The biggest obstacle in the Senate standing in the way of the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) may not be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) or stalwart deficit hawk Rand Paul (R-Ky.), but rather Elizabeth MacDonough.
The name may not ring a bell, but MacDonough has been a fixture in the Senate for over a decade, serving as the Senate Parliamentarian. The D.C.-born lawyer is the first woman to be named Parliamentarian—the official interpreter of Senate chamber rules—a role she’s held since February 2, 2012.
The job of the Parliamentarian is a big one. In addition to interpreting Senate rules, the Parliamentarian advises on procedural matters and guides precedent. That includes sorting out what’s allowed during the debate, amendment, and voting processes. While the moniker may sound hundreds of years old, the role itself is not—the Senate has only had an official Parliamentarian since 1935 (before 1935, the role was unofficial).
The job, which is deliberately nonpartisan, was created to navigate the complex rules and procedures of the Senate, especially as they apply to the budget reconciliation process.
Reconciliation
Since agreeing on a final budget can be slow, to speed things up, the Senate often jumps straight to a process called reconciliation. Reconciliation is especially beneficial when one party has the majority (more than 50 votes) but not a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes). The process can be complicated, but generally, under reconciliation, the goal is to combine spending and revenue provisions into a single bill.
Reconciliation bills are subject to special rules in the Senate. First, debate is limited to 20 hours, which can help a reconciliation bill get to a vote quickly. More importantly, the bill cannot be filibustered—the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster are not required. Republicans currently hold the majority in the Senate, with 53 seats, compared to the Democrats’ 47 seats, including two independents (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine) who caucus with the Democrats.
The Byrd Rule
Thanks to the Byrd Rule, named for the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), there are some limits to reconciliation. For example, under the Byrd Rule, you can’t tack on policy changes that are unrelated to the budget, including tampering with Social Security. (Congress often tacks on extras to push potentially unpopular measures through on the coattails of government funding, but that’s not allowed with reconciliation.)
Also notable, any bill under reconciliation cannot increase the deficit beyond the fiscal years covered—that’s usually limited to 10 years (and why tax cuts rarely last forever). To avoid violating the Byrd rule, key provisions of reconciliation bills—typically tax cuts—are written to expire. That’s why certain provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)—like those lower income tax rates or the $10,000 limit on the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT)—will, unless they are renewed, “sunset” at the end of 2025. They were passed originally with an expiration date—you can thank reconciliation and the Byrd Rule for that.
(If you’re scratching your head wondering why the corporate tax cuts under the TCJA were allowed to be made permanent, it’s because Congress can often find some wiggle room. In this case, the reconciliation rules under the budget resolution allowed for $1.5 trillion in revenue costs within the 10-year budget window.)
The Byrd rule would also apply if a reconciliation bill recommended a change in Social Security.
The Parliamentarian and The Byrd Rule
Since the reconciliation rules can be tricky, the Parliamentarian is often called upon to determine what is—and isn’t—allowed, especially when it comes to interpreting the Byrd Rule. If the Parliamentarian determines a provision in a bill violates the Byrd Rule, the provision must be removed from the bill unless the Senators vote to waive the rule—that requires 60 votes.
The presiding officer of the Senate (currently J.D. Vance, since the Vice President serves as the presiding Officer of the Senate) can overrule the Parliamentarian, though this is extremely rare. And simply ignoring the Parliamentarian has the potential to become a political landmine.
How does that play out in practice? It means that MacDonough isn’t always popular. In 2021, during the debate over the American Rescue Plan (ARP), MacDonough ruled that a provision to raise the federal minimum wage (which has been stuck at $7.25 since 2009) did not comply with the Byrd Rule and had to be removed under the reconciliation rules. Some Democrats in the Senate suggested that the presiding officer—then Vice President Kamala Harris—should overrule MacDonough. She did not, and the provision was taken out of the bill.
The Byrd Rule and OBBBA
There are several provisions in OBBBA that the Parliamentarian could flag as violating the Byrd Rule. These include a proposal to limit judicial contempt powers. The controversial language, which Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) famously acknowledged he didn’t know was in the bill when he voted for it, limits the ability of federal judges to hold government officials in contempt for flouting court rulings. Typically, if federal officials defy a court order, judges may hold them in contempt (that can look like fines, jail time, or other penalties to induce compliance), but under OBBBA, federal courts may not issue those contempt penalties against anyone who disobeys preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders if the party seeking the order did not post a monetary bond, or financial guarantee that would cover damages if a party is found to have been wrongfully enjoined. Since the federal government has far more resources than average citizens, this creates a potential hardship for those bringing actions, leaving judges with few options to demand compliance—and creating an imbalance of power. Despite tossing in some tenuous language in an effort to tie the provision to federal spending, it’s widely considered a violation of the Byrd Rule.
Also largely unrelated to the budget? A proposed 10-year ban on state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulations. Under the rule, states that establish their own AI regulations would risk losing access to federal broadband funds—a step intended to pull the provision into compliance with the Byrd Rule, though it may not be enough. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who voted for the bill, later said she never would have voted for the provision, posting on X (formerly Twitter), “Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.”
(Sensing a theme? It’s almost as though pushing a 1,000-page bill through without reading it first might not be a great idea.)
Other potential violations of the Byrd Rule could include the elimination of Medicaid funding for transgender care and a proposal to raise immigration fees.
The Fate Of OBBBA
The goal was to move OBBBA over the finish line in time for President Trump to sign it on July 4. That’s looking increasingly unlikely, a fact that even the President has acknowledged.
For the bill to become law, identical versions have to pass in the House and Senate. Just one example of policy differences: the Senate passed a standalone “no tax on tips” law that differs from the version in the House bill.
Additionally, the more fiscally conservative Senate is increasingly unhappy with the cost of the bill, which is estimated to add $3.1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
There’s not a lot of room for wiggle. The Senate holds a slim majority, and at least four Senators, including Paul, have publicly expressed concerns over parts of the bill (the others are Ron Johnson, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski). Any changes could tip the balance of votes in the House—the original OBBBA passed with a squeaky close 215-214 vote.
That makes MacDonough’s role—and how willing Republicans might be to overrule nearly 100 years of precedent—a crucial part of the reconciliation process.
Read the full article here
