On July 4, 2025 – Independence Day – President Donald Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a sweeping piece of legislation with far-reaching implications.

The OBBBA is broad in scope, with provisions affecting health care, tax structures, energy incentives, and social programs. However, its significance lies not only in what it changes, but how it came to be. The process through which the bill passed reflects a broader shift in legislative strategy, one with implications for the durability and legitimacy of America’s future climate policy.

For those unfamiliar with the OBBBA, it is an example of legislation commonly referred to as a reconciliation bill. Reconciliation is, in essence, an easier and more expeditious way to pass fiscal legislation. Given the multitude of topics covered in the OBBBA, from nutrition, forestry, energy, to health, the characterization of the act as fiscal legislation may come as a surprise. However, reconciliation is increasingly becoming the favored process for pushing through partisan legislative agenda, as intensified congressional partisanship has made it exceedingly difficult to pass meaningful legislation through more traditional routes.

The process of reconciliation was established by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Because the process limits debate to 20 hours, it effectively eliminates the possibility of a filibuster, a procedural tool used to delay or block legislation through extended debate, which otherwise would require a 60-vote supermajority to end. The filibuster has become less a tool of deliberation and more a barrier to functional lawmaking – one that arguably incentivizes the very reliance on reconciliation we now see. Though reconciliation is not without its own various delay tactics, such as the vote-a-rama, the process offers a pathway for a simple majority vote to pass legislation, thereby avoiding the filibuster.

So, why do these procedures matter and how are they relevant to our work at SEI? There are many excellent news, opinion, and research pieces already written about what the OBBBA means for the country’s energy and economy going forward. But as a research institute focused on translating science into policy and practice, the processes underlying the policy, like reconciliation, are just as important as its text. SEI researchers have already commented on the relationship between democracy and the ability to govern, including what a decline in democratic processes means for sustainable development and climate change. This conversation builds on that work, and drives home the importance of understanding the lawmaking process to achieve SEI’s mission: “To support decision-making and induce change towards sustainable development.”

On its face, the reconciliation process appears democratic, but it circumvents the very debate that is vital to a thriving and functioning democracy. Indeed, such circumvention is being undertaken on both sides of the aisle. And while expediency may sound appealing, there is undoubtedly a price to bypassing historically established legislative processes, including the checks and balances those processes are meant to guarantee.

As we have already seen with President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – also a reconciliation bill – reconciliation leads to policies that lack broad political support. When voted upon in 2022, the IRA saw a strict split along political party lines in the Senate, with 50 Democrats in favor and 50 Republicans against. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris cast the deciding vote. Sound familiar? In a July 1, 2025 vote on the OBBBA, Vice President JD Vance served to break the 50-50 partisan tie in the Senate. Whatever fanfare that those of us in the climate space may have created in relation to the IRA’s ambitious promotion of clean energy technologies has now been muted, at least to some degree, by the OBBBA’s provisions that undercut many of those benefits.

While the divisions running through American politics are not new, the impacts are becoming more evident. Provisions within reconciliation bills are vulnerable for the same reason that they are desirable to political parties: because they are not subject to a filibuster. That means that subsequent bills can roll back otherwise climate-friendly policies, as the OBBBA does to many of the IRA’s provisions. This back-and-forth is incredibly short-sighted as, likely, much of what has been promulgated in the OBBBA can be undone by subsequent congresses, creating legal and financial uncertainty for Americans and would-be investors.

Reconciliation bills are also narrower in scope than a more traditional law would allow because they must address policy within a bounded, budgetary framing. This means that only certain aspects of important legislative matters will be covered. You won’t see a comprehensive, well-crafted energy policy laid out, for example, but rather various tax and fiscal reforms meant to shape and impact the sector. Carrying out flagship presidential and congressional agendas in this fashion is fundamentally ineffective for long-term, comprehensive planning, and that is what is needed to confront the climate challenges ahead.

Rather than relying on procedural mechanisms that enable one-party passage, lawmakers should pursue legislative strategies that foster bipartisan support, even if that means compromising on difficult issues. The reality of the current political climate and subsequent narrowing of lawmaking opportunities places the nation in a significantly weaker position to manage climate crises as they arise. Ineffectual governance inevitably reduces the quality of life for citizens, impacting the ability of people to meet basic needs, such as healthcare and nutrition. Vulnerable communities bear the brunt of these failures, as weakened governance structures serve to compound existing climate risks.

This reality underscores our responsibility as practitioners, researchers, and policymakers to not only monitor the content of climate legislation, but also to scrutinize the integrity of the processes by which it is passed. Only by reinforcing democratic norms and long-term planning can we create the durable, inclusive policies needed to ensure a sustainable and equitable future. Reclaiming deliberative lawmaking is not only necessary; it remains possible, if political will can be restored.