The Senate voted Tuesday to pass the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” bringing President Donald Trump’s chief legislative package one step closer to the finish line.

The bill, which the House of Representatives passed in May, underwent some changes in the Upper Chamber. The bill now returns to the House, which will either pass the amended bill and send it to the president’s desk, or further revise the text. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is hoping for the former.

“This bill is President Trump’s agenda, and we are making it law,” Johnson said. “House Republicans are ready to finish the job and put the One Big Beautiful Bill on President Trump’s desk in time for Independence Day.”

Here are the biggest changes the Senate made to the bill.

The Name

Thanks to a last-second effort by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is no longer called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“I just got the name struck off this bill with a move on the floor of the Senate,” Schumer posted on X. “It is no longer named ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’ The bill is a BIG, UGLY BETRAYAL of the American people by the Republicans.”

The AI Moratorium

Senators also stripped a provision from the bill that would have paused all state regulations of artificial intelligence for 10 years.

The provision was an early sticking point for the legislation. After voting for the bill, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said, “We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states’ hands is potentially dangerous. … When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it.”

Senate Republicans originally tried to amend the provision, lowering the time to five years and scrapping the absolute moratorium in favor of a few listed restrictions. But the deal fell through when the Senate voted 99-1 to strike the AI provision from the bill.

Public Land Sales

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) voted to advance the bill after withdrawing a controversial provision that would have allowed the federal government to sell off public lands, largely in the West.

Lee said the provision — which had irked some other Republican senators from Western states, and caused a stir among Democrats, too — had to be cut because the Senate’s strict budget reconciliation rules made it hard to guarantee that public land could not be sold to foreign countries or major companies instead of American families.

Still, Lee argued that the clause would have allowed for the federal government to sell off land for affordable housing and infrastructure.

“I continue to believe the federal government owns far too much land,” Lee said in a statement. “Land it is mismanaging and in many cases ruining for the next generation.”

Murkowski’s Demands

The last Republican holdout, Senator Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), secured major changes — which she argued were beneficial to her constituents — before agreeing to vote yes.

The bill seeks to impose spending cuts on food stamps and Medicaid. Murkowski was worried that the strict cuts would disproportionately affect Alaska, which relies heavily on federal funding for those programs. Senators eventually agreed to exempt Alaska from potential changes to food stamps, and to increase federal funding for rural hospitals by $25 billion over the next five years.

Senators also removed a controversial solar and wind tax from the bill, hoping to appease Murkowski. The tax would have targeted solar and wind projects that used parts produced in China, among other things.

Despite the concessions, Murkowski walked away unhappy with the bill.

“My goal throughout the reconciliation process has been to make a bad bill better for Alaska, and in many ways, we have done that,” Murkowski said. “But, let’s not kid ourselves. This has been an awful process.”

In January 2024, Claire Shipman, who served as the chair of Columbia University’s board of trustees before she became the acting president of Columbia University, minimized the open antisemitism at the university, tried to keep a pro-Israel member of the board unaware of the school’s negotiations with anti-Israel demonstrators, and tried to remove that member of the board and replace her with an Arab one.

“We need to get somebody from the middle east [sic] or who is Arab on our board,” Shipman wrote on January 17, 2024, as The Washington Free Beacon reported. “Quickly I think. Somehow.”

The next week, she ripped board member Shoshana Shendelman — whose family fled Iran after the Islamic 1979 revolution and who had spoken out against the antisemitism on campus, wanting to restore law and order — saying she had been “extraordinarily unhelpful … I just don’t think she should be on the board.”

Later that year, in April, Shipman — a former senior national correspondent for ABC’s “Good Morning America,” who is married to Jay Carney, former President Obama’s White House press secretary — reportedly instructed vice-chair Wanda Greene to freeze Shendelman out about negotiations with the demonstrators, saying Shendelman was “fishing for information.” On April 22, Green responded, “Do you believe that she is a mole? A Fox in the henhouse?”

“I do,” Shipman answered.

Greene later added, “I’m tired of her.”

“So, so tired,” Shipman replied.

On Tuesday, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) — who led the charge in Congress questioning university presidents from Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania about antisemitism on campus — joined Education Workforce Committee chair Tim Walberg (R-MI) in a letter asking for “clarifications on the attached correspondence” and inquiring about Shipman wanting an Arab on the board, saying it “raises troubling questions regarding Columbia’s priorities just months after the October 7th attack, which was the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.”

JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free

“Shipman downplayed and outright mocked those who sought to expose the disgusting culture of antisemitism on Columbia’s campus,” Stefanik wrote on X.

Speaking of the issues Shipman had with Shendelman, they wrote that it raises “the question of why you appeared to be in favor of removing one of the board’s most outspoken Jewish advocates at a time when Columbia students were facing a shocking level of fear and hostility.”

Columbia issued a response to the Free Beacon about the story, stating, “These communications were provided to the Committee in the fall of 2024 and reflect communications from more than a year ago. They are now being published out of context and reflect a particularly difficult moment in time for the University when leaders across Columbia were intensely focused on addressing significant challenges.”

“Columbia declined to provide additional context for the messages on the record,” the Free Beacon noted succinctly.