The 'Big Brother' surveillance law everyone in Washington hates for different reasons is expiring



Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the law that allows the government to spy on foreign targets overseas, including their communications with Americans — has a looming deadline.

Supporters call it essential to national security. Critics call it "Big Brother."

'FISA needs serious reform. Full stop.'

The House Freedom Caucus launched a #DontSpyOnMe campaign, demanding, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, a warrant before the government can query Americans' data in Section 702 collection.

Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas), one of the effort's loudest voices, was blunt on X: "The government has no right to your private communications without a warrant. FISA needs serious reform. Full stop."

"The Freedom Caucus is America First more than anyone else, as far as I'm concerned," Self added.

RELATED: The FBI should get a warrant before reading your messages

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

For most Democrats, the objection isn't about the law itself — it's about who Trump tapped to oversee the intelligence agencies involved with it.

On June 2, Trump named Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence — the official who oversees all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies. Pulte replaces Tulsi Gabbard, who announced she was resigning effective June 30. Confirmed as Federal Housing Finance Agency director in March 2025, Pulte will hold both roles simultaneously.

When pressed on Pulte's lack of any intelligence or national security experience, Trump was unfazed. "I think he does, actually, because he's smart," he said. "I wasn't greatly experienced in national security, and I think I've done a really great job with it."

At the FHFA, Pulte referred several anti-Trump Democrats and government officials — including New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), and Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook — to the Justice Department for alleged fraud.

The Government Accountability Office opened an investigation into whether Pulte misused federal authority to do so. As DNI, critics argue, he would have far more power to continue targeting Democrats.

The backlash to his appointment was swift and bipartisan. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) put it plainly: "We don't need a weaponized DNI. We need professionals there," and the Senate voted 47-52 against a motion to proceed on the FISA extension, with six Republicans crossing the aisle to kill it.

Punchbowl News reported that Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) privately warned Thune: no Pulte withdrawal, no Democratic votes for FISA.

Trump, for his part, has pushed for a clean extension — but finds himself boxed in on all sides.

Congress has already passed two short-term extensions of the surveillance program this spring — the last one, in April, bought just 45 days.

Something has to give before June 12 — the White House blinks on Pulte, the Freedom Caucus gets its warrant requirement, or Congress slaps on another emergency patch.

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

How Trump can fix his endorsement problem



You might not know it by watching algorithmically approved conservative media, but we are in the thick of primary season, with important red-state primaries taking place nearly every Tuesday. In most states, the primary outcomes these weeks will be of greater consequence than the general election in November.

Sadly, special interest-supporting liberal Republicans will likely win most races — often thanks to Trump’s support. However, last week’s Indiana Senate elections demonstrated that it doesn’t have to be that way.

Trump has scared away quality challengers in every single congressional primary by reflexively endorsing incumbents.

Last week, we were entreated to what it looks like to finally have a unified and organized movement. A group of liberal Republicans in the Indiana Senate blocked a core party initiative; in this case, it was redistricting, and all but one target was defeated.

Thanks to Trump endorsements and support from Turning Point USA, the Club for Growth, and Indiana Sen. Jim Banks (R), six or seven state senators were defeated. Along with two more conservatives who won in open districts, a quarter of the entire Senate GOP conference shifted to the right, meaning they will likely have the votes to replace the Senate president.

This victory raises an obvious question: How come we don’t see united movements in other red states to replace entrenched groups of liberal Republicans who buck the party platform and betray their voters?

Instead, we often see Trump endorse those incumbents, who then attack the few conservatives we currently have in legislative chambers. If Trump would only endorse the way he did in Indiana, we’d change the party in one election cycle. Unfortunately, in almost every other primary, the president has been a net liability.

Even in Indiana, the president was something of a double-edged sword, as he successfully re-elected two Senate RINOs — Liz Brown and Ron Alting — simply because they voted for redistricting, but they were horrible on numerous other issues. Jim Banks himself opposed Alting because he was a champion of transgenderism and illegal aliens.

In Congress, both Reps. Jefferson Shreve (Ind. 6) and Jim Baird (Ind. 4) were vulnerable. Shreve only won his race by five points, which means Trump’s endorsement likely made a difference. Baird is one of the original sponsors of Florida Republican Rep. Maria Salazar’s amnesty bill.

RELATED: Trump needs to denounce the Dignity Act

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Looking ahead to Idaho’s upcoming primary, conservatives are outraged over a video surfacing from Gov. Brad Little (R) lambasting those who oppose illegal immigration. The Freedom Caucus in the state has tried to shut off illegal labor, but Little and his allies are not only blocking those bills, they are funding challengers against the conservatives.

Little has been a thorn in the side of conservatives for years and only received 60% in his re-election during the 2022 primary. It was well understood that he’d have a hard time running for a third term in 2026, but he preemptively secured Trump’s endorsement, which all but ensured that quality candidates like Attorney General Raul Labrador could not get into the race.

Numerous primaries have already been canceled because of Trump’s endorsements.

Before he was assassinated, Charlie Kirk had endorsed Nate Morris for Mitch McConnell’s Senate seat in Kentucky. Earlier this month, Trump endorsed establishment Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), forcing Morris out of the race in exchange for an ambassadorship.

Meanwhile, Trump has scared away quality challengers in every single congressional primary by reflexively endorsing incumbents. The only incumbent he is trying to unseat is Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). As a conservative, I have some disagreements with Massie on Hamas, Islam, crime, drugs, and immigration in general, but we all know that Trump singling him out has more to do with Massie’s dissent on the issues we do agree on.

Then, of course, there is Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who just won yet another term thanks to a Trump endorsement. Conservatives complain bitterly about RINO senators wasting deep red states and undermining our ability to accomplish anything. Well, Capito is ground zero for this mismatch.

RELATED: How Republicans have failed to defund sanctuary cities for a generation

J. David Ake/Getty Images

In a state Trump won by 40 points, Capito is liberal on both fiscal and social issues and embodies the special interest and lack of heart, brain, and soul of the geriatric Senate GOP Conference that was led by Mitch McConnell.

Tom Willis, who was a state senator and Green Beret, was a viable challenger. Trump could have easily endorsed him and kept the seat in conservative hands, but he handed Capito another term. Capito also bankrolled a number of RINOs in the legislature who successfully fended off conservative challengers.

As conservatives scramble to push redistricting in southern states in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling, those who have slept through 10 years of Trump’s primary sabotage are surprised to find many RINOs in these supermajority Republican states who are recalcitrant to fully eliminate Democrat districts.

Tyler Bowyer, CEO of Turning Point Action, observed, “In deep red states like Indiana, Mississippi, Alabama — a large percentage of 'moderate republicans' are actually Democrats.”

The State Freedom Caucus Network has been valiantly fighting these people who have consistently been buttressed by Trump endorsements. The water is warm. It would be nice for conservative leaders with large followers or millions of dollars in PAC money to actually lead Trump rather than follow him and support the foot soldiers who are risking their livelihoods and careers to fight for the issues they post about.

WV Lawmakers Launch Freedom Caucus To Take On ‘Undocumented Democrats’ In The GOP

'It's fitting that we are launching the West Virginia Freedom Caucus on the 250th anniversary [of our nation] to restore those same rights to West Virginia,' WVFC Chair Chris Anders told The Federalist.

MAGA’s biggest threat isn’t Democrats — it’s internal sabotage



Ask a MAGA supporter what the biggest threat to the Make America Great Again movement is, and there’s a good chance he’ll say Democrats or progressivism.

But according to Andy Roth, president of the State Freedom Caucus Network, that’s incorrect. It’s the fake Republicans running red states whom we should be concerned about.

On a recent episode of “Blaze News: The Mandate,” Roth joined Jill Savage and Blaze News editor in chief Matthew Peterson to expose how RINOs are sabotaging MAGA internally.

“Red states, almost all of them literally, are governed by Democrats that have an R after their name because they live in districts that are very red. They want to get into office, and they know they can’t have a D after their name, so they put an R after their name, get elected, and then vote like Democrats,” Roth says.

He points to states like South Carolina, Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota as examples of red states with RINO leadership.

“It’s one of the most under-reported stories, I think, in the country,” he says.

Thankfully, the State Freedom Caucus Network is working overtime to address this issue. The conservative organization supports the creation of freedom caucuses in state legislatures across the U.S. These caucuses, modeled after the House Freedom Caucus in Congress, are groups of Republican state lawmakers who push for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and conservative policies such as opposing federal overreach, promoting election integrity, and resisting certain social policies.

“When we have … a state freedom caucus, we come in there, and we contrast ourselves with these fake Republicans so much to the point where the voters are like, ‘Wait, I guess I have a squishy Republican for a state rep or a state senator because this freedom caucus is speaking the truth,’” Roth tells Jill and Matthew.

And it’s working. Roth points to Wyoming as an example. “In Wyoming, we had only eight members in our freedom caucus, but they quickly doubled to 16, and now they’re in charge of the Wyoming House,” he says. “The speaker is a Freedom Caucus member; the pro tem [pro tempore] is a Freedom Caucus member.”

As a result, “For the first time ever, [Wyoming] passed the property tax cuts, universal school choice,” and “banned noncitizens from voting.”

“We have the model. We know how it works. We just need to do it in all 50 states,” Roth says.

“Is Wyoming indicative of a trend you see across the country?” asks Peterson, who’s hopeful a freedom caucus might find its way to Texas, the state he and Jill call home.

“We need another election cycle in Texas before we can do anything here, but Texas needs a freedom caucus, and the country needs a Texas Freedom Caucus,” Roth says.

“It feels like you can mess with Texas right now, and I don’t want that to happen,” Jill says.

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from 'Blaze News | The Mandate'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

EXCLUSIVE: House Conservative Says He Can’t Be Pressured To Support Senate’s Version Of Trump Bill

'We've got one chance at this'

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.