MYTHBUSTER: One Big Beautiful Bill Cuts Spending — and More Cuts Are on the Way

6/5/2025

Articles

View Original

Action Summary

One Big Beautiful Bill: A reconciliation bill aimed at cutting spending by enacting $1.7 trillion in mandatory savings, representing a significant opportunity to cement long-term savings on mandatory programs.
Permanent Fixes: Includes permanent changes to Medicaid and food stamp programs, potentially reducing taxpayer burden by removing illegal immigrants from benefits and cutting funding for controversial spending areas.
Reconciliation Limitations: As a reconciliation measure, it is confined to changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) and cannot address annual appropriations for government operations.
Trump’s Budget Proposal: Proposes a historic cut in non-defense spending by $163 billion (22% below current levels), reaching the lowest adjusted spending in 25 years and promising trillions in savings over the next decade.
Rescission Tactics: The administration is deploying rescissions to cancel previously appropriated funds, targeting wasteful foreign aid, bureaucratic fraud, and funding for NPR/PBS, with additional packages expected.

Risks & Considerations

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” aims to implement significant spending cuts, particularly in mandatory spending programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. This could lead to reduced funding for programs that indirectly support university students and staff, potentially affecting their financial stability and access to resources.
The bill’s focus on cutting government funding for specific services, such as sex changes, may impact the university’s healthcare policies and the support it provides to its diverse student body, potentially leading to ethical and compliance challenges.
The reduction in non-defense spending by 22% could affect federal grants and funding opportunities for research and development at Vanderbilt University, necessitating a reevaluation of funding strategies and priorities.
The use of “rescissions” to cancel previously appropriated funding could create uncertainty in the financial planning and budgeting processes for federally funded projects at the university.

Impacted Programs

Vanderbilt’s Financial Aid Office may need to adjust its strategies to accommodate potential changes in federal aid programs and ensure continued support for students affected by cuts to Medicaid and other social services.
The Office of Diversity and Inclusion might face challenges in maintaining support for LGBTQ+ students if federal funding for related healthcare services is reduced.
Research departments at Vanderbilt could experience a decrease in available federal funding, impacting ongoing and future projects, particularly those reliant on non-defense discretionary spending.
The Office of Government and Community Relations may need to engage in advocacy efforts to mitigate the impact of federal spending cuts on the university and its community.

Financial Impact

The proposed spending cuts could lead to a reduction in federal funding for research and educational programs, affecting Vanderbilt’s financial planning and potentially leading to a need for increased reliance on private grants and donations.
Changes in Medicaid and other social services funding could impact the financial aid and support services provided to students, necessitating adjustments in the university’s budget allocations.
The potential reduction in federal funding for public broadcasting and other cultural programs may affect partnerships and collaborative projects that Vanderbilt is involved in.

Relevance Score: 4 (The bill presents high risks involving major transformations in funding and support services.)

Key Actions

Vanderbilt’s Financial Planning Office should assess the potential impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill on federal funding streams, particularly those related to Medicaid and other mandatory spending programs. Understanding these changes will be crucial for anticipating budget adjustments and ensuring financial stability.
The Office of Federal Relations should engage with policymakers to understand the implications of the rescission packages on research and educational funding. By staying informed, Vanderbilt can better advocate for the preservation of essential funding and identify alternative funding sources if necessary.
Vanderbilt’s Health Policy Center should analyze the long-term effects of the proposed Medicaid changes on healthcare access and outcomes. This research can provide valuable insights for policymakers and help Vanderbilt position itself as a leader in health policy analysis.
The Department of Political Science should conduct research on the broader societal impacts of the spending cuts, particularly in relation to social services and public welfare. Sharing these findings with the public and policymakers can enhance Vanderbilt’s role as a thought leader in fiscal policy and social equity.

Opportunities

The executive order presents an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s School of Medicine to explore innovative healthcare delivery models that can operate efficiently under reduced Medicaid funding. By developing cost-effective solutions, Vanderbilt can contribute to national healthcare reform efforts.
Vanderbilt can capitalize on the focus on fiscal responsibility by developing new programs and partnerships that emphasize financial literacy and economic sustainability. This could include joint research initiatives, community outreach programs, and curriculum development, enhancing Vanderbilt’s reputation in the field of economics and public policy.
The emphasis on reducing government spending offers an opportunity for Vanderbilt’s Center for Public Policy to engage in policy analysis and advocacy. By providing evidence-based recommendations, the center can influence how spending cuts are implemented and ensure that essential services are preserved.

Relevance Score: 4 (The order presents the potential for major process changes required for Vanderbilt’s programs due to significant impacts on federal funding and policy shifts.)

Average Relevance Score: 3.4

Timeline for Implementation

N/A – The text does not specify any explicit deadlines or timeframes for implementing the directives.

Relevance Score: 1

Impacted Government Organizations

Office of Management and Budget (OMB): The text cites the OMB Deputy Director in connection with the fiscal strategy, indicating oversight and implementation roles in the spending cuts and reconciliation process.
Congress: As the reconciliation bill involves mandatory spending programs and the rescission of previously appropriated funds, Congress is a key actor in both enacting and overseeing these budgetary changes.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): With permanent fixes to Medicaid mentioned in the bill, HHS is directly affected by the adjustments to entitlement programs.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): The bill’s impact on food stamps (SNAP) directly involves the USDA, which administers these nutrition assistance programs.
Public Broadcasting Entities (NPR/PBS): The rescissions package targeting federal funding for NPR and PBS affects these organizations that rely on government appropriations.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID): Given that the bill calls for clawing back billions in what is described as wasteful foreign aid, USAID – the lead agency for administering U.S. foreign assistance – is impacted.

Relevance Score: 3 (Multiple Federal agencies are impacted by spending cuts, mandatory program changes, and funding rescissions outlined in the text.)

Responsible Officials

President Donald J. Trump – As the originator of the spending cut directives through his proposed legislation and rescissions package, his administration is charged with overseeing these fiscal policy changes.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – Implicitly tasked with implementing the budget proposals and rescissions, as suggested by the involvement and comments of OMB Deputy Director Dan Bishop.

Relevance Score: 5 (Directives affect top executive officials whose actions have wide-ranging fiscal and policy implications.)