Don’t let DC or Wall Street kill the TVA’s power



The federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority is the largest public utility in the country, providing electricity to Tennessee and six surrounding states. And because the president appoints its board, it’s also a political football.

Democrat administrations have stacked the TVA board with green energy zealots committed to phasing out carbon fuels in favor of wind and solar. Donald Trump has responded by firing directors who embraced that faux utopian agenda, along with those who allowed the executives to reward themselves with high seven-figure compensation packages while outsourcing jobs to noncitizens.

The blue-collar working class has become a key element in the Trump coalition. If Trump moves to privatize the TVA, it will feel like a betrayal to the very people who have had his back.

Now a new tempest is brewing: Should the TVA be privatized?

Usurped by green zealots

The TVA was established as a public corporation in 1933 to provide flood control, rural electrification, and economic development in the Tennessee River Valley, as well as the surrounding areas of Appalachia. For almost a century, it has delivered abundant, inexpensive, and reliable electricity.

Most of its electricity comes from nuclear (42%) and natural gas (31%), while coal and hydroelectric account for about 23% combined.

Despite years of agitation from anti-carbon activists and Obama- and Biden-era appointees, the TVA’s power mix has remained overwhelmingly carbon-based — for one reason: It works.“Renewable” energy sources (primarily solar) only constitute about 4% of its total electricity production. And, as always, solar energy drops to zero at night.

A third way

The debate has focused on two extremes: Keep the TVA under federal ownership or privatize it. However, a third option offers a middle ground: Transfer ownership to the seven states that rely on it.

Moving ownership — and board appointments — to the seven primarily red states that rely on the TVA would ensure that green activists can’t destroy its ability to provide inexpensive, reliable electricity, while also maintaining the TVA’s status as a public utility.

The argument for keeping the TVA federally owned is that it has been very successful for a century now in providing electricity and flood control to much of Southern Appalachia. It also provides significant employment to the region.

Current corporate culture driven by private equity slashes employment to reduce labor expenses; relaxes quality and safety controls to meet budget-cutting goals; terminates the most experienced employees to eliminate their salaries; and outsources as many jobs as possible to non-Americans. Naturally, the fear of privatization is legitimate by those who rely on the TVA for electricity and employment.

Though the Trump administration hasn’t yet formally announced that it is considering privatization, many speculate that it is on the table. As the Atlantic reported recently:

Trump hasn’t spoken recently about privatizing the TVA. But in his first term, he proposed selling off the TVA’s power lines to a private buyer in 2018 and again in 2020. Now, he is positioned to stack the TVA’s board with new members. That, combined with his administration’s relentless push to shrink the federal government, has revived speculation about privatization — which many in Trump’s MAGA orbit have long argued should be the utility’s fate.

Most of the TVA’s 11,000-plus employees are skilled tradesmen and women who belong to unions. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represents about 10,000 TVA employees. It has issued a pre-emptive warning to the Trump administration, stating:

The TVA is the primary reason the Deep South became the economic force it is today, and IBEW members have been there every step of the way. It’s an American success story that required skilled, union labor. We will fight tooth and nail attempts to turn it into a for-profit corporation whose only concern is ultra-rich shareholders.

I have had occasion throughout my career to work with companies that employ IBEW electricians, as well as companies that contract out for electrical work using the IBEW. These skilled tradesmen are overwhelmingly patriotic, America-first MAGA voters who detest the anti-carbon activists on the left. They also detest corporate America’s war on American labor.

The blue-collar working class has become a key element in the Trump coalition. If Trump moves to privatize the TVA, it will feel like a betrayal to the very people who have had his back.

Real concerns

Libertarian purists recoil at any level of government owning a utility. Yet privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority as a regulated monopoly offers little difference from government ownership. Without a free-market competitor willing to build nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams, the result is the same.

Chattanooga’s Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R), whose district includes the highest concentration of TVA employees, strongly opposes privatization. Knoxville Republican Rep. Tim Burchett, whose district houses TVA headquarters, is more open. He has said:

Any organization that pays their head $6 million a year plus bonus needs to be evaluated. For too long, the Tennessee Valley Authority has operated in the shadows with closed-door meetings and minimal transparency. I have sponsored, passed, and supported bills to fix these issues. I am a believer in capitalism and the free market. Any option that maximizes efficiency, incentivizes transparency, and keeps prices low for ratepayers should be explored.

Burchett has built a reputation fighting pork in Washington and is right to question the TVA’s waste and secrecy. But full-scale privatization isn’t the answer.

A better path would be to transfer ownership to the states. That compromise could deliver efficiency, accountability, and local control — while keeping the TVA safe from both federal meddling and Wall Street overreach.

RELATED: Tennessee Valley Authority gets a Trump-style reckoning

Photo by CHUNYIP WONG via Getty Images

Well-intentioned defenders of federal ownership, from Fleischmann to the IBEW, assume that the TVA’s future will look like its past. It won’t. Democrats in Washington will never allow the TVA to remain a major provider of carbon-based energy. The most conservative region in America should not gamble its power supply on the whims of left-wing swamp creatures.

Delivering for the people, not bureaucrats

The mechanics of ownership among the seven states would require negotiation, but one model could grant Tennessee 40% ownership — reflecting its dominant use and production — with the other six states dividing the remaining 60%.

That structure would put accountability where it belongs: in the hands of state leaders answerable to the families and businesses who depend on the TVA. Local officials would bear political responsibility for keeping the lights on and the air conditioning running — not distant bureaucrats in D.C.

Time to pump the brakes on Big Tech’s AI boondoggle



America already learned a lesson from the Green New Deal: If an industry survives only on special favors, it isn’t ready to stand on its own.

Yet the same game is playing out again — this time for artificial intelligence. The wealthiest companies in history now demand tax breaks, zoning carve-outs, and energy favors on a scale far greater than green energy firms ever did.

Instead of slamming on the accelerator, Washington should be hitting the brakes.

If AI is truly the juggernaut its backers claim, it should thrive on its merits. Technology designed to enhance human life shouldn’t need human subsidies to survive — or to enrich its corporate patrons.

An unnatural investment

Big Tech boosters insist that we stand on the brink of artificial general intelligence, a force that could outthink and even replace humans. No one denies AI’s influence or its future promise, but does that justify the avalanche of artificial investment now driving half of all U.S. economic growth?

The Trump administration continues to hand out favors to Big Tech to fuel a bubble that may never deliver. As the Wall Street Journal’s Greg Ip pointed out earlier this month, the largest companies once dominated because their profits came from low-cost, intangible assets such as software, platforms, and network effects. Users flocked to Facebook, Google, the iPhone, and Windows, and revenue followed — with little up-front infrastructure risk.

The AI model looks nothing like that. Instead of software that scales cheaply, Big Tech is sinking hundreds of billions into land, hardware, power, and water. These hyperscale data centers devour resources with little clarity about demand.

According to Ip’s data: Between 2016 and 2023, the free cash flow and net earnings of Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft rose in tandem. Since 2023, however, net income is up 73% while free cash flow has dropped 30%.

“For all of AI’s obvious economic potential, the financial return remains a question mark,” Ip wrote. “OpenAI and Anthropic, the two leading stand-alone developers of large language models, though growing fast, are losing money.”

Andy Lawrence of the Uptime Institute explained the risk: “To suddenly start building data centers so much denser in power use, with chips 10 times more expensive, for unproven demand — all that is an extraordinary challenge and a gamble.”

The cracks are already beginning to show. GPT-5 has been a bust for the most part. Meta froze hiring in its AI division, with Mark Zuckerberg admitting that “improvement is slow for now.” Even TechCrunch conceded: Throwing more data and computing power at large language models won’t create a “digital god.”

Government on overdrive

Yet government keeps stepping on the gas, even as the industry stalls. The “Mag 7” companies spent $560 billion on AI-related capital expenditures in the past 18 months, while generating only $35 billion in revenue. IT consultancy Gartner projects $475 billion will be spent on data centers this year alone — a 42% jump from 2024. Those numbers make no sense without government intervention.

Consider the favors.

Rezoning laws. Data centers require sprawling land footprints. To make that possible, states and counties are bending rules never waived for power plants, roads, or bridges. Northern Virginia alone now hosts or plans more than 85 million square feet of data centers — equal to nearly 1,500 football fields. West Virginia and Mississippi have even passed laws banning local restrictions outright. Trump’s AI action plan ties federal block grants to removing zoning limits. Nothing about that is natural, balanced, fair, or free-market.

Tax exemptions. Nearly every state competing for data centers — including Virginia, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Nebraska — offers sweeping tax breaks. Alabama exempts data centers from sales, property, and income taxes for up to 30 years — for as few as 20 jobs. Oregon and Indiana also give property tax exemptions.

RELATED: Big Tech colonization is real — zoning laws are the last line of defense

Photo by the Washington Post via Getty Images

Regulatory carve-outs. Trump’s executive order calls for easing rules under the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other environmental statutes. Conservatives rightly want fewer burdens across the board — but why should Big Tech’s server farms get faster relief than the power plants needed to supply them?

Federal land giveaways. The AI action plan also makes federal land available for private data centers, handing prime real estate to trillion-dollar corporations at taxpayer expense. No other industry gets this benefit.

Stop the scam

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) put it bluntly: “It’s one thing to use technology to enhance the human experience, but it’s another to have technology supplant the human experience.” Right now, AI resembles wind and solar in their early years — a speculative bubble kept alive only through taxpayer largesse.

If AI is truly the innovation its backers claim, it will thrive without zoning exemptions, tax shelters, and federal handouts. If it cannot survive without special favors, then it isn’t ready. Instead of slamming on the accelerator, Washington should be hitting the brakes.

‘The Suicide Squad’: How Democrats keep blowing themselves up



Donald Trump, now in his second term, has executed a political masterstroke — cornering Democrats into the unpopular side of nearly every 80/20 issue. From transgender athletes in women’s sports and the DOGE to the airstrike on Iran’s nuclear sites, he’s boxed them in. But Trump isn’t the Democrats’ biggest threat. Their worst enemy is themselves — and the radical candidates they continue to put forward.

The truth is that the left has always flirted with the absurd. Leftists rant that the rich must “pay their fair share,” but can’t define what “fair” means. They champion equity over equality and preach that government handouts — not markets — will lift the poor and working class. This worldview teeters between naivete and madness.

The Democratic Party isn’t just drifting — it’s accelerating toward the cliff. And no one pushed the Democrats. They drove themselves.

Then came 2018, when “the Squad” stormed Congress and dragged the party from the edge of absurdity into full-blown lunacy.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — raised in a comfortable New York suburb — rebranded herself as “Alex from the block” in the Bronx. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota dismissed 9/11 as “some people did something” and still won a seat in Congress. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan was censured — by both parties — for chanting “from the river to the sea” after Hamas massacred Jews on Oct. 7, 2023. In 2020, Jamaal Bowman of New York joined their ranks and was later caught on video pulling a Capitol fire alarm to delay a budget vote. His excuse? He thought it would “unlock a door.”

Some Squad members have lost re-election bids, but the core group marches on, peddling the Green New Deal, defunding police, and attending Fighting Oligarchy rallies via private jet.

Meanwhile, Soros-backed prosecutors decriminalize shoplifting, eliminate cash bail, and release repeat offenders. These are not policy missteps — they are self-inflicted wounds. And Republicans couldn’t ask for better material.

Enter Zohran Mamdani — the 33-year-old Democratic Socialist running for New York City mayor. His platform makes Bernie Sanders look centrist.

Mamdani wants to defund police, make New York a sanctuary city, and jack up the minimum wage to $30 an hour. He calls for rent freezes, free buses, and city-run grocery stores — as if the Soviet model didn’t already prove that government-run markets lead to scarcity and dysfunction.

RELATED: Vance on Mamdani: ‘Who the hell does he think that he is?’

Photo by Kenny Holston/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Even more alarming is his plan to “shift the tax burden” from homeowners in the outer boroughs to “richer and whiter neighborhoods.” That’s not policy — that’s race-based redistribution.

And his foreign policy? Mamdani wants to “globalize the intifada.” That’s a genocidal rallying cry, and New York’s Jewish community should treat it like the five-alarm fire it is.

So can the Democrats still correct course? Can the party of JFK and FDR find its footing again?

One glimmer of sanity remains: Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Despite his hoodie-and-shorts aesthetic, to say nothing of the stroke that nearly killed him in 2022, he has emerged as a lonely voice of reason. He has called out the party’s excesses. But will anyone listen? Or will the Democrats toss him aside for failing the purity test?

The Democratic Party isn’t just drifting — it’s accelerating toward the cliff. And no one pushed the Democrats. They drove themselves.

A New Tax Provision Supposedly Targeting Junk Lawsuits Actually Imperils Conservatives

Trial lawyers and the left deserve a good thrashing (policy-wise), but that isn’t what these bills do.

The parliamentarian isn’t more powerful than the people



First we were told that unelected federal judges could dictate all policy, law, and appropriations. Now the excuse for inaction is the Senate parliamentarian.

Left-wing protesters chant “no kings,” but nearly every major Trump-era domestic policy was blocked by a court. Nearly 200 actions on immigration, personnel, spending, and transgender issues were halted or overturned by the judiciary. Today, the good provisions in an otherwise lackluster reconciliation bill are being gutted — not by Congress, not by voters, but by a Senate staffer.

Republicans now hide behind the parliamentarian to justify a bill that hikes the deficit, preserves green energy handouts, and leaves the welfare state untouched.

If Republicans refuse to overrule the courts, the parliamentarian, or anyone else standing in the way, what’s the plan? What’s the point of winning elections if Democrats, judges, and bureaucrats still call the shots? Do they really expect to get 60 Senate votes?

Over the past week, Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that a long list of provisions violate the Byrd Rule and can’t be included in the reconciliation bill. Among them:

Financial Cuts:

  • Require states with high food stamp overpayments to share in the cost (reduced from $128 billion to just $41 billion).
  • Cut $6.4 billion from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  • Cut $1.4 billion in Federal Reserve staff wages.
  • Cut $293 million from the Office of Financial Research.
  • Eliminate the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ($771 million).
  • Cut Pentagon funding if the department misses spending deadlines.
  • Ban food stamps for illegal aliens.

Policy Measures:

  • Repeal green energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act.
  • Overturn EPA tailpipe emission rules.
  • Vacate certain court injunctions when plaintiffs don’t post bond.
  • Bar funding for sanctuary cities.
  • Allow states to arrest illegal aliens.
  • Require congressional approval of major federal regulations (modified REINS Act).

Republicans now hide behind MacDonough to justify a bill that hikes the deficit, preserves green energy handouts, and leaves the welfare state untouched.

The Byrd Rule has become an excuse to flush the conservative priorities and pass a mess. And let’s not kid ourselves — the parliamentarian had no objection to provisions that punish states for regulating AI. Under the Senate version of the bill, states can still regulate AI and data centers, but if they do, they lose access to BEAD broadband funding.

The good stuff in this bill may have been bait — added just to lure conservatives into voting yes, knowing full well the parliamentarian would knock it out. That’s why conservatives must pressure President Trump to do what Senate Republicans won’t: overrule MacDonough.

RELATED: Split the Big Beautiful Bill Act, seal the border … and give Trump a real win

Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

Let’s get something straight: The Senate parliamentarian does not make the rules. The presiding officer does — and the majority party controls the chair. The office of parliamentarian didn’t even exist until 1935. The parliamentarian sits below the presiding officer on the rostrum, not above him. Her advice is just that — advice.

The Congressional Research Service puts it plainly: "As a staff official, neither parliamentarian is empowered to make decisions that are binding on the House or Senate. The parliamentarians and their deputies/assistants only offer advice that the presiding Representative or Senator may accept or reject."

JD Vance, as president of the Senate, can overrule MacDonough at any time. Here’s how: When Democrats raise a point of order against a GOP-backed provision, MacDonough may say it violates the Byrd Rule and must be stripped. But the presiding officer — Vance or his designee — can simply say no. That provision stays in the bill. The Senate then proceeds under the reconciliation process and passes the whole thing with a simple majority.

Trump can make this happen. He can threaten to send Vance to the chair if Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) refuses to play ball. Thune can demand MacDonough’s firing — just as Trent Lott did in 2001 when the parliamentarian ruled against Republican priorities.

Trump is right to be frustrated. On Tuesday, he demanded that Congress cancel the July 4 recess and finish the job. But he also needs to make it clear that he won’t accept a watered-down deal. He must draw red lines around immigration and the Green New Deal. The American people didn’t elect Elizabeth MacDonough. They elected Trump.

And no unelected staffer has the right to overturn the will of 77 million voters.

EXCLUSIVE: Conservative Org Calls On Senate Republicans Not To Back Down On Ending Green New Deal

'There is nothing beautiful about a Big Beautiful Bill that is loaded with special interest corporate welfare'

Split the Big Beautiful Bill Act, seal the border … and give Trump a real win



The GOP doesn’t resemble a big tent any more — it looks more like a boundless landfill. No shared vision or coherent guiding principles bind the party’s disparate factions beyond not having a “D” next to their names. That’s why it’s impossible to pass a reasonable budget bill that cuts spending without including massive subsidies for high-tax blue states.

The rift between the Freedom Caucus, the K Street crowd, RINOs, and the Trump White House remains unbridgeable. So what’s the realistic path forward on budget reconciliation?

With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in LA.

Focus on the one issue that unites the base: immigration enforcement.

Riots in Los Angeles this week have made the case for an immigration-only reconciliation bill even stronger. The public sees the connection. The urgency is obvious. And President Trump, understandably frustrated by the calendar — it’s June and he hasn’t signed a single major legislative win — wants action now.

But cramming unrelated tax and health care provisions into one big, bloated bill guarantees disaster. Good members will face a bad vote. So why not act decisively?

Split the immigration provisions from the rest. Make them tougher. Pass the bill right away, while the chaos in L.A. is still at the front of everyone’s mind. Save the fiscal brawls for later.

The math of an immigration-focused bill

The current draft of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill, includes about $185 billion in new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and new and improved border infrastructure. It also tacks on another $150 billion in defense spending — a top White House priority.

Even strong provisions need offsets. But in a party this fractured, cutting spending isn’t just difficult — it’s practically taboo.

Still, by limiting the bill to the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon spending and scrapping the tax components, Republicans would only need to offset $335 billion over 10 years.

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

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

That’s well within the realm of possibility. They could hit that number using the consensus cuts and immigration reforms already in the bill. No gimmicks. No sleight of hand. Just political will and a sense of timing.

The current bill would generate about $77 billion in new revenue from immigration-related fees and taxes on remittances. It saves hundreds of billions more over the next decade by cutting off illegal aliens from Medicaid, Obamacare, and food stamps.

Republicans should go farther and ban illegal aliens from claiming the child tax credit — a move that could save another $50 billion.

Instead of loading the first reconciliation bill with a jumble of unrelated and divisive provisions, Republicans should focus on consensus items: national security, enforcement of sovereignty, and policies that put Americans first.

If the Republicans were more ambitious, they would use this bill to repeal the Green New Deal. Funding illegal immigration and the Green New Deal were the Biden administration’s two most transformative and unpopular policies. Target both. Pass the bill right away. Deliver a win that matches the mandate voters gave Trump — and give the president a badly needed legislative victory.

Enforcement money isn’t enough

Throwing $180 billion more at enforcement won’t solve the immigration crisis. Spend a trillion on deportations, and it still won’t matter if courts continue to block action.

Even in Trump’s rare Supreme Court wins on immigration, the justices insisted every illegal alien must receive due process — despite deportation being a civil process, not a punishment.

No president can litigate his way out of an invasion. Even with favorable rulings, Trump won’t deport enough illegal immigrants before the next Democrat takes office. That’s the hard truth.

Now is the moment to fix it.

Americans are watching a violent, coordinated invasion unfold in real time. The bill should formally declare an invasion — and include an amendment by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) to strip judicial review from deportation cases involving noncitizens and, ideally, legal permanent residents.

Under that reform, the administration’s removal decisions would stand. No federal judge could second-guess them. No more delays, appeals, or lawfare.

Roy’s amendment would transform the first reconciliation bill into a singular focus on Trump’s most unifying, necessary, and popular campaign promise. It would hand him a quick, clean victory while the nation remains fixated on the border invasion.

RELATED: Americans didn’t elect Trump to bust SALT caps or overhaul Medicaid

Photo by Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images

So why not just split the agenda into two bills and get on with it?

Here come the usual GOP excuses. Let’s knock them down one by one.

Excuse 1: “We only get one bite at the apple.”

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller claims Republicans must use reconciliation just once to avoid the Senate filibuster.

But Democrats already broke that precedent in 2021, pushing through two separate reconciliation bills with a green light from the Senate parliamentarian, who noted that reconciliation should be reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.”

But ultimately, this isn’t the parliamentarian’s call. The decision rests with President Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). If Biden’s team could do it, so can we.

Excuse 2: “Without this bill, Americans face massive tax hikes.”

This line is pure fearmongering. The 2024 election wasn’t about taxes. MAGA never revolved around tax cuts for their own sake — that was the old GOP. Yet somehow, this bill morphed into another tax-centered mess.

The truth? Most tax provisions in the current draft — from an expanded child tax credit and higher standard deduction to new breaks for seniors, overtime, and tips — enjoy broad bipartisan support.

No Democrat wants to get blamed for letting these expire. Even in a lame-duck session, they wouldn’t allow a public tax hike. The only serious dispute involves the top marginal rate. Trump has already signaled he’s open to a modest increase if it means getting the rest of the agenda passed.

And let’s be honest: The current bill isn’t exactly Reaganesque. It’s loaded with progressive goodies, including an obscene expansion of the SALT deduction.

Even the pro-tax-cut Tax Foundation calls the bill’s economic impact weak and overly complicated. This isn’t a bold, pro-growth package — it’s a muddled compromise.

The irony is that ending taxes on tips — perhaps Trump’s most prized tax provision — already passed the Senate 100-0. Why not pass that and similar provisions in the House and place it on Trump’s desk without wasting budget reconciliation?

Excuse 3: “We can’t include policy provisions in a budget bill.”

Critics claim the Byrd Rule blocks the inclusion of policy reforms — like immigration or judicial changes — in a reconciliation bill. That excuse doesn’t hold up.

The original House-passed bill included a provision that barred states from regulating artificial intelligence. That isn’t budget-related. That is pure policy.

By comparison, a provision removing judicial review from deportation cases would directly cut costs by eliminating thousands of court hearings. That’s a legitimate budgetary angle — and far more defensible than regulating AI through backdoor channels.

The Byrd Rule exists, yes. But the party in power determines what gets through. The president and Senate leadership can overrule the parliamentarian. Democrats did it. So can we.

Fast-forward to this week: The streets of Los Angeles are on fire again. And instead of seizing the moment to deliver on the most urgent national priority, Miller is using anti-ICE violence to ram through a bloated mega-bill — all because it includes ICE funding.

But if solving immigration were the real goal, Republicans would just split the bill already. They’d put the judicial reform language in the first package. And they’d pass it immediately.

With real leadership, Trump could sign the most consequential part of his 2024 mandate into law — before the smoke clears in L.A.

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.

One big, beautiful bill — one big, back-loaded disaster



Republicans have a bad habit of passing major legislation without thinking through the consequences. The “one big, beautiful bill” suffers from one big, ugly dose of shortsightedness. It’s an ambitious package loaded with short-term tax cuts and spending increases, followed by a cliff’s-edge drop into fiscal and political chaos just three years down the road.

That’s right. The expiration dates baked into the bill all but guarantee a showdown with Democrats during the 2028 election season, with Trump still in the White House, handing them enormous leverage and setting up Republicans for another round of fiscal self-sabotage.

Another fiscal cliff in the making

To keep the bill’s official price tag under control, drafters built in a series of sunset provisions. The goal: Limit the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate to just three years of deficits, even though they fully intend to extend those policies later. That gimmick allows Republicans to pretend the bill adds “only” $3 trillion to the national debt.

Republicans just built a bomb — and they are poised to hand over the detonator to their political enemies at the worst possible time.

But the policies don’t just disappear in 2028. If history is any guide — see the Bush and Trump tax cuts — most of the expiring provisions will be renewed. And when that time comes, Republicans will argue that these are now “current law” and therefore don’t count as new spending. It’s baseline budgeting sleight of hand, and everyone in Washington knows it.

Let’s look at what’s on the chopping block at the end of 2028:

  • $320 billion in extra defense and immigration spending
  • A larger standard deduction for all taxpayers
  • A $500-per-child bonus tax credit
  • A deduction for auto loan interest
  • $1,000 “Trump accounts” for newborns
  • A higher standard deduction for seniors
  • Exemptions from tax on overtime and tips
  • Immediate expensing for business structures

On top of that, several key business tax provisions — 100% bonus depreciation, enhanced interest deductions, and the R&D credit — will expire in 2029. That timing coincides with the possibility of a Democrat retaking the presidency, leaving Republicans with even less control over what happens next.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, extending the 2028-2029 provisions would add another $2 trillion to the national debt. That would push total costs above the original Trump tax cuts. And it would come just as the U.S. confronts mounting interest payments and an economy likely in no condition to absorb more debt.

A perfect storm in ’28

The timing couldn’t be worse. Democrats are already poised to take back the House in 2027. The GOP’s majority is razor-thin, and Democrats sit just a few seats away from regaining control. If recent special elections offer any clues, the midterms won’t be kind to Republicans.

That means Trump will likely face a Democrat-controlled House in 2028, as his administration scrambles to extend the bill’s most popular provisions: child tax credits, overtime and tip exemptions, baby accounts, business deductions, and elevated defense and homeland security spending — all of it set to disappear just as voters head to the polls.

Trump won’t want to campaign on tax hikes or cuts to defense and border security. He’ll push to renew the provisions — and Democrats will know it. They may agree with many of these policies, but they’ll still demand concessions, knowing Trump has no choice but to deal.

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

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Expect ransom demands. Democrats could insist on undoing the repeal of Green New Deal policies. They might push to roll back modest Medicaid reforms included in the bill. They could demand changes to immigration enforcement or extract new spending commitments, especially if the economy continues to falter. Nothing would be off the table.

In short, Republicans have given Democrats the upper hand in a high-stakes negotiation just as Trump is trying to shape his legacy and tee up a successor. They didn’t just walk into the trap — they built it.

Lessons not learned

Republicans keep making the same mistake. Rather than structurally reforming the federal government, they pass short-term tax cuts and temporary spending increases while pretending deficits don’t matter.

This bill could have tackled the cost of health care, the explosion of federal spending, or the burden of inflation. It could have included structural reforms to entitlements, energy, or higher education. Instead, the GOP opted to pass a tax cut bill that tries to game the budget window.

If they believe growth will eventually offset the deficit — fine. But in that case, why not go all in? Make the cuts permanent. Expand them. Flatten the code and eliminate more deductions. Build a case for supply-side reform rather than hiding behind fiscal gimmicks.

Instead, they did the opposite. They chose a politically popular mix of spending and tax breaks and timed it to explode during an election that will determine Trump’s legacy, hoping no one would notice.

The bottom line

The one big, beautiful bill doesn’t reduce spending. It doesn’t rein in the bureaucracy. It doesn’t fix the structural problems crushing the middle class. It temporarily cuts taxes while baking in a debt explosion and surrendering future negotiating power to Democrats.

If Republicans think deficits don’t matter, they should at least have the courage to admit it. If they think Trump’s policies will spark enough growth to pay for themselves, then make those policies permanent. But don’t pretend to care about fiscal restraint while quietly handing the next Congress a multitrillion-dollar mess.

Republicans just built a bomb — and they are poised to hand over the detonator to their political enemies at the worst possible time.

DOGE subcommittee reveals how Biden autopen may have funneled money to leftist NGOs
play icon

DOGE subcommittee reveals how Biden autopen may have funneled money to leftist NGOs



The House Department of Government Efficiency subcommittee unveiled how nongovernmental organizations apparently utilize taxpayer dollars to covertly advance their own left-wing agendas.

Democrats scoffed as Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who also chairs the subcommittee, detailed how these nonprofits funnel grants and contracts toward ideological causes. These grants, many of which were issued during former President Joe Biden's administration, reveal the seemingly corrupt relationship between governments and NGOs that often carry innocuous titles.

"Today we are going to draw back the curtain," Greene said during the hearing Wednesday.

'It is fair to question the process and demand transparency.'

RELATED: Chip Roy reveals to Glenn Beck possible motive behind Elon Musk's scathing review of the 'big, beautiful bill'

One particularly egregious example brought up during the hearing included a group known as Power Forward Communities, which is dedicated to "decarbonizing" homes in America. The organization received $2 billion from the government through the National Clean Investment Fund despite the organization being just a few months old and with just $100 in the bank. Notably, failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is affiliated with the organization.

"Yes, it is legal to create a nonprofit, get IRS accreditation, and apply for and receive government grants," Daniel Turner, founder of Power the Future, said during the hearing. "But it is fair to question the process and demand transparency."

"There is no private entity that would give an organization 20 million times revenue after a few months of creation," Turner said. "Only government is stupid enough to do that."

"The American people definitely support nonprofits, but what they don't support is corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse," Greene added.

RELATED: Who ran the White House? Ask Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson under oath

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Energy-related executive actions taken by Biden, many of which were apparently greenlit using the autopen, also made up a significant number of grants and contracts dealt to NGOs.

"This is impersonation of the president," Turner said. "Staffers, of course, have a lot of leniency in what they do working on behalf of the president, but these executive orders that we've identified, there's no evidence of Joe Biden in first person, in his voice as president, talking about them."

"Whether it's exploiting taxpayers to push illegal immigration or fake environmental justice, the left's NGO scheme seeks to destroy our country and, fundamentally, alter the American way of life," Greene said. "This ongoing waste and abuse of taxpayer resources must end."

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