How much Green New Scam spending will survive the One Big Beautiful Bill?



Germany’s first chancellor Otto von Bismarck famously said, “Laws are like sausages. It is best not to see them being made.” That description fits President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — with one major exception.

Unlike most legislation, the OBBB deserves a close look. But the media would rather focus on headline fodder like the SALT deduction fight and proposed Medicaid work requirements. What the media has mostly ignored is far more significant: the dismantling of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act’s climate spending, or what Trump rightly calls the “Green New Scam.”

The OBBB isn’t perfect — but it’s the best shot conservatives have to kill the Green New Scam, lock in Trump’s tax cuts, and put America’s fiscal house on firmer ground.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) recently claimed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the OBBB rolls back “the most reckless parts of the engorged climate spending,” reclaiming $6.5 billion in unspent funds. But that figure barely scratches the surface.

Goldman Sachs estimated the total value of the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate spending at a whopping $1.2 trillion. According to Grok, X’s artificial intelligence tool, the initial OBBB version would have left most of it intact.

Roughly $140 billion of that $1.2 trillion had already been spent in 2024 — much of it used to grease the palms of red-state politicians, as I’ve discussed elsewhere. Another $140 billion has been committed but not yet disbursed. The Trump administration is currently fighting in court to block that money from being spent.

But here’s the kicker: Grok’s analysis projected that between $700 billion and $900 billion of the Green New Scam funds would remain untouched under the original OBBB draft. That’s not a rounding error. That’s two orders of magnitude away from Guthrie’s $6.5 billion figure.

Fortunately, the House Freedom Caucus didn’t back down.

Led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the caucus demanded a bill that honored Trump’s campaign pledge to kill the Green New Scam. Roy wrote on X, “Rather than just subsidizing $350B for states with high taxes — we should pass a OBBB that FULLY terminates the Green New Scam and FULLY ends the Medicaid money laundering scam abused to hurt the vulnerable.”

He followed with this: “Writing a deficit-backed blank check (SALT) is easier than cutting spending (DOGE, Green New Scam, Post-COVID spending). Congress/swamp will always choose the easy route, but we can’t afford it.”

Roy was right. And though not completely successful, the Freedom Caucus scored a major win.

The House passed the OBBB on May 22 by a single vote, 215-214. Thanks to the Freedom Caucus, the bill cuts about $500 billion in wasteful Green New Scam spending. Half of the unspent funds have now been stripped out. The bill is now with the Senate, where its fate remains unclear.

RELATED: The Senate’s Romney-Ryan tax ideas collide with a Trump-Vance world

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

One strategic advantage of the OBBB lies in how it’s being passed. Like the Inflation Reduction Act before it, the OBBB uses budget reconciliation — a tool that bypasses the filibuster and requires only a simple majority. In this case, what was once a Democrat-only spending spree may now be repealed with a Republican-only rollback.

Call it poetic justice. Call it the only viable option. Either way, reconciliation makes this repeal possible — despite the fondness many subsidy-happy Republicans still have for the Green New Scam.

But the most important part of the OBBB isn’t about repealing waste. It’s about preserving growth.

The bill makes Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent. That alone carries a projected value of $4 trillion over the next decade and prevents a $1,700 annual tax hike on the average American family.

Republicans who block the OBBB over narrow interests risk handing Democrats a tax increase — and possibly their own walking papers in the 2026 midterms. That includes swing-district moderates who demand Green New Scam subsidies and fiscal hawks who balk at anything short of a full repeal.

The key difference? The pro-subsidy Republicans didn’t vote for those climate programs in the first place. Yet, now they’re willing to tank the whole bill to preserve them.

One Freedom Caucus member told me he remains hopeful the Senate can claw back more of the Green New Scam funds. Maybe so. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Which brings us back to Bismarck. Lawmaking may resemble sausage-making, but at least sausages leave a good taste behind. When done right, so can legislation.

The OBBB isn’t perfect — but it’s the best shot conservatives have to kill the Green New Scam, lock in Trump’s tax cuts, and put America’s fiscal house on firmer ground.

Trump keeps endorsing the establishment he vowed to fight



Donald Trump’s endorsement of Karrin Taylor Robson in December marked one of the most baffling moves of his political career. Still riding the momentum of his victory, Trump pre-emptively backed a known RINO for Arizona governor — nearly 19 months ahead of the 2026 primary. The endorsement fit a troubling pattern: early-cycle support for anti-Trump Republicans who hadn’t lifted a finger for the movement, while stronger MAGA candidates waited in the wings.

If Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promises, he needs to reassert deterrence against weak-kneed incumbents and withhold endorsements in open races until candidates prove themselves.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help.

Arizona illustrates why MAGA must push back hard on Trump’s errant picks. Robson, a classic McCain Republican, publicly criticized Trump as recently as 2022. She ran directly against MAGA favorite Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial primary. Maybe she could merit a reluctant nod in a general election, but nearly two years before the primary? With far better options available?

And indeed, better options emerged. Months later, Rep. Andy Biggs — one of the most conservative voices in Congress and a staunch Trump ally — entered the race. The Arizona drama had a partially satisfying resolution when Trump issued a dual endorsement. But dig deeper, and the story turns sour.

Top Trump political aides reportedly worked for Robson’s campaign, raising serious questions for the MAGA base. Their loyalty seemed to shift only after Robson refused to tout Trump’s endorsement in her campaign ads.

Which brings us to the million-dollar question: Why would Trump endorse candidates so subversive that they feel embarrassed to even mention his support?

The Robson episode is an outlier in one way: Most establishment Republicans eagerly shout Trump’s endorsement from the rooftops. Yet the deeper issue remains. Without MAGA intervention, Trump keeps handing out endorsements to RINOs or to early candidates tied to his political network — often at the expense of better, more loyal alternatives.

A pattern of bad picks

Some defenders claim Trump backs incumbents to push his agenda. That theory falls apart when so many of those same RINOs openly sabotage it.

Take Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Jen Kiggans (R-Va.). Both received Trump’s endorsement while actively working against his legislative priorities — pushing green energy subsidies and obsessing over tax breaks for their donor class. These aren’t minor policy differences. These are full-spectrum RINO betrayals.

Trump wouldn’t dare endorse Chip Roy (R-Texas) for dissenting from the right, so why give cover to Republicans who consistently undermine his mandate from the left?

And don’t chalk this up to political necessity in purple districts. Trump routinely gives away the farm in safe red states, too.

Here's a list of Trump’s Senate endorsements this cycle, straight from Ballotpedia — and it’s not comforting.

You’d struggle to find a single conservative in this bunch. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, and Jim Risch of Idaho all represent the globalist mindset that Trump’s base has spent years fighting. So why did Trump hand them early endorsements — before they even faced a challenge? What exactly is he getting in return?

Well, we know what his loyalty bought last cycle.

After Trump endorsed Mississippi’s other swamp creature, Roger Wicker, against a MAGA primary challenger in 2024, Wicker walked into the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee — and now he’s stalling cuts to USAID. That roadblock has helped keep the DOGE rescissions package from reaching the president’s desk.

Wicker isn’t the only one. Several of Trump’s endorsees have publicly criticized his tariff agenda. Whether or not you agree with those tariffs, the pattern is telling. Trump only seems to call out Republicans who dissent from the right. Meanwhile, the ones who oppose him from the left collect endorsements that wipe out any hope of a MAGA primary.

Ten years into the MAGA movement, grassroots candidates still can’t gain traction — and Trump’s endorsements are a big part of the problem.

Instead of amplifying insurgent conservatives, Trump often plays air support for entrenched incumbents. He clears the field early, blasting apart any challenge before it forms. That’s how we ended up stuck with senators like Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) — both from red states — who routinely block Trump’s nominees and undermine his priorities.

Trump endorsed both Tillis and Cassidy during the 2020 cycle, even as grassroots conservatives geared up to take them on. In fact, almost every red-state RINO in the Senate has received a Trump primary endorsement — some of them twice in just 10 years. That list includes Moore Capito, Graham, Hyde-Smith, and Wicker.

Saving red-state RINOs

What’s worse than endorsing RINOs for Congress in red states? Endorsing RINOs for governor and state legislature.

Yes, Washington is broken. Even in the best years, Republicans struggle to muster anything more than a narrow RINO majority. But the real opportunity lies elsewhere. More than 20 states already lean Republican enough to build permanent conservative power — if we nominate actual conservatives who know how to use it.

The 2026 election cycle will feature governorships in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, to name just a few. These races offer a chance to reset the Republican Party — state by state — with DeSantis-caliber fighters.

Instead, we’re slipping backward.

RELATED: Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Trump has already endorsed Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor — nearly two years before the election. In most red states, Donalds would look like an upgrade. But Florida isn’t most red states. Florida is the citadel of conservatism. It deserves a contested primary, not a coronation. Donalds hasn’t led the way DeSantis has — either nationally or in-state — so why clear the field this early? Why not at least wait and see whether DeSantis backs a candidate?

And don’t forget about the state legislatures.

Freedom Caucuses have made real gains in turning GOP supermajorities into something that matters. But in Texas, House Speaker Dustin Burrows cut a deal with Democrats to grab power — then torched the entire session. Conservative voters are eager to remove Burrows and the cronies who enabled him.

We’ll never drain the swamp this way

This is where Trump should be getting involved — endorsing against the establishment, not propping it up.

Instead, he’s doing the opposite.

Trump recently pledged to back Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows and his entire entourage of RINO loyalists — just because they passed a watered-down school choice bill that also funneled another $10 billion into the state’s broken public-school bureaucracy.

The same pattern holds in Florida.

The House speaker there, Daniel Perez, has consistently blocked Governor Ron DeSantis’ agenda, including efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement — policies that are now a national model. Despite this, Perez cozied up to Byron Donalds. Donalds returned the favor, but refused to take sides in the Perez versus DeSantis clashes. He also ducked the fights against Amendments 3 and 4. So what exactly qualifies Donalds to become Trump’s handpicked candidate in the most important red state in America?

This new paradigm — where candidates secure Trump endorsements just by parroting his name — has allowed RINO governors and legislators to push corporatist policies while staying firmly in Trump’s good graces. They wrap themselves in the MAGA brand without lifting a finger to advance its agenda.

That’s not the movement we were promised.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help. We can’t keep celebrating Trump’s total control of the GOP while hand-waving away the RINOs, as if they’re some separate, unaccountable force. Trump has the power to shape the party. He could use it to clean house.

Instead, he keeps using it to protect the establishment from grassroots primaries.

At the very least, he should withhold endorsements until candidates prove they can deliver on the campaign’s promises. Don’t hand out golden Trump cards before they’ve earned them.

Mr. President, please don’t be such a cheap date.

GOP’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill Act’ lets Big Tech and Big Pharma run wild



The Republicans’ bizarrely named “Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes two egregious provisions that would strip states of their power to regulate key agenda items pushed by globalist elites.

Anyone who still understands what the word “conservative” means can see the truth: The Republican budget bill is a mixed bag of deficit bloat, missed opportunities, and the odd policy win. Whether the House bill was worth passing as a “take it or leave it” deal depends on one’s political calculus. But the result is underwhelming and fails to rise to the moment.

Stripping states of authority and subsidizing green fantasies are the exact opposite of the anti-globalist message that won Trump the White House.

Supporters of the bill — particularly President Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — argue that it’s the best possible outcome given a razor-thin House majority packed with RINOs from purple districts in blue states. Set aside that debate. If it’s true, then conservatives should focus their energies in deep-red states where Republicans hold supermajorities. That’s where we can — and must — do the work Congress won’t.

Instead, Republican leaders included two provisions in the bill that actively prevent red states from pushing back against green energy mandates, land-grabs, surveillance schemes, and a growing transhumanist agenda.

Green New Deal jam-down

Thanks to Republican Freedom Caucus stalwarts, including Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland and Chip Roy of Texas, much of the Green New Deal faces rollback — assuming, of course, the Senate doesn’t block the repeal. But one key subsidy survives: federal incentives for carbon capture pipelines. Worse still, the bill strengthens protections for these projects by stripping states of regulatory power.

Section 41006 spells it out: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” once the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission grants a pipeline license under an newly amended section of the Natural Gas Act, state and local governments can no longer block or delay the project using zoning, permitting, or land-use laws.

In plain English: carbon dioxide pipelines, backed by federal subsidies, get the same privileges as oil and gas pipelines. That includes eminent domain powers and “certificate of public convenience and necessity” status — bureaucratic code for “we’ll take your land whether you like it or not.”

But carbon pipelines aren’t oil and gas. Oil fuels the economy and delivers a clear public good. Carbon capture, by contrast, sucks up CO2 and buries it to appease climate hysterics. It serves no market need and survives only through government handouts. It exists to sanctify the fiction that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

This isn’t an oversight. It’s a direct response to South Dakota ranchers, who successfully fought to ban eminent domain for carbon capture projects. Lawmakers in Iowa and North Dakota have followed suit, targeting Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed pipeline, which would have plowed through private ranchland to serve a project with no public value.

The rebellion in South Dakota ranks among the most important conservative grassroots victories in recent history. Yet this bill spits in the face of those landowners. It overrides red-state laws and rural rights on behalf of globalist, green-energy profiteers.

A 10-year pause on state bans

Funny how Republicans said budget reconciliation couldn’t include policy changes. That was the excuse for not pursuing immigration reform or judicial restructuring. And yet when it suits the priorities of Big Tech and globalist interests, lawmakers found a way to insert sweeping federal mandates into the bill.

Out of nowhere, either the White House or GOP lawmakers added a provision banning states from regulating artificial intelligence or data center systems. Section 43201 of the bill states: “No State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.”

That’s not compromise. That’s total pre-emption — no exceptions.

Florida and other red states have already passed laws prohibiting the use of AI in enforcing gun control or violating medical privacy. More states are following suit. Legislatures across the country are debating how to safeguard civil liberties and property rights from tech overreach. But this bill would kneecap every one of those efforts.

Then come the AI data centers — massive, power-hungry, water-consuming facilities that are cropping up in rural areas and harming communities in their wake. Bipartisan state efforts aim to regulate them through zoning and environmental protections. Yet under this bill, Congress could override even the most basic local safeguards. If a township tries to limit where these centers operate or how they’re built, that could be viewed as “regulating AI systems” and thus outlawed for a decade.

Why does this matter? Because tech moguls aren’t hiding their intentions.

RELATED: The Republicans who could derail reconciliation

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

At Trump’s January 22 launch event for Oracle’s Stargate platform, CEO Larry Ellison gushed about mRNA vaccines. “One of the most exciting things we’re working on ... is our cancer vaccine,” he said. “Using AI, we can detect cancers through blood tests and produce an mRNA vaccine robotically in about 48 hours.” That’s the model. AI plus big data plus biotech equals unregulated medical experimentation — powered by infrastructure no local government can block.

Red states have started pushing back, attempting to pass 10-year moratoriums on mRNA technology. But the federal budget bill would do the opposite: It could impose a 10-year federal moratorium on state bans.

So here’s the question: Do we really want Arab-funded special interests building AI spying centers in our heartland with no recourse for state and local governments to regulate, restrict, or place common-sense privacy guardrails on these new Towers of Babel?

That question raises another: Should localities be forced to accept carbon pipelines by federal decree, with no power to defend their land or water?

These policies — stripping states of authority, empowering transnational corporations, subsidizing green and biotech fantasies — are the exact opposite of the anti-globalist, America First message that won Trump the White House and won Republicans the House.

We deserve answers. Who inserted these provisions? And more urgently, who will take them out?

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Rep Expresses Optimism That Senate Will Seek ‘Big, Beautiful’ Spending Cuts In Trump Bill

'Opportunity for the bill to get stronger'

SALT sellouts: GOP dumps red-state voters for New York Democrats



Every Republican ran for office last year promising to slash the record spending levels that fueled Biden-era inflation. Yet, every GOP proposal now adds to the deficit. Republicans can't agree on a single major program to cut. At the very least, one might expect them to eliminate federal subsidies that prop up blue-state Medicaid schemes and high-tax policies. Instead, they plan to burn their political capital shielding those same states from the consequences of their choices.

Forget “inflation” or “invasion.” The buzzword in Washington this month is “SALT.” Lifting the cap on the state and local tax deduction is the message GOP leaders chose to go with. Brilliant!

Blue-state Republicans should export red-state policies, not act as lobbyists for high-tax regimes.

Salt may season food, but in tax policy, SALT leaves a bitter taste. Before Trump’s 2017 tax reforms, taxpayers could deduct unlimited state and local taxes from their federal burden, with some restrictions for the wealthy under the old Alternative Minimum Tax. This allowed blue-state politicians to raise state income and property taxes knowing Washington would offset the pain through greater deficit spending. Trump’s bill capped SALT deductions at $10,000 and lowered federal rates across the board.

Now, a bloc of blue-state Republicans has hijacked the budget reconciliation process to push what amounts to an unlimited national subsidy for high-tax states. With existing tax cuts and Trump’s new priorities already straining the budget, these Republicans want to burn $1 trillion over 10 years to spare New York and California politicians from a taxpayer revolt.

After rounds of internal negotiation, House leaders offered a compromise: Raise the SALT cap to $30,000 for families earning less than $400,000. The SALT caucus rejected the offer. “A higher SALT cap isn’t a luxury. It’s a matter of fairness,” declared New York Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota, and Mike Lawler. Fairness? They want the rest of the country to go deeper into debt to prop up New York’s failed policies.

zimmytws via iStock/Getty Images

RELATED: The last march of the moderates

Blue-state Republicans should export red-state policies, not act as lobbyists for high-tax regimes. Their job is to pressure local Democrats to cut taxes — or to help conservative voters move out. Instead, they keep fueling blue-state profligacy and shielding the very politicians who caused the mess.

Worse still, these lukewarm Republicans want to spend over $1 trillion on blue-state tax breaks instead of using that money for broad-based tax cuts that would actually boost growth. They’ve even floated raising the cap to $62,000 for individuals and $124,000 for families, with no income limits. Most of those benefits would go to households earning over half a million dollars. For comparison, the Tax Foundation reports the average American pays about $13,890 in federal income taxes. Yet, these Republicans want to let wealthy blue-staters deduct nearly 10 times that amount.

And what of Donald Trump — the be-all and end-all of the Republican Party? He pressures the Freedom Caucus to drop its demands to end blue-state Medicaid grift, but he says nothing about the SALT holdouts. Instead, he endorsed Stefanik and Lawler for re-election.

Trump left New York for Florida to escape New York’s oppressive tax regime. So why back politicians who insist on making the rest of the country pay for it?

If Trump won’t rein in these RINOs, Republicans will head into the midterms without a message — and they’ll need smelling salts to revive a self-immolated mandate.

Palmetto pretenders push ‘cut’ that costs more for most



South Carolina Republicans aren’t trying to limit government — and they don’t appreciate the Freedom Caucus pressuring them to do so. Instead, they’ve concocted a devious plan to push a bill that sounds like a flat tax but would raise taxes on most residents earning under $115,000. The goal? To trap Freedom Caucus members into opposing a bill GOP leaders intend to promote as a tax cut during campaign season.

House Speaker Murrell Smith Jr. (R) promised voters a tax cut throughout the session but didn’t reveal the bill until last week. Now we know why. The proposal would amount to a net tax increase on 66% of state tax filers, including nearly all who earn less than $115,000. Despite this, Republican leaders still hope to get the bill to Republican Gov. Henry McMaster’s desk by May 8.

Until voters start focusing on primary elections — where the real ideological battles are fought — red states will keep giving us the big government blues.

Currently, South Carolina taxes income above $17,000 at 6.2% — one of the highest rates in the low-tax Southeast. Seeking to catch up with other red states, House leaders, with support from the governor, introduced H. 4216 to implement a 3.9% flat tax. On paper, it looks like a voter-friendly reform.

But buried in the bill is a major shift: It redefines taxable income to include earnings before federal taxes and deductions. Under current law, South Carolina only taxes adjusted income after those reductions. The change would quietly increase the tax burden for most middle-income residents — even as lawmakers pitch it as a cut.

The state Freedom Caucus quickly flagged the problem, releasing an analysis showing how the bill would impact working families. Because of South Carolina’s relatively low income levels, someone earning the state’s median income would pay $716 more per year under the proposal. Lower-income families could see increases of $800 to $1,000 annually.

Even families earning $100,000 — roughly the combined salary of a married teacher and police officer — would face a net increase of $327. Taxpayers wouldn’t break even until they hit $115,000 in income. And even then, a household making $119,000 would only see a modest benefit of $93.

The Office of Revenue and Fiscal Affairs released a distributional analysis showing the percentage of taxpayers at each income level who would pay more under the proposed tax structure:

— (@)

According to the data, between 78% and 90% of those earning $20,000 to $75,000 would see their taxes go up. Even among those earning $100,000 to $150,000, about 60% would end up paying more.

While it’s reasonable to want to broaden the tax base — which any flat tax will do — you can’t call this a tax cut if the overwhelming majority of middle-class families are paying more. To deliver actual relief, lawmakers would either need to drop the flat rate even lower or apply the 3.9% rate only to income after federal taxes and deductions.

Math doesn’t lie. This isn’t a cultural dispute, a philosophical debate, or a regulatory disagreement. State leaders know exactly what the numbers say — so the real question is: Why are they still pushing this bill?

The answer is simple. They don’t want to cut spending to pay for a real tax cut. In fact, the governor is proposing a 3.5% increase in the state budget. That’s why Republicans are promoting a tax plan that isn’t a tax cut at all.

Instead, they’re laying a political trap. By presenting this proposal as tax relief, they aim to paint the Freedom Caucus as anti-tax cut — even though the bill raises taxes on the majority of state residents. A few co-sponsors have already withdrawn their names, slowing the bill’s momentum, but it’s telling that this was the strategy in the first place.

Here’s the bottom line: Once a state adopts a progressive income tax, fixing it within the current framework is almost impossible. A better path would be to follow Mississippi’s lead. It recently joined nine other states — Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming — in eliminating its income tax entirely.

South Carolina could do the same by cutting spending to offset lost revenue or transparently pairing income tax repeal with increases elsewhere. But to sell a plan that raises taxes on two-thirds of residents as a “cut” is flat-out dishonest.

Unfortunately, this move by South Carolina GOP leadership is nothing new.

A recent analysis using the Club for Growth’s conservative scorecard found that Republican House members — excluding the South Carolina Freedom Caucus — averaged just 27%. That’s barely above the average Democrat. In contrast, Freedom Caucus members averaged a score of 92%.

In other words, the ideological gap between the Freedom Caucus and the rest of the state GOP is far wider than the gap between Republicans and Democrats.

Until voters start focusing on primary elections — where the real ideological battles are fought — red states will keep giving us the big government blues.

GOP’s budget strategy: Delay, deflect, do nothing



Republican leaders have repeatedly promised to “fight the next time” — a vow they’ve made and broken since the Tea Party era, even when they controlled all three branches of government.

Despite holding leverage at the start of each Congress, Republicans — including Donald Trump — have shown a persistent fear of government shutdowns. They begin with numerous opportunities to push their campaign promises by attaching them to must-pass appropriation bills, debt ceiling increases, and reauthorization measures. Yet as deadlines approach, they repeatedly cave, funding left-wing priorities while assuring their base that they’ll stand firm in the next round. This pattern has played out consistently since 2011.

Executive actions seem to be the only option left for cutting spending.

As a result, every major budget bill passed during recent GOP trifectas has relied more on Democratic support than Republican. Now, despite a historic mandate, it appears that Republicans are poised to repeat the cycle yet again. Even the Freedom Caucus seems ready to fall in line, following Trump’s directive of “no dissent.”

After the Supreme Court upheld a lower-court ruling requiring Trump to continue some USAID funding, the Freedom Caucus declared it would oppose any bill that fails to codify DOGE cuts. Recognizing that the courts would likely overturn any significant executive cuts, the House Freedom Caucus and nine GOP senators released a letter stating, “No DOGE, no deal.”

Minutes later, Trump announced his support for a continuing resolution to fund the government for the next six months at the same level as Biden’s budget — a level Republicans had previously condemned as a driver of inflation.

Instead of pressuring lukewarm Republicans, Trump silenced the Freedom Caucus in a way no one else could. Now, the caucus is defending the delay on spending cuts, claiming it gives the DOGE time to identify savings. But even if significant savings could be found outside the military, veterans’ benefits, and entitlements — it cannot — the courts have made it clear that they will not allow broad spending cuts enacted solely through the executive branch.

Republicans added more than $200 billion to Biden’s budget levels in December, claiming it was a temporary move until March, when Trump could influence the fiscal year 2025 budget. Yet here we are, still funding Biden’s spending levels and policies, with Republicans promising that “next time” will be the real fight.

Why will next time be different?

But it won’t be. The same fear of a government shutdown persists and will likely intensify during a recession. Either Republicans are willing to risk a shutdown for spending cuts, or they’re not. Either Trump understands that he has a louder megaphone than Democrats to make the case for cuts, or he doesn’t.

As history shows, leverage doesn’t increase the farther we get from an election — it diminishes. Without exception.

We can’t repeat the mistakes of Trump’s last term, when good executive policies didn’t last because Trump himself blocked conservatives from codifying them in the budget. The pattern of delaying spending cuts was exhausting. From April 2017 to March 2018, we heard promises of “next time” — only for Trump to sign an omnibus bill that increased spending on everything he had vowed to cut, followed by another round of the same the next fiscal year after he said “never again.” Every must-pass bill during that period passed with more Democratic votes than Republican ones.

Not like a spending freeze

Republicans’ plan to erase the automatic 1% spending cuts is a blatant betrayal. These cuts would have taken effect automatically if Congress did nothing. Back in June 2023, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) handed Joe Biden a clean debt limit suspension, leading to $4.8 trillion in new debt in just 18 months — without a recession or a war. The one upside of that deal was a provision that would trigger a 1% across-the-board spending cut if Congress failed to pass all 12 appropriations bills by the start of the next calendar year.

So what happened to that agreement?

After backfilling those cuts in a deal last year, House Republicans now argue that Section 102 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 only triggers the 1% cuts if they fail to fund the government for the rest of the year. Even though they’re pushing a continuing resolution instead of a full appropriations bill, they claim that as long as the CR funds the government through year’s end, the sequestration won’t apply.

Johnson’s betrayal last year was bad enough, but this year’s maneuver is even worse. Their excuse — fear of defense cuts — no longer holds water, since they plan to backfill more mandatory defense spending through budget reconciliation.

The reality is clear: This isn’t about timing or hoping for a better budget fight later in the year. Not with their political capital waning and the economy possibly entering a recession. Republicans have no intention of using their control to pass meaningful spending cuts in a budget bill. Period.

Time for a showdown

Executive actions seem to be the only option left for cutting spending. Defenders of the status quo dismiss concerns by suggesting that Trump will refuse to spend excess funds and will impound undesirable accounts and programs. The problem is clear: Courts have already ordered him to spend $2 billion in USAID funding. It’s unrealistic to expect the courts to support defunding entire agencies or devolving the Department of Education to the states, especially after Congress re-funds them in response to Trump’s initial signals.

This leads us to the last tool: a rescissions package. Under the Budget Control Act of 1974, the president can propose a list of expenditures to rescind, triggering a privileged motion in Congress that can pass without a filibuster. The catch? When rescissions are separate from “must-pass” bills, many weak-kneed Republicans will vote them down, even without Democratic help. Even USAID, a seemingly obvious target for cuts, has several defenders in Congress, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). In fact, RINOs blocked a rescissions package from Trump in 2019.

The only way for rescissions to work is for Trump to apply pressure. He must publicly confront the RINOs with the same intensity he reserves for Freedom Caucus members who dissent from the right. The problem is that Trump has never shown a willingness to confront those who oppose him from the left.

Maybe he will — next time.

Trump Is Draining The D.C. Swamp, But All 50 States Need To Pull The Plug Too

Voters must remain vigilant against the 50 state-level swamps and their lurking RINO Republicans.

The problem isn’t a narrow majority — it’s narrow-minded Republicans



“Narrow majority.” Every paid GOP influencer has etched those two words indelibly in the conservative media consciousness. What the influencers really mean is: Don’t expect the Republican Congress to fulfill any campaign promises because we can’t do anything with a “narrow majority.”

The problem is not a narrow majority but rather the Republican Party’s wide-open tent, so vast and borderless that it welcomes more subversive elements than the southern border. The real problem isn’t the size of the GOP majority; it’s the party itself. Until Republicans unify around a clear set of principles, objectives, and goals, they will accomplish little beyond Trump’s executive orders — orders that a future Democratic president will overturn on day one.

Take any major policy priority of GOP primary voters, and you’ll find that 70 to 80 Republicans will oppose it.

Realistically, Republicans will never hold 60 seats in the Senate, nor will they secure more than a 10-seat House majority, especially with Democratic gerrymandering. So why do they promise the moon when Democrats are in charge, only to claim later they lack the votes? Yes, Republicans don’t have 60 Senate seats — but neither do Democrats. And while Republicans might struggle to reach 218 in the House, Democrats don’t have the numbers, either. Yet, Democrats continue to win on budget bills and must-pass legislation.

The answer is simple: Even with a strong House majority, Republicans would face 95% of the same problems. The problem isn’t numbers — it’s values. The Freedom Caucus, which truly represents the GOP’s campaign rhetoric, is often more ideologically distant from other Republican factions than establishment Republicans are from Democrats.

Until the party builds itself around the priorities of its base — just as Democrats have done — Republicans will never have “enough votes.”

Why not? While the media fixates on the Freedom Caucus, a much larger RINO faction roams Capitol Hill — one that is more than twice the size of the conservative caucus and leans left of GOP leadership. The Main Street Caucus, ironically a gateway for K Street and Wall Street lobbyists, boasts more than 80 members. It has only grown under Trump’s watch.

Take any major policy priority of GOP primary voters, and you’ll find that 70 to 80 Republicans will oppose it. And that’s before factoring in the establishment Republicans stuck between the Freedom Caucus and the Main Street Caucus — many of whom are just as bad.

Want to shrink government? Name a single member of this group who supports eliminating even one agency.

Want to end vaccine liability immunity? Good luck getting more than 100 votes.

Want to end birthright citizenship or crack down on incentives for illegal immigration — let alone reduce legal immigration? The problem isn’t a three-seat majority; it’s the dozens of Republicans who would block it as a matter of course.

End foreign aid? They’d sooner fight in the Ukrainian army than vote for anything you’d support.

Terminate the Green New Deal? They already penned a letter demanding it stay.

Social conservatism is a dead end with most of these members and won’t even get off the ground. Yet, so many of them are from deep red districts. The chairman of the Main Street Caucus, Dusty Johnson, represents South Dakota at large, which voted for Trump by a 29-point margin. But these are members who largely believe in fiscal and social liberalism, more immigration, more refugees, Wilsonian foreign policy, global warming policies, and political correctness.

If conservatives continue to ignore primaries, they might gain another 10 seats in the next general election, but the Main Street Caucus will still ensure that conservative priorities are dead on arrival. This caucus is growing faster than the Freedom Caucus because its members can rely on Trump’s support to defuse primary challenges.

While primary challenges were rarely successful in the pre-Trump era, conservatives were making gains in open seats. However, Trump’s endorsements in open races have stalled that momentum.

Is the GOP’s RINO problem simply the result of narrow majorities in swing districts? Red states provide a clear and unambiguous answer.

Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of 25 states, with veto-proof supermajorities in many. If swing voters truly backed Trump’s vision, red states should be using their mandates to the fullest.

They aren’t.

In Texas, a group of Republicans worked with Democrats to elect a House speaker acceptable to Democrats.

In Montana, despite a 32-18 GOP Senate majority, nearly a third of Republicans forced rules changes that gave Democrats control of key committees.

And in Florida, after six years of conservative victories under Gov. Ron DeSantis, state legislative leaders refused to go all in on immigration reform. House Speaker Daniel Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton dismissed DeSantis’ call for a special session on illegal immigration as “premature” and “irresponsible” — even after Trump publicly backed it. They later watered down the reform bill, caving to Big Agriculture’s open-border interests.

Some states, such as Wyoming, are advancing an aggressive conservative agenda. However, this progress is due solely to the Freedom Caucus majority.

Without building Freedom Caucuses at both the state and federal levels, the overall Republican versus Democrat numbers become meaningless — about as useful as trying to differentiate between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

If the goal is to push the Trump agenda in Congress and red states, why does Trump continue to empower RINOs? If every RINO who should be a prime target for a Freedom Caucus challenge knows he can count on Trump's endorsement, aren’t conservatives losing ground on MAGA rather than gaining it?

It doesn’t have to be this way. But it will remain this way unless the focus changes. Blaming narrow majorities is a lame excuse that distracts from the real issue: the sorry state of the Republican Party itself.

Andy Biggs files to run for governor of Arizona



On Tuesday, Republican Rep. Andy Biggs filed a formal expression of interest in running for governor of Arizona.

Biggs, who has represented Arizona's 5th Congressional District since 2017, announced that he would pursue the governorship in 2026, challenging Arizona's current Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. Hobbs was first elected in 2022 and would be eligible to run for re-election against Biggs in 2026 should he become the Republican nominee.

'I have been honored to serve Arizona at the state and federal levels and will bring my experience home to my native state to help it fulfill its tremendous capacity.'

"Today I filed a formal expression of my interest in running for Governor of Arizona in 2026," Biggs said in a statement Tuesday. "I love the greatest state in the Union, Arizona."

"Arizona has a bright future but will need strong leadership to reach its full potential," Biggs continued. "I have been honored to serve Arizona at the state and federal levels and will bring my experience home to my native state to help it fulfill its tremendous capacity."

Throughout the last three terms, Biggs has distinguished himself as a firebrand and a fiscal conservative, serving as chairman of the House Freedom Caucus from 2019 to 2022.

"I have a firm understanding of what the state needs to thrive," Biggs said. "I look forward to conversing with my fellow Arizonans as I consider this weighty decision."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!