The Big Beautiful Bill’s Energy Provisions — A Pricey Mistake for America
The so-called “big beautiful bill” is being sold as a victory for American workers and families. But when you look closely at its energy provisions, it’s a giant step backward. Instead of helping us lower energy costs, strengthen our economy, and keep America competitive, this bill props up outdated fossil fuel industries while pulling the rug out from under affordable, reliable renewable energy.
That’s not just bad economics — it’s bad strategy. While the rest of the world is investing in cleaner, faster, and cheaper energy technologies, America risks getting left behind. Weakening support for electric vehicles, blocking renewables, and throwing billions at fossil fuel subsidies will leave American families paying higher bills for less reliable energy, while foreign competitors take the lead in the industries of the future.
At its core, this bill rewards campaign donors in the fossil fuel industry while sacrificing the American consumer. If we want affordable, secure, and competitive energy for our future, we cannot afford to miss this opportunity.
Introduction: The Missed Opportunity
The so-called “big beautiful bill” is being sold as a victory for American workers and families. But when you look closely at its energy provisions, it’s a giant step backward. Instead of helping us lower energy costs, strengthen our economy, and keep America competitive, this bill props up outdated fossil fuel industries while pulling the rug out from under affordable, reliable renewable energy.
That’s not just bad economics — it’s bad strategy. While the rest of the world is investing in cleaner, faster, and cheaper energy technologies, America risks getting left behind. Weakening support for electric vehicles, blocking renewables, and throwing billions at fossil fuel subsidies will leave American families paying higher bills for less reliable energy, while foreign competitors take the lead in the industries of the future.
At its core, this bill rewards campaign donors in the fossil fuel industry while sacrificing the American consumer. If we want affordable, secure, and competitive energy for our future, we cannot afford to miss this opportunity.
What the Bill Actually Does
For all the talk about putting America first, the bill’s energy provisions do exactly the opposite. Here’s what they include:
Cuts or eliminates incentives for renewable energy — making it harder for Americans to install solar panels, build wind projects, or expand local clean power.
Weakens or removes tax credits for electric vehicles, making them less affordable just as other countries are ramping up their EV adoption.
Expands subsidies for fossil fuels, funneling taxpayer dollars to oil and gas companies that already enjoy record profits.
Prioritizes outdated fossil fuel projects on federal lands, delaying or blocking renewable projects that could be built faster and cheaper.
Instead of supporting affordable, modern energy solutions that help families save on power bills and transportation, this bill doubles down on the same expensive, volatile fuels that have left Americans exposed to global price shocks.
Why Renewable Energy Is the Affordable, Stable Option
Renewable energy isn’t just about climate policy — it’s about protecting American wallets. Today, solar and wind power are the cheapest sources of new electricity in most parts of the country. Once built, they rely on free fuel — the sun and the wind — so there’s no risk of price spikes like we see with oil and gas.
Renewables are also faster to build than fossil fuel plants, meaning we can bring more energy online to meet demand without years of construction delays or costly permits. They have lower maintenance costs, fewer parts to break down, and no ongoing fuel expenses — savings that go straight to consumers.
Beyond lower energy bills, renewables keep dollars circulating in local communities. Whether it’s a solar installer in Nebraska or a wind technician in Texas, these are good-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced overseas. And by spreading out generation across the country, renewables also make our power grid more resilient, protecting homes and businesses from blackouts.
Renewable energy is affordable, reliable, and American — exactly the kind of energy policy we should be investing in.
How the Bill Hurts Our Auto Industry
This bill doesn’t just raise energy costs — it puts America’s auto industry at risk of falling behind. Around the world, countries like China, Germany, and South Korea are investing heavily in electric vehicles and battery manufacturing. They see EVs as the future of transportation and are working to dominate that market.
Meanwhile, this bill weakens U.S. electric vehicle tax credits, discouraging American consumers from buying EVs and leaving our carmakers without the strong home market they need to scale up production. Without domestic demand, American manufacturers will struggle to compete globally, and foreign companies will step in to fill the gap.
We risk losing the next generation of manufacturing jobs — good-paying, middle-class jobs — to competitors overseas. And by undercutting support for EV batteries and related technologies, we become even more dependent on foreign supply chains for critical components, instead of building them right here in America.
If we want to keep American auto manufacturing strong and protect our economic leadership, we need policies that encourage innovation, not ones that hold it back.
The Cost of Propping Up Fossil Fuels
It’s no secret that fossil fuels have been the backbone of our economy for generations. But propping them up with more subsidies and fewer regulations is no longer a sustainable strategy — or a smart one.
First, fossil fuel prices are highly volatile. Families have seen that time and again at the gas pump or on their utility bills. Tying our economy even tighter to fuels whose prices swing with global markets leaves American households vulnerable.
Second, handing out taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies that are already making record profits is a waste of resources. These dollars could be used to support affordable, reliable energy that keeps prices stable for consumers instead of rewarding corporate donors.
Third, fossil fuel infrastructure is expensive and slow to build. Power plants, pipelines, and refineries can take years to come online — time we don’t have when it comes to keeping energy affordable and competitive.
Finally, the environmental and cleanup costs of fossil fuels — from pollution to land damage — often fall on taxpayers and local communities. For example, there are more than 3.7 million abandoned oil and gas wells across the United States, with hundreds of thousands actively leaking methane and other toxic chemicals into our air and water. The EPA estimates these orphaned wells release millions of metric tons of methane every year — a potent pollutant that contributes to dangerous air quality and even explosion risks. Yet the same companies that profited from these wells often walk away without cleaning them up, leaving taxpayers on the hook.
Handing out new subsidies to this industry without demanding they fix their mess is like rewarding a tenant for trashing their apartment. Until they pay for the cleanup of these orphaned wells, they do not deserve another dime of taxpayer help. By clinging to yesterday’s fuels with government handouts, we’re locking ourselves into higher costs, more price spikes, and more risk — all while losing ground to competitors who are investing in cheaper, modern energy systems.
The Donor Payoff Behind the Bill
It’s impossible to ignore who really benefits from the bill’s energy provisions. During the last election, the fossil fuel industry poured nearly $100 million directly into Donald Trump’s campaign and spent hundreds of millions more to support candidates willing to protect their profits. In return, they’re getting billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies, regulatory rollbacks, and new public lands access through this bill.
This is not about sound policy — it’s about rewarding big donors. These giveaways allow fossil fuel executives to collect taxpayer-funded benefits while leaving everyday Americans with higher energy bills and fewer choices. Meanwhile, the same industry that profits from these handouts continues to walk away from cleaning up abandoned wells, polluting communities and sticking taxpayers with the bill.
This pattern isn’t isolated, either. Just look at how Trump carved out special tariff exemptions for oil and gas interests — another donor-friendly deal that proves the fossil fuel lobby is shaping policy for its own bottom line.
When politicians cater to campaign donors instead of the American people, working families pay the price. This bill is no exception.
What We Should Do Instead
If we truly want to keep America strong and competitive, we need an energy policy that puts consumers and workers first — not campaign donors. That means investing in renewable energy that delivers cheaper, more stable power and supports jobs right here at home.
We should also double down on electric vehicle manufacturing to make sure U.S. automakers remain leaders, not followers, in the global transportation industry. Encouraging domestic battery production and securing critical mineral supply chains can keep these jobs in American hands and protect us from relying on foreign competitors.
At the same time, we need to modernize the power grid so it can handle new, distributed energy sources and withstand natural disasters and cyberattacks. A smarter, more flexible grid will protect American families from blackouts and price spikes.
Above all, we should focus on true energy independence. That means using American-made renewable resources — sun, wind, and homegrown battery storage — instead of gambling on volatile fossil fuel markets or leaving ourselves vulnerable to geopolitical crises.
By making smart investments now, we can build an energy system that is affordable, reliable, and secure for generations to come.
Conclusion: Americans Will Pay the Price for a Donor-Driven Deal
This bill props up the past instead of building a stronger, more affordable energy system for the future. By undercutting renewables and weakening EV incentives, it guarantees higher prices, less reliable power, and lost American jobs — all while rewarding fossil fuel donors who spent millions to buy political influence.
American families will end up paying the bill, whether through higher energy costs, taxpayer-funded subsidies, or the price of cleaning up abandoned wells and polluted land. Meanwhile, our global competitors will surge ahead, capturing the industries of the future while we cling to the fuels of the past.
We deserve better. Our leaders should put the interests of American workers, families, and manufacturers ahead of campaign donors. That means investing in affordable, reliable, homegrown energy that gives us true independence and a fighting chance in the global economy. Anything less is selling out the American future.
A Crisis by Design: The “Starve the Beast” Strategy
For decades, many conservative policymakers have championed a deceptively simple strategy to shrink the government: “starve the beast.” Popularized during the Reagan era, this approach boils down to one core maneuver: pass enormous tax cuts, drain government revenue, and then turn around and claim that social programs must be cut because there’s no money to pay for them.
It sounds cynical — because it is. But it has proven remarkably effective over the past 50 years, reshaping the American economy and leaving social supports in a constant state of crisis.
For decades, many conservative policymakers have championed a deceptively simple strategy to shrink the government: “starve the beast.” Popularized during the Reagan era, this approach boils down to one core maneuver: pass enormous tax cuts, drain government revenue, and then turn around and claim that social programs must be cut because there’s no money to pay for them.
It sounds cynical — because it is. But it has proven remarkably effective over the past 50 years, reshaping the American economy and leaving social supports in a constant state of crisis.
Reagan and the Birth of the Modern Strategy
The modern “starve the beast” playbook emerged most clearly under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Reagan signed sweeping tax cuts, especially benefiting corporations and the wealthy, through the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The result? Federal revenue plunged, while deficits soared.
Rather than reversing the tax cuts, Reagan’s team used the growing deficit to push for spending cuts, especially on public housing, education, and health programs. David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, described the strategy bluntly: “We’re going to cut their allowance,” referring to social programs.
In other words, they manufactured a budget shortfall on purpose — then claimed there was no choice but to shrink support for vulnerable Americans.
Bush, Cheney, and the Early 2000s
The pattern returned under George W. Bush. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, some of the largest in U.S. history, again delivered huge breaks for top earners. Predictably, the deficit grew, worsened by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Vice President Dick Cheney made the philosophy explicit: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he reportedly told Treasury officials. But deficits did matter — as a tool to justify cuts. Conservative lawmakers soon demanded spending restraints on domestic programs while shielding the tax cuts.
The Tea Party and the 2010s
During Barack Obama’s presidency, the Tea Party movement took this strategy to the next level. After the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration passed emergency spending to stabilize the economy and expand health care through the Affordable Care Act.
Almost immediately, Tea Party-aligned Republicans began ringing alarm bells about deficits — deficits made worse by the Bush tax cuts and years of unfunded wars. They pushed harsh budget caps and automatic spending cuts known as “sequestration” under the 2011 Budget Control Act, slashing billions from public health, research, and infrastructure.
The pattern was clear: starve the revenue stream, then attack spending on social protections under the banner of “fiscal discipline.”
Trump and the 2017 Tax Cuts
Donald Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act marked another chapter of this same playbook. Corporate tax rates were slashed from 35% to 21%, and the top brackets saw significant reductions. These cuts disproportionately favored the wealthy and drove the deficit higher.
Soon after, many of the same lawmakers who cheered the tax cuts argued for cutting “entitlements” like Medicare, Medicaid, and food assistance. The deficit, once again, became the excuse to shrink programs serving everyday Americans.
The 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill”
Most recently, in 2025, Republicans rolled out the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” — a sweeping package of permanent tax cuts, environmental deregulation, and limits on federal agencies’ ability to regulate. Once again, the bill promised to boost growth and “pay for itself,” echoing claims made since the Reagan era.
Nonpartisan budget analysts warned it would add trillions to the deficit over the next decade. And, like clockwork, Republican leaders quickly pivoted after its passage to argue that the country could no longer afford Medicaid, food assistance, or affordable housing supports.
The pattern could not be clearer:
Cut taxes.
Watch the deficit explode.
Use the deficit as justification to slash social programs.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” may be the most sweeping recent example of starve-the-beast politics in action — showing the strategy is alive and well, even after 50 years.
Why It Matters
The starve-the-beast strategy is not just a historical curiosity. It is a deliberate, repeated tactic that has reshaped the American economy in deeply unequal ways. Over decades, these tax-cut-driven budget crises have channeled enormous benefits to corporations and the wealthiest households, while leaving the vast majority of Americans worse off.
Every time tax cuts drain federal resources, conservative leaders argue there is “no money” left for education, affordable housing, health care, or infrastructure. As these investments shrink, working- and middle-class families bear the brunt — seeing stagnant wages, rising costs, and crumbling public services.
Meanwhile, the wealthy — who benefit most from each new round of tax cuts — grow even richer, concentrating their wealth and power further. That wealth concentration then fuels more lobbying, more political donations, and more influence to keep the same cycle going.
Far from delivering broad-based prosperity, “starve the beast” policies have widened the wealth gap dramatically, hollowed out communities, and left everyday Americans with fewer opportunities to build a secure future.
Understanding how this crisis is created — on purpose — is the first step toward stopping it. Because when a budget deficit is manufactured by design, it is never an accident. It is a conscious choice to privilege the powerful, while starving everyone else.
The One Big Beautiful Bill: A $45 Billion Gift to Private Prison Profiteers
America’s federal prisons are overcrowded and underfunded. Nearly 156,000 people are locked up in a system designed for far fewer, while staff shortages and deteriorating conditions keep getting worse. Yet instead of addressing this crisis, Congress just passed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill yesterday — sending tens of billions to expand immigration detention instead.
This bill marks the largest investment ever in ICE detention centers, aiming to double capacity while leaving federal prisons stuck at overcrowding levels. Private prison corporations and security contractors are the biggest winners, set to collect billions in new contracts funded by taxpayers. Many of these same companies have poured money into political campaigns to keep the cash flowing.
In this post, I’ll break down how much we spend on prisons now, what the new bill adds for ICE detention, who profits, and how the money circles right back to campaign donors.
America’s federal prisons are overcrowded and underfunded. Nearly 156,000 people are locked up in a system designed for far fewer, while staff shortages and deteriorating conditions keep getting worse. Yet instead of addressing this crisis, Congress just passed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill yesterday — sending tens of billions to expand immigration detention instead.
This bill marks the largest investment ever in ICE detention centers, aiming to double capacity while leaving federal prisons stuck at overcrowding levels. Private prison corporations and security contractors are the biggest winners, set to collect billions in new contracts funded by taxpayers. Many of these same companies have poured money into political campaigns to keep the cash flowing.
In this post, I’ll break down how much we spend on prisons now, what the new bill adds for ICE detention, who profits, and how the money circles right back to campaign donors.
Current State of Federal Prisons and ICE Detention
Federal Prisons (BOP)
The Federal Bureau of Prisons operates on an annual budget of around $8.3 billion.
It has a rated capacity of about 135,841 beds, but is currently holding over 155,000 inmates — running at roughly 115% capacity.
That means tens of thousands of people are packed into overcrowded cells, with too few staff and growing safety problems.
ICE Detention Centers
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) runs its own network of detention centers, mostly through private contractors.
ICE has an average daily detained population of about 56,000 people.
Its detention operations cost taxpayers roughly $3.5 billion each year.
In short, the federal prison system is bursting at the seams and ICE is already spending billions to hold migrants and asylum seekers. Instead of fixing chronic overcrowding or investing in alternatives, Congress just opened the floodgates to even more detention spending.
The One Big Beautiful Bill: A Massive Expansion
Yesterday, Congress passed what’s being called the One Big Beautiful Bill, a sweeping package that sends billions of new dollars into immigration enforcement. One headline piece is a staggering $45 billion over four years dedicated just to building and expanding ICE detention centers — including new family facilities and tent-style camps to double capacity.
Altogether, the bill directs up to $150–170 billion over five years for border enforcement, surveillance technology, and a massive hiring push. That means ICE detention capacity could jump from about 56,000 beds to over 100,000, the largest expansion in U.S. history.
Meanwhile, funding for the Federal Bureau of Prisons barely budged. Even though federal prisons are well over capacity and dealing with staffing and safety failures, they will see no major increase beyond the existing $8.3 billion annual budget.
This is a clear political signal: Congress is prioritizing more immigration detention while ignoring a federal prison system on.
Who Benefits From All This Money?
The biggest winners in the One Big Beautiful Bill are the private contractors that run or support ICE detention. These companies have long profited from the growth of the detention system, and now stand to make billions more.
GEO Group is one of the largest private prison operators in the country, running about 99 facilities with an estimated 80,000 beds. It already makes over a billion dollars a year from ICE detention contracts and is in line for even bigger deals under the bill.
CoreCivic, another major player, operates around 65 facilities with 76,000 beds. It has reopened several family detention centers and is positioning itself to grab a huge share of the new contracts.
Other companies like MVM, Inc. — which handles security staffing, transportation, and translation for ICE — will also benefit. And the bill sets aside funding for construction and “temporary” camp infrastructure, which means companies that build and maintain tent facilities, such as Deployed Resources or BLU-MED, are also likely to cash in.
In other words, the billions of taxpayer dollars approved yesterday will go straight into the pockets of private prison corporations and security contractors — not to public defenders, alternatives to detention, or real solutions to overcrowding.
Campaign Contributions: Follow the Money
It’s not just that private prison contractors stand to gain from this bill — they have also been major financial backers of Trump and pro-Trump causes, raising serious questions about whether this is a payoff for their support.
GEO Group is the biggest ICE detention contractor and has spent heavily to keep those contracts flowing. In 2024, GEO-related PACs and executives gave $78,124 directly to Trump’s campaign, with a total of $3.7 million donated across the cycle to GOP-aligned committees (source: OpenSecrets). GEO Group was also the first corporate PAC to max out donations for Trump’s 2024 run, and put another $500,000 into pro-Trump super PACs like MAGA Inc. (source: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington).
CoreCivic has also been a reliable donor. In 2024, the company contributed at least $223,223 to the Republican National Committee, plus hundreds of thousands more to other GOP committees (source: OpenSecrets). In January 2025, CoreCivic gave $500,000 to Trump’s inaugural fund, cementing its political ties (source: ABC News).
These donations line up neatly with the billions in new ICE detention funding approved under the One Big Beautiful Bill. It’s a pattern: the same private contractors who bankroll pro-detention politicians later win lucrative contracts when those politicians are in power.
Beyond campaign cash, there are also plenty of revolving-door connections — for example, former ICE acting director Tom Homan, a prominent Trump ally, later worked for GEO Group, while other ICE officials have landed jobs in private detention companies (source: Prison Legal News).
This cycle of donations, influence, and taxpayer-funded contracts is at the heart of how immigration detention keeps growing. It’s not just policy — it’s a profitable business backed by campaign money.
Conclusion: A Donor Payout
The One Big Beautiful Bill claims to strengthen border security, but the biggest effect will be to pour billions into the same corporations that have fueled the growth of private detention for decades. While federal prisons remain overcrowded and underfunded, private ICE contractors stand to collect record-breaking contracts, bankrolled by taxpayers.
The companies getting these contracts — GEO Group, CoreCivic, and other private operators — are the same ones that have spent millions to support Trump and his allies. That money isn’t charity; it’s an investment, paying off with massive new government contracts.
The pattern is unmistakable. Instead of fixing a broken, overcrowded prison system, Congress has prioritized expanding detention for migrants — all while funneling profits to political donors. This isn’t about making America safer; it’s about rewarding powerful corporations that help bankroll political campaigns.
If we really care about justice and public safety, we should be demanding accountability for these billions — not letting private interests write themselves a blank check.
Why Shrinking Social Supports Backfires on America
For decades, Republican lawmakers have leaned on wealthy donors and powerful conservative groups to fund their campaigns. In return, those donors have pushed a simple wish list: tax cuts for corporations and high-income households, along with a smaller government that spends less on programs like food assistance, Medicaid, and affordable housing.
At first glance, these priorities might sound like a way to reward hard work and encourage growth. But the truth is that cutting social supports does not strengthen America — it weakens it. Again and again, the evidence shows that shrinking these programs backfires, hurting working families and dragging down the economy as a whole.
For decades, Republican lawmakers have leaned on wealthy donors and powerful conservative groups to fund their campaigns. In return, those donors have pushed a simple wish list: tax cuts for corporations and high-income households, along with a smaller government that spends less on programs like food assistance, Medicaid, and affordable housing.
At first glance, these priorities might sound like a way to reward hard work and encourage growth. But the truth is that cutting social supports does not strengthen America — it weakens it. Again and again, the evidence shows that shrinking these programs backfires, hurting working families and dragging down the economy as a whole.
Who Wins, and Who Loses?
The data is clear: the wealthiest 1% of Americans have captured over 38% of all new global wealth in recent years (Oxfam, 2023). Meanwhile, more than 40 million Americans rely on SNAP (food stamps), and about 85 million people use Medicaid — programs that repeatedly face funding cuts from lawmakers eager to satisfy wealthy donors.
When tax breaks are handed out at the top, the benefits mostly go to shareholders and corporate executives rather than working families. For example, after the 2017 tax law reduced corporate tax rates, large U.S. companies spent over $800 billion on stock buybacks in just two years — far more than they invested in worker raises or new hiring.
Shrinking These Supports Hurts the Economy
When vital public programs are cut, it becomes harder for working-class and middle-class families to stay afloat. Food assistance helps people keep groceries on the table. Medicaid ensures children and parents can see a doctor. Housing supports help prevent homelessness and keep communities stable.
Research consistently shows these investments pay off. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates about $1.50 in local economic activity because families spend that money right away at neighborhood grocery stores and small businesses (USDA, 2022). Medicaid protects hospitals from having to absorb unpaid medical bills, saving the broader health system billions of dollars each year.
Studies from Moody’s Analytics have found that benefits aimed at lower-income families deliver some of the highest economic returns of any policy — up to $1.70 for each dollar of unemployment insurance spending, compared to as little as 35 cents per dollar for corporate tax cuts. That’s because people with low or moderate incomes tend to spend rather than save, which supports local businesses, keeps workers employed, and stabilizes local tax revenues.
When supports are cut, families are forced to skip meals, delay medical care, or fall behind on rent. That pain doesn’t stay in one household — it spreads through entire communities, weakening growth and opportunity for everyone.
A Democracy Problem, Too
This isn’t just about dollars and cents. When politicians depend on wealthy donors to stay in office, they put those donors’ demands first — even if the broader public disagrees.
That is not how democracy is supposed to work. A system where lawmakers listen only to their wealthiest backers, while ignoring working families, leaves most Americans feeling voiceless and frustrated. It also feeds the kind of division and resentment that makes solving real problems even harder.
What Happens Next?
If these priorities continue — more tax cuts for the top, less support for everyone else — the country will grow even more unequal and more divided. And that is a dangerous path. History shows that societies with extreme wealth gaps are more vulnerable to instability, economic crises, and political unrest.
Instead, we could invest in programs that help people climb the ladder, stay healthy, and build secure lives. Those investments don’t just lift individuals; they strengthen the economy and the nation as a whole.
To understand how these priorities connect to current legislation, take a look at Why Are Republicans Pushing an Unpopular Bill? Here’s What You Should Know. That piece breaks down the political pressures and strategies behind recent proposals — and how they align with long-standing donor-driven goals.
How the 2017 Corporate Tax Cuts Fueled Record Stock Buybacks
…and What the One Big Beautiful Bill Might Repeat
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Supporters promised that companies would reinvest this windfall in new equipment, expand operations, and boost worker pay.
But the reality turned out quite differently.
…and What the One Big Beautiful Bill Might Repeat
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Supporters promised that companies would reinvest this windfall in new equipment, expand operations, and boost worker pay.
But the reality turned out quite differently.
Record-Breaking Stock Buybacks
After the tax cuts took effect, corporate America went on a historic buyback spree. In 2018, companies in the S&P 500 repurchased over $800 billion worth of their own stock — the largest amount ever recorded. In 2019, they spent another $700 billion. Before the tax cuts, annual buybacks usually hovered closer to $500 billion.
Stock buybacks shrink the number of shares on the market, boosting earnings per share and pushing up stock prices. This helps wealthy investors and corporate executives, but does little for everyday workers.
Workers Left Behind
Despite big promises, wage growth remained sluggish. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, average hourly earnings grew about 3% per year between 2017 and 2019, barely keeping pace with inflation. Meanwhile, corporate profits soared — and went right back to shareholders.
Shareholders Got Richer, Inequality Widened
America’s richest 10% own roughly 89% of all corporate equities, so most of the gains from buybacks ended up with them. Instead of raising wages or funding new investment, corporations spent their tax savings rewarding their shareholders and executives.
Even Trump Didn’t Expect It
President Trump himself seemed frustrated by how corporations used their windfall. In March 2018, he said:
“We thought they would have known better but they didn’t know better … I am fine with restricting buybacks. In fact, I would demand that there be no stock buybacks. I don’t want them taking hundreds of millions of dollars and buying back their stock because that does nothing.”
Even the president behind the tax cuts recognized that companies had largely used their windfall to enrich themselves.
So Why Do It Again?
Now, some lawmakers are pushing to make these corporate tax cuts permanent through what they call the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But there is little discussion about putting limits on stock buybacks this time around.
If the goal is to strengthen our economy and help workers, why would we hand corporations another giant tax break with no strings attached? We already saw what happened last time: corporations took the money and rewarded shareholders, while workers saw almost nothing.
If there is one lesson from the 2017 tax cuts, it is that without guardrails, corporate tax giveaways mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans. Any plan to extend these cuts should include strong rules to make sure the money supports job growth, wage increases, and investment — not just stock market gains.
Take Action
If you think tax policy should help workers and communities, not just the richest shareholders, reach out to your members of Congress and tell them:
No permanent corporate tax cuts without protections against stock buybacks. Tax breaks should build the real economy — not just inflate stock prices.
Why Are Republicans Pushing an Unpopular Bill? Here’s What You Should Know
Congressional Republicans are pushing through the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” even though it is widely unpopular with voters. This bill cuts essential benefits for working families, hands large tax breaks to the wealthy, and is projected to add trillions to the federal deficit.
So why would lawmakers support something so risky? It might seem confusing — or even suspicious — if you don’t look closer at the political incentives driving this move. Here’s what’s really happening behind the scenes, and why it matters for everyday Americans.
Congressional Republicans are pushing through the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” even though it is widely unpopular with voters. This bill cuts essential benefits for working families, hands large tax breaks to the wealthy, and is projected to add trillions to the federal deficit.
So why would lawmakers support something so risky? It might seem confusing — or even suspicious — if you don’t look closer at the political incentives driving this move. Here’s what’s really happening behind the scenes, and why it matters for everyday Americans.
Donors and Long-Held Priorities
Republicans rely on wealthy donors and powerful conservative groups to fund their campaigns. For decades, those donors have demanded tax cuts for corporations and high-income households, along with smaller government programs. They want less spending on things like food assistance, Medicaid, and other social supports that help low- and middle-income families.
By advancing this bill, Republican lawmakers keep their donors satisfied and maintain critical financial backing, even if the broader public is opposed to it.
A Crisis by Design: The “Starve the Beast” Strategy
Many Republican leaders still believe in a strategy going back to the Reagan era, known as “starve the beast.” The logic is simple: pass massive tax cuts that drive up the deficit, then later argue there is no money left for safety-net programs like Medicare, food aid, or public housing.
In other words, they create a budget crisis on purpose so they can justify shrinking government support even further in the future. It may sound extreme, but it is a long-standing approach that still drives conservative policy today.
Selling an Unpopular Law
Even with public opposition, Republican leaders think they can frame this bill as “tax relief for working Americans,” despite most of its benefits flowing to corporations and wealthy households. They argue that cuts to programs are about fighting “waste and fraud,” though in reality, these cuts take away support that millions of families depend on.
They are counting on familiar messaging — repeated over and over — to soften the backlash or confuse voters about who will really be harmed.
Loyalty to Trump and the MAGA Base
Donald Trump continues to dominate the Republican Party. Many lawmakers see passing this bill as a test of loyalty to him. Trump wants to call this bill a historic win, and Republican members worry that breaking ranks could bring a Trump-backed primary challenger or a social media firestorm against them.
Even if moderates and swing voters dislike the bill, Republicans believe staying close to Trump’s base is their best bet for holding power.
Betting on Short Memories
In the end, Republican leaders are taking a calculated gamble. They hope voters will move on, get distracted by other issues, or simply forget by the next election. Some believe gerrymandered districts and stricter voting laws will help protect their seats, even if people are angry about losing benefits or seeing the deficit explode.
They are counting on the confusion and fast-moving news cycle to shield them from consequences — just as some tried after unpopular health care cuts in 2017.
Why It Matters
This bill is about more than just numbers on a balance sheet. It takes away resources from working- and middle-class Americans while delivering tax breaks to those who need them least. It creates the groundwork to slash public programs even further down the road, leaving families more vulnerable.
Republican messaging may sound pro-worker or populist, but the policy reality is very different. Low-income and working-class voters — including many who supported Trump — stand to lose the most, even as political leaders celebrate the bill as a “win.”
Quick Summary of the Big Beautiful Bill
Who Loses
Medicaid: coverage reduced for millions
SNAP: stricter rules, smaller food benefits
Housing Aid: more evictions as Section 8 funding is cut
School Nutrition: fewer resources for low-income kids
Tax Credits: smaller refunds for working families
Who Gains
Corporations: lower tax rates, expanded loopholes
High-income households: big cuts in top tax brackets
Pass-through businesses: new tax exemptions for wealthy owners
Deficit Impact
Adds $3–3.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years
Creates pressure for future cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other safety nets
Understanding these trade-offs is essential. Voters deserve to know the truth behind the slogans — and to hold lawmakers accountable for whose interests they really serve.
Iris Monterroso Lost Her Baby in ICE Custody. We Should All Care.
In May, the Nashville Banner reported on Iris Monterroso, a young woman arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Tennessee while she was eight weeks pregnant. Iris had no criminal record. She was detained in a facility that, by her account, failed to provide medical attention even as she began bleeding. By the time she was finally taken to a hospital, she had miscarried.
It’s a tragedy no matter where you stand on immigration.
It is also a reminder of what happens when enforcement policy pulls in ordinary people — people with no violent histories, no threats to public safety — and places them into harsh, overcrowded conditions.
In May, the Nashville Banner reported on Iris Monterroso, a young woman arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Tennessee while she was eight weeks pregnant. Iris had no criminal record. She was detained in a facility that, by her account, failed to provide medical attention even as she began bleeding. By the time she was finally taken to a hospital, she had miscarried.
It’s a tragedy no matter where you stand on immigration.
It is also a reminder of what happens when enforcement policy pulls in ordinary people — people with no violent histories, no threats to public safety — and places them into harsh, overcrowded conditions.
The Bigger Picture
Since Trump returned to office in 2025, ICE has dramatically escalated arrests of non-criminal immigrants, even beyond the levels seen in 2017. According to the Cato Institute, arrests of non-criminal immigrants have risen more than 1,100%compared to the beginning of Trump’s first term.
About two-thirds of people detained have no criminal convictions.
Over 93% have no violent record.
This is a policy of pursuing the easiest targets, not necessarily the most dangerous. Many of those picked up were following the immigration system’s own requirements — checking in regularly, reporting their locations, working toward legal status. These are not the people most Americans believe should be prioritized for detention.
Yet they are the ones filling up the beds in detention centers, creating dangerous overcrowding and stretching medical care to the breaking point.
Meanwhile, the immigration courts remain hopelessly backlogged, leaving people stuck for months or even years in stressful, unhealthy detention. Without serious reform to reduce court delays, no amount of oversight alone will fix this.
Why It Should Matter
No pregnant woman should fear losing her baby because she was placed in a government facility.
Iris Monterroso’s story crosses every line of decency. She wanted her baby. She was trying to comply with the system. Yet she was ignored, neglected, and left to lose her pregnancy while in government custody.
This should move every one of us. Whether you see yourself as Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, or somewhere in between, there is a basic principle at stake: human dignity. It should not depend on immigration status.
No one should lose a pregnancy because of neglect in U.S. custody. No child should be lost this way.
What Needs to Change
Oversight of ICE facilities is vital. Congress must step up its inspections, demand transparency, and hold agencies accountable.
But that is only the beginning. Congress must also fix the overwhelmed immigration court system and direct ICE to focus its resources on genuine public-safety threats — not on parents, working people, or others who pose no harm.
This is not about “open borders.” It is about smart, fair priorities and ensuring taxpayer dollars go toward real threats, not the easy-to-catch targets that make families suffer while criminals walk free.
Oversight, immigration court reform, and smarter enforcement priorities — together — are what it will take to prevent tragedies like Iris’s.
Iris Monterroso deserved better. Her baby deserved better. And our country can do better.
Congress must act.
Sources
https://nashvillebanner.com/2025/05/27/iris-monterroso-pregnancy-loss/
https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-arresting-1100-percent-more-noncriminals-streets-2017
https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-no-convictions-93-no-violent-convictions
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/21/texas-family-detention-adults-kids-fighting/
https://www.vera.org/news/the-truth-about-immigration-detention-in-the-united-states
‘No Kings’ Isn’t a Gotcha
Looking back at fear, freedom, and what we were really fighting for
You may have seen a viral post making the rounds recently. It reads like this:
No kings, but put your mask on.
No kings, but lock us down.
No kings, but I’m firing you for not vaccinating.
No kings, but you can’t go outside.
…but you need 12,380 boosters.
…but you can’t worship the REAL King.
…but you’re responsible for my health.
…but no family gatherings over 10.
It’s meant to expose what some see as a contradiction: that people who claim to oppose authoritarianism were too comfortable with government control during the pandemic. And let’s be honest—many of us did feel powerless at times, confused, even angry. The rules changed quickly. Our routines were disrupted. Our sense of control was shaken. That frustration is real, and it deserves to be acknowledged.
But that post—and others like it—draw the wrong conclusion. It treats “No Kings” as a punchline, not a principle. It frames democratic decision-making during a crisis as the same thing as tyranny. And that’s where we need to pause, step back, and take a closer look at what “No Kings” actually means.
Looking back at fear, freedom, and what we were really fighting for
You may have seen a viral post making the rounds recently. It reads like this:
No kings, but put your mask on.
No kings, but lock us down.
No kings, but I’m firing you for not vaccinating.
No kings, but you can’t go outside.
…but you need 12,380 boosters.
…but you can’t worship the REAL King.
…but you’re responsible for my health.
…but no family gatherings over 10.
It’s meant to expose what some see as a contradiction: that people who claim to oppose authoritarianism were too comfortable with government control during the pandemic. And let’s be honest—many of us did feel powerless at times, confused, even angry. The rules changed quickly. Our routines were disrupted. Our sense of control was shaken. That frustration is real, and it deserves to be acknowledged.
But that post—and others like it—draw the wrong conclusion. It treats “No Kings” as a punchline, not a principle. It frames democratic decision-making during a crisis as the same thing as tyranny. And that’s where we need to pause, step back, and take a closer look at what “No Kings” actually means.
No Kings Doesn’t Mean “No Rules”
At its core, “No Kings” is about opposing unchecked, absolute power. It doesn’t mean no one ever tells you what to do. It means no one person decides everything for everyone.
In a monarchy, power is centralized in one figure. There are no votes. No accountability. No appeals. No participation.
In a democracy, even under strain, decision-making is distributed—among elected officials, public health agencies, school boards, local governments, and yes, even private businesses. The pandemic created pressure, urgency, and sometimes confusion. But the power was still divided. The decisions were still debated. And the people still had recourse.
If you disagreed with a rule, you could protest. People did.
If you thought a mandate went too far, you could sue. People did.
If you didn’t like how your leaders handled it, you could vote them out. People did that too.
That’s not tyranny. That’s democracy under pressure—still functioning, still flawed, but still ours.
You Had a Say. You Still Do.
That’s the key difference. In a real monarchy, you don’t get a say. There are no protests without punishment. No courts to appeal to. No elections to change the course.
But in our system—even when the stakes are high—you still have power. You may not get your way every time. No one does. But you are part of the system that shapes the rules.
That’s what “No Kings” is supposed to mean: that no one person gets to rule over you without limits or consequences.
And if our idea of freedom can’t coexist with shared responsibility, maybe what we’re calling freedom isn’t really that at all.
Some of This Wasn’t Even the Government
Another important piece often left out of the conversation: not all the frustrations people faced during the pandemic came from the government.
A lot of mandates and restrictions came from private companies—firings, customer policies, event rules, travel protocols. That’s not federal overreach. That’s private actors making decisions within a capitalist system that already gives them enormous latitude.
That doesn’t make it feel any better—but it does change the accountability equation.
If you’re angry about how much influence corporations have over your life, you’re not alone. That’s a conversation we should absolutely be having. But let’s not confuse that with democratic governance. In many cases, government was the only thing limiting corporate overreach, not causing it.
The Irony: Be Careful What We Call “Freedom”
Here’s what gives me pause: some of the loudest critics of the “No Kings” message today are cheering for a political figure who says things like:
“I alone can fix it.”
“I will be your retribution.”
“If you come after me, I come after you.”
These aren’t the words of someone who believes in checks and balances. That’s not local control. That’s not collaborative governance. It’s unilateral power with vengeance attached.
And if we’re going to oppose kings, that opposition has to be consistent. It has to apply even when the would-be king shares your values—or your enemies.
Because history has shown us over and over: concentrated power never stays friendly for long.
What “No Kings” Really Means
So what does it really mean to say “No Kings”?
It means:
No one person drags us into war.
No one person jails us without trial.
No one person decides what we believe, say, or do.
No one person uses the machinery of government to punish dissent.
It doesn’t mean we always agree. It doesn’t mean the system always gets it right.
But it means we decide—together. Through law. Through debate. Through elections. Through systems designed to correct course, not cement control.
It’s slower. It’s messier. And in a crisis, it can feel frustrating.
But it’s not tyranny. It’s freedom with guardrails. And it’s worth protecting.
So yes:
No Kings.
Not then.
Not now.
Not from the left.
Not from the right.
Not from anyone.
The Real Cost of U.S. Wars by Party: 50-Year Breakdown
When politicians talk tough on foreign policy, it’s often framed as strength. But behind the patriotic rhetoric lies a more sobering truth: wars are expensive—devastatingly so.
Over the past 50 years, U.S. presidents from both major parties have initiated military operations abroad. But when we follow the money, a clear pattern emerges.
Republican administrations have consistently initiated more expensive conflicts—by trillions of dollars.
We examined the long-term costs of major armed conflicts started under Republican versus Democratic leadership. This includes not only direct military spending, but also long-term care for veterans, reconstruction efforts, and the interest accrued on war-related debt.
When politicians talk tough on foreign policy, it’s often framed as strength. But behind the patriotic rhetoric lies a more sobering truth: wars are expensive—devastatingly so.
Over the past 50 years, U.S. presidents from both major parties have initiated military operations abroad. But when we follow the money, a clear pattern emerges.
Republican administrations have consistently initiated more expensive conflicts—by trillions of dollars.
We examined the long-term costs of major armed conflicts started under Republican versus Democratic leadership. This includes not only direct military spending, but also long-term care for veterans, reconstruction efforts, and the interest accrued on war-related debt.
The Cost Breakdown
| Conflict | President | Party | Estimated Long-Term Cost (2024 USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Iraq War (2003–) | George W. Bush | Republican | $2.5–3.0 trillion |
| Afghanistan War (2001–2021) | George W. Bush | Republican | $2.3 trillion |
| Gulf War (1990–1991) | George H. W. Bush | Republican | $30 billion |
| Panama Invasion (1989) | George H. W. Bush | Republican | $1–2 billion |
| Grenada Invasion (1983) | Ronald Reagan | Republican | $130 million |
| Lebanon Deployment (1982–1984) | Ronald Reagan | Republican | ~$2 billion |
| Libya Air Campaign (2011) | Barack Obama | Democrat | $1.1 billion |
| Syria/ISIS Operations (2014–) | Barack Obama | Democrat | $40–50 billion |
| Kosovo War (1999) | Bill Clinton | Democrat | $5–10 billion |
| Bosnia Intervention (1995) | Bill Clinton | Democrat | ~$5 billion |
| Drone Campaigns (2009–2017) | Barack Obama | Democrat | $10–20 billion |
Estimated totals
Republican-initiated conflicts: $4.8 to $5.5 trillion
Democratic-initiated conflicts: $60 to $85 billion
Why It Matters
War doesn’t just cost lives—it also drains national resources that could otherwise be invested in healthcare, education, infrastructure, or debt reduction. These long-term financial commitments often extend for decades, long after the troops come home and the headlines fade.
Despite common narratives that portray Democrats as weaker on defense or Republicans as more fiscally responsible, the historical record tells a different story.
Final Thought
Before accepting any argument that equates military aggression with leadership, it’s worth asking: Who actually pays for these wars? Because the people making the decisions often aren’t the ones footing the bill—or living with the consequences.
Inequality
This is a good watch, I you want to see where things started to shift.
1955 vs 2025, who actually had it better?
[W]hat these lines all show is that 1980 was kind of this inflection point in our economy where the top earners kind of started to get in on most of the prosperity.
The period of expansion of the middle class that started in the 1940s, where most people in the workforce shared the gains in the economy equally, started ending in the 1980s. This isn’t an accident — this was policy.
The problem is, the party that wants to Make America Great Again isn’t talking about bringing us back to this era of American history — they want to fully restore the policies we had before then.
This is a good watch, I you want to see where things started to shift.
1955 vs 2025, who actually had it better?
[W]hat these lines all show is that 1980 was kind of this inflection point in our economy where the top earners kind of started to get in on most of the prosperity.
The period of expansion of the middle class that started in the 1940s, where most people in the workforce shared the gains in the economy equally, started ending in the 1980s. This isn’t an accident — this was policy.
The problem is, the party that wants to Make America Great Again isn’t talking about bringing us back to this era of American history — they want to fully restore the policies we had before then.
Theater of Cruelty: Why the Administration’s Immigration Crackdown Solves Nothing
The current administration wants you to believe it’s tough on immigration. They want headlines filled with arrests, detentions, and deportations. They want to project an image of control. But what they’re offering isn’t immigration policy — it’s political theater. It’s expensive, cruel, and completely detached from the root causes of the immigration challenges we actually face.
Let’s break this down.
The current administration wants you to believe it’s tough on immigration. They want headlines filled with arrests, detentions, and deportations. They want to project an image of control. But what they’re offering isn’t immigration policy — it’s political theater. It’s expensive, cruel, and completely detached from the root causes of the immigration challenges we actually face.
Let’s break this down.
Arrests Without Judges, Oversight, or Urgency
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is picking people up on administrative warrants — not criminal ones signed by a judge, but internal paperwork signed by ICE itself. There’s no immediate legal oversight, no court sign-off. In many cases, the people detained won’t see a judge for months or even years, because our immigration court system is so overwhelmed.
This would be like getting pulled over for allegedly speeding, then being jailed indefinitely without seeing a judge — all because a DMV official filled out a form.
Aggressive Tactics for Minor Infractions
Reports show ICE deploying militarized raids, midnight arrests, and detaining individuals for nothing more than civil infractions—expired visas, missed paperwork, or routine check-ins. In many cases, these actions are taken against people with pending asylum applications or Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—not violent criminals. One Los Angeles “military-style” operation resulted in over 40 arrests and was described by advocates as an “oppressive and vile paramilitary operation,” targeting nonviolent individuals in their homes or neighborhoods.
Immigration courts are no longer safe havens either: ICE has been arresting asylum-seekers in courthouse hallways, immediately following hearings or check-ins—even when a person has complied with all legal requirements. According to The Guardian, there were over 1,400 arrests at check-ins in the first month of the new term, mostly targeting individuals with no criminal history.
This isn’t targeted enforcement—it’s intimidation masquerading as policy, wielded against nonviolent, law‑abiding residents.
Due Process Denied
When people are deported — or detained for indefinite periods — without access to a timely hearing, that’s a due process failure. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say “except for immigrants.” Everyone in this country is entitled to basic procedural fairness, especially when what’s at stake is a person’s freedom or life.
Instead, we have people being sent back to countries they fled from — without having their case properly heard. Or worse, we keep them locked in overcrowded detention centers for years while their case languishes in a backlog.
Congress Kept in the Dark
What’s happening inside those detention centers? It’s hard to say. Lawmakers have reported being denied access or limited to sanitized tours — in direct conflict with Congress’s oversight authority. In fact, the DHS recently imposed a new policy requiring 72 hours advance notice for visits to ICE facilities and explicitly reserving ICE’s “sole and unreviewable discretion” to deny, cancel, or reschedule visits—even when federal law guarantees unannounced access for oversight purposes. Critics argue this is a transparent attempt to shroud detention conditions in secrecy.
If there’s nothing to hide, why the secrecy?
Root Causes Ignored
Here’s what’s really happening: the current surge in migrants isn’t due to lawlessness. It’s due to failed states, violence, climate change, and economic collapse in parts of Central America and beyond. People are not “invading” — they’re fleeing. The U.S. system used to recognize this through legal protections like asylum and TPS.
But instead of investing in solutions — faster asylum hearings, more judges, legal representation, and regional diplomacy — the administration has chosen to invest in fear. Fear looks good on campaign ads, but it doesn’t solve the crisis. It just manufactures cruelty.
A Broken System Doesn’t Need More Punishment — It Needs Reform
Imagine this:
You’re accused of a traffic violation — let’s say going 10 MPH over the speed limit. But instead of getting a court date in a few weeks, you’re arrested on the spot. Then you’re told it’ll take 5 years to resolve your case because the courts are backed up. During that time, you sit in a crowded jail, even if you have a spotless record. You never get a trial. You can’t appeal. You might be sent somewhere you don’t know, without seeing a lawyer or judge at all.
That’s what’s happening right now — just swap the traffic court for immigration court.
We Need a Real Fix
We don’t need more agents, more raids, or more detention centers. We need judges, caseworkers, legal aid, and sensible timelines. We need a functional, humane immigration system — one that recognizes the difference between a paperwork violation and a criminal threat. One that lives up to America’s promise of fairness and due process.
What we’re doing now isn’t solving the problem — it’s just turning people’s lives into props for a political show.
If we truly care about justice, safety, and human dignity, we must stop treating immigration as a stage for cruelty — and start building a system that works.
It’s time to bring the curtain down and do some real work.
An Open Letter to Federal Agents: A Call to Conscience
To the agents of Homeland Security, ICE, and all others tasked with enforcing the laws of this nation:
You signed up to serve your country. You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States—not to obey a man, a party, or a political movement, but to defend the principles that have guided our republic since its founding. That responsibility comes with power, and that power demands accountability. In that spirit, I offer the following:
To the agents of Homeland Security, ICE, and all others tasked with enforcing the laws of this nation:
You signed up to serve your country. You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States—not to obey a man, a party, or a political movement, but to defend the principles that have guided our republic since its founding. That responsibility comes with power, and that power demands accountability. In that spirit, I offer the following:
Don’t Hide Your Face
If you’re carrying out lawful orders in accordance with the Constitution, then you should have nothing to hide. In a democratic society, anonymity in enforcement is a red flag—not a badge of honor. Citizens have the right to know who is detaining them, questioning them, or searching their homes. If you obscure your identity, you erode public trust and make it harder for people to tell the difference between lawful authority and unlawful aggression.
Think for Yourself
It is not enough to follow orders. The law is not a shield for immoral action. You must know it, question it, and apply it judiciously. Study the Constitution. Read case law on unlawful orders and how to resist them within your chain of command. Learn how others before you—military and civilian alike—have stood firm in defense of principle when asked to do something wrong. History doesn’t look kindly on those who abdicate their conscience.
Treat Civilians with Respect
Your authority ends where someone else’s rights begin. The people you encounter may not know the law like you do. They may be scared or confused. But most are not your enemy—they are citizens, neighbors, or simply human beings who deserve to be treated with dignity. When you conduct yourself professionally, when you clearly identify yourself and your purpose, you help uphold the law. When you don’t, you undermine it. Ask yourself: if a group of unidentified men approached your family with weapons and refused to explain why—how would you respond?
Use Force Only as a Last Resort
You carry weapons. That is not a privilege—it is a grave responsibility. The power to detain, restrain, or harm another human being should never be exercised lightly or reflexively. De-escalation is not weakness; it is professionalism. Violence should always be the last resort, never the first instinct.
Every act of force you use is a message: to the person it’s used against, to the community that witnesses it, and to the country that you serve. That message should never be one of domination—it should be one of necessity, restraint, and accountability. Anything else diminishes the very rule of law you’re sworn to uphold.
Read the Constitution.
Read the Declaration of Independence.
Don’t just memorize the parts you’re told matter. Understand why these documents were written in the first place. Understand the grievances that led to their creation, the abuses they sought to prevent, and the balance of powers they enshrine. Remember: we were founded by people who resisted government overreach. The rule of law only survives when those who enforce it know where the line is—and refuse to cross it.
You are not just agents of the state. You are agents of the people. The Constitution needs guardians. Be one.
Further Reading and Resources
On Constitutional Rights and Civic Responsibility:
On Lawful Orders and Accountability:
Cornell Legal Information Institute – Search for relevant federal laws and legal commentary.
On De-escalation and Use of Force:
On Professional Conduct and Civilian Interaction:
Whistleblower Aid
No Kings
I’ve been struggling this past week to figure out what to write.
The immigration raids in Los Angeles. The protests that followed. The President sending in the National Guard — and then the Marines — to suppress what were, in large part, peaceful demonstrations. The political assassinations in Minnesota. The growing wave of “No Kings” rallies across the country.
It’s a lot.
I’ve been struggling this past week to figure out what to write.
The immigration raids in Los Angeles. The protests that followed. The President sending in the National Guard — and then the Marines — to suppress what were, in large part, peaceful demonstrations. The political assassinations in Minnesota. The growing wave of “No Kings” rallies across the country.
It’s a lot.
Each of these events is heavy on its own, but together they form a storm of chaos and fear. And in trying to process it all, I keep returning to one underlying theme: there’s so much focus on what we’re against — but not enough on what we’re for.
This, more than anything, is the legacy of the conservative/MAGA movement and the opposition to it. Not policy or vision. Not even ideology, really. Just relentless opposition. It’s a politics of negation — built on grievance, resentment, and fear of change. What we get is a steady drumbeat of “Not That,” “Not Them,” and “Never This.”
But let’s be honest: they’re not the only ones guilty of this.
Across the political spectrum, our messages have started to mirror one another in tone — even if not in content. Our political climate has become a series of competing “anti” messages. “Not fascism,” “Not socialism,” “Not the establishment,” “Not the radicals,” “Not the elites.” Everyone is fighting against something. But who’s offering a real vision of what comes next?
Where is the leadership that shows us a future to move toward — not just more things to fear?
It’s not that people don’t care. It’s that everything around us — the algorithms, the cable news cycles, the clickbait headlines — is designed to amplify conflict, not resolution. To reward outrage, not understanding. To push virality, not vision.
In this environment, it’s easier to rally energy against something than to build momentum toward something. And that’s a problem — because if all we do is resist, we stay locked in place. Or worse, we spin in circles. We become like a fish flopping on the deck, reacting to every splash but moving nowhere.
At some point, we have to stop asking what we’re fighting against and start asking what we’re fighting for.
We need to find each other. Build bridges. Not in some vague, idealistic sense, but in a real, hard, uncomfortable way. We need to talk about where we’re going — together — because there is no going back. That’s a myth. The only path is forward.
And that path needs to be shaped by us — the people who still believe in democracy, dignity, and shared responsibility. People who believe we are all better off when we’re all better off. People who believe that “No Kings” doesn’t just mean resisting authoritarian power — it means rejecting the idea that any one person, party, or movement has all the answers.
“No Kings” means we govern ourselves. Together.
And that means it’s on us to define the future we want to live in — and then fight like hell to build it.
Two Fathers
A Reflection on Father’s Day and the Role of Government
Today is Father’s Day here in the United States — a moment to honor the men who raise, teach, and guide us. But it’s also an opportunity to reflect more broadly on what it means to lead, to care, and to nurture growth.
I want to offer a contrast between two very different kinds of fathers.
A Reflection on Father’s Day and the Role of Government
Today is Father’s Day here in the United States — a moment to honor the men who raise, teach, and guide us. But it’s also an opportunity to reflect more broadly on what it means to lead, to care, and to nurture growth.
I want to offer a contrast between two very different kinds of fathers.
The first is a father who restricts. He tells his children what not to do. He lays down rules without explanation, limits their choices, and scolds them when they misstep. His love might be present, but it’s conditional and often cloaked in fear or shame. His children may obey, but they do so out of compliance, not understanding.
The second is a father who teaches. He explains why things are the way they are. He gives his children the freedom to make their own choices — and when they stumble, he’s there to help them learn from the experience. His love is steady and patient. Mistakes aren’t punished; they’re seen as necessary steps in the process of becoming wiser, stronger, more independent.
Now, imagine applying that contrast to something bigger: our country.
What kind of “father” is the United States?
Of course, this analogy isn’t perfect — a nation isn’t a parent, and citizens aren’t children. But the metaphor is still useful, especially when we consider how government functions in our daily lives. There are times when our policies, laws, and leadership resemble that first kind of father: controlling, punitive, suspicious of freedom. And there are times when we move toward the second: empowering, supportive, invested in helping people thrive, not just obey.
Some may bristle at the idea of thinking about a country in personal or familial terms. For many, government feels like an impersonal machine — bureaucratic, distant, and slow. But in a democracy like ours, that perception misses the point. Our system of government begins with three simple words: We the People.
We are not separate from the government — we are the government. Every law, every regulation, every program is a reflection of what we choose to value as a society. It’s how we decide to live together, to take care of each other, and to chart a path forward.
So on this Father’s Day, as we think about what it means to guide, support, and lead — let’s also ask what kind of country we want to be. Do we want a government that limits out of fear? Or one that empowers out of trust and compassion?
As with parenting, the answer will shape not just who we are today — but who we become tomorrow.
De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.
There is much to discuss regarding Trump's illegal and unconstitutional order nationalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests in Los Angeles. I will not attempt to summarize breaking news. Instead, I will focus on the question, “What should we do?”
My answer: De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.
There is much to discuss regarding Trump's illegal and unconstitutional order nationalizing 2,000 California National Guard troops in response to protests in Los Angeles. I will not attempt to summarize breaking news. Instead, I will focus on the question, “What should we do?”
My answer: De-escalate. Redirect. Overwhelm.
Take Back Control — How We Fix a Rigged System
No one should have to buy a seat at the table in a country founded on liberty and justice for all.
That’s the promise we were raised to believe in—that this is a nation where everyone has a voice, where the government works for “We the People,” not just the wealthy, not just the well-connected.
But let’s be honest: it doesn’t feel like that anymore.
It feels like Washington takes care of its donors and lobbyists first—and working Americans last. Whether you live in a small town or a big city, whether you vote red or blue, most of us can agree: the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful.
The good news? We can fix it. But first, we have to understand how money is twisting the system—and then take action to stop it.
No one should have to buy a seat at the table in a country founded on liberty and justice for all.
That’s the promise we were raised to believe in—that this is a nation where everyone has a voice, where the government works for “We the People,” not just the wealthy, not just the well-connected.
But let’s be honest: it doesn’t feel like that anymore.
It feels like Washington takes care of its donors and lobbyists first—and working Americans last. Whether you live in a small town or a big city, whether you vote red or blue, most of us can agree: the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful.
The good news? We can fix it. But first, we have to understand how money is twisting the system—and then take action to stop it.
Step One: Shine a Light on Who’s Pulling the Strings
If someone’s spending millions to influence our votes or laws, we should know who they are. Period.
Right now, billionaires and political insiders use “dark money” groups to hide their names behind bland-sounding organizations—things like “Americans for Freedom” or “Citizens for Prosperity.” These groups run attack ads, push bills, and sway elections—and no one knows who’s funding them.
That’s not democracy. That’s deception.
We need full transparency. No more hiding behind loopholes. If you want to influence an election, your name should be on the record. As the Bible says, “For everything that is hidden will eventually be brought into the open” (Luke 8:17).
This isn’t a left or right issue—it’s right versus wrong.
Step Two: Break the Insider Money Cycle
It’s no secret that D.C. runs on connections. But did you know members of Congress and their staff often leave public service and immediately become lobbyists—sometimes for the very industries they were supposed to regulate?
That’s called the revolving door, and it’s spinning faster than ever.
We need real rules that say: If you serve the public, you shouldn’t be allowed to cash in on that service for years after you leave. And no more campaign donations from lobbyists while they’re trying to sway laws. Public servants should work for the people—not for a paycheck from Big Pharma or Wall Street.
Step Three: Put Elections Back in the Hands of the People
Right now, running for office is so expensive that many good people never even try. That leaves us with millionaires—or people backed by millionaires.
But some states are trying a better way:
Maine and Arizona offer public campaign financing, where candidates can run competitive races without begging rich donors for help.
Seattle gives every voter “democracy vouchers” they can use to support the candidate of their choice—no PACs required.
New York City matches small donations 8-to-1, giving local voters more say than big-dollar outsiders.
These programs work. They boost voter participation, diversify the candidate pool, and reduce the influence of wealthy donors.
Imagine if more elections were won by ideas, not by ad budgets.
Step Four: What We Can Do—Right Now
This country doesn’t belong to billionaires. It belongs to us.
Here’s how we take it back:
Vote in primaries—that’s where many decisions are made.
Support candidates who reject PAC money and pledge to serve their constituents, not their funders.
Call your representatives and ask: “Do you support campaign finance reform and transparency?”
Talk about this with friends, at church, at work—because the more people understand how the money works, the harder it is for the powerful to keep hiding it.
And most importantly: don’t give up.
Conclusion: The System’s Rigged, But It’s Not Broken
Corruption isn’t new in America. But neither is reform. We’ve faced crooked politicians before. We’ve faced unfair systems before. And we’ve changed them—by organizing, by voting, by demanding better.
We can do it again.
Because this nation was never meant to be bought and sold. It was meant to be governed by the people. And as long as we still care—as long as we still show up—it’s not too late to make that promise real again.
“Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” — Amos 5:24
Let’s make it so.
How Lobbying Shapes Laws More Than Elections
Elections may decide who gets the seat—but lobbyists help decide what they do once they’re in it.
In Part 1, we looked at how Citizens United unleashed a flood of dark money into U.S. elections, helping wealthy donors and special interests shape who gets elected. But the influence doesn’t stop there. In fact, campaign money is just the down payment.
The real returns come after the votes are counted—when lobbyists get to work.
Elections may decide who gets the seat—but lobbyists help decide what they do once they’re in it.
In Part 1, we looked at how Citizens United unleashed a flood of dark money into U.S. elections, helping wealthy donors and special interests shape who gets elected. But the influence doesn’t stop there. In fact, campaign money is just the down payment.
The real returns come after the votes are counted—when lobbyists get to work.
What Lobbying Really Is—and Why It Matters
At its core, lobbying is the act of trying to influence lawmakers or government officials. It’s protected under the First Amendment as the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And in theory, anyone can do it—citizens, nonprofits, trade unions, corporations.
But in practice, lobbying is a multibillion-dollar industry dominated by those with the money to hire professionals, make campaign donations, and get regular access to lawmakers.
Lobbyists aren’t just knocking on doors or handing out business cards. They’re:
Writing the first drafts of legislation.
Offering talking points and “model bills” to lawmakers and their staff.
Sitting on advisory panels.
Influencing which bills get committee attention or floor votes—and which quietly die.
The Numbers: Billions Spent, Year After Year
Lobbying isn’t a side game—it’s the main event. In 2023 alone, over $4.1 billion was spent on lobbying in the U.S. That’s more than the entire GDP of some countries.
And it’s not just a handful of players:
Pharmaceuticals and health products: over $380 million.
Insurance and finance: over $300 million.
Big Tech: hundreds of millions across Facebook (Meta), Google, Amazon, and others.
Fossil fuels and energy: major players like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries spend tens of millions annually.
Why spend so much? Because it works.
Case Studies: When Lobbying Shapes the Law
Big Pharma and Drug Prices
The pharmaceutical industry has long been one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington. It helped block efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for years. Even modest reforms have been delayed or watered down. One result: Americans pay far more for prescription drugs than citizens of any other developed country.
Wall Street and Financial Reform
After the 2008 crash, public pressure led to the Dodd-Frank Act, aimed at reining in risky financial behavior. But lobbyists for big banks worked overtime to weaken key provisions, secure loopholes, and delay enforcement through the rulemaking process. Today, many safeguards envisioned by the law exist only on paper—or not at all.
Big Tech’s Quiet Influence
Tech giants like Meta, Google, and Amazon have built bipartisan lobbying machines. They fund think tanks, sponsor events, and quietly shape data privacy laws, antitrust enforcement, and content moderation policy. Despite public concern, Congress has repeatedly failed to pass meaningful tech regulation.
Beyond Congress: The Hidden Influence
Lobbying doesn’t just happen on Capitol Hill. A huge amount of influence happens inside federal agencies—the ones tasked with writing the detailed rules that laws require.
This is called regulatory capture: when industries exert so much influence over the agencies meant to regulate them that the regulators become effectively beholden to the regulated. Think of the SEC working closely with Wall Street, or the EPA consulting fossil fuel lobbyists on environmental rules.
Then there’s the revolving door: members of Congress and agency officials retire—or are voted out—and walk straight into high-paying lobbying jobs. Their value? Insider knowledge, personal connections, and an open door to their former colleagues.
“Soft Power” and Astroturf
Not all lobbying looks like lobbying.
Sometimes, it looks like a concerned citizens’ group urging Congress to act—but the group is funded by an industry association. Other times, it’s a glossy report from a “neutral” think tank—written with corporate sponsorship.
This is known as astroturfing—fake grassroots movements created by powerful interests. The goal is to make industry-backed ideas look like they came from ordinary Americans.
Why Voters Can’t Compete
While voters get a say every two or four years, lobbyists have access every day. They don’t just donate—they educate (or spin), provide bill language, and serve as trusted advisers to understaffed congressional offices. In some cases, lawmakers openly admit they rely on lobbyists for technical details or policy advice.
Even when constituents flood phone lines or show up at town halls, they often struggle to match the daily presence, funding, and influence of professional lobbyists.
Reforms Have Been Tried—And Weakened
There are laws requiring lobbyists to register and report their activities, but many simply label themselves “strategic consultants” and sidestep the rules. Disclosure reports are vague, inconsistent, and often come long after the fact.
Attempts to curb the revolving door—like mandatory cooling-off periods—are limited and often ignored.
The ROI of Political Money
If campaign spending is the investment, lobbying is the return.
For wealthy interests, it’s a smart bet. A $10 million lobbying campaign can delay or defeat a regulation that would cost them hundreds of millions. And thanks to weak disclosure rules and insider access, they can do it quietly.
In Part 3, we’ll look at what can be done—what reforms are on the table, what’s working at the state level, and how voters can push back against a system where money talks louder than citizens.
Because democracy shouldn’t be pay-to-play.
Citizens United and the Rise of Dark Money
What if your vote mattered less than a billionaire’s donation?
That’s not just a cynical punchline—it’s the real-world result of a decade and a half of erosion in campaign finance law. The turning point? A 2010 Supreme Court decision that changed American politics forever: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Since then, the rise of “dark money”—undisclosed, often untraceable political spending—has made it harder than ever for voters to know who’s really behind the ads, the issues, and even the candidates themselves.
What if your vote mattered less than a billionaire’s donation?
That’s not just a cynical punchline—it’s the real-world result of a decade and a half of erosion in campaign finance law. The turning point? A 2010 Supreme Court decision that changed American politics forever: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Since then, the rise of “dark money”—undisclosed, often untraceable political spending—has made it harder than ever for voters to know who’s really behind the ads, the issues, and even the candidates themselves.
Before 2010: Limits, Loopholes, and a Fragile Balance
For much of modern history, federal campaign finance law tried to strike a balance between free speech and fair elections. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as McCain-Feingold) prohibited corporations and unions from using treasury funds to finance “electioneering communications” close to an election. It also strengthened disclosure requirements.
It wasn’t perfect—wealthy individuals and PACs still held disproportionate influence—but it offered some transparency. You could trace much of the money, and there were caps on how much different entities could spend directly or in coordination with campaigns.
That all changed in 2010.
Citizens United: The Floodgates Open
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that corporations and unions could spend unlimited funds on independent political expenditures, under the First Amendment. In other words, money = speech—and corporations have the same speech rights as people when it comes to politics.
The Court drew a legal line: while direct donations to campaigns could still be limited, “independent” spending—that is, spending not coordinated with a candidate—could not. This distinction became a massive loophole.
Within months, so-called “Super PACs” were born: entities that could raise and spend unlimited sums, as long as they didn’t “coordinate” with candidates. Meanwhile, certain nonprofits, especially 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, didn’t even have to disclose their donors.
Enter Dark Money
“Dark money” refers to political spending by groups that aren’t required to reveal their funding sources. That means voters can be bombarded with political ads—often highly targeted, emotional, or misleading—without ever knowing who’s paying for them.
Here’s how it often works:
A wealthy donor gives to a 501(c)(4) nonprofit like Americans for Prosperity.
That nonprofit gives to a Super PAC.
The Super PAC runs attack ads in a tight Senate race, helping swing the outcome.
The donor’s name never appears in public records.
This isn’t just a theoretical concern. In 2006, dark money made up less than 2% of outside spending. By 2012, it was over 40%. According to OpenSecrets, more than $1 billion in dark money has been spent since Citizens United—and that’s just what we can partially trace.
Impact on Elections—and Democracy
Dark money doesn’t just influence general elections. It’s increasingly used to dominate primaries, where lower turnout and more ideological voters make it easier to sway the outcome. Candidates seen as too moderate—or too independent—often find themselves outspent by anonymous attack ads from outside groups.
It’s also being used in judicial races. In state supreme court elections, where most voters know little about the candidates, even a modest dark money campaign can flip the outcome—potentially changing how state laws are interpreted for years to come.
Meanwhile, everyday voters are left in the dark. When you see an ad from “Americans for Truth and Prosperity” or “Citizens for a Strong Future,” what does that even mean? Who’s behind it? What do they want? Increasingly, we don’t know—and that’s by design.
The Debate: Free Speech or Hidden Power?
Supporters of Citizens United argue that money is speech, and that more voices—even corporate ones—enrich the political conversation. But critics say it creates an uneven playing field, where the wealthiest players drown out everyone else and obscure the true sources of power.
Efforts to reverse or mitigate the ruling have repeatedly failed. The DISCLOSE Act, which would require dark money groups to reveal their major donors, has been blocked in Congress multiple times. Some states have attempted transparency laws, but legal challenges and lax enforcement limit their effectiveness.
What’s Next?
The rise of dark money has changed not just how campaigns are run, but how power is wielded behind the scenes. And this influence doesn’t end on Election Day.
In Part 2 of this series, we’ll follow the money from the campaign trail to the Capitol, exploring how lobbying—not voting—often shapes the laws that govern our lives.
Because in Washington, it’s not just about who wins the race—it’s about who writes the rules.
How Presidents Abuse Emergency Powers to Bypass Congress
Power Without Accountability
Emergency powers were intended to allow presidents to respond swiftly during genuine crises—wars, natural disasters, or financial emergencies. However, in recent years, these powers have increasingly been used to bypass Congress, sidestep public debate, and implement significant policy changes under the guise of national security.
Previously, we’ve examined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act, two pivotal laws granting presidents extensive authority upon declaring a national emergency. Another critical statute in this context is the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, specifically Section 232, which empowers presidents to regulate trade if imports are deemed a threat to national security.
This post explores how these overlapping emergency powers have been stretched beyond their original intent, posing risks to the constitutional balance of power.
Power Without Accountability
Emergency powers were intended to allow presidents to respond swiftly during genuine crises—wars, natural disasters, or financial emergencies. However, in recent years, these powers have increasingly been used to bypass Congress, sidestep public debate, and implement significant policy changes under the guise of national security.
Previously, we’ve examined the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act, two pivotal laws granting presidents extensive authority upon declaring a national emergency. Another critical statute in this context is the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, specifically Section 232, which empowers presidents to regulate trade if imports are deemed a threat to national security.
This post explores how these overlapping emergency powers have been stretched beyond their original intent, posing risks to the constitutional balance of power.
The Original Purpose of Emergency Powers
Emergency powers in democracies are designed for rare, urgent situations requiring immediate action. In the U.S., key laws include:
• The National Emergencies Act (NEA)
• The IEEPA
• The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (TEA)
• The Stafford Act, addressing natural disasters
These laws often contain vague language and lack stringent safeguards, making them susceptible to misuse by presidents seeking to circumvent the standard legislative process.
When Trade Becomes a National Security Emergency
The Trade Expansion Act of 1962, enacted during the Cold War, allows the president to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security. Historically underutilized, this provision gained prominence when President Trump invoked Section 232 to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from allies like Canada and the EU. Critics argued this was a misuse of the law, but courts upheld the action, granting the executive branch significant discretion in defining national security threats in trade.
In 2025, President Trump further expanded the use of emergency powers by invoking the IEEPA to impose broad tariffs, including the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs. These actions faced legal challenges, and on May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the president had overstepped his authority under the IEEPA, blocking the enforcement of these tariffs. However, the following day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay on the ruling, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect pending appeal.
Why It’s So Easy to Abuse These Powers
Several factors contribute to the ease with which presidents can exploit emergency powers:
Vague statutory language: Terms like “unusual and extraordinary threats” (IEEPA) and “national security” (TEA) are not clearly defined.
Lack of automatic expiration: Many emergency declarations remain active indefinitely without periodic review.
Executive control over information: The president can classify or selectively release information to justify actions.
Judicial deference: Courts often hesitate to challenge the executive on national security grounds, although recent rulings indicate a shift.
Congressional inaction: Political divisions and reluctance to confront the executive branch hinder legislative oversight.
These systemic issues create an environment where emergency powers can be used to implement significant policy changes with minimal checks and balances.
This Isn’t Just an American Problem
Globally, the misuse of emergency powers has been a tool for democratic backsliding:
Hungary: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used emergency decrees to bypass parliament.
India: Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared an emergency in 1975, suspending civil liberties.
Turkey: President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expanded his powers following a failed coup attempt.
In the U.S., similar patterns emerge. For instance, IEEPA has been used to target not only foreign governments but also companies and platforms like TikTok, extending the reach of emergency powers into areas like technology and information control.
How We Fix It
To prevent the abuse of emergency powers, several reforms should be considered:
Implement time limits: Emergency declarations should expire after a set period unless renewed by Congress.
Clarify definitions: Statutory terms like “national security” need precise definitions to prevent broad interpretations.
Enhance transparency: Require detailed justifications and regular reporting on the use of emergency powers.
Strengthen legislative oversight: Provide Congress with mechanisms to review and, if necessary, terminate emergency declarations.
Ensure judicial review: Courts should have a clear mandate to assess the legality of emergency actions promptly.
These measures aim to restore the balance of power and ensure that emergency powers serve their intended purpose without undermining democratic governance.
It’s Time to Pull These Powers Back
Currently, the U.S. operates under numerous ongoing emergency declarations, some dating back decades. As recent events demonstrate, emergency powers are increasingly used to enact significant policy changes without congressional approval. To safeguard democracy, it’s imperative to re-evaluate and reform the legal frameworks governing emergency powers, ensuring they are used appropriately and with adequate oversight.
Is the Deep State Real—or Just a Symptom of a Bigger Problem?
Why Americans across the political spectrum feel ignored—and what we can actually do about it
For years now, the term “Deep State” has been tossed around in political conversations, mostly as a warning about unelected officials supposedly working behind the scenes to undermine the will of the people. For some, it’s a conspiracy theory. For others, it’s a common-sense explanation for why nothing in Washington ever seems to change—no matter who you vote for.
But what if the truth is more complicated—and more unifying—than either side has been told?
Let’s take a serious, fact-based look at what people mean when they talk about the “Deep State,” why those concerns aren’t just paranoia, and how Americans from the left, right, and center might actually agree on what needs to change.
Why Americans across the political spectrum feel ignored—and what we can actually do about it
For years now, the term “Deep State” has been tossed around in political conversations, mostly as a warning about unelected officials supposedly working behind the scenes to undermine the will of the people. For some, it’s a conspiracy theory. For others, it’s a common-sense explanation for why nothing in Washington ever seems to change—no matter who you vote for.
But what if the truth is more complicated—and more unifying—than either side has been told?
Let’s take a serious, fact-based look at what people mean when they talk about the “Deep State,” why those concerns aren’t just paranoia, and how Americans from the left, right, and center might actually agree on what needs to change.
What People Mean When They Say “Deep State”
When folks talk about the “Deep State,” they’re often referring to a mix of things: federal agencies, intelligence operatives, long-serving bureaucrats, and powerful elites who never seem to leave Washington. Some imagine secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms; others just mean the slow, stubborn resistance to change inside our government.
What’s important to understand is this: behind the label is a very real frustration. Americans across the political spectrum sense that their voices aren’t being heard—that decisions are made by insiders with their own agendas. That frustration is legitimate. But the idea that there’s a single secret cabal controlling everything? That’s a distraction from the real issue: systemic unaccountability.
Who Actually Has Power—and Why It Feels Out of Reach
The Career Bureaucracy
The federal government employs around 2 million civilian workers—career staff who keep the lights on in everything from Social Security to disaster response. They’re not political appointees; they’re supposed to serve the public regardless of who’s in charge.
But here’s the issue: while many are hardworking and essential, the system is rigid, slow, and often immune to feedback. It’s nearly impossible to fire poor performers. Promotions are based more on time served than on results. Rules are written in legalese few outside D.C. can understand.
Progressives worry that these agencies are too easily captured by corporate influence. Conservatives worry they’re biased against outsiders and reformers. Both are right to demand a system that’s more responsive to the people it serves.
Intelligence and Security Agencies
After 9/11, the U.S. intelligence system ballooned in size and power. Agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA gained sweeping authority, sometimes with too little oversight. Progressives recall the lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Conservatives point to abuses during the Trump years, like flawed FISA warrants and politicized investigations.
Both sides agree on this: government agencies that can operate in the dark should be subject to real, independent oversight. National security matters—but not at the expense of the Constitution.
The Real Elites: Lobbyists and Contractors
Here’s where the real power often hides—and where populists and progressives can find the most common ground.
The so-called “revolving door” between public office and private profit spins fast in Washington. A lawmaker writes rules for the banking industry, then takes a cushy job on Wall Street. A Pentagon official awards defense contracts, then joins the board of a weapons manufacturer. This isn’t conspiracy—it’s standard operating procedure.
This is the swamp. And it’s been allowed to grow for decades.
Why “Deep State” Rhetoric Can Backfire
Calling everything you don’t like “the Deep State” might feel satisfying—but it muddies the water. It turns valid concerns into a catch-all term that’s too vague to fix.
Worse, it can be used by bad actors to justify purging professionals and replacing them with loyalists—not reformers. That’s not draining the swamp. That’s turning it into a moat around one man’s power.
The goal shouldn’t be to burn it all down. The goal should be to rebuild a system that actually works for us.
How Americans on Both Sides Can Work Together
Despite our differences, many Americans—left, right, and in between—want the same basic things:
A government that works efficiently and serves the people
Fair rules that apply to everyone, not just the connected
Agencies that protect, not spy
Public servants who are accountable, not entitled
Here are a few reforms most Americans could support:
Civil Service Reform: Make it easier to remove bad actors while protecting good employees from political purges.
Intelligence Oversight: Give Congress real tools to monitor surveillance and prevent political abuse.
End the Revolving Door: Ban former officials from lobbying the agencies they worked in.
Boost Transparency: Strengthen public access to information, speed up FOIA requests, and enforce open meeting laws.
These aren’t partisan ideas. They’re pro-democracy.
It’s Not a Cabal—It’s a Broken System
Is there a secret government pulling all the strings? No. But is there a powerful, bloated, and often unaccountable system that puts its own survival ahead of public service? Absolutely.
And that’s something we should all care about fixing.
If we can stop shouting past each other and start asking the right questions—who has power?, how do they get it?, and who holds them accountable?—we might discover we’ve got more in common than we thought.
It’s not about choosing between left or right. It’s about choosing between a system that serves itself—and a system that serves us.