In a significant turn of events on Capitol Hill, the eyes of the nation are fixed on Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, whose role in the future of the Senate’s reconciliation process could have far-reaching consequences. As lawmakers from both parties eagerly await her ruling, MacDonough is poised to decide the fate of several high-stakes provisions in the House-passed “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act. This legislation, which focuses on a wide array of economic and political issues, has sparked controversy, particularly over the potential inclusion of provisions that may not adhere to the strict rules of the reconciliation process.
For the first time in recent history, MacDonough’s decisions are about to become a major flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the future of the United States’ fiscal and policy agenda. As the Senate’s top legal advisor, MacDonough’s rulings could determine the ultimate content of the bill, potentially reshaping how lawmakers approach future legislation. And while MacDonough’s influence may not always be in the public spotlight, the stakes have never been higher.
MacDonough’s role, while critical to the functioning of the Senate, is often an obscure one. However, as Senate parliamentarian, she holds significant power over the passage of laws, especially when they involve budget reconciliation—an expedited process that allows lawmakers to pass certain types of legislation with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes required to overcome the filibuster.
In recent months, MacDonough has found herself thrust into the limelight with the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, a massive legislative package making its way through the Senate. For Democrats, this bill represents a critical step forward in achieving their policy objectives, while Republicans have voiced strong opposition. The outcome of MacDonough’s rulings could make or break the legislation, and, in doing so, shape the future of U.S. policy on issues ranging from artificial intelligence regulation to reproductive rights.
The process surrounding MacDonough’s review of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” is governed by a set of guidelines known as the Byrd Rule. This rule, named after the late Senator Robert Byrd, is a central element of the reconciliation process, ensuring that the legislation remains focused on budgetary matters and does not include provisions deemed “extraneous” to the bill’s fiscal goals.
In essence, any provision in the bill must directly impact the budget, with the Byrd Rule explicitly barring changes to Social Security or any provisions that would increase the deficit beyond the period covered in the bill. MacDonough’s job is to determine whether specific provisions fall within these parameters and, if not, strike them from the bill. While this process may seem technical, its ramifications are profound, as it will determine whether key provisions that define the bill’s ideological direction will survive the scrutiny of Senate rules.
Among the most contentious provisions in the House-passed bill are measures related to artificial intelligence (AI) regulation, federal court procedures, and funding restrictions for Planned Parenthood. The inclusion of these provisions could be problematic under the Byrd Rule, and MacDonough’s rulings on each of these issues will be carefully watched by both parties.
The proposed AI regulations are a particularly controversial aspect of the bill. Under the terms of the bill, state and local governments would be prohibited from enforcing any laws or regulations governing AI models, AI systems, or automated decision-making processes for a period of ten years. This provision has sparked strong debate, with opponents arguing that it would effectively block any meaningful oversight of AI development during a critical period. The provision’s connection to the budget is unclear, and critics worry that it could be ruled out of order by MacDonough under the Byrd Rule.
Another provision likely to face scrutiny is the federal court reform measure, which seeks to restrict the ability of individuals suing the federal government to seek relief in court. This provision has already drawn attention from lawmakers, including Republican Senator Joni Ernst, who expressed skepticism that it would pass the Byrd Rule test. Ernst’s comments reflect a broader concern among Senate Republicans that provisions unrelated to the federal budget could be excluded from the bill, weakening the overall impact of the legislation.
Perhaps the most contentious provision in the bill, however, is the proposed ban on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. This provision mirrors a similar measure included in a 2017 reconciliation package, which was ultimately struck down by MacDonough. With Democrats pushing to preserve access to reproductive health services, this provision could prove to be one of the most difficult for MacDonough to rule on. Given the Byrd Rule’s prohibition on non-budgetary measures, it seems likely that MacDonough could once again disallow the provision on procedural grounds, much to the disappointment of conservative lawmakers.
The growing influence of MacDonough and the Byrd Rule has highlighted the importance of the reconciliation process and its implications for the balance of power in the Senate. The Byrd Rule’s strict guidelines ensure that legislation passed through reconciliation remains focused on fiscal issues and prevents what some see as ideological overreach. But for many Democrats, the ability to use reconciliation to pass significant policy changes has become a key part of their legislative strategy, particularly in an era when the filibuster has become an increasingly powerful tool for the minority party.
As MacDonough continues her review of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the pressure on her to make impartial and consistent rulings is immense. Her decisions will not only shape the fate of this particular piece of legislation but also have long-term consequences for how future bills are crafted and passed. Whether or not the bill ultimately survives the Byrd Rule test will depend largely on MacDonough’s interpretations, and her decisions will be scrutinized by lawmakers, pundits, and advocacy groups on all sides of the political spectrum.
For Republicans, the possibility of seeing key conservative provisions excluded from the bill is both a political victory and a practical one. Stripping out provisions related to AI regulation, federal court reform, and Planned Parenthood funding would weaken the bill and undermine the policy goals that many Republicans have fought for. For Democrats, the bill represents a chance to advance progressive priorities, and they will be watching MacDonough’s rulings closely to see whether they can salvage the provisions they deem most important.
The outcome of this battle over the “One Big Beautiful Bill” is far from certain, but what is clear is that MacDonough’s rulings will play a pivotal role in shaping the legislative future of the United States. As both parties brace for what promises to be a bruising and high-stakes fight, the Senate parliamentarian’s role has never been more critical. With the nation’s political landscape hanging in the balance, all eyes are on Elizabeth MacDonough as she prepares to deliver her verdict on one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in recent memory.
