Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough might not be a familiar name to everyone, but this behind-the-scenes figure, often called the Senate’s “referee,” has found herself at the heart of a major legislative battle. Her recent rulings are creating significant obstacles for US President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax and spending proposal, which he’s famously dubbed the “big beautiful bill.”
The sprawling legislation, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to add trillions to the national debt over the next decade (figures ranging from $2.4 trillion to nearly $3 trillion have been cited for different versions), aims to deliver substantial spending cuts and extend tax reductions. However, MacDonough has flagged multiple provisions within the bill, asserting they violate established Senate rules.
Why the Parliamentarian Matters: The Byrd Rule and Reconciliation
MacDonough’s influence stems from her role in interpreting Senate rules, particularly the Byrd Rule. Adopted in 1985, this rule prevents “extraneous” policy matters from being included in “reconciliation” bills. Reconciliation is a special procedural tool that allows certain budget-related legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote (51 votes), bypassing the standard 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.
The “big beautiful bill” is being advanced through reconciliation to avoid a Democratic filibuster. However, MacDonough’s examination has revealed numerous instances where the bill attempts to weave policy changes into this budget framework, which the Byrd Rule explicitly forbids.
Provisions Under Scrutiny
Several specific provisions have drawn MacDonough’s objections, throwing planned cuts and policy shifts into doubt. Among these are:
A proposal to cap states’ ability to secure additional federal Medicaid funding through healthcare provider taxes.
Measures that would have complicated the enforcement of contempt findings against the Trump administration.
Further rulings remain possible as she continues to review the extensive document.
Consequences and a Looming Deadline
MacDonough’s findings carry significant weight. They cast uncertainty over potentially billions of dollars in planned cuts and make it increasingly difficult for Congress to meet the ambitious July 4th deadline set by President Trump for sending the bill to his desk.
Adding to the complexity, the bill already faced a narrow path after passing the House of Representatives by a slim margin (215-214). While Republicans control both chambers, forging consensus has proven challenging, especially on contentious social programs like Medicaid and other policy riders.
GOP Divisions and Calls for Action
The parliamentarian’s rulings have sparked vocal frustration among some Republicans. Figures like Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville have gone as far as publicly demanding her firing, arguing she is an unelected staffer obstructing a presidential mandate. Kansas Senator Roger Marshall echoed calls for change, suggesting term limits for the parliamentarian and referencing the 2001 firing of Parliamentarian Robert Dove following a ruling that angered Republicans during reconciliation. Texas Senator John Cornyn also suggested the party should not allow an unelected staffer to halt their legislative agenda.
However, this sentiment is not universal within the party. Senate Republican Leader John Thune of South Dakota has pushed back against calls to overrule or dismiss MacDonough. He described her rulings not as roadblocks, but as “speed bumps,” indicating that the party’s path forward involves rewriting problematic sections of the bill to comply with Senate rules, rather than changing the rules or the parliamentarian herself.
Broader Challenges Facing the Bill
Beyond the parliamentarian’s technical rulings, the “big beautiful bill” faces other significant hurdles and internal Republican divisions, highlighted by the bill’s narrow House passage and unified Democratic opposition. These include:
Cost Concerns: Some Republicans and external figures like Elon Musk have criticized the bill’s projected impact on the national debt, with deficit hawks like Senator Rand Paul declaring it “the opposite of conservative.”
Medicaid Cuts: Proposed cuts of nearly $800 billion over a decade in the House version, along with potentially stricter work requirements in the Senate proposal (mandating work or volunteering for adults with children over 14), have drawn opposition from senators like Josh Hawley due to concerns about millions losing coverage and threats to rural hospitals.
SALT Deduction Conflict: A key difference between the House bill (raising the cap to $40,000 for certain filers) and the reported Senate version (permanently extending the current $10,000 cap) poses a major challenge. Some House Republicans crucial to the initial passage have warned a Senate bill retaining the $10,000 cap would be “DEAD ON ARRIVAL” back in the House.
Other Policy Riders: Provisions beyond MacDonough’s Byrd Rule objections, such as the approach to clean energy tax credits (House vs. Senate phase-outs) and measures related to regulating AI or hindering judicial enforcement of court orders, are also points of contention causing internal debate.
The Path Ahead
Should the Senate manage to pass its version of the bill, it must return to the House for approval due to anticipated changes made during Senate debate. The potential for significant alterations, particularly regarding the controversial SALT deduction, raises concerns about whether the House votes secured for the initial passage would hold.
Despite the legislative challenges and internal friction, the White House, through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, has reiterated President Trump’s firm stance on meeting the July 4th deadline, acknowledging the parliamentarian’s role as a normal part of the Senate’s process.
MacDonough, the first woman to hold the parliamentarian role since 2012, has a history of serving under Senates controlled by both parties. She has navigated similar political pressures before, notably in 2021 when multiple Democratic legislators called for her overruling after she determined a minimum wage increase could not be included in a reconciliation bill at the time. For now, her interpretations of Senate rules remain a pivotal factor determining the fate and final shape of President Trump’s signature legislative push.
