Thursday’s historic vote passing President Donald Trump’s megabill ended a monthslong process of negotiation, infighting and compromise. It also started a countdown until Congress has to do it all over again.

That’s because the super-sized domestic policy legislation includes a sharp cliff for tax cuts and deep safety-net restrictions — teeing them up to be the subject of fierce political battles in the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

The most politically explosive cuts to Medicaid and the nation’s largest food program, for instance, are set to take effect in 2028. Meanwhile, Trump’s most popular tax cuts and a key deduction prized by blue-state Republicans are set to sunset in 2028 and 2029, respectively.

It’s not escaping the notice of Democrats. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spent much of his marathon floor speech before the vote Thursday calling out GOP moderates in battleground seats, many of whom had swallowed their misgivings after expressing deep concern with the safety-net cuts set to be enshrined in law.

“How is it that so many of our Republican colleagues … had principled opposition to Donald Trump’s one big, ugly bill … and now seem prepared to fold on the floor of the House of Representatives?” asked Jeffries.

Jeffries read letters from constituents appealing to their Republican representatives up for re-election in swing districts — including Reps. John McGuire of Virginia, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania — to vote against cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“All we need is four Republicans to show John McCain levels of courage,” Jeffries said before the vote, referring to the Arizona senator who famously prevented the GOP’s repeal of the Affordable Care Act in 2017.

Only two Republicans targeted by Democrats in 2026 — Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick — voted against the bill. Now the structure of the GOP’s marquee legislation ensures that the most politically perilous provisions in the bill will remain a hot potato — and an opportunity for moderates — for years to come.

For instance, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) — who ultimately voted for the sweeping domestic policy package — pledged to ensure that cuts to state taxes that fund Medicaid would never take effect.

The Senate cut deeply into states’ ability to levy those taxes. But it also delayed those cuts until 2028 after intense lobbying by Hawley and other moderates and after Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) warned that the cuts would prove disastrous in the midterms. Now, the reductions to medical provider taxes used to leverage federal funding begin in three years, with the rates dropping from the current level of 6 percent incrementally down to 3.5 percent.

“Unless changes are made … you're going to see Medicaid reductions in my state,” Hawley told reporters last week. “I think that is a huge mistake."

Sixteen House moderates similarly urged Speaker Mike Johnson in a letter in June to revert the Senate’s language. They all ended up voting for the bill, but at least some were also thinking that there was an opportunity to revisit the deep cuts in the future.

“Any of the changes in the provider tax don’t go into effect until ’28, so he’s right, there’s time,” Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) said about Hawley’s comments, though he added that the system does “have to be reformed” and that “we’re on the right track.”

The benefit cuts could figure as a major issue in the 2028 presidential race, too, with likely candidate Vice President JD Vance emerging as a key salesman for the “big, beautiful bill” and a key defender of the administration’s approach. Democrats are already seeking to yoke to with the bill's least popular provisions.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in virtually every state will face pressure in 2028 as provisions kick in requiring most states to shoulder part of the costs of federal food aid for the first time. Under the GOP’s sweeping bill, states with SNAP payment error rates above 6 percent would have to start paying 5 to 15 percent of the food benefit costs.

According to an analysis of data going back to 2003 by the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, only one state has ever had an error rate low enough to avoid the new cost-sharing arrangement.

On the flip side, Trump’s signature campaign promises to cut taxes for tipped wages, overtime work and seniors are set to sunset at the end of 2029. And blue-state Republicans who fought viciously for an increase to the state-and-local-tax deduction for their constituents are already eyeing making the boosted SALT break permanent down the road.

The boost of the deduction from $10,000 to $40,000 was crafted by House Republicans to grow with inflation through 2033 and be permanent after that. But Senate Republicans revised the proposal so the bigger deduction would stay in place for only five years, cutting more than $100 billion from the cost of their tax package.

It will be a central issue for lawmakers in swing districts such as Reps. Young Kim (R-Calif.) and Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) in their 2026 re-election campaigns — but also for Democrats running for the same seats and in other districts with high property, income and other local taxes.

“I listened to Hakeem Jeffries pontificate about this. He got exactly zero changes when Democrats had complete control. We delivered on a promise that I made when I first ran, and this is a big win,” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) said after the House vote. “It’s the single biggest tax cut in the bill.”

When asked whether New Yorkers would push to make sure that the SALT cap doesn’t go back to $10,000 after 2029, Lawler responded, “Of course.”

The fact that various Republicans are already looking at punting their spending cuts while extending the temporary tax cuts raises questions about the real cost of the legislation. Senate Republicans scaled down many of Trump’s priorities in order to make room for expensive business tax cuts, and the final bill would add $1.1 trillion more to the debt than the initial House-passed plan, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

“I prefer permanence. I prefer not to create cliffs,” said Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), the architect of the Senate’s tax bill, who has said that he didn’t have the fiscal room to make Trump’s latest tax proposals permanent. “There are terminating provisions, and all I can say is that I prefer not to do that anymore than we have to.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told reporters Sunday that policy sunsets are “common” with these kinds of sprawling packages. But other lawmakers readily acknowledged that the tax cuts could be extended down the road, potentially adding to the megabill’s costs.

“You can’t limit or change what other legislative bodies in the future see as appropriate at that time,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said in a brief interview. “You’re looking at a 10-year window. They’ll have to look at a 10-year window. They’ll play the same game, and once again, they may have different priorities.”