The outgoing 118^th Congress must fund U.S. discretionary spending by December 20. Issues in play in that effort include extension of authority and funding for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), delay of the Corporate Transparency Act’s (ACT’s) Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) rule, and possibly technical corrections to SECURE retirement savings law.

In 2025-2026, Republicans will control the White House (Trump/President), the Senate (53 to 47), and the House (220 to 215). But despite winning the trifecta, GOP lawmakers will confront significant challenges next year. They include a spiraling deficit that will make enactment of GOP priorities difficult, and deep divisions between ultra-conservative and more centrist Republicans.

Donald Trump’s victory was declared when, at just about 5:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 6, the media projected he had won swing state Wisconsin, taking him over the 270-vote electoral college count needed to win the presidency. 

Republicans will control the Senate in the incoming 119th Congress (2025-2026). The GOP’s undisputed win of 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats means Democrats have lost control of the upper chamber in the 119th Congress.

Republicans won the 218 seats needed to control the House; it will give the GOP the “trifecta”—a clean sweep of all three levers of legislative power in Washington.

A number of key issues remain to be addressed by the outgoing 118^th Congress. They include the need to fund the government past the December 20 dates on which current funding authority expires. The government funding issues include extension of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) authority and funding.

If, as expected, the GOP controls both the House and Senate next year, the risks and challenges of the 2025 tax bill have become a bit clearer. Here is a run-down.

Four Democratic Senators have introduced legislation that would subject pass-through (non-corporate) business income to payroll (Social Security/Medicare) taxes. Currently, many pass-through businesses (S corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships) characterize some of their business income as dividends or other non-wage income and thus avoid having to include it in the payroll tax base.

On September 26 President Biden signed into law the three-month funding bill that avoided a government shutdown on October 1. The continuing resolution (CR) extended fiscal year (FY) 2024 funding levels until December 20 and made few (none of them controversial) policy changes. So, the tough issues—e.g., FY 2025 funding levels, whether to block certain regulations (including the fiduciary rule)—were left to be resolved during the November-December lame duck session of the 118^th Congress.

On September 12, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing to lay the groundwork for the 2025 tax bill effort to cut down on “tax avoidance.” The hearing highlighted proposals to improve tax equity in current law. It also focused considerable discussion on section 199A, the deduction for qualifying noncorporate business income.

The premium tax subsidies that allow lower-income individuals to get Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance free or at reduced cost are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. If the current subsidies do expire, millions of low-income individuals will face significant health insurance cost increases. Extension of the subsidies will be a key issue in the 2025 tax bill and/or during the November-December lame-duck session of the 118^th Congress.

The ENABLE Act, a bill that makes permanent three provisions of the ABLE account law, passed the Senate under a unanimous consent agreement on September 19. The bill, the ENABLE Act, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), the author of the original ABLE Act, and Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) and in the House by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA).

Private sector economists, including the respected Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), are sounding the alarm over the cost of both presidential candidates’ tax proposals. This suggests the 2025 tax bill will be as much about revenue as tax policy.

On October 3, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury issued new guidance, Notice 2024-73, on coverage requirements for long-term part-time employees (LTPTE), beginning in 2025. SECURE 2.0, enacted late in 2022, includes a provision requiring employer-sponsored retirement plans to allow long-term (those with service of two years or more) part-time (those who work at least 500 hours/year) to participate in the employer-sponsored retirement savings plan.

A bipartisan bill to cut off employee retention tax credit (ERTC) claims has been introduced in the Senate. The bill pulls the ERTC provisions from the House-passed HR 7024, a bill that has been long-stalled in the Senate.

At a September 12 hearing, the Senate Finance Committee explored tax avoidance strategies used by the very wealthy. Strategies identified included lack of current tax liability on unrealized asset gains, step-up in basis, trust rules, and private placement life insurance (PPLI). This is a prelude to the looming 2025 tax bill debate.

Congress ended its summer break on September 9, returning to Washington to deal with the need to fund the U.S. government by midnight September 30. None of the 12 regular-order appropriations bills, which together fund the U.S. government’s discretionary activities for each fiscal year, have been enacted into law. None have passed the Senate, and only five have passed the House. Hence, there is no visible way Congress can enact many (if any) of these 12 bills before Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 ends on September 30.

The debt limit (the statutory limit on the amount the federal government can borrow) is currently suspended until January 2. That means unless Congress acts to raise the borrowing limit or further suspend the statutory cap on borrowing by January 2, the U.S. risks being unable to make timely payments on all of its obligations. Economists widely believe this would trigger worldwide economic catastrophe.

Both former President Trump and Vice President Harris announced economic and tax policy agendas earlier this month. Key implementing details are missing from both candidates’ plans, but the general outlines suggest a legislative battle over tax rules regardless of who wins the presidency. Both candidates’ plans have triggered predictions of big (as in trillions of dollars) revenue losses, although both candidates have also suggested ways that those losses would be contained if not offset. So, both pose risks for NAIFA tax issues.

Historically, the performance of the presidential candidates has a measurable impact on the fates of candidates down-ballot (Senate, House, and state races, too). Some presidential candidates have longer, stronger coattails than others (or act as a bigger drag on down-ballot races). A favorite discussion point among Washington insiders these days is the potential influence of candidates Trump and Harris on House, Senate, and state races. Here is what we know as of now.