As Capitol Hill braces for one of its most consequential legislative showdowns in recent memory, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough finds herself at the center of the storm. Tasked with reviewing the legality of several contentious provisions within the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” MacDonough’s rulings will determine the fate of some of the most politically charged elements in the package.
Saudi Arabia Cracks Down on Unauthorized Pilgrims Ahead of Hajj 2025 Amid Rising Safety Concerns
What Is at Stake in “One Big Beautiful Bill”?
The proposed legislation is an ambitious omnibus bill addressing a wide range of economic, technological, and legal issues. It has generated intense debate across party lines—especially regarding whether certain provisions are eligible for inclusion under the budget reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority for Senate passage.
While typically working behind the scenes, MacDonough’s rulings could shape not only this bill but also set precedent for future legislative strategies.
The Role of the Senate Parliamentarian
As the Senate’s top procedural authority, MacDonough oversees the reconciliation process, a legislative shortcut that enables passage of budget-related bills with a simple majority—bypassing the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster. Her decisions are guided by the Byrd Rule, named after the late Senator Robert Byrd.
Under this rule, each provision in a reconciliation bill must:
- Directly impact federal revenue or spending
- Not increase the federal deficit outside the budget window
- Avoid being deemed “extraneous” to budget goals
MacDonough determines whether each provision meets those criteria. If not, the provision is stripped from the bill.
High-Stakes Provisions Under Scrutiny
Several provisions in “One Big Beautiful Bill” are raising red flags, especially those that appear only loosely connected to budgetary outcomes. Among the most controversial:
1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation Moratorium
The bill seeks to block state and local governments from regulating AI systems and automated decision-making processes for a ten-year period. Critics argue this would handcuff meaningful oversight of AI during a pivotal era in its development. The lack of a direct fiscal impact may make this provision vulnerable under the Byrd Rule.
2. Federal Court Reform Restrictions
Another contentious element aims to limit legal recourse for individuals suing the federal government, effectively removing courts as a channel for relief. Senators like Joni Ernst (R-IA) have expressed doubt that such provisions could pass Byrd Rule scrutiny, as they’re unlikely to have direct budgetary consequences.
3. Medicaid Funding Ban for Employed Paternity Leave
The proposal to block Medicaid funding for employed paternity leave is perhaps the most controversial. This echoes a similar provision in the 2017 reconciliation package—struck down by MacDonough at the time. With the same fiscal weaknesses and heightened political sensitivities, it could meet the same fate again.
Why This Matters for Both Parties
For Democrats, the bill represents a rare chance to advance progressive priorities via reconciliation, especially in an era where the filibuster continues to block key policy initiatives. Losing these provisions could significantly weaken the bill’s impact.
For Republicans, pushing for the removal of non-budgetary items is both a procedural win and a way to block policies they oppose. If AI regulation bans or paternity-related measures are removed, it would reduce the bill’s policy reach and signal the limits of reconciliation strategy.
The Broader Implications of MacDonough’s Decision
Elizabeth MacDonough’s rulings will not only affect the fate of this specific legislation but could also reshape the way future bills are written and passed. Her interpretations of the Byrd Rule are closely watched by lawmakers, legal scholars, and political strategists.
The reconciliation process, while technical, has become a vital tool for both parties to push through major legislation. However, it comes with constraints—highlighting the power wielded by the Senate Parliamentarian.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Legislative Strategy
As the nation watches the drama unfold, Elizabeth MacDonough’s rulings could decide which parts of “One Big Beautiful Bill” survive—and which are cut. Her decisions will reverberate far beyond this moment, influencing how future Congresses use reconciliation to pass transformative legislation.
With critical issues like AI regulation, court access, and healthcare funding hanging in the balance, MacDonough’s role has never been more consequential. What happens next may not only reshape this bill but also the broader landscape of U.S. policymaking.