According to analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), the legislation preserves $378 billion in existing tax relief and delivers $167 billion in new tax relief, with the most significant proportional benefits going to Americans earning under $50,000. For example, individuals earning between $15,000 and $30,000 see a 21.4% reduction from current law (not including existing tax cuts set to expire).

Full series of reports:

• JCX-32-25 - Figures relative to the defined current policy baseline
• JCX-33-25 - Figures relative to the present law baseline

This study examines how the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) influenced corporate investment behavior. It finds that firms receiving significant tax benefits from the TCJA increased their fixed asset investments the following year. The rise in investment was driven by higher expected earnings and one-time tax gains. The effect was strongest among firms with higher capital costs and stronger alignment between management and shareholders. The OBBB makes the TCJA corporate tax cuts permanent.

See also: Corporate Tax Cuts Do Not Trickle Down

This paper uses a multi-country economic model based on U.S. and Canadian data to examine how corporate income tax (CIT) cuts affect income inequality. It finds that CIT cuts can widen income gaps both within and between countries, especially due to differences in equity ownership across borders. While reducing barriers to capital mobility can help ease this inequality, lowering trade costs has minimal impact. The OBBB makes the corporate tax rate cut permanent.

See also: OBBB Breakdown: 3 to 5 Trillion Dollar Debt Increase

Kelly Phillips Erb from Forbes gives an explanation of how the One, Big, Beautiful Bill will implement its "no taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security" provisions. Workers will be taxed on qualified tips and overtime throughout the year, but will be able to take a deduction when they file. Workers are still required to pay their portion of payroll taxes (FICA). Although relatively few Social Security recipients pay taxes on their benefits, a deduction is available for those whose "combined income exceeds the base amount for [their] filing status." Forbes does not score high on factual reporting, but this source does a good job of providing context.

See also: Very Few Workers Will Actually Benefit from "No Tax on Tips"

At the 2025 NATO summit, member countries agreed to a new goal: spending 5% of their GDP on defense by 2035. The move came after strong pressure from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who pushed allies to increase their contributions. While most members supported the target, Spain refused to commit, saying it would stick to the previous 2% goal. In response, Trump warned that Spain could face trade consequences. The agreement marks a major shift in NATO’s approach to defense funding, though not without tension among allies.

See also: OBBB Breakdown: 3 to 5 Trillion Dollar Debt Increase

Signed by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14159 directs federal agencies to aggressively enforce immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable noncitizens. The order revokes several immigration-related executive actions from the previous administration and calls for expanded use of expedited removal, biometric registration, and increased federal prosecutions for immigration offenses. It frames unauthorized immigration as a national security threat and emphasizes the federal government’s duty to prioritize the safety and economic well-being of American citizens.

See also: OBBB Breakdown: 3 to 5 Trillion Dollar Debt Increase

The “No Tax on Tips Act,” introduced by several U.S. senators in 2024, proposed to exclude tipped income from federal income taxes. An analysis from Yale’s Budget Lab placed the bill in context, showing that tipped workers make up only a small portion of the U.S. workforce—about 2.5% in 2023—and tend to be younger and lower-income. Additionally, 37% of those workers already pay little or no federal income tax. While a "no tax on tips" solution is commendable, it would only benefit about 1.6% of working Americans.

The article examines the 2018 implementation of Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas, which led to over 25% of targeted enrollees losing coverage—primarily due to administrative barriers rather than employment status. Despite the policy’s intent to encourage work, the study found no increase in employment, but did observe declines in preventive care and self-reported health, highlighting the unintended consequences of linking healthcare access to work reporting requirements.

This study analyzes the effects of losing public health insurance by examining Tennessee’s 2005 TennCare disenrollment, which removed coverage for 190,000 mostly non-elderly, childless adults. Using a difference-in-differences approach with national survey data, the paper finds that losing coverage led to a 4–5% drop in preventive care use (like mammograms and breast exams) and a 20% increase in days of reported health-related incapacitation. There was no strong evidence of changes in emergency department use.

See also: Medicaid Cuts Will Likely Result in Poor Health Outcomes