Analysis of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A nationwide poll conducted from July 10-14, 2025, by NORC at the University of Chicago provides insight into public perception of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a tax and spending law enacted on July 4, 2025. This report analyzes the law’s key provisions and the public’s reaction through the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on poverty, inequality, health, and clean energy.

Impact on Social and Economic Equality (SDG 1, SDG 2, SDG 10)

The legislation’s provisions and the public’s perception of them indicate significant challenges to achieving goals related to poverty reduction, food security, and reduced inequalities.

Threats to Poverty and Hunger Reduction (SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 2: Zero Hunger)

The law includes direct reductions to social safety nets, which runs counter to the objectives of SDG 1 and SDG 2.

• The legislation mandates reductions to Medicaid and food assistance programs.
• A majority of adults surveyed believe the bill will actively harm low-income individuals, suggesting a perceived negative impact on efforts to eliminate poverty.

Widening Economic Disparities (SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities)

Public opinion strongly suggests the law is expected to exacerbate economic inequality, a direct contradiction of SDG 10.

• Key provisions include the extension of the 2017 tax cuts and new tax breaks for specific groups.
• A majority of adults believe the bill will primarily help wealthy people.
• Respondents are approximately twice as likely to state the bill will hurt, rather than help, middle-class Americans and people like themselves.
• A significant partisan divide exists: Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe the legislation will help the wealthy while hurting the poor and middle class.

Implications for Health and Environmental Sustainability

Challenges to Good Health and Well-being (SDG 3)

The reduction in funding for key health programs poses a risk to SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all.

• The mandated reduction in Medicaid funding directly impacts access to healthcare services for vulnerable populations.

Setbacks for Clean Energy and Climate Action (SDG 7, SDG 13)

The law’s energy policy provisions represent a direct reversal of progress toward environmental sustainability goals.

• The legislation explicitly eliminates certain tax credits for green energy.
• This action directly undermines efforts related to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) by disincentivizing investment in renewable energy sources.

Public Sentiment on Governance and Economic Policy (SDG 16, SDG 17)

The poll reveals public sentiment on broader fiscal and trade policies, reflecting on the stability of institutions and international cooperation.

Fiscal Responsibility and Institutional Trust (SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The law, projected to increase the national deficit by $3.3 trillion over ten years, was passed amid public concern over government finances.

• 63% of the public believes the U.S. government spends too much.
• President Trump’s approval for handling government spending declined to 38% following the bill’s passage.
• There is broad, bipartisan opposition to eliminating the federal debt ceiling, with 45% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans opposed.

Trade Policy and Global Partnerships (SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals)

Public support for tariffs, a key tool of the administration’s international economic policy, is divided and highly partisan, potentially impacting the stability of global partnerships.

• Overall, 41% of adults oppose the tariffs, while 30% support them.
• Support is strong among Republicans (59%), while opposition is high among Democrats (69%).

Survey Methodology

• Conducted by: NORC at the University of Chicago using the AmeriSpeak® Panel.
• Dates: July 10-14, 2025.
• Sample Size: 1,437 adults nationwide.
• Margin of Error: +/- 3.6 percentage points.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

The article discusses a new tax and spending law, its perceived effects on different income groups, and other related economic policies. Based on the content, the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted:

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The law’s “reductions to… food assistance programs” and its perceived harm to “low-income people” directly relate to poverty.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The “reductions to… food assistance programs” directly impact food security for vulnerable populations.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – The “reductions to Medicaid” affect access to healthcare services.
• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy – The “elimination of certain green energy tax credits” is a direct policy action related to the clean energy sector.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities – A central theme of the article is the public perception that the bill will “help wealthy people” while harming “middle-class” and “low-income people,” thus increasing inequality.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – The elimination of green energy tax credits is a policy that runs counter to national climate change mitigation efforts.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – The discussion on the national deficit (“projected to raise the deficit by $3.3 trillion”) and the imposition of “tariffs” relates to fiscal stability and international trade policies.

Specific Targets Identified

Based on the article’s content, several specific SDG targets can be identified as being impacted by the policies described.

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
     
     Explanation: The article states the law includes “reductions to Medicaid and food assistance programs.” This action directly undermines the implementation and strengthening of social protection systems for the poor and vulnerable.

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
     
     Explanation: The “reductions to… food assistance programs” directly threaten the ability of low-income individuals and families to access sufficient food, working against this target.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services… for all.
     
     Explanation: The policy of “reductions to Medicaid” directly curtails access to health care for a significant portion of the low-income population, moving away from the goal of universal health coverage.

4. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

   • Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
     
     Explanation: The “elimination of certain green energy tax credits” removes a key financial incentive for the development and adoption of renewable energy, thereby hindering progress toward increasing its share in the energy mix.

5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.
     
     Explanation: The article highlights that “a majority of adults believe the bill will do more to help wealthy people” and “harm low-income people.” This describes a fiscal policy that is perceived to increase, rather than reduce, inequality, which is contrary to the aim of this target.

6. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
     
     Explanation: The “elimination of certain green energy tax credits” represents a removal of climate-friendly measures from national fiscal policy, which is a step backward from integrating climate action into national planning.

7. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.10: Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system.
     
     Explanation: The article mentions that “30% of adults support the tariffs… and 41% express opposition to this policy.” The imposition of tariffs is a protectionist measure that works against the promotion of an open and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

The article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress (or regression) towards the identified targets.

1. For SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

   • Implied Indicator: Government spending on social protection programs (e.g., Medicaid, food assistance) as a percentage of the national budget or GDP.
     
     Explanation: The article’s mention of “reductions to Medicaid and food assistance programs” points to a direct, measurable change in government spending on these social safety nets. A decrease in this spending would indicate regression from Target 1.3 and Target 3.8.

2. For SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) & SDG 13 (Climate Action)

   • Implied Indicator: Value of government subsidies and tax credits for renewable energy.
     
     Explanation: The “elimination of certain green energy tax credits” is a specific policy action whose financial impact can be quantified. Tracking the value of these credits (or their absence) serves as an indicator of government commitment to Targets 7.2 and 13.2.

3. For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Implied Indicator: Public perception of the fairness of fiscal policy.
     
     Explanation: The article heavily relies on poll data showing public opinion on the tax bill’s impact. For example, “People are about twice as likely to say the bill will hurt than say that it will help people like them and middle-class Americans.” While not a formal UN indicator, this polling data serves as a proxy indicator for how fiscal policies are perceived in terms of achieving greater equality (Target 10.4).

4. For SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

   • Indicator: Tariff rates on imports.
     
     Explanation: The article discusses the imposition of “tariffs” and public support for them. The actual tariff rates imposed are a direct and measurable indicator related to Target 17.10, which promotes an open trading system. An increase in tariffs indicates a move away from this target.
   • Indicator: National deficit as a percentage of GDP.
     
     Explanation: The article states the law is “projected to raise the deficit by $3.3 trillion.” The national deficit is a key indicator of a country’s fiscal health and its capacity to act as a stable global partner.

Summary of Findings

Source: apnorc.org