Russell Vought’s quiet war on big government



The government is shut down again, and the usual panic is back. I even had someone call my house this week to ask if it was safe to fly today. The person was half-joking, half-serious, wondering if planes would “fall out of the sky.”

For the record, the sky isn’t falling — at least not literally. But the chaos in Washington does feel like it. Once again, we’re watching the same old script: a shutdown engineered not by fiscal restraint but by political brinkmanship. And this time, the Democrats are driving the bus.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills.

Democrats, among other things, are demanding that health care be extended to illegal immigrants. Democratic leadership caved to its radical base, which would rather shut down the government for such left-wing campaign points than compromise. Republicans — shockingly — said no. They refused to rubber-stamp more spending for illegal immigration. For once, they stood their ground.

But if you’ve watched Washington long enough, you know how this story usually ends: a shutdown followed by a deal that spends even more money than before — a continuing resolution kicking the can down the road. Everyone pretends to “win,” but taxpayers always lose.

The Vought effect

This time might be different. Republicans actually hold some cards. The public may blame Democrats — not the media, but the people who feel this in their wallets. Americans don’t like shutdowns, but they like runaway spending and chaos even less.

That’s why you’re hearing so much about Russell Vought, the director of the United States Office of Management and Budget and Donald Trump’s quiet architect of a strategy to use moments like this to shrink the federal bureaucracy. Vought spent four years building a plan for exactly this scenario: firing nonessential workers and forcing reauthorization of pet programs. Trump talks about draining the swamp. Vought draws up the blueprints.

The Democrats and media are threatened by Vought because he is patient, calculated, and understands how to leverage the moment to reverse decades of government bloat. If programs aren’t mandated, cut them. Make Congress fight to bring them back. That’s how you actually drain the swamp.

Predictable meltdowns

Predictably, Democrats are melting down. They’ve shifted their arguments so many times it’s dizzying. Last time, they claimed a shutdown would lead to mass firings. Now, they insist Republicans are firing everyone anyway. It’s the same playbook: Move the goalposts, reframe the narrative, accuse your opponents of cruelty.

We’ve seen this before. Remember the infamous "You lie!” moment in 2009? President Barack Obama promised during his State of the Union that Obamacare wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie!” and was condemned for breaching decorum.

Several years later, Hillary Clinton’s campaign platform openly promised health care for illegal immigrants. What was once called a “lie” became official policy. And today, Democrats are shutting down the government because they can’t get even more of it.

This is progressivism in action: Deny it, inch toward it, then demand it as a moral imperative. Anyone who resists becomes the villain.

RELATED: The dog that caught the car

Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

Stand firm

This shutdown isn’t just about spending. It’s about whether we’ll keep letting progressives rewrite the rules one crisis at a time. Trump’s plan — to cut what isn’t mandated, force programs into reauthorization, and fight the battle in the courts — is the first real counterpunch to decades of this manipulation.

It’s time to stop pretending. This isn’t about compassion. It’s about control. Progressives know once they normalize government benefits for illegal immigrants, they never roll back. They know Americans forget how it started.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills. If we don’t take it, we’ll be right back here again, only deeper in debt, with fewer freedoms left to defend.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Chuck Schumer Has No Leverage In The Shutdown Showdown

Republicans shouldn’t bail Democrats out of their own political problems; they should make Democrats swallow the bitter pill of surrender.

Welker Shocked Illegal Aliens Affect Jobs Numbers (And Other Meet The Press Questions)

Warm or adversarial, these are the questions Kristen Welker asked Republicans and Democrats on Sept. 7's edition of 'Face The Nation.'

Report: America’s Debt Situation Will Soon Be Worse Than Right After World War II

Our country cannot get its fiscal house in order unless and until it starts slowing the explosion of Medicare spending.

The budget hoax that nearly sank Trump’s biggest win (so far)



Conservatives are celebrating a once-in-a-generation legislative triumph with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4 by President Trump. But the victory almost didn’t happen — thanks to what can only be described as the “budget hawk hoax,” a long-standing tactic used by phony conservatives to block meaningful reforms from becoming law.

The heart of this hoax is that the overriding problem facing America is “the deficit crisis” — and that nothing else on the conservative agenda can ever be moved forward until we deal with it.

Too many conservatives have fallen for the 'budget hawk hoax' for far too long.

But when the conversation turns to cutting wasteful spending, these same so-called budget hawks introduce a poison pill: the notion that the only serious way to reduce the deficit is by gutting Social Security and Medicare — before touching any other government waste.

They know this is a nonstarter — and we all know it’s a nonstarter — because there is no way voters will ever allow Nana’s Social Security to be cut while we’re still using taxpayer money to fund LGBTQ+ programs in Nepal and Botswana.

The impossible dream?

Even worse, the faux-conservative “budget hawks” have generally dismissed any efforts to cut other wasteful government spending, insisting that it would have been a mere insignificant drop in the bucket. Yet when President Trump tried to secure $5 billion in funding for the border wall in his first term, budget hawks protested that we couldn’t afford it.

When the Trump administration began dismantling corrupt NGOs under USAID, legacy “conservative” media scoffed at the effort because it didn’t yield massive dollar savings. Yet if we don’t eliminate such foundational waste first, long-term entitlement reform has no credible path forward.

The truth is, of course, that Conservatism Inc. was just desperately trying to protect the corrupt status quo, keep left-wing spending in place, and deny any spending that advances the conservative agenda.

The same old playbook was rolled out again with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Critics labeled it “budget-busting,” but that claim was misleading. The bill didn’t increase spending. In fact, it prevented a scheduled tax hike that would have rolled back Trump-era tax cuts and restored pre-2017 rates.

RELATED: The reality behind this week’s One Big Beautiful Bill spectacle

BackyardProduction via iStock/Getty Images

To be fair to the bill’s critics, the history of omnibus bills is fraught with corruption. Typically, omnibus bills have been legislative horse trades: Republicans secure pork for their districts, and Democrats secure massive expansions of the welfare state. But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different. It actually slashes major government spending in ways that align with long-standing conservative demands.

For instance, the $7,500 federal incentive for electric vehicle purchases is set to expire almost immediately. Under the old playbook, such a subsidy would have increased in exchange for some infrastructure funding in a red district. Not this time.

By trying to defeat the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “budget hawks” were actually striving to protect and perpetuate the following left-wing agenda items, all in the name of “fiscal conservatism”:

  • A massive tax increase, restoring Obama-level tax rates.
  • Allowing able-bodied Medicaid recipients to continue taking welfare without being required to work.
  • Maintaining all the federal EV rebates and green energy incentives, which are designed to deny Americans the right to affordable energy and reliable transportation.
  • Blocking border security by denying funding for the border wall, additional detention centers, and additional Border Patrol staffing.

It’s even more obscene when you consider the enormous cost to taxpayers of providing social services for illegal aliens — services the “budget hawks” are trying to save — while also perpetuating open borders because “we can’t afford” measures to seal the border.

Too many conservatives have fallen for the “budget hawk hoax” for far too long, accepting that we cannot have any conservative victories so long as we have a national debt. Perhaps that day has finally ended.

Yes, our country’s fiscal crisis is real, and it will persist. But forsaking any victories over the left because of the deficit is not a matter of high principle. It’s simply surrender.

The “budget hawks” will never be able to fix the deficit. They don’t want to. But given the chance, they would continue to use the issue to prevent real conservatives from ever passing useful legislation.

The hoax failed

They lost this round — and thank heaven for that!

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act stops income tax hikes in their tracks. It strips funding from Planned Parenthood, rogue judges notwithstanding. It shuts down the EV grift. It tightens border security and reins in Medicaid fraud.

This is what winning looks like — and the self-styled “budget hawks” hate it. Why? Because it derails the left’s agenda and puts the public back in charge.

Credit goes to President Trump and Speaker Johnson for delivering this landmark victory. And to Stephen Miller — relentless as ever — for making sure the truth broke through.

Here’s What’s Next In The Battle To Get Federal Spending Under Control

Congress should do its job and keep restricting the growth of exploding federal spending.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal



Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.

Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.

The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.

Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.

The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.

Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.

A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.

Federalism isn’t a suggestion

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.

If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.

A federal case for caution

David Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race.

— (@)

Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.

But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.

America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.

Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.

States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.

AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.

State regulation is necessary

The threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.

In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.

RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo

BlackJack3D via iStock/Getty Images

From banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.

These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.

The real danger: Doing nothing

This is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.

Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.

It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.

No, The Federal Reserve Shouldn’t Monetize The National Debt Again

Lawmakers of all parties keep thinking that some magic bullet will solve all of the country’s fiscal problems. It won’t.

‘Best Dope God Ever Put Breath In’: John Kennedy Says Russ Vought Is ‘High’ If He Thinks Schumer Will Budge On Budget

'We passed 11 out of 12 minibuses'

Feds waste billions keeping ancient tech on life support



The federal government’s bloated, outdated information systems have finally come under scrutiny. On his first day in office, President Trump signed a series of executive orders to cut waste and boost efficiency. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reinforced that mandate, spending his first 100 days reviewing the Pentagon “from top to bottom to ensure that we're getting more, faster, better, and more efficient.”

Earlier this month, Hegseth announced that in partnership with the Department of Government Efficiency, officials had uncovered $5.1 billion in savings — “and that's just the beginning.” That’s a good start. But if the DOGE hopes to prove its worth, it must confront the federal government’s disastrous record on IT spending and performance.

Companies should not have to wade through red tape at every agency — or even within the same agency — to deploy new solutions.

It can’t happen fast enough. A staggering 80% of the annual $100 billion IT spending goes to maintaining decades-old systems. According to the Government Accountability Office, “The older the systems are, the more the upkeep costs — and older systems are more vulnerable to hackers.”

Not only is outdated software expensive to maintain, but it also poses a significant vulnerability for our government — and that is particularly dangerous when it comes to national defense.

The Trump administration should make it a top priority to modernize federal IT infrastructure while also addressing how we got such a dysfunctional IT infrastructure in the first place.

Targeting outdated regulations

In today’s AI world, government agencies cannot adapt to the most innovative and efficient technology when burdened with regulations often written before the internet even existed.

The Department of Defense is a prime example. The U.S. military buys IT systems in a ridiculously bureaucratic fashion. It takes years and millions of dollars for a company — regardless of size — to get its software approved just to pitch a product to the department. When time and money are of the essence, the only firms that can wade through the red tape are big, entrenched companies with lawyers and lobbyists to throw at outdated rules.

RELATED: How DEI took a sledgehammer to the US military’s war ethos

Bilal photos via iStock/Getty Images

This procurement model directly clashes with how the private sector works. In the business world, innovators attract investment quickly. The Pentagon, by contrast, consistently favors large, well-connected firms over smaller companies and startups. Promising new technologies get ignored.

It’s the defense contractor model over the SpaceX model — and we’re paying the price.

Streamlining the regulators

Fixing the rules isn’t enough. We need to fix the people who enforce them. Right now, overlapping Defense Department bureaucracies oversee the procurement and deployment of new technology. A single point of contact — with one set of rules — would reduce red tape and create a unified standard for the department to follow.

That standard should reach beyond the Defense Department. Companies shouldn’t have to navigate a maze of conflicting rules across agencies — or even within the same agency — just to deploy new solutions. Procurement reform, including better training and clearer rules, must be a core part of the DOGE’s mission.

Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act made some progress, but much more still needs to be done.

Falling behind on technological modernization in defense is not just an economic disadvantage but a threat to national security. As the DOGE takes a much-needed axe to inflated government spending, let’s make sure we also cut burdensome regulations that hinder innovation and improvement. We must unleash the power of American innovation to equip our military with the finest tools — otherwise, our enemies will beat us to it.