a structural risk several **economists** consider underestimated in the current public debate over this law. *A law that widens the deficit while cutting social protections for the most vulnerable represents, in my view, the exact opposite of the fiscal responsibility it claims to embody so publicly.* ## What this means for the American middle class ### Contrasting effects depending on income level For the vast American **middle class**, the effects of this law remain mixed and often hard to clearly perceive day to day, with some benefiting modestly from tax adjustments while others, closer to the eligibility threshold for social programs, sometimes find themselves caught by the new eligibility restrictions. This gray zone hits particularly hard for families whose income hovers just above the eligibility thresholds for **Medicaid** or the **SNAP** program, cutting them off from social assistance without guaranteeing a tax benefit large enough to offset that loss of essential social protection. ### Economic anxiety that persists despite the promises This persistent economic uncertainty, a year after the law's passage, directly contradicts the initial **promises** of widespread **prosperity** made by the **Trump** administration when it signed this major budget legislation during the summer of 2025. Recent opinion **polls** confirm this lingering anxiety, with a majority of middle-class Americans saying they remain unsure what real benefits, if any, they have personally seen from a budget law presented as historic by its political backers. *When the middle class itself struggles to identify the concrete benefits of a law billed as historic, that says a great deal about the growing gap between the official political narrative and the economic reality lived day to day.* ## Lessons to draw for the next budget battles ### The need for greater transparency from the outset This first annual accounting of the **Big Beautiful Bill** offers an important lesson for future budget battles in the U.S. **Congress**: the need for greater transparency about the real, foreseeable consequences of budget laws, rather than relying solely on the optimistic projections offered by their political sponsors at the moment of passage. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle could benefit from a more rigorous and independent assessment of the social impacts of their bills before final passage, rather than discovering, as is the case here, the true scale of the consequences only months after implementation. ### A precedent that could shape future budget debates This **Big Beautiful Bill** precedent could also durably shape the future American budget debate, deepening public distrust of sweeping, complex fiscal reforms, particularly when their benefits appear concentrated among a minority of already economically privileged taxpayers. That growing distrust could complicate the passage of future ambitious budget reforms, regardless of which party holds power, as American voters grow more wary of promises of widespread **prosperity** that do not always materialize as advertised. *If this record could at least serve as a lesson to avoid future budget laws this lopsided, that might be the only lasting collective benefit of this particularly painful budget experiment for so many vulnerable Americans.* ## How Western allies view this budget record ### Quiet unease in European chancelleries Beyond America's borders, several Western allies are watching this mixed record of the **Big Beautiful Bill** with quiet unease, aware that the social and economic stability of the **United States** remains a key factor for the overall cohesion of the **Western alliance** in the face of challenges posed by **China** and **Russia**. Growing social division in the **United States**, fueled by budget policies seen as unbalanced, could eventually weaken **Washington's** capacity to sustain its **global leadership**, a risk several European **diplomats** already raise privately in bilateral meetings with their American counterparts. ### An opening for the West's strategic rivals Authoritarian regimes like **China** and **Russia** are not shy about exploiting this kind of internal American social division in their own **propaganda**, presenting their centralized **governance** models as superior to what they describe as the structural failures of liberal Western democracies. This geopolitical instrumentalization of America's internal divisions is a reminder of how important it is for the **West** as a whole to demonstrate its ability to correct its own social imbalances without giving up its economic competitiveness against its strategic global rivals. *A socially divided America hands its authoritarian rivals a geopolitical gift. That is one more reason, beyond simple social justice, to correct the most glaring imbalances in this budget law.* ## Conclusion: a record that must stay under constant watch ### A year later, far more questions than reassuring answers A year after its triumphant signing, the **Big Beautiful Bill** leaves behind a deeply mixed record: considerable, durable tax gains for the wealthiest Americans, against very real losses in health care and food assistance for millions of low-income citizens across the country. This striking contrast between winners and losers of the same budget policy reflects a social and economic fracture that will likely keep weighing heavily on the American political debate in the coming months, particularly as the midterm elections approach. ### Journalistic vigilance must continue This column will keep closely following how this major budget story evolves, convinced that transparency about the law's real consequences remains essential for allowing American voters to judge, with full knowledge of the facts, the true record of this controversial economic policy. Because ultimately, it is a democracy's capacity to honestly document the consequences of its own political choices, without complacency or excessive bias, that determines its true institutional maturity over the long run. **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - Washington Monthly — Budget cuts, deaths, and the first anniversary of Trump's disastrous budget, July 4, 2026 - Forbes — One year after Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, here's what actually happened, July 4, 2026 ### Secondary sources - The Guardian — New Yorkers lose health insurance because of Trump cuts, July 1, 2026 - Time — New Yorkers lose health coverage because of Trump cuts, July 1, 2026 - Senator Whitehouse's office — Trump's law triggers 536 billion dollar cut to Medicare - Crowell — Trump's budget law makes deep changes to Medicaid --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/un-an-apres-le-big-beautiful-bill-qui-a-vraiment-gagne-qui-a-paye-la-facture