Treasury secretary defends '1 Big Beautiful Bill' as Democrats warn of deficits and coverage losses

United States Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent testified to the House Ways and Means Committee that the "1 Big Beautiful Bill" (which he referred to as "o triple b") would make the 2017 tax cuts permanent and spur manufacturing investment, higher wages and job growth.

Bessent told the committee the legislation "will make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. This will provide individuals and businesses with certainty and build economic momentum," and he cited administration projections that the measure would increase take-home pay and incentivize factory investment through 100% expensing.

Why it matters: Democrats on the committee said nonpartisan and academic scoring shows the opposite fiscal effect. Ranking Member Richard Neal and other Democrats repeatedly cited estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and academic centers that the reconciliation package would increase deficits and cause reductions to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act supports, which they said would lead to coverage losses and downstream health and economic harm.

During questioning, Democrats cited the CBO projection that tens of millions could lose coverage because of the bill’s Medicaid and ACA provisions and said independent analyses show the largest gains would flow to the highest-income households. Representative Bennie Thompson summarized the concern: committee Democrats said the bill would, in aggregate, shift benefits upward and cuts to health and safety-net programs would disproportionately affect lower-income families.

Bessent pushed back on model-based critiques and invoked past post‑enactment outcomes, saying the 2017 tax changes generated stronger-than-expected receipts after implementation. He also disputed some CBO assumptions and said tariff revenue and pro-growth effects could change budget outcomes. In answer to a direct question about interaction with IRS audits and political interference, Bessent told Representative Lloyd Doggett, "I will follow the law and all proper procedures." He declined to provide the committee the kind of 30‑day attestation some Democrats requested on whether the president or associates had tried to influence audits.

Committee members pressed concrete impacts and distributional detail: Representative Mary Gay Scanlon and others quoted JCT numbers showing big dollar benefits for millionaires in single years and much smaller annual gains for many households under $50,000. Democrats asked how potential increases in mortgage rates, hospital closures and job losses in health care—risks they tied to program cuts—were consistent with the administration’s stated goals.

Bessent repeatedly framed the bill as a three‑legged agenda—taxes, trade and deregulation—and said permanence and expensing would prompt private‑sector investment and job creation. He told Representative Michael Burgess and others that 100% expensing for factories and equipment is the "single most powerful aspect" to spur manufacturing.

Ending: The hearing produced no formal votes; members from both parties left clear that the central fiscal and distribution battles over the reconciliation package remain unresolved. The committee gave Bessent wide latitude to defend the proposal but also recorded sharp, recurring Democratic objections—centered on CBO/JCT scores and health‑coverage impacts—that will be part of the public and congressional debate going forward.