Trump May Get His ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ but the G.O.P. Will Pay a Price

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Trump May Get His ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ but the G.O.P. Will Pay a Price"

Podcast Information:

• Title: The Opinions
• Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
• Description: You've heard the news, here's what to make of it.
• Episode: Trump May Get His ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ but the G.O.P. Will Pay a Price
• Release Date: July 1, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of The Opinions, hosted by Michelle Cottle, the discussion centers around the proposed legislative package spearheaded by former President Donald Trump, dubbed the "big beautiful bill." Joined by David Leonhardt, the Director of the New York Times Editorial Board, they dissect the bill's implications, its potential passage, internal conflicts within the Republican Party, and the broader political repercussions.

---

Overview of the Big Beautiful Bill

Michelle Cottle introduces the main subject: President Trump’s comprehensive legislative proposal, which encompasses significant Medicaid cuts and substantial tax breaks primarily benefiting the wealthy. The bill is portrayed as "big" and "beautiful," though Michelle emphasizes the sarcasm in the host’s tone.

David Leonhardt (Timestamp: [02:04]) provides an initial assessment, expressing surprise that the bill might trigger Republican lawmakers to withdraw from upcoming elections. He states,

"I did not think it would lead to at least two Republican lawmakers announcing they will not be running again."

Leonhardt predicts the bill's passage, noting:

"When in doubt, you should bet on the Republican Party cutting taxes for rich people. And that's mostly what this bill is."
([02:04])

---

Impact on Healthcare

A significant portion of the discussion delves into the bill's healthcare implications. Leonhardt references two recent editorials from the New York Times that critically analyze the bill’s effects.

Work Requirements for Medicaid: Leonhardt explains that the bill introduces work requirements for Medicaid recipients. While he acknowledges the rationale behind attaching work conditions to federal programs, he argues that healthcare should remain accessible regardless of employment status. He criticizes the inefficiency and bureaucratic hurdles that could result in millions losing their healthcare coverage, even those who are employed.

"This bill would say more often, in order to get Medicaid, you have to prove that you're working... it takes healthcare away from people who aren't working and need healthcare, but it even takes healthcare away from people who are working, just through kind of bureaucratic error."
([02:50])

Projected Losses: Michelle confirms the scale of the impact:

"We're looking at like 11 or 12 million people... losing their health care, right?"
([04:41])

Leonhardt responds affirmatively, highlighting a significant regression from the progress achieved under Obamacare.

---

Republican Strategy and Internal Tensions

Internal Conflicts: Leonhardt discusses the deep-seated tensions within the Republican Party regarding the bill. While he predicts its passage, he underscores the growing unease among party members about its specifics and broader implications.

Republican Cynicism: He suggests that Republicans have become "cynically smarter," strategically avoiding town halls and public forums to minimize opposition and public scrutiny of the bill.

"The Republican Party has gotten smarter in a cynical way about how to minimize opposition."
([06:02])

Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: A core motivation behind the bill, as Leonhardt explains, is the extension of the nearly $4 trillion tax cuts from the 2017 Trump administration. These tax cuts disproportionately benefit the wealthy and are financially unsustainable without substantial budgetary adjustments elsewhere.

"In one sentence summary, Michelle, this bill takes away healthcare from middle class and poor people and uses the money to pay for tax cuts, mostly for rich people."
([09:11])

---

Potential Political Consequences

Public Reaction and Midterm Implications: Despite the bill’s potential unpopularity, there hasn't been a substantial public outcry yet. Leonhardt anticipates that as the reality of the bill's impact becomes more evident, Republicans may face significant backlash, particularly in upcoming midterm elections.

"I do think it'll pass. But underneath that prediction, there are huge tensions within the party about what exactly it should look like."
([02:04])

Damage to the Republican Brand: The bill undermines the Republican Party's traditional stance on fiscal conservatism, presenting an opportunity for Democrats to criticize the party's shift towards policies that exacerbate economic inequality and increase the national debt.

"These tax cuts are so big that the health care cuts aren't coming close to paying for them. [...] cutting taxes for rich people and cutting health care for middle class and poor people and increasing the national debt, it will create an opportunity for Democrats to criticize him."
([15:36] & [20:30])

---

Republican Voices in Opposition

Thom Tillis’s Opposition: Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina openly opposes the bill, highlighting its detrimental effects on Medicaid recipients.

"We owe it to the states to do the work to understand how these proposals affect them... I will be withholding my vote."
([10:19] - [10:26])

Josh Hawley’s Stance: Though initially vocal in his opposition, Josh Hawley is implied to reconsider his stance, reflecting the broader reluctance among Republicans to stand against Trump’s agenda.

Leonhardt's Critique: Leonhardt criticizes Hawley for ultimately compromising his principles, contrasting him with Tillis’s steadfast opposition.

"Josh Hawley came out guns blazing... And for him to then fold and go against what he himself said... deserves exactly the opprobrium that you were just giving it."
([13:07] - [13:25])

---

Democratic Opportunities

Strategic Advantage: Leonhardt posits that the bill provides a strategic opening for Democrats to rally voters by focusing on immediate, tangible issues like healthcare and economic hardship rather than abstract democratic ideals.

"The most effective way to do that is going to be talking about health care and talking about prices."
([22:08])

Student Governors and Candidates: Examples are given of Democratic governors and candidates, such as Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, who are actively using the bill’s implications to connect with constituents' everyday struggles.

"Abigail Spanberger is doing a bus tour in the Democratic candidate, and she is talking about how what's going on in Washington is materially hurting her constituents in Virginia already..."
([24:30])

Utilizing Republican Discontent: Leonhardt suggests that opposition from within the Republican ranks, including figures like Rand Paul, can be leveraged by Democrats to further discredit the bill and the party's fiscal irresponsibility.

---

Conclusion

The episode concludes with Michelle acknowledging the potential for Democratic candidates to capitalize on the bill’s negative fallout. Leonhardt remains cautiously optimistic that the bill might weaken Trump’s political standing more than other contentious policies, providing Democrats with a critical narrative to rally voters around fiscal responsibility and protect vulnerable populations from healthcare cuts.

"This bill is bad, but it's still not the same as undermining democracy... Why do you think that's not right?"
([20:30])

Leonhardt emphasizes the importance of focusing on concrete impacts over abstract threats to democracy, advocating for a strategic reorientation towards issues that directly affect voters’ daily lives.

"They are going after moderate issues that resonate with people's immediate concerns, which is precisely the most effective way to build broad-based support."
([22:08])

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• [02:04] David Leonhardt: "When in doubt, you should bet on the Republican Party cutting taxes for rich people. And that's mostly what this bill is."

• [09:11] David Leonhardt: "This bill takes away healthcare from middle class and poor people and uses the money to pay for tax cuts, mostly for rich people."

• [10:26] Thom Tillis: "We owe it to the American people and I owe it to the people of North Carolina to withhold my affirmative vote until it's demonstrated to me that we've done our homework."

• [15:36] David Leonhardt: "So Republicans are in a tricky situation here because this isn't simply a matter of cutting taxes further as people would experience it."

• [22:08] David Leonhardt: "The most effective way to do that is going to be talking about health care and talking about prices."

---

This episode of The Opinions offers a thorough analysis of the proposed legislative bill, highlighting its potential adverse effects on healthcare and economic inequality, the internal fractures within the Republican Party, and the strategic opportunities it presents for Democrats to regain political momentum by addressing immediate voter concerns.

Transcript

[Oracle Representative]

It's an interesting time for business. Tariff and trade policies are dynamic, supply chain squeezed and cash flow tighter than ever. If your business can't adapt in real time, you're in a world of hurt. You need total visibility from global shipments to tariff impacts to real time cash flow. That's NetSuite by Oracle, your AI powered business management suite trusted by over 42,000 businesses. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, download the free ebook Navigating Global 3 Insights for Leaders at netsuite.com NYT that's NetSuite.

[Podcast Host]

This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

[Michelle Cottle]

I'm Michelle Cottle and I cover national politics for Times Opinion. So with the July 4th weekend looming, I thought we'd talk about a different kind of fireworks that is President Trump' big, beautiful bill. And as always, I hope the air quotes there are audible for everybody. But that bill looks like it is on track for passage from Medicaid cuts to tax breaks for the rich. It is a lot. But thankfully with me to talk about this is David Leonhart, the fearless director of New York Times Editorial board who has some very pointed thoughts on the matter. So let's just get to it. David, welcome.

[David Leonhardt]

Thank you, Michelle. It's great to be talking with you.

[Michelle Cottle]

I am so excited. But warning to all, we're recording on Monday midday and even as we speak, the Senate is brawling its way through to a final vote. So the situation is fluid. Could change the details by the time you all hear this. But before we dive into any of those legislative juicy bits, David, I gotta ask, did you think this bill would lead to at least two Republican lawmakers announcing they will not be running again?

[David Leonhardt]

I did not. But it is a pretty good sign of the deep tensions within the Republican Party about this bill. And I look, I think this bill is ultimately going to pass because when in doubt, you should bet on the Republican Party cutting taxes for rich people. And that's mostly what this bill is. So I do think it'll pass. But underneath that prediction, there are huge tensions within the party about what exactly it should look like.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, so that takes us into the meat of the bill. So I couldn't help but notice that you have written not one, but two recent editorials taken this apart. Why does this bill, among so many not great bills, merit this attention?

[David Leonhardt]

So we've written two editorials about it focusing on what I think are two of the three big things that people should know about the effects of this bill. So one of those editorials that our colleague Binya Applebaum particularly worked on looked at this idea that the bill really is going to cut healthcare for millions of people. And it's going to do so in this kind of technocratic way, which is the bill introduces work requirements for Medicaid. And I understand actually why, just at kind of a top line way, people might say, well, well, I understand why you would want to put work requirements on a federal program. And actually, I do think there are federal programs that should have work requirements. I'm a pretty big skeptic of universal basic income, of the idea that we're just going to have the federal government give people lots of money outright. I don't think it's worked very well. I think it's hugely expensive. But healthcare is different. And I don't think we want to live in a society where in order to go get healthcare, you have to have a job. That's not the way other rich societies organize themselves. Obamacare helped us make progress toward the idea that you can get health care even if you don't have a job. And so what this bill would do is it would say more often, in order to get Medicaid, you have to prove that you're working. And the experience of states like Arkansas that have put in place versions of this policy, it turns out that often people who already are working just struggle to prove that they're working because forms are difficult, because government bureaucracies aren't always that efficient. And what ends up happening is that not only does it take healthcare away from people who aren't working and need healthcare, but it even takes healthcare away from people who are working, just through kind of bureaucratic error. And one of the main ways this bill saves money is going to be taking healthcare away from people who actually should be getting it, even by the bill's rules.

[Michelle Cottle]

So we're looking at like 11 or 12 million people, is the estimate for those who are going to lose their health care? Right?

[David Leonhardt]

Yes. We don't know exactly these are forecasts, but we are looking at millions of millions of people. We are looking at a very significant retreat of the progress under Obamacare. And I think it's important to remember that in President Trump's first term, he and congressional Republicans said, we're going to repeal Obamacare. And they failed at doing that because there was a grassroots movement led by disability rights activists, led by other political organizers, that made the repeal of Obamacare so unpopular. That a few Republicans, Most notably John McCain, the famous thumbs down vote late at night, the repeal of Obamacare to fail, and now the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, they're not repealing Obamacare, but they're basically undermining a large part of Obamacare while claiming otherwise. And so they are basically doing a soft repeal of Obamacare and not telling the truth about it.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, so there has not been a huge public outcry so far, at least not the size that you would think. With this coming, do you think Americans who will be impacted by these cuts understand what's happening?

[David Leonhardt]

That's an interesting question. There certainly has not been as, as effective organizing around this bill as there was around the Obamacare repeal eight years ago. And I think there are a few reasons for that. I think one is the Republican Party has gotten smarter in a cynical way about how to minimize opposition. So a lot of Republican members of Congress just aren't holding town halls right now because they know if they did, they would both get ordina voters yelling about this and they would get activists showing up and doing big demonstrations. But I also think it's fair to criticize the Democratic Party and activists who are aligned with the Democratic Party of not figuring out ways to make a bigger deal out of these cuts. And to some extent, they've allowed the Republican cynical strategy of staying away from town halls to work better than it might have. Having said that, even with that, this bill is deeply unpopular. I do think it's likely to hurt Republicans in the midterms. It is not popular to take health insurance away from middle class and poor people. And I think they are going to pay a political price for this, even if we don't yet know how big that political price is.

[Michelle Cottle]

Do you want to venture a reason why they've been so committed to focusing on these healthcare cuts? Because like you, this is one of those things that it just seems, I just feel like should have been too toxic for them.

[David Leonhardt]

Yes. So I mentioned a few minutes ago that there are three big things that I think people should know about this bill. And the second is the answer to your question. The Republican Party really wants to cut taxes for rich people. And if you want to cut taxes for rich people, you have to go find money to help pay for those tax cuts. And despite all the talk you hear of government waste and foreign aid, there's not a lot of money in easily identifiable government waste or foreign aid. And so like Willie Sutton said about the banks, you got to go where the money is. And where is the money in the US Government budget, it's basically in three things, the military, health care and Social Security. There are some other things as well, anti poverty programs, ag but those are the big three ones. And so they're not going to go after military spending. And actually I don't think they should. I don't think the US Is spending too much in the military right now. It's a different subject. And I understand some listeners will disagree with that. They're not going to go after Social Security. They're not going to go after Medicare. And so by process of elimination, that leaves them going after Medicaid, which is health insurance for middle class and poor people. And they're going after that in order to pay for tax cuts, not exclusively for rich people. The tax cuts will be broader than that, but disproportionately for rich people. In a one sentence summary, Michelle, this bill takes away healthcare from middle class and poor people and uses the money to pay for tax cuts, mostly for rich people.

[Michelle Cottle]

But I've heard them discuss it and I think this speaks to your point about them getting cynically smarter. They're always pitching this as, oh, it's just a way to weed out fraud. Fraud is like the answer to everything they have. We're going to just do everything in the world by weeding out fraud.

[David Leonhardt]

That is the way they talk about it. They're absolutely trying to package this as just going after fraud. But it's our job to obviously not let them get away with misleading packaging. And so if we're going to say it straight, they're taking away health care from poor and middle class people to pay for tax cuts, mostly for rich people. There are even some Republican voices who acknowledge the reality of what this is doing. And I would really recommend the guest essay we had in our own pages by Josh Hawley, the Missouri Republican. I would also recommend what Thom Tillis, the Republican senator from North Carolina, has said about this.

[Thom Tillis]

So what do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid?

[David Leonhardt]

Because what Tillis just said was this will take health care away from people.

[Thom Tillis]

We owe it to the states to do the work to understand how these proposals affect them. How hard is that? What's wrong with actually understanding what this bill does? Mr. President, we owe it to the American people and I owe it to the people of North Carolina to withhold my affirmative vote until it's demonstrated to me that we've done our homework. But until that time, I will be withholding my vote.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, before we get any deeper into the details, I wanted to just touch on this Thom Tillis thing where he has announced that he is not supporting this bill, but along with that, he will not run for reelection. Whereas you also cited someone, Josh Hawley, who had been saying that he just cannot abide the Medicaid cuts. And yet Josh is folding because he is not leaving the Senate, which has folks wondering about the spinal fortitude of anybody looking to stay in the Senate these days. And it does strike me that what's different here is that people talk about Taco. Trump always chickens out. I'm more along the lines of Craco. The Congressional Republicans always chicken out out because for all of their values or priorities or whatever, they just, they do not want to go head to head with Trump and get the beat down like Tillis was about to go in for.

[David Leonhardt]

I think I agree with you. Although I also think Cracko sounds not nearly as tasty as Taco. I'm not even sure what a cracker would be. Yes, I think that's right. I think that in Trump's Republican Party, we have really seen that it is virtually impossible for now to oppose him in a high profile way and to keep your job. Right. So the list is Mitt Romney, and it's Jeff Flake, and it's obviously Liz Cheney, and now it's Thom Tillis, and that is a reality. But I still think it's worth taking a minute to honor a politician who decides that I have principles that are larger than simply trying to win reelection. And it can both be the case that Thom Tillis made a rational decision that he couldn't do this and keep his job, which I think is probably the case. And we can honor Thom Tillis for saying, I'm not going to play along with what is essentially a lie, that we are doing this bill and everyone will still have their health care, because that's not true.

[Michelle Cottle]

Oh. To be clear, I'm not really taking a poke at Thom Tillis. I'm really taking a poke at Josh Hawley and all of those others so deeply concerned Republicans who just have so many problems with this bill, but fundamentally are gonna just roll over like they almost always do.

[David Leonhardt]

And I think, I do think that's an important point, which is Josh Hawley came out guns blazing. Right. I won't give in to this. And I'm a populist Republican. And the Republicans need to be the party of the working class. And in some ways, the Republicans are the party of the Working class. They certainly have closer views to the working class on most. But for him to then fold and go against what he himself said in a way that is quite blatantly careerist, deserves exactly the opprobrium that you were just giving it.

[Michelle Cottle]

So, as you mentioned, the reason Republicans are so keen to cut spending, even on popular programs, is that they want to extend the almost 4 trillion in tax cuts that were passed during the first Trump administration back in 2017. So what cuts are included in this bill? Can you kind of explain the administration's argument for why this is all such a stellar idea?

[David Leonhardt]

Well, they're still working through the details. So the House has passed a bill, the Senate will presumably pass a bill, and then, and then the House will either have to pass the identical Senate bill or they'll have to pass a third bill that basically reconciles the two. So we don't know exactly, but the biggest tax cuts in this bill, as you just alluded to, Michelle, are basically extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts. And so Republicans are in a tricky situation here because this isn't simply a matter of cutting taxes further as people would experience it. If current law remains as it is, taxes would go up for huge numbers of Americans. And so they are in a tough political situation here. But when you look at economic history, what you see over the last several decades is you see slow growing incomes for most Americans, hugely growing incomes for the wealthy, and at the same time, rapidly falling tax rates for the wealthy. And so this extends this economic era of really high inequality, and this will make that even more true.

[Michelle Cottle]

So we get the next Bezos wedding will be even posh.

[David Leonhardt]

Exactly. Or at least it doesn't have to become less posh because the higher tax rates don't go into effect. And in fact, this brings us to the third of the three points I billboarded at the beginning. In fact, these tax cuts are so big that the health care cuts aren't coming close to paying for them. And so not only are they cutting health care for poor and middle class people in order to to pay for the tax cuts, but they are adding large amounts to the national debt. And one of the things that we tried to point out in our most recent editorial on this is that the debt is not just a future risk. It is a future risk, but it is a current problem today. I don't think most Americans understand. We are already spending more every year on the interest on the federal debt than we are spending on the military. So already the size of our federal debt is draining substantial resources from our government. And this tax cut is so big that it would significantly increase the debt in future years and decades.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, so the Republican Party once celebrated itself as the party of fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism. Have you heard a compelling defense of why that just doesn't matter anymore?

[David Leonhardt]

I think, in part, the party has decided that it has not paid a big political price for not caring about the deficit. The last Republican president who cared about the deficit was George H.W. bush, and he is remembered, sadly, for violating his read my lips, no new taxes promise. And then he did violate it, and he actually doesn't get enough Credit for the 1990s decline in the deficit. But the lesson that the Republican Party took from that is that it is actually politically mistaken and damaging to raise taxes. And since then, you have had George W. Bush and Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan did this as well, cut taxes by so much that it really does add to the deficit. And they've essentially decided that they don't pay a big political price for that. They may be right about that. But I also think that there may be an opportunity here that the debt may be getting so big that there is an opportunity for the Democrats to try to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility and paint accurately the Republican Party as the party of fiscal irresponsibility.

[Michelle Cottle]

Do you have a lot of optimism, from what you're seeing, that the Democrats can rise to this occasion? Because as chaotic as the Republicans are, the Democratic Party is having its own kind of moment of existential crisis?

[David Leonhardt]

The easy answer is no. The easy answer is. The easy answer is always not be optimistic about the strategic acumen of the Democratic Party. But that's not my only answer. This bill, really, I think, will damage Donald Trump politically in a way that, frankly, some of the more substantively alarming things he's done will not damage him. So you've already heard me say that I think this is a really bad bill. It's a big, bad budget busting bill. So I think this bill is bad, but it's still not the same as undermining democracy. And so I think if we had to do a rank order of the negative consequences of President Trump's policies, this wouldn't be at the very bottom, going after law firms trying to quash free speech of immigrants. Things like that would be much lower on the list. But this actually, I think, is more likely to weaken Trump than some of those other moves. This notion of democracy can often feel intangible to people, particularly people who are struggling to pay their bills. Some of the things that Trump is doing in those other areas actually are popular. Closing the border is popular. Joe Biden's immigration policy was so open and led to the biggest influx of immigration in this country's history. Based on the records we have that Trump gets some political benefits for closing the border. But this bill, cutting taxes for rich people and cutting health care for middle class and poor people and increasing the national debt, it will create an opportunity for Democrats to criticize him in a way that may resonate. I don't think Democrats could get a lot of attention right now for the criticisms relative to the attention that's just going to go to Republicans passing the bill. Once it passes, there will be more opportunities for the Democratic Party to make an effective case about just how bad this bill is.

[Michelle Cottle]

See, I totally agree with you on this. So this has come up in different ways over the years, just talking about why Trump is so scary. And I found that when I'm talking to whether it's family members who don't pay that much attention to politics or voters out in the states, you can talk a good game about the threat to democracy and the things that we get really exercised about. But if people are feeling surly about kitchen table issues, you know, gas prices, egg prices, the cost of education, that sort of thing, they just cannot. They don't have the bandwidth to get as freaked out about the kind of more philosophical issues or the broader picture issues. And I've been talking to some governors lately about where to go from here for the Democrats and the. But they are pretty kind of adamant that until people actually feel the pain of the cuts that are coming, there's just not a lot you can do that's not that people don't care about Democratic ideals and things like that, but when you are, like, in the trenches of, like, trying to make ends meet and dealing with inflation or whatever kind of life issues are coming at you, it's going to be the pain to your pocketbook and the pain of those Doge cuts and these cuts and all of that will give Democrats the opening. So I think you're completely right that this is, you know, they're going to get their moment. The Republicans are going to get their moment. Trump's going to pass his bill, there'll be all this hoopla, and then we'll see what happens.

[David Leonhardt]

There was a wonderful guest essay in the Times just after Trump won election nine years ago by Luigi Zingales, who is Italian and who is a professor at the University of Chicago ago, and the headline on it was the right way to resist Trump. And the analogy he drew was to Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. And he pointed out that the Italian politicians from the center and the center left who were most effective at defeating Berlusconi over the years were the ones who didn't say, look how outrageous he is. Look how beyond the pale he is. He isn't us. That tended to fail for reasons connected to what you just said, Michelle. The ones who were more successful said, look at how he's failing to deliver on his promises. They treated him more like a normal politician who was failing to deliver than they treated him like some kind of existential threat. And I know that is very hard for those of us who do see really serious anti Democratic threats coming from Trump. Trump, as I do. But it's really important to ask yourself what kind of political strategy doesn't just feel good, but actually is effective. And I do think this bill will create an opening for people who are alarmed by his governance and his hostile attitudes toward democracy to weaken him politically and strengthen people who believe more deeply in American democracy. And the most effective way to do that is going to be talking about health care and talking about prices. And I would really encourage people to look at the 2024 campaigns of Democrats who actually won in places that Trump also won. So that's Marcy Kaptor, it's Alyssa Slotkin in Michigan, it's Ruben Gallego in Arizona. They talked about kitchen table issues. They directly addressed the Democratic Party's huge weaknesses, like on immigration. And that is actually going to be even easier in 2026 because Democrats are then going to be able to blame Trump for the things that he didn't fix. And this bill can be a central part of that argument.

[Michelle Cottle]

I just want to throw in here that already we're seeing some of this on the governor's trail in Virginia. Abigail Spanberger is doing a bus tour in the Democratic candidate, and she is talking about how what's going on in Washington is materially hurting her constituents in Virginia already and looking forward to how it's potentially going to get worse. So I think that your approach has kind of sunk in with at least some members of the party already.

[David Leonhardt]

And I think we should also say that Republicans are boy or are Republicans providing them with some good tape to use. I mean, both the Thom Tillis stuff about how deeply they're cutting Medicaid and the Rand Paul stuff about Rand Paul, of course, being the Kentucky senator. The Rand Paul stuff about just how bad this is for the national debt. Whether it's Democrats or independents or Republicans who are worried about Trump, there are going to be very harsh words about this bill coming from Republicans that can be used against the people who voted for this bill.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay, remind me of your alliterative preference to big beautiful bill again, because that's where we're gonna get T shirts made up for that.

[David Leonhardt]

It is the big bad budget busting bill.

[Michelle Cottle]

Okay? And with that, David, we are gonna land this plane. Thank you for coming by to make sense of this entire mess for me.

[David Leonhardt]

Thank you, Michelle.

[Michelle Cottle]

David was coming to us from the Aspen Ideas Festival. So many thanks to them for helping us with the recording.

[Podcast Host]

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur Vishaka Darba, Christina Samulewski and Jillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.