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?

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.

A Republican turncoat courts a Trump judgeship



At first glance, Erin Nealy Cox might seem like a safe bet for traditional Republicans. She calls herself a “Texas Republican” and served as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas under President Donald Trump, confirmed in late 2017.

But like many Trump-era appointees, she quickly revealed herself as just another creature of the swamp. Republican voters shouldn’t trust her.

Cox, whose family roots run deep in Texas Republican politics, expects to glide into a federal judgeship without scrutiny.

Cox is now one of nearly two dozen candidates seeking a federal judgeship in North Texas. Her record deserves scrutiny.

In the aftermath of January 6, she issued a statement condemning the protesters — without acknowledging that every person who died that day supported Trump. “Forcibly storming a government building is a reprehensible betrayal of the rule of law,” she wrote. In a post amplifying her statement, she added, “Those who committed violence in Washington today are anarchists, not patriots. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Cox has never addressed the growing body of evidence that contradicts the official January 6 narrative.

She stepped down from her post just two days later, on Jan. 8, 2021. Although her resignation had been announced in December and wasn’t formally tied to the events at the Capitol, the timing still raises questions. She claimed she was making way for a Biden appointee — a routine move when the presidency changes hands. Even so, the context matters.

On Jan. 7, the day before she left office, Cox filed a controversial deferred prosecution agreement in the case involving Boeing’s 737 MAX crashes, which killed 346 people. The deal shielded Boeing executives from criminal charges and didn’t require a guilty plea. Columbia Law Professor John Coffee called it “one of the worst deferred prosecution agreements I have seen,” and “without precedent.”

Boeing’s criminal defense team included Mark Filip, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis.

Just months later, in June, Cox joined the same firm — now a partner herself. In plain terms: She let one of Kirkland’s clients off the hook, then took a job at the firm.

Kirkland hasn’t exactly been friendly to Trump or his policies. During his first term, the firm provided pro bono representation to asylum seekers, migrants, and others held in ICE detention. They actively opposed the administration’s “family separation” policy.

That section of their website has vanished. Only archived versions on the Wayback Machine remain, and even those appear to have been pulled sometime around March.

The firm also fought Trump’s efforts to end DACA, offering free legal services to recipients and filing lawsuits on their behalf. Like the rest, that work has disappeared from their website. The same goes for their involvement in lawsuits challenging Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban,” as reported by the legal blog "Above the Law."

In the end, Trump may have had the last laugh, but Cox’s career trajectory speaks volumes.

Kirkland would later cut a deal with the second Trump administration in April to provide $125 million worth of pro bono legal services to avoid punitive executive orders and resolve investigations by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission into the firm’s DEI practices.

Meanwhile, Cox’s husband, John “Trey” Cox, has donated extensively to Democrats over the past decade. Here are some lowlights:

These donations, some as recent as 2023, paint a clear picture: This is not a household aligned with Republican priorities. Yet Cox, whose family roots run deep in Texas Republican politics, expects to glide into a federal judgeship without scrutiny.

Republicans can’t afford that mistake.

Cox’s condemnation of January 6 protesters, her husband’s funding of judges who undermine conservative goals, and her post-resignation alignment with a firm hostile to Trump all signal the same thing: She’s not on our side.

She may be one of nearly two dozen candidates for the North Texas seat — but her record should take her out of the running.

Conservatives Can’t Make America Great Again Until They Hold ‘Red State’ RINOs Accountable

In many so-called 'red states' across America, Republican lawmakers are quietly thwarting the will of their constituents.

Today In Republicans Being Useless: GOP Senators Salvage Democrats’ ‘Green’ Energy Bailouts

Four GOP senators want a final reconciliation package to forgo 'full-scale' cuts of tax credits for so-called 'renewable energy sources.'

If Only Republicans Cared As Much About Cutting Federal Spending As They Do Trump’s Tariffs

If Republicans like Tillis actually care about lowering Americans' cost of living, they should slash the federal budget they've spent years ballooning.

Cowardly Senators Anonymously Whine About J.D. Vance’s America First Foreign Policy

Vance's consideration of the strike displays quite a bit more nuance than the bomb-first-ask-questions-later wing of the Republican Party.

GOP sellouts fight to keep Biden’s Green New Deal cash flowing



The American people overwhelmingly rejected Joe Biden’s presidency. His signature legislative agenda, the Green New Deal, subsidizes inefficient energy sources while driving up costs for affordable, reliable alternatives. This policy enriches a select few at the expense of taxpayers, who essentially fund their own economic suicide. Unfortunately, a group of lukewarm Republicans — whose donors profit from these terrible subsidies — are working to keep them in place.

The Green New Deal should be the first target for repeal through budget reconciliation. Since Republicans hesitate to cut individual welfare programs, eliminating corporate welfare for the most expensive energy scheme in U.S. history is the obvious alternative — especially since it passed through reconciliation in the first place.

Trump should make it clear to Republicans: Undoing Biden’s presidency requires fully dismantling his signature legislative achievement. The green grift must end.

Yet a group of 21 House Republicans, likely backed by others unwilling to go on record, now oppose rolling back these subsidies. Because of course they do.

Without directly mentioning Biden, the legislation, or the fact that these credits amount to corporate welfare rather than “tax incentives,” these Republicans urged Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) to take a “targeted and pragmatic” approach to tax code changes.

“Countless American companies are utilizing sector-wide energy tax credits — many of which have enjoyed broad congressional support — to invest in domestic energy production and infrastructure for both traditional and renewable sources,” wrote the 21 House members, led by Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), in a March 9 letter. “Both our constituencies and the energy industry remain concerned about disruptive changes to the nation’s energy tax structure. Many of these credits were enacted over a ten-year period, allowing energy developers to plan with these incentives in mind.”

In simpler terms, they want to preserve massive subsidies for solar, wind, electric vehicles, and “carbon capture,” which could cost up to $1.2 trillion. Knowing these terms carry negative connotations for Trump voters and the president himself, they instead framed their request as support for “energy production,” as if referring to oil, gas, and coal.

“To meet President Trump’s campaign promises of reviving manufacturing and strengthening domestic energy production, we need an all-of-the-above approach,” Garbarino said in an interview. “These credits have helped make that happen.”

An unbalanced strategy

Unlike natural energy sources, which do not rely on government subsidies to serve consumers, solar and wind power cannot survive without them — an admission the industry itself has made. These industries require constant government support while policymakers simultaneously impose burdens on fossil fuels, forcing businesses to adopt unreliable alternatives.

Wind power, in particular, depends on a factor entirely beyond human control — the wind itself. Texas poured billions into subsidizing wind energy and made its grid increasingly reliant on it, only for it to fail when it was needed most during the Great Texas Freeze of 2021. This year, Texas grid operators had to postpone maintenance on power plants to generate more coal and natural gas after wind production dropped by 18% due to low wind conditions in February.

In short, the so-called “all-of-the-above” energy approach is not a balanced strategy. Fossil fuels repeatedly bail out wind and solar when they fall short — but never the other way around.

Far from free money

The push for unreliable energy schemes has become so indefensible that the industry is now shifting its messaging. Instead of emphasizing climate change, it now frames itself as a driver of job creation. In December, Reuters reported that the solar industry had rebranded its pitch to the Trump administration, promoting itself as a “domestic jobs engine that can help meet soaring power demand” while avoiding any mention of climate change.

This strategy aims to lure more Republicans into supporting green energy subsidies. Given the geographic distribution of these projects, about 80% of the subsidies tied to the Green New Deal scam have gone to Republican congressional districts.

But these subsidies are far from free money. Funding them requires taking on more debt, driving inflation, while backing energy schemes that are impractical, environmentally questionable, and a poor use of land.

Climate fascism continues to be a loser for Democrats. In a recent poll, 84% of respondents said the cost of living and inflation mattered more than addressing climate change. This is a winning issue for Republicans — but only if Trump takes a hard stance against RINOs who enable these subsidies.

Courts have already blocked his efforts to terminate them through executive action, meaning only Congress can fully repeal them. Trump should make it clear to Republicans: Undoing Biden’s presidency requires fully dismantling his signature legislative achievement. The green grift must end.

Mitch McConnell Has Worn Out His Welcome In Politics

Throughout his more than 40-year political career, McConnell has prioritized his own interests and petty beefs over the needs of his voters.