Fact check: Did the one big beautiful bill allow a president to have omnipotent power

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is no evidence that the "one big beautiful bill" grants a president omnipotent power. The sources consistently show that this legislation focuses on economic and social provisions rather than expanding presidential authority.

The analyses reveal that the "big, beautiful bill" primarily contains:

• Tax cuts and provisions benefiting corporations and the wealthy ^[1]
• Medicaid restrictions and border security funding ^[2]
• Economic and social aspects rather than presidential power expansions ^[3]

However, the analyses do highlight legitimate concerns about presidential power expansion through other means, particularly executive orders. President Trump has been testing the limits of presidential power through unprecedented executive actions ^[4], including attempts to end birthright citizenship ^[5]. These actions have raised constitutional concerns among experts who argue they may be unconstitutional ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks crucial context about the actual mechanisms through which presidential power could be expanded. The analyses reveal several important missing elements:

• The real threat to checks and balances comes from comprehensive policy agendas like Project 2025, which aims to "dismantle the system of checks and balances and create an imperial presidency" ^[6]. This represents a far more systematic approach to consolidating executive power than any single bill.
• Historical precedent shows that presidential power expansion typically occurs through executive orders and administrative actions rather than through single pieces of legislation ^{[7] [5]}.
• The system of checks and balances has been tested throughout U.S. history, with various presidents pushing boundaries of their authority ^[8]. The current situation represents part of this ongoing historical pattern rather than a unique threat from one bill.

Corporate and wealthy interests benefit significantly from the actual "big, beautiful bill" through tax provisions ^[1], while the focus on presidential power may distract from these economic benefits flowing to powerful constituencies.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains significant factual inaccuracies and potentially misleading framing:

• The question conflates two separate issues: the economic legislation known as the "big, beautiful bill" with concerns about presidential power expansion. The analyses show these are distinct matters ^{[3] [1] [2]}.
• The term "omnipotent power" represents hyperbolic language that doesn't accurately reflect how presidential authority actually expands in the American system. The analyses show that power expansion occurs through incremental actions and systematic policy changes rather than through single legislative grants of unlimited authority.
• The framing may distract from legitimate concerns about actual threats to democratic institutions, such as Project 2025's comprehensive plan to "consolidate power in the executive branch" ^[6] or the constitutional challenges posed by specific executive orders ^[5].

The question appears to misunderstand both the content of the legislation in question and the mechanisms through which presidential power typically expands in the U.S. system.