Elon Musk called it an “abomination” — but the Big Beautiful Bill might be crypto’s backdoor stimulus

What made Elon Musk call Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” a disgusting abomination and what does this mean for crypto’s future in America?

Musk calls Big Beautiful Bill a disgusting abomination in viral attack

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, is a sweeping tax and spending proposal introduced by the Donald Trump administration that narrowly passed the House in late May 2025.

Stretching over a thousand pages, the bill expands on the 2017 tax cuts by extending existing provisions and introducing new ones. Among the most notable are zero taxes on tipped wages and full, immediate deductions for business investments.

Alongside the tax measures, the bill increases spending in areas such as military programs and border infrastructure. This includes funding for a new missile defense system labeled the “Golden Dome.”

To support the scope of these changes, the proposal raises the national debt ceiling by $4 trillion and calls for cuts across several federal programs. Medicaid, food assistance, and other support services face reduced budgets and new eligibility restrictions, including work requirements.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that, if passed without major changes, the legislation could raise the national debt from roughly $36 trillion to nearly $40 trillion over the next ten years.

The bill has already sparked internal debate within the Republican party. Several senators have voiced concern about the long-term cost of the tax breaks and the impact of expanding the deficit.

Elon Musk, who briefly held a position in the Trump administration as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, has since become one of the bill’s most outspoken critics.

Soon after stepping down, Musk posted on X, calling the proposal “a disgusting abomination” and accusing Republican lawmakers of fiscal dishonesty. He followed up by stating, “You know you did wrong. You know it,” in direct reference to those who voted for the bill.

Musk, who reportedly donated nearly $300 million to support Trump and other Republican candidates, has now accused them of betraying their base. In his words, 

House Speaker Mike Johnson responded by defending the bill and challenging Musk’s statements. “My friend Elon is terribly wrong about this bill,” he said, describing it as a long-term investment in American competitiveness.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer offered criticism from the other side of the aisle, calling the bill “ugly to its very core” and describing it as a $4.5 trillion gift to the ultra-wealthy, funded by cuts to health care and social support for working families.

The legislation now moves to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53 to 47 majority. Given the level of pushback from both within the party and across the aisle, substantial revisions are expected before any version can move forward.

So what does all of this mean for the digital asset space? Let’s break down what’s actually in it and how it could shape the future of crypto.

Musk blasts Big Beautiful Bill but crypto firms may benefit

Although the OBBBA does not mention crypto directly, several provisions within the bill could influence how the industry functions in practice.

One of the most immediate impacts comes from the return of full bonus depreciation for capital investments, allowing businesses to deduct the entire cost of qualifying equipment in the year of purchase.

For crypto mining firms, a newly bought mining rig could be written off in full rather than depreciated over time. Tax professionals note that such deductions can help miners generate paper losses to offset other income, significantly lowering their tax burden. 

Since profitability in mining often depends on managing costs, the provision could offer direct financial relief.

The bill also retains the corporate and individual tax rates introduced in 2017. A steady 21% corporate tax rate may benefit blockchain startups by preserving more capital for development and hiring.

Not all elements of the proposal are favorable to the sector.

Section 112105 introduces a 5% excise tax on most cross-border remittances. Every time an individual in the U.S. sends money abroad, 5% of the amount would be collected by the Treasury unless the sender uses a “qualified” provider that verifies them as a U.S. national or citizen.

For many lawful immigrants and visa workers, who frequently send funds to family overseas, the requirement could present significant friction. Advocacy groups estimate that over 40 million U.S. residents could be affected. 

Countries such as Mexico, which rely heavily on remittance inflows, have already raised concerns, warning that the measure could divert billions away from their economies.

Within crypto circles, the implications are layered. The added cost of traditional remittances may drive users toward stablecoin-based alternatives, including USD Coin (USDC) and Bitcoin (BTC), which enable borderless value transfer without relying on banks or remittance companies.

A noticeable shift toward crypto for remittances could also invite regulatory scrutiny. If policymakers see digital assets as tools to bypass taxation, they may increase oversight of wallet providers and exchange on-ramps.

Coin Center has already described the measure as a form of financial surveillance, drawing parallels to past proposals aimed at tracking self-custodied crypto activity.

Why Section 899 makes the Elon Musk tweet feel eerily prophetic

Tucked deep within the OBBBA is Section 899, a provision that grants the U.S. Treasury new powers to retaliate against foreign tax policies deemed unfair to American businesses or individuals.

If another country enacts a tax that disproportionately impacts U.S. entities, the Treasury can officially label it a “Discriminatory Foreign Country.” That designation allows the U.S. to impose elevated taxes on companies or citizens from that country doing business on American soil.

The immediate targets include digital services taxes and global minimum tax policies promoted by the OECD. Several countries, including France, Italy, and the United Kingdom, have already implemented tax regimes that largely affect U.S. tech giants. Section 899 gives the U.S. a legal path to push back.

For the crypto industry, the implications are multi-dimensional. Foreign regulators weighing taxes on U.S.-based crypto firms may now think twice. A transaction levy on platforms like Coinbase or Circle that favors local players could trigger a retaliatory response from the U.S. That deterrent effect could help American crypto firms preserve access to global markets. 

The provision also reinforces the U.S. position against the OECD’s global minimum tax plan. Without a top-up tax enforced through bilateral treaties, American crypto startups remain under domestic tax rules, even when earning abroad.

That separation benefits smaller blockchain firms. It avoids layering foreign tax obligations onto early-stage companies still navigating compliance at home. For now, Section 899 signals that the U.S. won’t allow other nations to expand their tax reach over American income.

The risks are equally clear. If the U.S. raises taxes on foreign firms in response to digital service levies, affected countries may respond in kind. Crypto companies entering Europe or Asia could face higher withholding taxes, stricter licensing, or added legal friction.

That escalation threatens the global reach many crypto projects rely on. Distributed teams, international investors, and cross-border liquidity are core to the industry. 

Moreover, a fragmented tax environment could slow growth, raise compliance costs, and weaken international partnerships.

Foreign venture capital may also pull back. A fund based in a targeted country could face higher taxes when investing in U.S. crypto startups, making deals more expensive and potentially slowing capital flow.

On the ground, U.S.-based exchanges and funds might be required to flag, report, or withhold more from investors tied to blacklisted countries. That added complexity raises operational overhead and could deter global user participation.

The full impact of the measure will likely depend on how aggressively both sides respond, and whether exemptions or negotiated frameworks emerge in response to mounting pressure.

The congressional spending bill feels like 2020 all over again

One of the broader effects of the OBBBA may surface through its influence on inflation expectations. Large-scale tax cuts and shifts in spending, especially when financed through borrowing, often raise concerns about long-term price stability.

The bill includes reductions in some federal programs, but many economists argue that its immediate impact is stimulative. Unfunded tax relief can temporarily boost demand, and without offsetting growth or revenue, that may contribute to rising inflation over time.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has warned that the bill moves the U.S. further from achieving a sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio. Its analysis suggests that maintaining a 3% deficit target would be nearly impossible under the bill’s current framework.

Ongoing borrowing to fund tax cuts and military expansion could gradually weaken the dollar’s purchasing power. If those expectations gain traction, Bitcoin may re-emerge as a hedge against inflation risk.

The pattern has precedent. During the pandemic stimulus era of 2020 and 2021, Bitcoin experienced a surge in demand as investors responded to aggressive monetary and fiscal expansion. That cycle pushed Bitcoin above $60,000 by early 2021.

A similar dynamic appears to be forming in 2025. Bitcoin surpassed $111,000 in May shortly after the House approved the OBBBA, even though inflation readings remain moderate. Market behavior suggests that investors are pricing in anticipated risks, rather than reacting solely to current indicators.

Still, the relationship between inflation and crypto markets is not linear. When inflation accelerates and central banks raise interest rates sharply in response, crypto tends to come under pressure. In 2022, Bitcoin lost more than 50% of its value as the Federal Reserve pursued rapid rate hikes to contain inflation.

Higher interest rates boost returns on traditional assets like Treasury bonds, making them more appealing relative to volatile holdings such as cryptocurrencies. In these conditions, institutional capital often exits the crypto market in search of more stable yields.

Household behavior may also shift. Rising costs for essentials like fuel and food can limit discretionary spending. Retail investors, who represent a substantial portion of crypto participants, may reduce their exposure during inflationary stress, leading to lower trading volumes and muted price action.

Volatile inflation also complicates the use of crypto as a payment method. When purchasing power is uncertain, holders of Bitcoin and similar assets may prefer to save rather than spend, weakening their utility as mediums of exchange.

For crypto markets, inflation signals can push in both directions. Moderate inflation, paired with declining trust in fiat stability, often supports Bitcoin. Sudden spikes that trigger monetary tightening tend to reverse that effect.

What OBBBA adds to the equation is a larger scale and a more visible fiscal footprint — something investors, both in and outside of crypto, are now recalibrating for.