This article uses pretty strong language that clearly shows a bias against the "Big Beautiful Bill, beginning with the article's title saying "egregious."" It calls the bill “radical” and focuses a lot on negative impacts like cutting health care and food assistance, while using emotional words like “slush fund” and “lawlessness” to describe parts of the bill and the Trump administration. The article also highlights mostly the downsides and doesn’t give much space to any potential benefits or arguments from supporters, which makes it feel one-sided. Overall, it leans heavily toward a critical viewpoint rather than offering a balanced look at the bill.