The Byrd Rule strikes again: How one parliamentarian is clipping Trump's wings

What is the role and function of the Senate parliamentarian?

The role and function of the United States Senate's parliamentarian in the reconciliation process, specifically as related to the Trump Administration's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), involves providing expert advice on procedural and legislative rules to ensure that the reconciliation process adheres to the U.S. Senate's established guidelines. The parliamentarian's role is crucial in determining whether provisions of a bill comply with the Byrd Rule, which restricts the content of reconciliation bills to matters that directly affect the budget. The current parliamentarian, who has held the office since 2012, is Elizabeth MacDonough.

During the reconciliation process, the parliamentarian reviews the bill's provisions to determine their compliance with the Byrd Rule. As I shared in my June 13, 2025, article "Does the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' violate the Byrd Rule?", this rule stipulates that reconciliation bills must only contain provisions that affect the budget, such as changes in spending, revenues or the debt limit. The parliamentarian's assessment is critical in deciding whether specific provisions can be included in the reconciliation bill or if they must be removed. This function ensures that the reconciliation process remains focused on budgetary issues and prevents the inclusion of unrelated policy measures.

In the context of the Act, the parliamentarian has already commenced her role as a key player in reviewing the bill's provisions to ensure compliance with the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian's guidance has and continues to be focused on helping the Senate determine which parts of the bill could be considered under reconciliation and which parts would need to be excluded or modified to meet the rule's requirements. This process is essential for maintaining the integrity of the reconciliation procedure and ensuring that the bill's focus remains on budgetary matters. The parliamentarian's role in the reconciliation process is vital for upholding the Senate's procedural rules and ensuring that budgetary legislation is considered efficiently and appropriately.

Provisions rejected by the U.S. Senate Parliamentarian

MacDonough has reviewed the Act and identified several provisions that, in her expert opinion, do not conform to the Byrd Rule requirements. As we discussed, the Byrd Rule governs the budget reconciliation process, ensuring that provisions primarily affect the federal budget and do not increase the deficit outside the budget window, among other criteria. According to The New York Times, below is a comprehensive list and summary of each provision objected to by the parliamentarian as of midday June 26, 2025.

Rejected health care provisions:

1. Capping provider taxes: The provision aimed to cap states' use of health care provider taxes to increase federal Medicaid funding. This measure was expected to save the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

2. Medicaid eligibility for noncitizens: A provision to revoke Medicare eligibility for many noncitizen immigrants, including refugees and asylum-seekers, was rejected. This would have prevented them from enrolling in Medicare even if they met the necessary requirements.

3. Barring ACA subsidies for abortion care: Language that would bar federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from going to health plans covering abortion care was rejected. This provision would have significantly impacted states where insurers voluntarily cover abortion.

4. Restrictions on Medicaid and CHIP coverage for immigrants: A provision barring federal dollars from being spent on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for certain immigrants was struck down.

5. Silver loading under ACA: The parliamentarian rejected a provision that would have ended "silver loading," a practice where insurers increase premiums for silver-level health plans to offset subsidy costs.

Rejected immigration and justice provisions:

1. State authorization for border security: Language granting states the authority to conduct border security and immigration enforcement was rejected, as it traditionally falls under federal jurisdiction.

2. Limiting court contempt powers: A measure to limit courts' ability to enforce lawsuits against the Trump administration, particularly targeting preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, was rejected.

3. SNAP benefits for noncitizens: A measure preventing noncitizens or permanent residents from receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits was rejected.

Rejected environmental and energy provisions:

1. Repeal of EPA tailpipe emissions rule: The parliamentarian ruled against a provision targeting the repeal of an EPA regulation limiting vehicle emissions.

2. Offshore oil and gas project compliance: Provisions that would automatically deem offshore oil and gas projects compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act were blocked.

3. Public land sales: A provision to sell millions of acres of public land managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management was rejected.

Rejected financial and regulatory provisions:

1. Funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: A provision to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by capping its funding was rejected.

2. Elimination of the Office of Financial Research funding: The parliamentarian rejected a measure to cut funding for the Office of Financial Research, which monitors Wall Street risk.

3. Reduction in Federal Reserve employee pay: A proposal to reduce pay for some Federal Reserve employees was struck down.

Other rejected provisions:

1. Federal Employees Retirement System contributions: A proposal to increase contributions for new civil servants who refuse to become at-will employees was rejected.

2. Electric vehicles for the U.S. Postal Service: A provision to force the sale of electric vehicles used by the U.S. Postal Service was rejected.

3. Repeal of green energy programs: The parliamentarian ruled that while funding could be removed from certain green energy programs, their authorization could not be repealed.

These rejections highlight the challenges faced by the Act in conforming to the Byrd Rule. The provisions primarily failed due to their policy-driven nature, with only incidental budgetary effects, or because they increased the deficit beyond the permissible budget window.

Implications of the parliamentarian's advice

The Senate parliamentarian's advice has significant implications for the legislative process. By striking down provisions that do not meet the Byrd Rule's requirements, the parliamentarian ensures that the reconciliation process remains focused on budgetary matters. This can lead to substantial revisions of proposed legislation, as lawmakers must either modify or remove non-compliant provisions to proceed with reconciliation.

For the Act, the parliamentarian's rulings necessitate a reevaluation of Trump's key policy priorities. Provisions that were central to the bill's objectives, such as Medicaid cuts and immigration restrictions, must be retooled or abandoned, potentially altering the bill's overall impact and appeal to certain lawmakers.

Moreover, the parliamentarian's decisions underscore the importance of adhering to procedural rules in the legislative process. While some lawmakers may express frustration with these rulings, the parliamentarian's role is essential in maintaining the integrity of the reconciliation process and ensuring that it is used appropriately.

In conclusion, the Senate parliamentarian's advice on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act highlights the delicate balance between policy objectives and procedural compliance in our legislative process. As lawmakers navigate these challenges, the parliamentarian's guidance remains a critical component in shaping the final form of budget-related legislation that will affect us all.