Here’s How Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill” Will Actually Affect North Texas

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF): Trump's $4.5 trillion "Big Beautiful Bill" delivers sweeping tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthiest North Texas households and business owners, while middle-class and low-income families are likely to experience net financial losses as rising consumer costs outpace modest tax savings. The bill adds $2.8–$3.3 trillion to federal deficits despite promises of self-financing growth, while cuts to healthcare, nutrition programs, and emergency preparedness increase the vulnerability of a state already burdened by the nation’s highest uninsured rate and frequent severe weather threats.

Executive Summary

President Trump's $4.5 trillion "Big Beautiful Bill" creates dramatically different outcomes across North Texas depending on income level and family circumstances. While the legislation delivers substantial tax cuts and promises some level of economic growth, most North Texas residents will face a more complex financial reality than supporters acknowledge.

Wealthy North Texans will see the largest gains, with the top 1% of earners receiving tax cuts averaging over $100,000 annually, among the highest benefits in the nation due to Texas's lack of state income tax. Business owners are likely to benefit from expanded tax deductions, faster expensing of capital investments, and greater long-term tax predictability – all factors that could encourage business growth and investment across the region.

Middle-class families face more contradictory outcomes. Modest tax savings of $600–$1,500 annually will be largely offset by increased costs due to the bill’s sweeping tariffs, projected to add $1,700–$7,400 in annual household expenses. When both sides of the ledger are considered, most middle-income Texans will experience a net loss.

Low-income residents are at greatest risk, as cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs disproportionately impact Texans already living on the margins. Texas has the highest uninsured rate in the country, and Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that up to 17 million Americans could lose healthcare coverage under the provisions of this bill, making Texas especially vulnerable. Rural hospitals, already under pressure, may face added financial strain despite the bill’s inclusion of a $50 billion stabilization fund.

The bill also undermines emergency preparedness. Senator Ted Cruz inserted language at the last minute eliminating $150 million from NOAA’s weather forecasting programs. Separately, $1.1 billion in cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting target the same public media systems that deliver life-saving alerts during tornadoes, floods, and other disasters.

Independent projections consistently estimate modest economic growth between 0.4–1.2%, far below the 4.6–4.9% growth figures promoted by supporters like Congressman Brandon Gill (TX-26). Even when using dynamic scoring, a method preferred by Gill, the bill is expected to add $2.8–$3.3 trillion to the national debt, undermining promises that it will “pay for itself.”

The region's diverse economy and relatively affluent population mean North Texas may benefit more than many areas of the country from the tax cuts and business incentives. However, the majority of North Texas families should prepare for higher living costs, fewer government services, and new risks to health and safety.

President Trump signed his "Big Beautiful Bill" into law on July 4th, 2025

A Full Overview of Key Provisions

Signed into law on July 4, 2025, the “Big Beautiful Bill” is a $4.5 trillion tax and spending package intended to deliver substantial tax relief and spur economic growth that will ultimately reduce deficits and strengthen America's broader fiscal position. The law permanently extends the 2017 tax cuts, introduces new deductions for tips and overtime, increases border security funding, and enacts deep cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other public programs.¹

The legislation includes:

• Permanent extension of 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions

• Tax exemptions on tips and overtime pay through 2028

• Permanent increase of the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $2,200

• Enhanced deductions for depreciation and R&D

• Historic reductions to Medicaid and SNAP, including expanded work requirements

• $350 billion for border security and immigration enforcement

• $50 billion rural hospital stabilization fund

• $150 million cut from NOAA’s forecasting programs

• $1.1 billion cut from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

• Defense increases for shipbuilding, missile defense, and nuclear weapons programs

• $5 trillion debt ceiling increase

Despite its stated goal of reducing the deficit, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will increase federal deficits by $2.8 to $3.3 trillion over the next decade. By 2034, the national debt would rise from a projected 117% to 124% of GDP, more than double the level typically considered sustainable for advanced economies. ²

The cuts to Medicaid and SNAP are the largest in decades and are intended to help offset the overall cost of the bill. Medicaid recipients face new work requirements and funding reductions that could affect millions of low-income Americans, while SNAP beneficiaries face expanded work mandates and benefit restrictions. A $50 billion rural hospital stabilization fund attempts to address concerns about healthcare access in underserved areas, but cuts to NOAA and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting may leave rural communities more exposed to severe weather and information gaps.

Economic Impact Analysis: Competing Visions of Economic Growth

President Trump optimistically claims the bill will boost GDP by 4.6% to 4.9% over four years and increase corporate investment by 7.3% to 10.2%. The administration also claims the bill will reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio from a projected 117% to 94% by 2034 and flip primary deficits to surpluses the same year. These projections assume increased investment, productivity, and labor force participation.³

Independent economists disagree. The CBO estimates the bill will increase GDP by approximately 0.5% on average over the next decade.⁴ The Tax Foundation estimates long-term GDP growth of 1.2%, with economic effects offsetting only 19% of the tax cuts' revenue loss, and the Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a similar effect on GDP of 0.7%.^5,6

However, supporters like North Texas Congressman Brandon Gill (TX-26), one of Trump's fiercest defenders in Congress, argue that CBO deficit estimates fundamentally misunderstand the legislation's economic potential. Gill's district encompasses suburban areas north of Dallas and Fort Worth and extends all the way up to the Oklahoma border, and he contends that the CBO uses overly conservative "static scoring" methods that ignore the dynamic effects of pro-growth policies.⁷

Congressman Gill’s Claims vs Independent Analysis

Gill's Position	Independent Evidence
CBO uses flawed "static scoring"	CBO accuracy comparable to private forecasters; 1.2% average error rate for budget projections
Bill will generate 4.6-4.9% GDP growth	Most analyses project 0.4-1.2% growth; no credible analysis supports Gill's projections
Growth will eliminate deficits	Even dynamic scoring shows $3+ trillion added to deficits over decade
CBO has history of underestimating growth	CBO has actually underestimated deficits more often than growth effects

Gill's critique centers on several key arguments about economic modeling and fiscal analysis. He makes the same argument as the White House and claims that the CBO's approach fails to capture business investment responses to new business deductions and tax incentives, that these provisions will spur massive capital investment. He also contends that lower taxes will increase work incentives and labor force participation, while fewer regulatory policies will boost productivity. Additionally, Gill argues that lower corporate rates will attract foreign investment and prevent tax base erosion, improving America's international competitiveness.

However, independent analysis reveals significant flaws in Gill's economic projections. The CBO's forecasting accuracy over recent decades compares favorably to private sector economists, with revenue forecasts maintaining an average error rate of 1.2% for budget-year projections. Moreover, the CBO historically underestimates deficits more often than it overestimates them, contradicting Gill's claims about systematic bias toward conservative estimates.⁸

Historical Context and Lessons

Previous tax cut packages provide sobering context for evaluating current growth claims. President Trump’s 2017 “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act”, which also promised to pay for itself, fell far short of expectations and ultimately added $1.9 trillion to the debt, delivering only modest and temporary increases in business investment. Most benefits flowed to shareholders rather than American workers, and wage growth remained modest despite promises of significant workforce benefits.⁹

The 2003 Bush tax cuts similarly promised substantial growth but ultimately delivered limited economic benefits while substantially increasing deficits. Even the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, often cited as a supply-side success story, generated some measure of economic growth but tripled the national debt over the following decade.¹⁰

Structural constraints within the economy limit the potential for tax cuts to generate the promised growth. Achieving the administration's projected growth would require sustained productivity gains of 3-4% annually, far above the historical average of 1.5-2%. Labor force growth is increasingly constrained by an aging population, while business investment responses to previous tax cuts have been temporary and modest, at best.¹¹

The Impact on North Texas: Understanding the Regional Economic Landscape

North Texas’s economic strength hides deep structural and social vulnerabilities, making the region uniquely suited to benefit from the bill’s promises while simultaneously exposed to its perils. The Dallas-Fort Worth area represents the nation's fourth-largest economy, with 7.8 million residents and 3.9 million jobs across diverse sectors. The region's median household income of $73,500 exceeds the national average, while major industries including technology, aerospace, energy, and financial services create a robust economic foundation.¹²

Still, the region also faces persistent challenges that amplify the bill's potential downsides. Texas has the nation's highest uninsured rate at 18.4%, with residents particularly sensitive to healthcare policy changes.¹³ Frequent severe weather, from tornadoes, flooding, and extreme temperatures, makes emergency preparedness crucial for public safety. Vast income inequality creates substantial disparities between urban and rural areas, with rural communities particularly dependent on federal programs and emergency services.

Effects on Key Constituent Groups

Gill's optimistic economic outlook has additional consequences for his North Texas constituents that deserve close scrutiny as the bill's effects will vary dramatically across the income spectrum, creating clear winners and losers:

Income Group	Tax Benefits	Tariff Costs	Net Effect
Top 10% (>$200k)	$5,000+ annually	$2,000-$4,000	Major gains
Middle Class ($50k-$150k)	$600-$1,500 annually	$1,700-$7,400	Net loss
Low Income (<$50k)	Minimal savings	$1,700-$2,000	Significant hardship

High-income households, representing about 10% of the population, or roughly 285,000 families in the region, will experience substantial financial gains despite tariff-related costs. These families typically earn above $200,000 annually and will receive large tax cuts exceeding $5,000 per year, while enhanced business incentives may boost investment income and property values.¹⁴

Wealthy Texans also benefit from expanded State and Local Tax (SALT) provisions, which raise the cap on state and local tax deductions from $10,000 to $40,000 for households earning up to $500,000. But only 8-10% of Texas households will benefit, primarily higher-income homeowners with substantial property tax bills who itemize their deductions. The vast majority of North Texas families, including renters and those taking the standard deduction, will see no benefit from this $40,000 tax break that expires in 2030.¹⁵

Small business owners in the district may benefit somewhat from enhanced deductions and a more predictable tax environment, but they will also face tariff-related supply chain cost increases and potential workforce challenges from immigration policy changes. Manufacturing companies dependent on imported materials or components could experience significant cost pressures despite tax relief.

Middle-class families in the district, encompassing 1.2 million households earning between $50,000 and $150,000 annually, face a challenging economic trade-off under the proposed policies. While tax reductions of roughly 6% to 8% will provide average savings of $600 to $1,500 per year by 2027, tariff-driven price increases on goods like cars, clothing, and electronics will increase consumer prices by an estimated 1.3% to 1.5%, costing households between $1,700 and $7,400 annually.¹⁶ Analysis from the Yale Budget Lab shows that when both tax cuts and tariffs are considered together, middle-class costs will rise between $3,370 and $7,400 annually, wiping out any tax relief and leaving families worse off financially.^17,18

The bottom 20% of earners, representing 390,000 households, will experience the most damaging impacts. These families will see minimal tax savings while facing the full brunt of tariff-related price increases. Medicaid cuts and expanded SNAP work requirements could eliminate healthcare coverage and nutrition assistance for tens of thousands of North Texas residents, creating particularly concerning hardships for working families, seniors, and children.

Regional Healthcare Implications

Gill supports Medicaid cuts that will directly impact vulnerable constituents who rely on the program for healthcare coverage, including working families, seniors, and disabled individuals. Currently, 5.2 million Texans depend on Medicaid for healthcare coverage. With Texas's continued resistance to Medicaid expansion, new work requirements and funding reductions could force state officials to restrict eligibility or reduce covered services, leaving North Texas residents with even fewer healthcare options.¹⁹

The proposed work requirements sound reasonable in theory, but in practice they represent significant practical challenges for Medicaid recipients. The administrative burden of documenting employment status, combined with the time-consuming process of navigating government bureaucracy often results in eligible individuals losing coverage due to paperwork issues rather than actual employment status. This is particularly problematic for people juggling multiple part-time jobs, caring for family members, or dealing with health issues that make consistent work documentation difficult.²⁰

These cuts compound existing healthcare challenges across the region, where rural hospitals already operate under severe financial pressure. Several facilities have closed in recent years due to low reimbursement rates and high uninsured patient loads, leaving communities with limited access to emergency and specialized care.

While the bill includes a $50 billion rural hospital stabilization fund, this support is unlikely to fully blunt the impact of increased uninsured populations resulting from Medicaid cuts. The combination of reduced coverage and continued hospital closures threatens to create healthcare deserts in parts of North Texas, forcing residents to travel longer distances for basic medical care and straining the remaining facilities that serve the region.

Emergency Preparedness Implications 

North Texas faces some of the nation's most severe and unpredictable weather. From spring tornadoes and flash flooding to extreme heat events and occasional winter storms that paralyze transportation and utilities, these annual threats leave residents heavily dependent on reliable weather forecasting and emergency communications to protect life and property.

A May, 2024 tornado outbreak in Valley View, TX claimed the lives of seven victims. Valley View is a rural North Texas community in Congressman Gill's district.

However, the bill poses significant risks to these critical services through cuts to emergency preparedness that Senator Ted Cruz helped shape, and Congressman Gill supported. Cruz inserted language eliminating $150 million from NOAA's budget specifically intended for weather forecasting improvements, research, observation systems, modeling, and public warning dissemination.²¹ This reduction aligned with the Trump administration's effort to cut NOAA's overall funding by as much as 27%, with cuts of over 70% to the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.²²

The bill also eliminates $1.1 billion in Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding, which supports PBS and NPR stations that serve crucial emergency communication functions through specialized emergency alert systems. Rural North Texas communities are especially vulnerable to these cuts because they frequently lack the commercial media coverage available in urban areas, making public broadcasting stations essential for providing detailed weather information, emergency instructions, and coordination with local officials during severe weather events.²³

Group	Impact
Small Businesses	Benefit from tax deductions but face tariff-related supply chain cost increases
Medicaid Recipients	Face potential coverage loss despite many already working in low-wage jobs
Rural Communities	Lose critical weather warning systems and emergency communications infrastructure

Long-term Fiscal Outlook: Debt and Interest Cost Projections

The bill's long-term consequences will spare no one, as mounting federal debt threatens to undermine America’s economic foundation. CBO projections show the bill will drive debt held by the public from 100% of GDP today to 124% of GDP by 2034, with the potential to reach 129% of GDP or higher if temporary tax provisions are made permanent, as they typically are. This level of debt creates substantial long-term economic risks that will ultimately impact every American family, regardless of whether they benefit from the bill's immediate tax cuts or bear the burden of its spending reductions.²⁴

Understanding Debt-to-GDP Ratio Impact

Most economists recommend that advanced economies like the United States maintain debt-to-GDP ratios of 60% or less to ensure fiscal sustainability and economic resilience.²⁵ This 60% threshold is widely considered by policymakers as a benchmark where economies can manage debt without risking growth or investor confidence.

The United States has been able to sustain debt levels well above this recommended threshold largely because the U.S. dollar serves as the world's primary reserve currency, meaning the dollar is used for the majority of international transactions including trade in commodities like oil and gold. This unique status creates persistent global demand for U.S. Treasury securities and allows the government to borrow at lower interest rates than most other countries.²⁶

However, even with these advantages, the bill's projected debt levels of 124-129% of GDP represent more than double what is considered healthy for long-term fiscal stability. Interest payments on the national debt will double from nearly $900 billion in 2024 to $1.8 trillion by 2034, representing an enormous transfer of federal resources from public investment to debt service, severely constraining future policy options.²⁷

Intergenerational Equity Concerns

The bill's structure front-loads benefits while back-loading costs, creating significant intergenerational equity concerns. Nearly three-quarters of the official primary deficit impact occurs in the first four years, while forecasted savings phase in gradually over the following six years. This timing means that current voters receive immediate tax relief while future taxpayers – our children and grandchildren – bear the burden of resulting debt service costs without having participated in the decisions that created them.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" represents a dramatic shift in American fiscal policy that will impact North Texans now and for generations to come. While the legislation delivers on Trump’s campaign promises to extend tax cuts and increase border security funding, its broader economic and social implications are far more complex than the President, Congressman Gill, and other supporters acknowledge.

North Texas's diversified economy and business-friendly environment position it to potentially capitalize on the bill's pro-growth incentives more so than other parts of the country, and the region's substantial population of high earners and business owners will benefit from immediate tax relief. However, these benefits come with substantial costs and risks that cannot be ignored.

For middle-class families, the bill's promise of meaningful tax relief is undermined by the reality of accompanying tariffs, the temporary nature of many of the bill's benefits, and reduced government services. When all policies are considered together, most middle-class North Texans will likely find themselves worse off, facing costs that exceed their tax savings.

Perhaps most concerning is the bill's impact on vulnerable populations and emergency preparedness. Texas's large uninsured population and the state's reliance on federal programs to serve low-income residents mean that Medicaid and SNAP cuts will have disproportionately severe effects. The cuts to weather forecasting capabilities and Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding create new vulnerabilities for a state that faces regular natural disasters.

In short, North Texans should prepare for a mixed economic reality:

• Significant benefits for the wealthy

• Modest and temporary relief for some middle-class families

• Meaningful hardships for low-income residents

• Higher costs for everyday goods due to tariffs

• Reduced emergency preparedness capabilities

In the long-term, the bill's fiscal consequences will re-shape America’s financial future for generations to come and will require future adjustments that will affect all residents regardless of current benefit levels. While the legislation may stimulate modest economic activity in the short term, the combination of increased debt, tariffs, reduced social support, and weakened disaster preparedness creates long-term risks that North Texas communities and policymakers will be forced to reckon with in the years ahead.

Sources

1.     The White House – “President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Is Now the Law,” July 2025.

2.     Joint Committee on Taxation - "Revenue Estimates for H.R. 1," May 2025

3.     CNN – “Trump megabill and economic agenda would spur growth and reduce national debt, according to White House report,” June 2025.

4.     Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget - "CBO Estimates $3 Trillion of Debt from House-Passed OBBBA," June 2025

5.     Brookings Institution - "Don't Expect Much Growth from the One Big Beautiful Bill," 2025

6.     Tax Foundation - "Research on Big Beautiful Bill Senate GOP Tax Plan," July 2025

7.     Tradingview – “FBN Interview with Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX),” March 2025.

8.     Congressional Budget Office – “CBO’s Economic Forecasting Record: 2023 Update,” June 2023.

9.     Tax Foundation – “Latest CBO Projections Highlight Fiscal Challenge of Full TCJA Extension,” June 2024.

10.  Catalanotto, Max. An Accounting and Economic Analysis of Various Tax Plans and Strategies. 2021. Louisiana State University, Honors Thesis. LSU Scholarly Repository, https://repository.lsu.edu/honors_etd/256

11.  Bureau of Labor and Statistics – “Labor force and macroeconomic projections overview and highlights, 2022-32,” September 2023.

12.  Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas – “Dallas-Fort Worth Economic Indicators,” April 2024.

13.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - "Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," 2024

14.  CNBC – “Trump ‘big beautiful bill’ gives top 1% biggest tax cuts in these states,” July 2025.

15.  Smartasset – “Explaining the Proposed Changes to the State and Local Tax (SALT) Deduction,” July 2025.

16.  Yale Budget Lab - "Combined Distributional Effects of One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Tariffs," June 2025

17.  News from the States – “Here’s what’s in Trump’s GOP megabill and how it will affect Texans,” July 2025.

18.  Yale Budget Lab - "State of US Tariffs," July 2025

19.  Texas Health and Human Services Commission - "Medicaid Enrollment Data," 2025

20.  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - "Medicaid Work Requirements Analysis," 2025

21.  Yahoo – “Cruz pushed for NOAA cuts days before Texas flooding,” July 2025.

22.  Newsweek - "Republicans Slash Weather Forecast Funding in Big Beautiful Bill," June 2025

23.  Congress – “H.R.1 – 119^th Congress (2025-2026),” July 2025.

24.  Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget - "Interest Costs Under Alternative Scenarios," 2025

25.  G24 Policy Brief - "Debt-to-GDP Ratio Guidelines for Economic Health," 2012

26.  CFA Institute - "The Dollar's Exorbitant Privilege," 2024

27.  Investopedia - "Debt-to-GDP Ratio Analysis," 2024