House Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) is a sweeping budget reconciliation package that, despite its grandiose name, delivers painful blows and a Big Ugly “Fuck You” to working-class and middle-class Americans.

FactPAC examined how each major provision – across healthcare, taxes, environmental policy, education, labor, and more – undermines the economic stability and well-being of everyday Americans. While the bill’s proponents tout fiscal responsibility, in reality it extends lavish tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations while slashing vital services and protections for everyone else.

Healthcare for All… Except those who need it the most.

The healthcare changes overwhelmingly target low and middle-income Americans. In total, the House Energy & Commerce (E&C) Committee’s health title alone seeks $625 billion in cuts to health programs, which the Congressional Budget Office warns could cause roughly 8 million people to lose insurance coverage. Patient advocates have decried these changes for “gutting federal support” in ways that hit low-income Americans, women, immigrants, and people with disabilities hardest

Below we detail the key healthcare provisions that make this bill the ugliest:

Medicaid Overhaul: Work Requirements and Cost Barriers

One Big Beautiful Bill Act proposes the biggest overhaul to Medicaid in the program’s six decades, fundamentally restricting who can get health coverage. For the first time ever, federal Medicaid work requirements would be imposed on beneficiaries “able-bodied” adults would have to work, volunteer, or study at least 80 hours per month to keep coverage.

Although Republicans claim this targets “freeloading,” in reality most Medicaid recipients already work or are exempt (e.g. children, seniors, disabled), and those who don’t meet paperwork requirements would simply be dropped from coverage even after following these new, archaic rules.

Past experiments show work requirements are expensive to administer and don’t boost employment, but they do successfully strip health insurance from vulnerable people unable to navigate new red tape.
Even GOP lawmakers tacitly acknowledge the unpopularity – they delayed these Medicaid work requirements until 2029, conveniently after the next presidential election, to avoid voter backlash.
Beyond work mandates, the bill forces Medicaid enrollees above the poverty line to pay premiums or co-pays, a sharp break from Medicaid’s tradition of free coverage for the poor. This is from the party that was anti-public option.
These new fees would effectively deter low-income families from seeking care – asking those living just barely above poverty to pay more “out-of-pocket” for essentials like doctor visits or prescriptions.
H.R. 1 also piles on bureaucratic hurdles: states would have to verify enrollees’ eligibility and addresses far more frequently (checking even whether people have died), with twice-yearly income checks for Medicaid expansion enrollees instead of annual renewals
Such paperwork “churn” leads eligible people to be kicked off due to minor reporting issues. The bill even slashes retroactive coverage – if someone qualifies for Medicaid, it would only pay their medical bills for 1 month prior to enrollment instead of the current 3 months. This means more uninsured hospital bills and medical debt for people who fall ill before they realize they can enroll.

Taken together, these changes are projected to leave millions uninsured and shift costs onto working families. In Rep. Yvette Clarke’s words, this isn’t a “necessary evil” for fiscal health – “it’s a political choice” to gut Medicaid and undermine a program that 80 million Americans rely on for basic healthcare

Indeed, House Democrats noted the bill would put nearly 14 million people’s healthcare “further out of reach,” a move that risks worse health outcomes and financial ruin for families facing illness.

Affordable Care Act and Insurance Coverage

After multiple failed attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) outright, Republicans took a stealthier approach in H.R. 1. While the bill doesn’t directly abolish the ACA, it lets key ACA provisions lapse and erects new barriers to coverage. Most significantly, H.R. 1 declines to extend the enhanced ACA premium subsidies that have made marketplace plans more affordable in recent years. Those expanded subsidies (enacted in 2021) are set to expire at the end of 2025, and the GOP bill chooses to let them die, which the CBO says will save the government ~$340 billion but cause about 4 million people to lose health insurance when premiums spike.

In other words, to finance tax cuts elsewhere, Republicans are willing to let millions of Americans be priced out of health coverage. The bill also tightens access to ACA plans through bureaucratic rule changes. It would “solidify” stringent income verification and restrict special enrollment periods, measures originally pushed by the Trump administration

For example, it blocks people from getting subsidized ACA coverage if they are automatically re-enrolled from the previous year or if they sign up during a special enrollment due to low income. Under current law, low-income individuals (under 150% of poverty) can enroll year-round and be auto-enrolled in renewal to prevent gaps; H.R. 1 would remove those consumer-friendly policies, likely knocking many low-income enrollees off their plans for paperwork technicalities.
This approach again uses administrative hurdles to shrink enrollment, disproportionately hitting working-class individuals who juggle unstable incomes and may miss an added filing requirement. In addition, the bill takes aim at health benefits and consumer protections.
One provision would ban “gender-affirming care” from being considered an essential health benefit under the ACA. This means private insurers on the exchange would no longer be required to cover medically necessary care for transgender people – a targeted rollback that undermines a marginalized group’s access to healthcare. (Notably, House Republicans originally limited this ban to minors, but a late amendment expanded it to all ages) meaning even transgender adults on Medicaid or ACA plans would lose coverage for transition-related care. Such a ban sends a chilling message and, as Rep. Sarah McBride noted, is “one more example of healthcare that they’re trying to rip away” from vulnerable communities.

H.R. 1 also repeals funding for nonprofit community health plans and undermines public health. It cuts a 5% federal Medicaid funding boost that was helping states maintain coverage for expansions during the pandemic and it declines to invest in any measures to lower drug prices or insurance premiums – offering no relief on healthcare costs for the middle class.
In fact, Democrats proposed amendments to prevent out-of-pocket costs from rising and to ensure ACA enrollment periods remain accessible, but Republicans voted those down.

The result is a bill that makes insurance harder to get and medical care more expensive for ordinary Americans.

“Culture War” Riders: Reproductive and LGBTQ Health

Tucked into the healthcare section are several ideological riders that specifically target reproductive healthcare providers, LGBTQ individuals, and immigrant communities. H.R. 1 bars Medicaid funding to any nonprofit family planning provider that offers abortion services, explicitly aiming to defund Planned Parenthood, even though federal funds are already prohibited from being used for abortion services.

This move would strip an estimated 1 million Medicaid patients of access to cancer screenings, birth control, and routine wellness care they currently obtain through Planned Parenthood.

Such a cutoff doesn’t just impact abortion (for which federal funds are already limited by law); it decimates basic preventive care for low-income women, leaving many with no nearby alternative clinic. It is a direct blow to women’s health, especially in underserved areas. Likewise, as mentioned above, the bill’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender Medicaid recipients and ACA exchange enrollees is a dramatic policy overture to the culture wars

H.R. 1 uses healthcare policy to pursue anti-immigrant objectives. One provision would punish states that use their own funds to cover certain immigrants on Medicaid, effectively coercing blue states like California and New York to drop coverage for undocumented or recently arrived residents.
It also slams the door on many immigrants’ access to federal health programs: under the bill, even lawfully present immigrants – including asylum grantees and people with Temporary Protected Status – would be barred from enrolling in Medicare or from receiving ACA premium tax credits

Currently, immigrants who are “lawfully present” but not eligible for Medicaid (due to 5-year waiting periods or state choices) can buy subsidized ACA plans; H.R. 1 would forbid that, meaning even those here legally and working could lose affordable insurance options. The bill further specifies that no ACA subsidies can go to non-citizens below the poverty line who are waiting on Medicaid (closing a humane provision that prevents coverage gaps). In sum, the healthcare title deliberately targets immigrants for exclusion, a decision that jeopardizes public health in many communities. Denying coverage to immigrant families (many of whom include U.S. citizen children) ensures more people rely on ER care and rack up medical debt, with costs ultimately passed to the public.

Expect healthcare cost and your insurance premiums to increase as providers and insurers have to cover the cost of uninsured medical care recipients.

The Committee on Agriculture’s sections of H.R. 1 take aim at nutrition assistance programs, especially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly “food stamps”). These provisions would tighten eligibility and reduce benefits, worsening food insecurity for working-class families. As Rep. Janelle Bynum noted, the bill threatens “$300 billion in cuts to food assistance” over a decade – a staggering reduction that could force vulnerable households to choose between groceries and other necessities.

Key changes include:

Freezing SNAP Benefit Levels: Section 10001 of the bill prohibits the USDA from updating the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) which is the basis for SNAP benefit amounts. In 2021, USDA adjusted the TFP to better reflect modern food costs, yielding a boost in SNAP benefits.
H.R. 1 would forbid any future TFP reevaluation that increases benefit amounts
In effect, as food prices rise over time, SNAP benefits would not keep pace – eroding their value and making it harder for low-income families to afford a basic diet. Freezing the food benefit formula hurts the working poor and seniors on fixed incomes most, as they rely on SNAP to buffer against inflation.
Harsher Work Requirements for Food Aid: Echoing the Medicaid changes, H.R. 1 imposes tougher work mandates on SNAP recipients. Section 10002 expands “able-bodied adults without dependents” (ABAWDs) work requirements likely by raising the eligible age range. Other Republican proposals have sought to raise the cutoff from age 49 up to 55 or even 65 meaning older adults nearing retirement would have to job-hunt to keep food assistance.
The bill also restricts state waivers that have allowed areas with high unemployment to suspend these work requirements. In doing so, the bill would drop SNAP benefits for many jobless or underemployed adults. Notably, these are individuals with no dependent children, often very poor, single adults who are already only eligible for SNAP for 3 months out of 3 years if unemployed. H.R. 1’s message to them is essentially: find a job or go hungry, even if you’re in an area without jobs.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that similar SNAP work requirement expansions in earlier proposals would cut SNAP enrollment by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people – primarily childless adults in poverty.
Broader Work Requirements and Age Expansion: Section 10008 further raises the general work requirement age in SNAP. Currently, all SNAP participants 16–59 must register for work and accept job offers (with some exceptions). The bill likely extends this to age 65 so even seniors 60–64 would be expected to work or participate in job training. For context, many low-income Americans in their early 60s have health issues or caregiving responsibilities that make work difficult – that’s why SNAP previously classified 60+ as “elderly” for work rules. H.R. 1 discards that, meaning a 64-year-old could lose food aid if they can’t meet the work hours or navigate reporting.
Administrative Barriers and State Cost-Shifts: Several provisions add bureaucratic complexity to SNAP. Section 10004 limits how heating assistance (LIHEAP) can count toward SNAP benefit calculations likely reducing benefits in northern states where heating allowances helped boost SNAP allotments. Section 10006 and 10007 introduce new state matching fund requirements and administrative cost-sharing, forcing states to bear more of SNAP’s administrative expense. This could strain state budgets and incentivize states to cut back on outreach or customer service (long call wait times, fewer caseworkers), making it harder for eligible families to enroll or stay on SNAP.
The bill even sets up a “Quality Control Zero Tolerance” policy (Section 10010) to punish states for payment errors. While accountability is good, in practice “zero tolerance” regimes often prompt states to err on the side of denial, potentially terminating or denying benefits to avoid any overpayment, even at the cost of more eligible people going unserved.
Eliminating Nutrition Education and Modernization Programs: H.R. 1 would repeal SNAP’s nutrition education grants and pilot projects. Section 10011 terminates the SNAP Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program, which funds classes on healthy eating for low-income families.
Similarly, the bill axes programs like the SNAP online purchasing expansion – Section 10005 restricts paying for online grocery delivery fees or internet-related costs with SNAP. These eliminations save pennies in the budget but hurt efforts to modernize SNAP and improve participants’ health (for instance, nutrition education helps reduce long-term healthcare costs by teaching better diets.)
In line with its anti-immigrant bent, the bill tightens SNAP eligibility for certain immigrants. Section 10012 likely expands the ban on undocumented immigrants receiving SNAP and could even restrict lawfully present immigrants further. Current law already bars undocumented people from SNAP, though their U.S.-born children can get benefits. If H.R. 1 includes new documentation demands or bars mixed-status households, it would mean more children of immigrants go hungry out of fear or confusion.

Overall, these SNAP cuts and restrictions would have a direct economic impact: less money for groceries among America’s poorest workers and families, and thus higher rates of hunger and malnutrition. The majority of SNAP recipients who can work already do – often in low-wage jobs – and many others are children or disabled. Removing their food assistance doesn’t spur employment; it just increases hardship. FactPAC’s Analysts emphasize that every $1 of SNAP generates about $1.50 in economic activity (through local grocery spending), so these cuts even harm local economies and small businesses in struggling areas

Education and Student Debt – A lifetime of never getting ahead.

Education policy changes in H.R. 1 primarily target higher education – namely, student financial aid and student loan programs – with a clear bias against students and borrowers. The bill’s Committee on Education and Workforce title is loaded with provisions that would make college more expensive for low- and middle-income families while relaxing oversight on predatory colleges. In short, it shrinks relief for student borrowers, restricts grants, and aids for-profit schools at students’ expense. Key components include:

Student Loans: New Limits and Less Forgiveness

H.R. 1 proposes several changes to federal student loans that collectively increase the burden on borrowers:

Capping Loan Amounts: The bill (in Subtitle B) imposes tighter loan limits (Section 30011) for certain students. Although details are complex, this likely means graduate students and maybe even undergraduates face new caps on how much they can borrow in federal loans. For example, Grad PLUS loans might be limited. While limiting debt sounds prudent, in practice it could force students to turn to private loans with higher interest to finance education beyond those caps. It also could price-out lower-income students from expensive programs (like medical or law school) or push them toward exploitative private lenders, since the bill does nothing to curb tuition itself. No corresponding effort to increase grant aid is provided – meaning the net effect is fewer financing options for students who are not wealthy.
Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Cutbacks: Section 30024 directly amends the PSLF program which forgives remaining federal loan balances after 10 years of public-service employment and qualifying payments. H.R. 1 excludes certain work from counting as “public service” for PSLF. Notably, it specifies that time spent in a medical or dental internship or residency will no longer count toward PSLF for new borrowers. This means young doctors in training at nonprofit hospitals – who often have hefty loans – won’t get credit for those years of low-paid service. Such a change discourages medical professionals from working in public or nonprofit settings, potentially worsening doctor shortages in veterans’ hospitals, rural clinics, and urban safety-nets. It’s a strange target – essentially punishing new physicians for getting an education. More broadly, limiting PSLF undermines a program that thousands of teachers, social workers, and public-interest attorneys also aspire to use. The bill’s message is that debt relief for public servants should be curtailed, making it harder for middle-class professionals to manage student debt while serving their communities.
Eliminating Loan Forgiveness Protections: H.R. 1 attacks recent student loan forgiveness regulations. It repeals the Department of Education’s 2022 rules on borrower defense to repayment and closed school discharges. Those rules made it easier for students defrauded by colleges (especially for-profit institutions that lied about job placement, etc.) to get their federal loans canceled, and for students to have loans discharged automatically if their school abruptly shut down. By voiding the 2022 borrower defense and closed-school discharge regulations and reverting to older, stricter rules, the bill means many cheated students will remain on the hook for debts they accrued under false pretenses.
This is a boon to bad actor colleges, but a blow to their former students – often people who tried to improve their lot through education and were left with worthless credits and big loans. The bill even includes an “effect of repeals” clause ensuring no similar new rules can be implemented absent an Act of Congress.
In essence, it locks in a regime where student borrowers have little recourse if scammed.
Preventing Future Debt Relief: Subtitle G of the education title (Sec. 30061) likely bars the Education Secretary from issuing new regulations or executive actions on student debt without Congress.
This appears aimed at preempting any attempt (like President Biden’s HEROES Act) to cancel or reduce student debts administratively. It could also freeze any new income-driven repayment improvements. The end result is that no further student debt cancellation or easier repayment terms could be rolled out unless the very Congress that loaded this bill with cuts agrees, which is unlikely.
This provision clearly responds to conservative backlash against debt cancellation, prioritizing an austerity approach over relief for the 43 million Americans with student loans.

Pell Grants and College Affordability – Study Hard, Get Good Grades, and Go Nowhere

Pell Grants – the cornerstone aid for low-income college students – also take an indirect hit in H.R. 1:

Tighter Pell Eligibility & Time Limits: Section 30031 tweaks Pell Grant eligibility criteria
.While the exact text is technical, evidence suggests the bill limits how long or in what circumstances a student can receive Pell. For instance, one snippet indicates a student who first gets a Pell in 2026 would lose eligibility for further Pell after a certain number of years or after a certain enrollment status. This might impose a hard cap on semesters of Pell aid (beyond the current 6-year limit) or remove Pell for students who don’t complete programs on a defined schedule. It also could tie Pell to median program costs (the table of contents mentioned “median cost of college” in determining need
All signs point to reducing the amount or duration of Pell Grants for students, forcing them to either borrow more or drop out if they exhaust aid. That hurts non-traditional students in particular – e.g. working adults who attend part-time and take longer to finish would risk losing Pell support mid-way. An amendment in committee explicitly sought to strike the section changing Pell eligibility, indicating Democrats viewed it as harmful, but that effort failed.
“Workforce Pell” Diversion: The bill introduces Workforce Pell Grants (Section 30032), a concept long championed by for-profit trade schools. It would allow Pell Grants to be used for very-short-term job training programs. In theory, helping people afford career certificate courses isn’t bad – but critics note that many subprime trade schools lobby for this to access Pell dollars without the accountability of traditional degree programs. If not designed carefully, this could divert Pell funding to fly-by-night programs that promise quick credentials but deliver little. With the bill simultaneously repealing “gainful employment” rules (more on that below) that kept vocational programs in check, opening Pell to short-term programs raises the risk of wasting student grant aid on low-quality training. Moreover, unless Congress significantly increases the Pell budget (which this bill does not), expanding eligibility to new programs creates a “Pell shortfall” – spreading finite dollars thinner. Indeed, the table of contents lists a “Pell shortfall” section (30033) suggesting an acknowledgment that covering new programs could deplete funds. Rather than increasing the maximum grant to keep up with tuition, Republicans are redirecting Pell funds to potentially dubious purposes, which could ultimately leave traditional college students with less aid.
Campus-Based Aid and Accountability: H.R. 1 also targets campus-based aid programs (like Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants and Work-Study). Section 30042 addresses “Campus-based aid programs” possibly consolidating or cutting funding for these resources that colleges distribute to needy students. Additionally, under the banner of “Accountability” (Subtitle E), Section 30041 requires new “agreements with institutions. This hints at a policy where colleges might be held financially responsible for some student outcomes (e.g. a form of risk-sharing if students default on loans). While accountability for institutions is not unwelcome, conservative designs often risk making colleges less willing to admit low-income or high-risk students (to avoid penalties for dropouts or defaults). Without careful calibration, such measures could incentivize schools to enroll fewer disadvantaged students – again limiting educational opportunity for those of modest means.

Rollbacks of Consumer Protections in Education

H.R. 1 rescinds regulations that protect students from predatory institutions:

Repeal of 90/10 Rule Strengthening: The 90/10 rule requires for-profit colleges to get at least 10% of their revenue from sources other than federal student aid (so they can’t be 100% taxpayer-funded). Congress tightened this rule in 2021 by closing a loophole that excluded GI Bill funds from the 90% cap. H.R. 1 repeals the recent 90/10 reform effectively reopening the loophole so that for-profit schools can count veterans’ education benefits outside the 90% federal limit. This allows dubious colleges to once again exploit veterans and military families as cash cows to shore up their federal aid dependence, undermining accountability. An amendment to strike the 90/10 repeal was offered, signifying Democrats’ concern for veteran students, but the repeal remains in the bill.
Repeal of Gainful Employment Regulations: Even more significant, the bill strikes all references to “gainful employment” in the Higher Education Act and voids the Department of Education’s Gainful Employment regulations.
Gainful employment rules were designed to cut off federal aid to career education programs (mostly at for-profit colleges) whose graduates consistently have excessive debt relative to their incomes. By eliminating this language, H.R. 1 ensures that career programs will no longer be accountable for whether they actually lead to gainful employment for students. Predatory programs with high tuition and poor outcomes can keep profiting off federal loans/grants without meeting any debt-to-earnings standards. This is a clear win for shady for-profit colleges and a loss for students, who may end up with worthless credentials and mountains of debt. Without the threat of being cut off, the worst programs have little incentive to improve.
Blocking Relief for Defrauded Borrowers: As mentioned, the bill repeals the Biden Administration’s improved Borrower Defense rules and Closed School Discharge rule. It goes further to prohibit the Education Secretary from reissuing similar rules going forward. The practical effect is to trap students in debts from fraudulent schools.
Under the 2022 rules, thousands of borrowers from collapsed chains like ITT Tech or Corinthian Colleges have been getting loan discharges and refunds. H.R. 1 would slam the brakes on those remedies, forcing borrowers to repay loans for education they never received or that was obtained under deception.

In sum, the education provisions of H.R. 1 are highly favorable to profiteering schools and unfavorable to students and graduates. They reduce grants, restrict forgiveness, and unleash predatory actors – thereby increasing both the cost and risk of pursuing higher education for average Americans. A college degree has been a traditional ladder to middle-class stability; this bill saws off some of the rungs of that ladder, making it more likely students fall into debt traps. It is telling that while the bill spares wealthy heirs from estate taxes and extends tax cuts for billionaires, it finds savings by squeezing Pell recipients and indebted young professionals.

Tax Policy: Rob the poor. Feed the rich.

At the heart of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a suite of tax provisions heavily skewed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations, reflecting the continuation of Trump-era tax priorities. The bill not only extends the 2017 Trump tax cuts – which disproportionately benefited upper-income brackets – but even sweetens the pot for the rich by adding new tax breaks, while doing next to nothing for working-class taxpayers. This will balloon deficits and eventually force cuts to programs that ordinary Americans rely on, all to finance windfalls for those at the top.

Key tax changes include:

Extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA): Many individual tax cuts from the 2017 law are set to expire after 2025. H.R. 1 would extend those provisions, such as lower marginal tax rates for high earners, a doubled standard deduction, and a larger (but only partially refundable) child tax credit at current levels. The bulk of these tax benefits flow to the highest-income households – analysis shows the highest earners would get the largest portion of the bill’s tax reductions.
By contrast, there is no expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit or fully refundable Child Tax Credit in the bill – programs that directly boost working-class incomes. In fact, the bill retains the 2017 CTC framework ($2,000 credit with strict limits for low earners), ignoring calls to restore the more generous 2021 Child Tax Credit that lifted millions of children out of poverty. In short, the bill’s tax priorities favor investment income over wages and rich heirs over poor kids.
SALT Deduction Increase for High Earners: In a concession to Republicans from high-tax states, the manager’s amendment unexpectedly raised the cap on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction from $10,000 to $40,000 per household (phased out above $500k income.)
This change means upper-middle-class families in places like New York or California can deduct more state/local taxes on their federal return, reducing their IRS bill. But the SALT deduction primarily benefits those with expensive homes or high incomes who itemize deductions – roughly the top 10% of households. The Tax Policy Center finds over half of SALT deduction benefits go to the top 1% if the cap is raised. Meanwhile, renters and modest homeowners gain nothing, and the lost federal revenue from this tax break will likely be offset by deeper spending cuts elsewhere. Even some conservatives criticized the SALT cap hike, noting it forces “either more cuts…or increased deficits.” Essentially, the bill chooses to appease a small subset of affluent taxpayers while jeopardizing funding for broad public needs.
Permanent Elimination of Limits on Itemized Deductions: H.R. 1 permanently repeals the “Pease” limitation that used to reduce itemized deductions for very high-income filers. By scrapping this, it ensures multi-millionaires can fully deduct things like mortgage interest, SALT, and charitable contributions without any overall cap. This is a direct tax cut for the rich. Moreover, the bill replaces Pease with a complex formula that still somewhat limits SALT for the super-rich (denying some SALT above the threshold for the 37% bracket), but otherwise maximizes deductions for the wealthy. The net effect is that millionaires keep more tax breaks, worsening inequality.
Business and Investment Tax Perks: The bill lavishes benefits on businesses and investors. It extends 100% bonus depreciation (Section 168(k) expensing) through 2030 letting companies write off equipment costs immediately – a boon mainly to large firms and capital-intensive industries. It also tweaks international tax rules to be even softer: for instance, it halts scheduled increases in the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) and Base Erosion Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT), keeping them at lower rates that are friendlier to multinational corporations
These moves help big companies minimize U.S. taxes on foreign profits and avoid penalties for shifting profits abroad. While complex, the bottom line is less corporate tax revenue and more incentives for offshoring profits. The bill even renames a proposed child saving vehicle as “Trump Accounts”, literally branding a tax-sheltered savings plan for children with the former president’s name.
There’s also a random giveaway: removing federal taxes on gun silencers, by reclassifying them so the $200 transfer tax no longer applies.

In sum, the tax title of H.R. 1 fulfills a longstanding conservative wish list: high-end tax cuts made permanent, corporate loopholes preserved, and new breaks thrown in, while ordinary workers pay more and get less.

Over 10 years, these tax provisions cost trillions, blowing a hole in the budget. Republicans insist some dynamic growth will result… a failed promise of the first Trump Tax Law, but more likely it will explode the deficit by an additional $5.7 trillion by 2035 according to nonpartisan analysts.

Environment, Energy, and Climate: Letting industries pump your water full of forever chemicals

H.R. 1 aggressively rolls back environmental protections and clean energy investments, reflecting a fossil fuel industry wish list that prioritizes short-term corporate profits over public health and climate stability. Environmental policy is one of the starkest areas where the bill’s indirect harms to working and middle-class Americans emerge: by dismantling climate programs, rescinding pollution cleanup funds, and fast-tracking fossil fuel projects, the bill threatens to increase pollution in communities, eliminate green jobs, and exacerbate climate disasters that disproportionately impact ordinary people. Major environmental provisions include:

Rescinding Clean Energy and Climate Investments: The bill takes aim at President Biden’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, by rescinding numerous clean energy programs that were funded by the IRA. For example, Section 41001 repeals and rescinds funds for: a Home Energy Efficiency Contractor Training program (training workers to install efficiency upgrades) the Department of Energy’s Clean Technology Loan Programs Office an Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program (which helps retool factories for EVs), an Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment financing program (to transition old fossil infrastructure) and even a Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee program.
In one sweep, H.R. 1 yanks back unspent funding for initiatives that create jobs, modernize infrastructure, and reduce long-term energy costs. Tens of billions for clean energy deployment are being clawed back. The loss of these investments means fewer construction and manufacturing jobs (which the IRA was spurring across the country.)
It also means the U.S. will fall behind in the global clean tech race, with workers in solar, wind, EVs, and energy efficiency losing opportunities even as China and Europe forge ahead. For working-class Americans, this translates to fewer good-paying jobs in emerging industries and continued reliance on expensive, volatile fossil fuels.
Killing Programs to Reduce Pollution: H.R. 1 repeals several sections of the Clean Air Act added by recent climate initiatives. Section 42101 repeals the Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicle program and pulls back its funding this program was helping replace dirty diesel trucks (like old semis and school buses) with clean models.
All these rescissions mean more toxic air and worse health, especially in working-class areas near highways, ports, factories, and power plants. For instance, canceling port pollution grants ensures that kids in neighborhoods near major ports (Los Angeles, Houston, Newark, etc.) will continue to breathe diesel soot from idling ships and trucks, with higher risk of lung disease.
Cutting school air quality funds leaves students and teachers in older school buildings with poor ventilation and pollution exposure. These are indirect yet very real harms to ordinary Americans’ quality of life.
Fast-Tracking Fossil Fuel Projects & Exports: The bill encourages fossil fuel development under the guise of “energy security.” Section 41002 changes the Natural Gas Act to expedite approvals of gas export terminals – it imposes a $1 million fee cap after which any LNG export application is “deemed in the public interest” and must be approved without delay.
In effect, if a company pays the fee, the Department of Energy would have to rubber-stamp the export of U.S. natural gas to countries without free trade agreements. This is a boon to gas drillers, but bad for consumers and climate. Increased LNG exports can raise domestic gas prices (as more U.S. gas is sold overseas), meaning higher heating and electricity costs for working families. It also expands fracking and gas pipeline buildout, often through rural and low-income regions, bringing associated environmental risks (methane leaks, water contamination).
H.R. 1’s fanfare about energy might promise jobs, but it ignores that clean energy investments create more jobs today than fossil projects, and without the boom-bust cycle. Moreover, the environmental damage and climate impacts (fires, floods, storms) resulting from fossil fuel expansion will disproportionately harm working-class communities, who have fewer resources to recover from disasters.
Halting Clean Energy Tax Credits: On the tax side, H.R. 1 undercuts renewable energy by accelerating the phase-out of clean electricity tax credits that were supposed to run for a decade. The manager’s amendment forces credits for wind, solar, and other low-carbon electricity to end earlier (only projects started within 60 days of the bill and finished by 2028 qualify)
It even denies clean energy credits for certain popular deployment models like wind and solar leasing. This sudden yanking of incentives will chill the booming renewables sector. For perspective, thousands of blue-collar jobs in solar installation, wind turbine manufacturing, battery storage, etc., depend on those credits to make projects viable. By cutting the credits short, many planned projects will be canceled, meaning job losses in construction and manufacturing, especially in rural areas where wind and solar farms were providing new employment.
It also means higher energy costs in the future, as we lose the opportunity to build cheap renewables that lower electricity rates. And of course, it means more greenhouse emissions, locking in climate damage that in coming years will cost trillions in disaster recovery (costs that hit taxpayers broadly).

In summary, the environmental and energy moves in H.R. 1 overwhelmingly favor polluters and take away resources that would have made communities cleaner, healthier, and more resilient. Working-class Americans bear the brunt of pollution.

Immigration: Those Running from the Mafia Have to Pay a New Mob Boss… The United States

Those seeking asylum have pay for protection which they may or may not get:

For the first time in U.S. history, those fleeing persecution would have to pay at least $1,000 just to apply for asylum. This is an enormous sum for refugees who often arrive with nothing. It would price out legitimate asylum-seekers, effectively a wealth test on who can seek refuge. Many could be forced to abandon their claims or go underground, leading to more undocumented individuals because they couldn’t afford a filing fee. All Americans should see this as cruel and counterproductive, as it denies due process to the poorest and most vulnerable. The Independent newspaper bluntly noted the bill “would ban care for transgender people on Medicaid and Obamacare” and impose harsh fees on asylum, calling it part of Trump’s agenda to “rip away” support for marginalized groups.
Additionally, H.R. 1 imposes an excise tax on remittances (money transfers) to certain countries (Sec. 112104). This means immigrant workers sending part of their paycheck to support family abroad would be taxed for it. Remittances are often lifelines to relatives in poorer countries; taxing them is essentially skimming earnings of hardworking immigrants (including many who are citizens or legal residents sending money to parents overseas). Such a tax could push transfers into unregulated channels and breed distrust in financial institutions. It’s another example of H.R. 1 raising costs specifically on immigrants’ activities, without any clear benefit to others – indeed, it might slightly reduce the U.S. trade deficit by discouraging outflows, but at the cost of immiserating families and possibly driving immigrant workers to demand higher wages to compensate, an ironic twist for businesses reliant on their labor.
Restricting Legal Immigration Pathways: The bill also tries to narrow family-based immigration and asylum through instructions (though some of this may be symbolic messaging given Senate dynamics). For instance, an amendment included text to shift the system to “skills-based” points and eliminate the Diversity Visa program moves that would cut off avenues predominantly used by immigrants from developing countries and lower socio-economic backgrounds. While not directly fiscal, these policies reflect an agenda to reduce immigration levels and favor wealthier or highly educated immigrants. In the long run, such restrictions shrink the labor force and economic growth; many economists warn that limiting immigration will lead to labor shortages and hamper industries from agriculture to tech. In the near term, families are separated and communities lose the cultural and entrepreneurial contributions immigrants bring. There’s also a provision (Title VII) to transfer the immigration fee-setting authority such that all fees collected (e.g. visa fees) are under new rules likely to raise fees or allocate them toward enforcement instead of service improvements. This means immigrants and new citizens pay more for the same paperwork, effectively another financial hurdle.
Detention and Deportation Emphasis: H.R. 1 would ensure funding to expand immigration detention (including for family detention). Democrats in Rules Committee highlighted concerns that the bill could lead to detaining children and even U.S. citizens due to aggressive enforcement funding.
The very need for that amendment underscores how the bill’s enforcement surge could create civil liberties abuses that hit people of color and mixed-status families. Mistaken detentions and deportations have happened, and increasing quotas or pressure on ICE will likely increase those tragic errors. The bill’s heavy enforcement approach means more workplace raids (disrupting businesses and creating fear among workers), and could drive undocumented workers further into the shadows, making them more exploitable by unscrupulous employers – which in turn undermines labor standards for all workers. When one group of workers can be paid under the table at sub-minimum wage due to fear of deportation, it exerts downward pressure on wages in those industries overall.

Labor and Retirement: Work until you die.

While H.R. 1 contains no provisions to raise wages, strengthen unions, or otherwise empower workers (indeed, those are conspicuously missing), it does include measures that negatively affect the labor force, particularly government workers and older workers’ retirements:

Cuts to Federal Employee Retirement Benefits: In the Oversight and Reform title (Title IX), H.R. 1 specifically targets federal workers’ pensions. Section 90001 eliminates the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) annuity supplement for certain employees This supplement is a bridge payment that FERS employees who retire before Social Security age (like law enforcement or air traffic controllers who have mandatory early retirement) receive until they hit age 62. Cutting it means those public servants will face a sudden income gap – effectively a significant pension cut that could discourage retention or push experienced personnel to leave earlier. Additionally, Section 90002 changes pension calculations from the “High-3” average salary to a “High-5” average. This means a federal retiree’s pension will be based on their highest 5 years of salary instead of 3, which lowers the pension amount (because it averages in two more lower-earning years). Over a retirement, this reduces total benefits substantially. These changes might save the government money on paper, but they break promises made to workers who accepted lower pay in public service in return for stable benefits. For middle-class federal employees – mail carriers, VA nurses, park rangers, etc. – these hits to retirement security are a betrayal that will force many to either work longer or face financial insecurity in old age. It could also deter new talent from entering federal service, weakening the government’s ability to deliver services (from public safety to Social Security administration) that the broader public relies on.
Labor Standards and Safety Loopholes: While not a major focus of the bill, there are hints of weakening labor standards. For instance, in the TANF work program context (though TANF wasn’t explicitly overhauled here), we saw language ensuring no workfare participant is made to work hours beyond what their benefits’ value equates to at minimum wage but that only reiterates existing law. Meanwhile, nothing in H.R. 1 addresses raising the federal minimum wage (stuck at $7.25), overtime rights, paid leave, or workplace safety inspections. In fact, by cutting domestic spending overall, the bill portends fewer OSHA inspectors (already at anemic levels) and fewer resources for agencies like the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The indirect result could be less enforcement of labor laws and hence more workplace accidents and wage theft affecting workers. Additionally, by promoting more “permitting reform” and rushing projects, it could expose workers to more dangerous job conditions (e.g., if environmental reviews that also consider worker safety are truncated).
Blocking Consumer and Worker Protections Agencies: The bill goes after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by attempting to subject it to appropriations or otherwise restrict its funding and actions (several Democratic amendments fought these rollbacks.) If the CFPB’s independence is curtailed, that means less policing of abusive financial practices – e.g. payday lending, credit card scams – which often exploit low-income workers. Similarly, H.R. 1 transfers the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) under the SEC and cuts its funding unless certain conditions are met.
The PCAOB ensures auditors catch corporate fraud; weakening it could lead to Enron-style accounting scandals that wipe out pensions and 401(k)s of ordinary employees and retirees. Even House Republicans from Oregon expressed concern that folding the PCAOB into the SEC without safeguards could expose retirement savers to greater financial reporting risks. In plain terms, if companies’ books are less trustworthy, workers’ invested savings (in stocks or mutual funds) are at greater risk of sudden collapse. By hampering these oversight boards, H.R. 1 diminishes regulatory oversight of Wall Street – which can result in painful job and savings losses when unchecked risks lead to crashes.
IRS Service Cutbacks (Direct File Terminated): One provision mandates the IRS to terminate its new Direct File program. This program was intended to allow Americans to file taxes for free directly with the IRS, providing an alternative to costly tax prep software. Killing it is a win for private tax prep companies, but a loss for millions of taxpayers who could have avoided filing fees. Working-class filers often spend significant money on simple returns; Direct File would have saved them that money. By halting it, H.R. 1 ensures people will continue paying billions in aggregate to Intuit, H&R Block, and others just to claim refunds or credits that are rightfully theirs. It’s an anti-consumer move that again favors an industry at ordinary folks’ expense.
Additionally, less IRS funding (the bill likely rescinds enforcement funds from the IRS, though that is done via separate legislation in 2023) means less ability to go after wealthy tax cheats. The Treasury estimates the tax gap is largely from high-earners underreporting. Cutting IRS enforcement actually hurts honest working taxpayers, because when taxes owed by the rich go uncollected, others eventually face service cuts or higher taxes to fill the gap. It also means more frustration dealing with IRS backlogs and poor customer service for regular taxpayers, since investments in upgrading IRS technology would be constrained.

In the big picture, these labor provisions reflect a consistent theme: benefits and protections for workers are viewed as costs to be slashed, rather than commitments to be kept or investments in a strong workforce. Federal employees who are solidly middle-class are treated as a piggybank for “savings,” implying their earned benefits are somehow a luxury. Consumer protections that keep financial markets fair and transparent are undermined in favor of deregulation. The cumulative effect may not be immediately obvious to all workers, but over time these policies erode job security, retirement security, and consumer safety for vast swathes of Americans. For example, an average young worker might not feel the elimination of the FERS supplement today, but decades from now if they choose a government career, they’ll face a leaner retirement. A gig worker might not connect the dots that weaker CFPB rules allow a predatory loan to trap them in debt. But these outcomes are exactly what policy analysts predict if H.R. 1 were enacted. In essence, the bill rewards wealth (through tax and deregulation) and squeezes work (through cuts to benefits and lack of wage support). That is the opposite of a pro-worker agenda – it is a recipe for greater inequality, where those who earn their living by work become relatively worse off versus those who earn by ownership and capital.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” – is a sprawling package of regressive policies that would harm working-class and middle-class Americans both directly and indirectly. Its direct economic impacts include: taking food assistance away from low-income families, stripping health coverage from millions, raising costs for student borrowers and patients, and giving the wealthiest tax advantages that ordinary taxpayers will ultimately subsidize.

Now the bill is in the Senate and it’s up to you to tell your Senator to vote NO on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.