I was against Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ — Stephen Miller changed my mind



After the House narrowly passed President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” — in true Washington fashion, it’s already been reduced to an acronym: BBB — the usual suspects sounded the alarm. Libertarians and deficit hawks recoiled. Elon Musk, the former DOGE chief, called it a “disgusting abomination.” He warned it would pile another $2.4 trillion onto the national debt over the next decade. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed it as hypocritical, saying Republicans can’t keep pushing tax cuts without real spending cuts to match.

I sympathized. I flinched at the trillion-dollar price tag too. My immediate thought: “This is what Democrats and GOP sellouts do — not fiscal conservatives.”

The BBB is the first major Republican bill in decades that doesn’t bend to Democratic narratives. It doesn’t apologize for putting American citizens first.

Then Stephen Miller showed up.

While critics accused the bill of being just another bloated omnibus, Miller pushed back. He took to X to argue that the BBB isn’t some lobbyist-driven monstrosity. It’s a focused, unapologetic conservative package: secure the border, overhaul welfare, and revive the economic growth unleashed by the 2017 tax cuts. For the first time in a long time, I decided to hear the argument out.

Border security for real this time

I didn’t need much convincing on border security. But Miller pointed out something the corporate left-wing media barely mentioned: The BBB fully funds the border wall — both physical infrastructure and new tech. Republicans have promised that since 2016. Nearly a decade later, they finally have a bill that delivers.

— (@)

This isn’t more messaging fluff. The bill puts $45 billion toward border security — the largest commitment in U.S. history. It increases Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention capacity by 800% over the previous fiscal year, funding facilities to detain more than 100,000 people per day. It also includes $8 billion to hire 10,000 new ICE officers and staff.

If the bill ended there, it would be a no-brainer. But I still had concerns — starting with the deficit.

Does it add $2.4 trillion to the deficit?

We can’t call ourselves fiscal conservatives while borrowing like Democrats. Miller knows that, and he didn’t dodge the question.

The bill, he argued, enacts the most sweeping welfare reform in U.S. history. It includes over $2 trillion in net spending cuts. Programs like Medicaid and food stamps would be tied to citizenship and work requirements — policies conservatives have supported for years but rarely fought for seriously in Congress.

And then there’s the tax side.

The BBB extends the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — one of the clearest drivers of economic growth during Trump’s first term. That’s what triggered the $2.4 trillion deficit estimate, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But here’s the twist: The CBO’s figure isn’t based on new spending. It’s based on continuing tax relief. Miller’s argument is straightforward — there’s a world of difference between scoring a bill that way and actually running up the national credit card.

RELATED: Trump’s $9.3B rescission push faces a GOP gut check

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Attributing the deficit to tax cuts is like blaming hydrogen peroxide for the wound it’s meant to treat. The real cause of the deficit isn’t lower taxes. It’s decades of spending on bloated welfare, bureaucratic waste, and corporate handouts that the DOGE identified — exactly the kind of garbage the BBB cuts.

Even ABC News, buried in the middle of a critical write-up, admitted that the bill would cut taxes by $3.7 trillion and reduce spending by $1.2 trillion. If that’s not a conservative win, what is?

Letting the 2017 tax cuts expire over CBO scoring fears would amount to a massive tax hike on the working and middle classes. Extending them strengthens the economy, boosts small businesses, and keeps the government from choking growth just to massage a deficit number.

Why not pass these reforms separately?

Border security — check. Welfare reform — check. Pro-growth tax cuts — check. So why cram it all into one bill? Why not pass each measure individually, on its own merits?

Miller addressed that too. In a perfect world, each item would pass as a clean bill. But in the real world, every one of these provisions would require 60 votes in the Senate — including Chuck Schumer’s. That’s not happening.

— (@)

The reconciliation process, however, only requires a simple majority. It’s the only legislative path available. For once, Republicans are using the rules the way Democrats do: to win.

I didn’t like it at first. It felt like a compromise. But now I see it as the only way to do what we’ve been saying we want to do for years.

Miller won me over

The BBB is the first major Republican bill in decades that doesn’t bend to Democratic narratives. It doesn’t water down core principles. It doesn’t apologize for putting American citizens first.

And unlike Louisiana Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson’s endless parade of “small ball” continuing resolutions, the BBB actually moves the ball down the field. It lays out a coherent conservative agenda — and the administration is determined to get it passed.

— (@)

I’m still a fiscal hawk. I still want smaller bills, much less spending, and a federal budget that doesn’t look like a summertime pig roast. But I also want results. And this might be the only chance we have to deliver the policy victories we’ve been promised for a generation.

Stephen Miller changed my mind. I hope other conservatives will give him a fair hearing too.

‘Build Back Better’ Bill Would Fund 86,000 Additional IRS Agents To Sic On American Taxpayers

Does anyone believe that doubling the size of the IRS means new employees will only focus on 'the rich' and avoid targeting middle class Americans?

Radio host exposes Democratic senator's hysterical rhetoric on climate change: 'Voters are not stupid'



Climate change alarmists raised an alert Sunday after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced he would not support President Joe Biden’s “Built Back Better” plan. The bill contained more than a half-trillion dollars of climate change spending.

However, radio host Hugh Hewitt pointed out the alarm is not as serious — or as sincere — as Democrats claim.

What was claimed?

People concerned about the alleged impacts of climate change said, for example, that Manchin's decision to not support the Build Back Better Act, essentially killing the bill, is "devastating for the planet."

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) was one such person raising alarm over the climate aspect of Build Back Better's sudden death. In fact, he called it a "climate disaster."

"Losing Build Back Better would be a climate disaster. We must power everything with renewable energy. I won’t stop fighting for this vision," Merkley said.

That we still don\u2019t have 50 votes tells you how far we\u2019ve fallen. Losing Build Back Better would be a climate disaster. We must power everything with renewable energy. I won\u2019t stop fighting for this vision.
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@Senator Jeff Merkley) 1639937797

The Biden administration billed its "Built Back Better" climate provisions as the "largest effort to combat climate change in American history."

Specifically, the plan sought to:

  • Significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions — 50%-52% lower than 2005 levels — by 2030
  • Offer "substantial consumer rebates" for families who transition to renewable energy
  • Ensure that "clean energy technology ... will be built in the United States"
  • Invest in "coastal restoration, forest management, and soil conservation"

Of course, the plan also sought to advance "environmental justice."

How did Hewitt say?

The conservative radio host exposed how rhetoric from climate change hawks like Merkley is more hyperbole than substance.

According to Hewitt, if climate change presented such a grave threat to humanity and the giant space rock called "Earth" that scientists estimate has been floating in perfect gravitational distance from the sun for billions of years, then Democrats would have advocated for legislation that only addressed climate change — not a bill promoting a partisan social agenda.

"If this was true Senate Ds would have stripped everything out of #BBB except climate-related measures and added in a huge subsidy for nuclear power plants and research," Hewitt pointed out.

"Voters are not stupid Senator," he added. "They don’t agree w/ you, and the actions of the @SenateDems belie your urgency."

If this was true Senate Ds would have stripped everything out of #BBB except climate-related measures and added in a huge subsidy for nuclear power plants and research. Voters are not stupid Senator. They don\u2019t agree w/ you, and the actions of the @SenateDems belie your urgency.https://twitter.com/senjeffmerkley/status/1472631974632243213\u00a0\u2026
— Hugh Hewitt (@Hugh Hewitt) 1639938761

As the Wall Street Journal explained, the Biden administration still has several avenues through which it can enact its agenda on climate change, such as through a separate bill, executive action, regulatory measures, and state-led campaigns.

One wonders, however, why Democrats did not lead with a climate-change-only bill if, as Merkley proposed, climate disaster is on the horizon because one country did not enact partisan legislation.