It's true that the commentary added by the social media user is political opinion, but we can still dig into the claims of the graphic they shared. It appears that these claims mostly reference actual provisions in the law, but misconstrue or exaggerate their effects.
Firstly, the "Big Beautiful Bill" doesn't mention postponing or canceling elections. The Congressional Research Service confirms "neither the Constitution nor Congress provides any … power to the President or other federal officials to change this date outside of Congress's regular legislative process."
However, the SCOTUS point is a bit more complex. Section 70302 of the bill limits federal judges' ability to enforce contempt citations by requiring security bonds for injunction violations—something judges rarely require. Legal experts like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argue this would nullify existing injunctions by making them unenforceable, allowing the administration to ignore court orders, a view also shared by other critics. Notably, the rule wouldn't apply directly to Supreme Court rulings, which are enforced by lower courts. So, while it's possible that Trump could subvert SCOTUS by ignoring court orders, it is not a direct effect of the bill.
Finally, Section 90002 of the bill requires new civilian federal employees to either become at-will employees or contribute 5% more to their pension. At-will employees can be fired "for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all" without notice or appeal.
However, politically motivated terminations could still face litigation. Penn State law professor Michael Foreman notes: "An individual fired for political beliefs would have valid First Amendment claims... Even in 'at will' states, that standard does not allow employers to violate constitutional rights." This means the Trump administration would not have carte blanche to fire 'disloyal officials'.
