Texas GOP Pushes Mid-Cycle Redistricting Power Grab

In Texas, we believe in fair play. Whether it’s football, business, or elections, the rules should apply equally to everyone—and once the game starts, you don’t get to move the goalposts. But that’s exactly what some politicians in Austin are trying to do with our voting maps.

They want to redraw the maps for Texas congressional and legislative districts in the middle of the decade—something that’s never been done before in our state without a court order. This isn’t just unusual. It’s wrong. And it should be illegal.

What’s Going On?

After every U.S. Census—once every ten years—states update their district maps to reflect population changes. Texas did that in 2021. The new maps were drawn by the Republican majority in the Legislature. At the time, they defended those maps in court by saying they were based on politics—not race—because using race as the main factor in redistricting is illegal.

Now, just a few years later, those same leaders are changing their story. They claim the maps were racially flawed after all—and that’s why they need to be redrawn now, mid-decade.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t about fixing a racial injustice. It’s a political power grab.

Why This Matters

Mid-cycle redistricting has never been part of the Texas tradition. Once the maps are drawn, they’re supposed to stay in place until the next census—unless a court steps in to fix a legal violation. That’s what keeps the system fair and stable.

If we let politicians redraw the maps whenever they feel like they might lose power, then elections stop being about voters choosing leaders—and start being about leaders choosing voters.

Even worse, the communities being targeted in this proposal are diverse, growing areas, especially in cities and suburbs. This plan would dilute the voices of voters of color and make it harder for everyday Texans to hold their leaders accountable.

It’s a Bad Precedent—and a Legal Sham

Here’s the kicker: if the maps really were racially biased, then they never should’ve been approved in the first place. But Republicans swore in court that race wasn’t a factor. Now they want to use race as an excuse to change the rules midstream.

That kind of flip-flop doesn’t pass the smell test—and it doesn’t match what the law intends. The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect communities of color from being silenced—not be twisted into a tool to take away their representation.

This kind of manipulation should not be allowed in any state—especially not Texas, where we pride ourselves on independence, fairness, and doing things the right way.

What We Can Do About It

We can’t let this stand. If Texas becomes the first state to rewrite its maps mid-decade for political reasons, others will follow. The damage to our democracy will be deep—and lasting.

Here’s what you can do right now:

• Contact your Texas state lawmakers. Tell them you oppose mid-cycle redistricting.

• Support the Texas Democrats fighting this injustice. Visit RiggedRedistricting.com to donate, sign petitions, and stay informed.

• Share this post with your friends, family, and neighbors—especially if they live in Texas.

• Push for reform. It’s time to end gerrymandering for good. We need independent redistricting commissions and strong federal laws like the Freedom to Vote Act to protect our elections.

The Bottom Line

Texans may not agree on everything—but we know cheating when we see it.

Redrawing the maps mid-cycle isn’t just bad policy. It’s a betrayal of the Texas values we all share: honesty, fairness, and respect for the rules.

Let’s hold the line. Let’s protect the vote. And let’s remind those in power: In Texas, we don’t rig the game—we play it fair.

Trump Fired the Jobs Commissioner. That Won’t Fix the Economy.

President Trump just fired Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why? Because the agency revised recent job numbers downward. In May and June, it turns out we didn’t create nearly as many jobs as first reported.

Instead of addressing the problem, Trump chose to fire the person in charge of telling the truth about it.

Let’s be honest: that’s not leadership. It’s blame-shifting.

McEntarfer is a 20-year government professional, not a political hack. The BLS is a fact-based agency that gives all of us—businesses, workers, and policymakers—accurate data so we can make smart decisions. Firing her just for reporting numbers the White House didn’t like? That’s a red flag.

And let’s talk about why the numbers went down.

Tariffs and government job cuts are creating real uncertainty in the economy. When businesses don’t know what rules or costs are coming next, they hold back on hiring. And when the federal government slashes jobs in key areas—like construction, infrastructure, and support for working families—it hurts employment numbers even more.

At the same time, prices are rising. Tariffs raise costs on everyday goods—food, cars, tools, you name it. So we’re seeing inflation and fewer jobs. That’s a bad combination.

Instead of fixing the root problems, Trump fired the messenger.

That’s not conservative. That’s not smart. And it doesn’t help American workers or families.

We need leaders who face facts, tell the truth, and work to build a strong, stable economy. Not leaders who fire good people just to protect their image.

Bailing Out Big Oil: The Wrong Investment at the Worst Time

Yesterday, we highlighted a quiet revolution in clean energy: 24-hour solar power is no longer a dream — it’s a cost-effective, real-world solution. With solar-plus-storage prices falling sharply in recent years, and wind energy continuing to expand, we’re entering a new phase of the energy transition — one where fossil fuels simply can’t compete on cost, performance, or resilience.

So why, in the face of this progress, is the federal government choosing to bail out oil and gas?

In a sweeping $4 trillion package dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the Trump administration has slashed support for clean energy while handing billions in subsidies to fossil fuel companies. The bill includes:

• Increased subsidies for carbon capture — but only when it’s used to extract more oil from depleted wells.

• Lower royalties for oil and gas drilling on public lands.

• Delays to methane pollution penalties, effectively letting the industry off the hook for the emissions it promised to clean up.

• Mandated lease sales across 200 million acres, including protected lands and offshore areas.

• Expanded tax breaks for fossil fuel development — many of which date back to the 1910s.

All while cutting support for wind, solar, and energy efficiency — and increasing household energy bills by an estimated $280 a year.

Let’s be clear: this is not an energy strategy. It’s a political payoff.

The fossil fuel industry knows it’s on borrowed time. Global solar module prices have dropped by 50% since 2020, and battery storage prices fell more than 20% in the past year alone. Meanwhile, utilities across the U.S. are shutting down coal plants in favor of renewables — not because of mandates, but because clean power is simply cheaper. Natural gas is next.

At the same time, global markets are turning away from U.S. liquefied natural gas. Europe is accelerating its transition to renewables, and even major Asian economies are investing heavily in clean energy storage and domestic generation. As demand for U.S. gas exports shrinks, the only way for oil and gas companies to stay afloat will be more subsidies, more bailouts, and more lobbying.

This bill is the first installment in what will become a long, expensive series of taxpayer-funded lifelines for a dying industry — lifelines paid for by working Americans, many of whom are already struggling with rising energy costs.

We should be investing in the future — not propping up the past. Every dollar we spend subsidizing oil extraction is a dollar we don’t invest in grid resilience, clean manufacturing, or lowering long-term energy costs. And every delay in building out wind, solar, and storage puts us further behind in the global race for clean energy leadership.

The numbers don’t lie: clean energy is now the smart investment. The “Big Beautiful Bill” does the opposite — funneling public money into an outdated industry in decline. It’s not just a bad policy. It’s a bad bet on the past.

What You Can Do

If you believe our energy future should be clean, affordable, and built for the long haul — now is the time to act.

Contact your representatives in Congress and tell them this bill must be repealed or rewritten. Make it clear that if they continue to subsidize the past while sabotaging the future, they will not earn your vote. We need better leaders — ones who invest in the future instead of protecting obsolete industries for political gain.

Find your representative: house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Contact your senators: senate.gov/senators/senators-contact

Speak up. Share the facts. And vote like the future depends on it — because it does.

24-Hour Solar Is No Longer a Dream — It’s a Cost-Effective Reality

A new report from the energy think tank Ember, written by Kostantsa Rangelova and Dave Jones, finds that solar electricity can now be delivered around the clock in sunny cities—reliably and at a lower cost than new coal, nuclear, and in some cases even natural gas.

The technology isn’t new. What’s changed is the economics.

In Las Vegas, for example, combining 5 kilowatts of solar panels with a 17 kilowatt-hour battery is now enough to provide a stable 1 kilowatt of electricity throughout the day and night. This setup can deliver 97 percent of the electricity needed for full 24/7 coverage over the course of a year.

The cost of this near-continuous solar power is now just $104 per megawatt-hour. That’s 22 percent cheaper than the same setup would have cost only a year ago—and cheaper than the cost of new coal plants ($118/MWh) or new nuclear facilities ($182/MWh).

The Key Driver: Plunging Battery Costs

The report credits much of the improvement to falling battery prices. In 2024, average global battery costs dropped by 40 percent—from $275 to $165 per kilowatt-hour. In some regions, they’ve fallen even lower. A pair of 2025 tenders in Saudi Arabia reported battery costs as low as $72 per kilowatt-hour.

Because batteries now account for a smaller share of total project costs, this price shift is transforming the economics of solar-plus-storage systems. In 2023, batteries made up nearly half of the total cost to deliver 24-hour solar. In 2024, that share dropped to just over one-third.

Real-World Applications

Solar-plus-storage systems are no longer experimental. They’re being deployed today at utility scale and by large commercial energy users. Examples include:

• The first gigawatt-scale 24-hour solar project in the United Arab Emirates, announced in early 2025.

• Data centers in Arizona and Dubai now running on solar power with battery backup.

• Industrial microgrids in West Virginia and Saudi Arabia supplying around-the-clock solar power to heavy manufacturing and tourism developments.

In the U.S., 75 percent of new solar projects awaiting grid connection in 2023 were paired with batteries.

Why This Matters

The availability of cost-effective, near-constant solar electricity is a turning point. It reduces reliance on fossil fuels. It makes it possible to bring power to remote regions without waiting for expensive grid infrastructure. And it gives industrial users—especially those with high reliability needs—an alternative to gas-fired generation.

The report also highlights how battery-backed solar can reduce the need for costly grid expansions. In sunny regions, up to five times more solar capacity can be installed using existing grid connections, simply by storing excess generation for use at night.

The Challenge Now Is Policy, Not Technology

The report is clear: the technology is ready, and the economics make sense. What’s missing is widespread adoption.

Planners, regulators, and investors still think of solar as a daytime-only resource. That view is now outdated. Batteries are changing what solar can do, and fast.

As Ember’s lead author Kostantsa Rangelova puts it, “This is a turning point in the clean energy transition… Now it’s time for policy and investment to catch up.”

Privatizing the Dollar: What the GENIUS Act Really Does

This week, Congress passed the GENIUS Act—a bill pitched as a way to regulate stablecoins and protect consumers. On the surface, it looks like smart policy: coins backed by real dollars, clear rules, and protections against scams.

But that’s only part of the story.

Behind the technical language is a sweeping change in how the U.S. controls its currency—and who benefits from it.

As one analyst at Macro Pulse put it:

“We didn’t regulate the future of money. We privatized it—then gave Washington the off button.”

Read their full thread here →

Let’s break down what’s really going on—and how it connects to Trump’s growing financial influence.

What the GENIUS Act Actually Does

The GENIUS Act creates a legal framework for stablecoins—digital tokens that are pegged to the U.S. dollar. The law says these coins must be backed 1:1 by cash, short-term U.S. Treasury debt, or Federal Reserve balances.

That might sound boring. But here’s what it really means:

• Private companies like PayPal, Circle, or even politically connected firms like World Liberty Financial can now issue their own versions of the dollar.

• The Federal Reserve can shut down any coin it deems a risk, with no public explanation.

• A separate law passed alongside GENIUS bans the Fed from creating its own digital currency, effectively handing the job to the private sector.

• Red states can issue their own licenses, creating a patchwork of rules and a race to the bottom on oversight.

Most shockingly, the bill exempts the President and their family from ethics rules that apply to Congress. While lawmakers are banned from investing in stablecoins, the White House is not—unless you can prove “malicious intent.”

That’s a very convenient loophole if your last name is Trump.

Why This Matters for U.S. Power

In The Dollar Empire, we explored how the U.S. rose to global power by making the dollar the backbone of international trade and finance.

The GENIUS Act takes that foundation and outsources it to private companies. These new digital dollars will likely spread quickly across Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia—especially in places where access to traditional banks is limited.

That may sound like progress, but it also means the U.S. can now enforce sanctions, cut off wallets, and freeze accounts instantly—through corporate APIs, not government channels. It’s financial power on autopilot, and it’s not always democratic.

Trump’s Golden Ticket

In The Golden Tickets, we showed how Trump has built a fortune by selling access, loyalty, and financial products dressed up as patriotism.

The GENIUS Act gives him something even more valuable: a way to profit from the U.S. dollar itself.

With the ethics exemption in place, Trump and his allies could launch a MAGA-branded stablecoin tomorrow—and it would be legal. Backed by Treasury debt, boosted by the law, and protected from real oversight, this coin wouldn’t just be a gimmick. It would be a government-blessed product with built-in buyers.

And if things go wrong? The public—not the issuer—could bear the fallout, just like we saw in the 2008 crash.

The Bigger Picture

The GENIUS Act isn’t just about crypto. It’s a shift in how money, power, and politics work in the United States:

• It creates constant demand for government debt through stablecoin reserves.

• It allows political families to profit from the very policies they influence.

• It removes a public alternative (a Federal Reserve digital dollar) in favor of private versions.

• It hands new powers to the Fed—without public accountability.

In the long run, this could reshape global finance, weaken public trust in money, and deepen the connection between political influence and private profit.

Bottom line

GENIUS doesn’t just regulate crypto. It changes who controls the dollar—and who gets to cash in on it.

She Knew the Epstein Files. Now She’s Out.

On July 16, the U.S. Department of Justice fired Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor who helped lead some of the most sensitive investigations in recent memory — including the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and most recently, Sean “Diddy” Combs.

The DOJ did not provide a reason for her removal. They simply cited the president’s Article II powers. That might be legal. But is it right?

Because if you were trying to keep a lid on what’s in the Epstein files, this is where you’d start.

BTC: Democracy Watch - DOJ Fires Prosecutor

Who Is Maurene Comey?

Maurene Comey worked for years in the Southern District of New York, one of the most respected federal offices in the country. She is also the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey — a name that carries political baggage, depending on who you ask. But Maurene Comey’s record as a prosecutor has stood on its own.

She helped prosecute:

• Jeffrey Epstein for trafficking minors.

• Ghislaine Maxwell for recruiting and grooming them.

• High-profile cases involving organized crime, weapons charges, and sex trafficking rings — most recently, the case against Combs.

That kind of experience isn’t easy to replace. Nor is the knowledge she had about sealed files, cooperating witnesses, or people who may still be under investigation.

AP: DOJ fires prosecutor in Epstein case

Why Now? Why Her?

The timing is hard to ignore.

Comey was let go just days after MAGA influencers revived interest in Epstein’s connections — but mostly to accuse others. At the same time, Trump was defending Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had previously worked on Epstein’s case in Florida, where the deal he got was unusually lenient.

So while headlines were flying and Epstein was back in the news, the one person inside the DOJ who had handled the files and seen what was sealed was suddenly out of a job.

Daily Beast: DOJ removes Maurene Comey with no reason given

What Did She Know?

That’s the question that should be on everyone’s mind — regardless of political affiliation.

Maurene Comey likely had access to:

• Sealed court records.

• Grand jury testimony.

• Names of individuals not yet charged — or possibly protected under prior immunity agreements.

• Evidence from raids on Epstein’s properties, which reportedly included hard drives, blackmail materials, and extensive documentation of guests.

Her role may have also included reviewing who wasn’t prosecuted — and why.

So her sudden removal, without cause, from a DOJ now run by someone who once helped Epstein get a sweetheart deal — that deserves scrutiny.

Vanity Fair: MAGA, Epstein, and the politics of distraction

This Isn’t a Left or Right Issue

Some people will try to make this about politics. But justice isn’t supposed to bend with the political winds.

If the Justice Department is firing prosecutors who know too much — especially about something as dark and damaging as child trafficking — that’s not a left-wing or right-wing issue. That’s a deeply American issue. Because we believe in the rule of law, not rule by loyalty.

If powerful people from any party, any country, or any income bracket were involved in Epstein’s network, the American people deserve to know. And the people who worked to uncover that truth should not be treated like problems to eliminate.

Questions That Deserve Answers

• What cases was Maurene Comey still working on?

• Were any sealed indictments or investigations related to Epstein still open?

• Will those cases be reassigned? Buried? Forgotten?

• And most importantly: Was she fired to protect justice — or to protect someone else?

Final Thought

You don’t have to like her last name to admit something doesn’t smell right.

Maurene Comey had a front-row seat to one of the darkest chapters in recent U.S. history — a trafficking network that likely involved elites across business, politics, media, and royalty. Now she’s out, and nobody’s explaining why.

We should all be asking: What’s the Justice Department trying to keep from us?

The Price of Real Justice vs. the Cost of a Show

Many Americans still want answers about Jeffrey Epstein. Who was involved? Why haven’t more people been held accountable? Why does it feel like justice only applies to the rest of us—and never to the rich and powerful?

It’s a good question. Because if this administration really cared about crime, justice, and protecting children, the Epstein investigation would be a top priority. Instead, the government has chosen to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a prison complex in the Florida Everglades that looks more like a political stunt than a serious solution to anything.

Let’s talk about cost. Let’s talk about results. And let’s talk about what that tells us about who this government really works for.

What It Would Take to Prosecute the Epstein Network

Jeffrey Epstein didn’t act alone. He had connections—some still in positions of influence today. Survivors have named names. Flight logs, visitor lists, and financial records exist. Some of these files have been sealed. Some have been quietly ignored.

But none of this is impossible to investigate. In fact, experts estimate that it would cost somewhere between $20 and $200 million to do a full, credible investigation and prosecution of Epstein’s trafficking network. That includes:

• Releasing court documents and sealed records

• Interviewing survivors and witnesses

• Investigating financial and travel records

• Prosecuting 10 to 20 high-profile individuals

That’s a lot of money—but in government terms, it’s a drop in the bucket. We’ve spent more on minor construction projects or military equipment no one uses. And unlike those, this would deliver something Americans want: real accountability.

So why hasn’t it happened?

What We Got Instead: Alligator Alcatraz

While the Epstein files sit in legal limbo, the government is spending over $450 million a year to run a brand-new ICE detention center in the Florida Everglades. Nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz,” it’s being held up as a symbol of tough-on-crime immigration policy.

But what is it really?

• A massive detention facility hidden deep in Big Cypress Preserve

• Operated by ICE, mostly holding people in civil—not criminal—proceedings

• Packed with people who have not been charged with violent crimes

• Staffed under questionable conditions, with reports of overcrowding and neglect

• Promoted through VIP tours and social media photo ops

The facility looks dramatic. Rows of detainees, guards in black gear, flooded swampland. But does it make anyone safer? There’s no evidence it reduces crime. What it does do is give politicians a talking point—something to post on Truth Social while real issues go ignored.

Comparing the Two

Investigating and prosecuting Jeffrey Epstein’s network would cost somewhere between $20 million and $200 million in total. That would cover releasing sealed court documents, interviewing survivors, tracking financial records, and holding powerful people accountable in court. It’s a one-time cost with lasting benefits: real justice, a public reckoning, and a clear signal that no one is above the law.

Now compare that to Alligator Alcatraz, the new ICE detention center in the Florida Everglades. It’s costing over $450 million every single year just to operate. That money goes toward detaining mostly nonviolent migrants—people in civil proceedings, not criminals. There’s no evidence this facility reduces crime or makes Americans safer. But it looks good in staged photos and gives politicians something to brag about online.

One approach is focused, targeted, and fair. The other is bloated, theatrical, and cruel. One delivers justice. The other delivers headlines.

And somehow, the one that actually goes after real criminals—the one that might finally hold Epstein’s accomplices accountable—is the one they won’t fund.

What This Tells Us

This isn’t about resources. We have the money. It’s about priorities.

This administration promised to “drain the swamp,” “go after the deep state,” and protect children from predators. But instead of following through, they’ve given us a prison in a swamp while the Epstein network gets swept under the rug.

That’s not justice. That’s a distraction.

And it’s a pretty expensive one.

The Bottom Line

If you’re angry that Epstein got away with it—and that the people around him still haven’t been held accountable—you’re not alone. But don’t let this administration point you at immigrants or migrants as the problem. They’re not the ones who flew on Epstein’s plane. They’re not the ones with sealed court records and high-powered lawyers.

Real justice would mean shining a light on what really happened. Real justice would mean facing uncomfortable truths—even if they lead to the rich and connected.

Instead, we got Alligator Alcatraz.

Not because it works.

But because it distracts.

The Boy Who Cried Deep State

For years, some political figures have used conspiracy theories to stir up anger and win support. They claim there’s a secret group pulling the strings—“the deep state”—and promise to expose it. But time after time, those promises fall apart once they’re in power.

The recent handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files is just the latest example. After months of hype about a “client list” and secret tapes, the Department of Justice—now led by some of the same people who once promoted these theories—released a report saying there’s no list, no cover-up, and no foul play.

It’s a familiar pattern. And it’s time we start recognizing it.

Big Promises Before the Election

During the 2024 campaign, Trump and many of his allies leaned into the Epstein case. They didn’t just suggest there might be more to the story—they said the government was sitting on evidence. Attorney General Pam Bondi hinted there were “tens of thousands” of videos. Others, like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, had spent years fueling speculation that Epstein was murdered to protect powerful people.

These claims weren’t just background noise—they were used to win trust and votes. The message was clear: re-elect Trump, and the truth will come out.

It worked. The base was fired up. Epstein became another symbol of elite corruption. Social media and right-wing shows spread the idea that big revelations were just around the corner.

But those revelations never came.

A Quiet Walk-Back After the Election

In July 2025, the Department of Justice released its final report on the Epstein case. It said clearly: there was no “client list,” no evidence of blackmail, and no sign of foul play in Epstein’s death. Surveillance footage showed no one entering his cell area. The conclusion was that he died by suicide.

This wasn’t coming from career officials alone. The DOJ is now led by Pam Bondi—the same person who talked about “tens of thousands of videos” before the election. The FBI is run by Dan Bongino and Kash Patel, both of whom had spent years pushing the idea that Epstein’s death was suspicious and connected to powerful people.

Now, they were the ones telling the public: “There’s nothing more to see here.”

Their supporters were confused and angry. Some conservative media figures called it a betrayal. A few even accused Trump’s administration of covering things up, just like the people they once criticized. The same officials who once promised the truth were now dismissing the conspiracy they helped promote.

This wasn’t the first time something like this happened. But it was one of the clearest examples yet of how political narratives are used to stir emotions—and then dropped without explanation.

A Quick Note on the Case Itself

To be clear, I’m not claiming to know whether there’s more to the Epstein case that still needs to come out. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn’t. That’s not the point.

The real issue is how certain politicians and public figures used the promise of a dramatic reveal to build trust and gain power—then quietly stepped away once they were in charge.

This isn’t about what the truth is. It’s about how trust was built on a promise they had no intention—or ability—to keep.

That’s what turns skepticism into cynicism. Not just unanswered questions, but leaders who keep raising them for effect, only to walk away when it no longer suits them.

This Isn’t New

What happened with the Epstein files feels familiar because it is.

This wasn’t the first time MAGA leaders promised explosive truth and delivered very little. We saw it with the Durham investigation, which was supposed to expose a conspiracy against Trump inside the FBI. After years of hype, the final report found no deep state plot and led to almost no consequences. Yet for years, it was used to rally support and raise money.

The same pattern showed up with the “stolen election” claims in 2020. Dozens of lawsuits were filed, none produced clear evidence. Still, the claims fueled protests, donations, and political campaigns. Even now, some politicians still hint at voter fraud without offering real proof.

It’s the same playbook:

1. Make a dramatic claim.

2. Say “the truth is coming.”

3. Stretch it out for months or years.

4. Quietly move on when nothing comes of it.

These stories are powerful because they sound like they could be true. They tap into people’s sense that something is wrong and that powerful people are hiding things. But when leaders use that feeling to get votes—and then fail to deliver—it’s not just a political tactic. It’s a betrayal.

And the cost isn’t just frustration. It’s confusion. It’s distrust. When real wrongdoing happens, fewer people are willing to believe it.

See the Pattern—Then Decide What to Do With It

This pattern isn’t just about headlines or bad behavior—it’s about how trust gets used up. When politicians make big claims over and over, then quietly back away once they’re in office, people start to tune out. Some get discouraged. Others double down, waiting for the next promise.

But we don’t have to stay stuck in that loop.

If we step back and look at the bigger picture, it becomes easier to spot the difference between someone who wants to lead—and someone who wants to manipulate. Honest leaders talk about hard problems and real solutions. Dishonest ones talk about secret plots and deliver nothing.

You don’t have to change your party to see this. You don’t even have to change your mind. You just have to ask: Who keeps crying wolf? And how many times are we supposed to believe them?

It’s okay to want answers. It’s smart to question power. But it’s also smart to ask whether the people shouting the loudest are actually telling the truth—or just trying to keep our attention.

When the Noise Fades, What’s Left?

The Epstein case was supposed to be a turning point—proof that elites would finally face justice. That’s what we were told. But once the election was over and the cameras moved on, the truth turned out to be far less dramatic. And the same people who once shouted the loudest went quiet.

This isn’t just about one story. It’s about how easily big claims can become tools for political gain—and how rarely they lead to anything real.

You don’t have to be an expert to see what’s happening. You just have to watch what people say when they want your vote, and what they do after they have it.

If they keep crying “deep state,” “cover-up,” or “bombshell,” but never show you real evidence, maybe it’s time to stop listening.

We all deserve leaders who are honest with us—not just when it’s easy, but when it’s hard. That starts with asking better questions. It starts with recognizing the pattern.

One last thing

It’s tempting to tune out. To stop voting. To stop caring. That’s part of the damage this cycle causes—it wears people down. But the only way we get better leaders is by staying engaged, especially during primaries, when most choices are actually made. If we only show up for the general election, we’re often left choosing between two options we didn’t help shape. If we want better choices, we have to show up earlier. Because if we don’t, the people who lie the loudest keep winning by default. Let’s not give them that win.

The Price of Cruelty: How the 2025 Immigration Crackdown Wastes Billions and Harms Communities

In the summer of 2025, Congress passed what supporters proudly called the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” pouring an unprecedented $170 billion into immigration enforcement over the next four years. The bill promises to build more walls, expand detention centers, and supercharge deportations of undocumented immigrants.

Supporters claim it will restore order. But at what cost?

In our previous post, “Do Undocumented Immigrants Really Drain Our Economy?” we showed that undocumented workers contribute billions to our tax base and strengthen entire industries. Now, with a fresh $170 billion on the table, the federal government is poised to spend record amounts tearing those same workers away from their communities.

Behind the slogans and big numbers is a simple truth: these policies target largely nonviolent, tax-paying workers — people who help build our communities. Spending tens of billions to arrest, detain, and deport them isn’t just inhumane — it’s staggeringly wasteful.

This post will break down the real dollars behind the new budget, the massive tax revenue we stand to lose, and the painful consequences for families and communities. In the end, it’s clear: this cruel spending spree will cost us far more than money.

The True Costs of Immigration Enforcement

The 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill” represents one of the largest immigration enforcement spending sprees in U.S. history. Over the next four years, the bill commits more than $170 billion to expand and intensify immigration controls. Here’s how those billions break down:

• $45 billion for new or expanded detention centers, allowing federal authorities to detain more than 100,000 individuals at any one time — nearly double today’s already crowded system.

• $30–44 billion dedicated to deportation operations, covering transportation, legal proceedings, and contracts with local law enforcement to funnel more people into removal pipelines.

• $46 billion to expand and fortify border walls and barriers, despite evidence that walls alone do not meaningfully deter visa overstays, which make up nearly half of undocumented migration.

• The remaining billions will fund advanced surveillance technology, cooperation with state and local police, and an enlarged immigration court system designed to process far more deportations, far faster.

All told, this staggering investment is meant to supercharge deportations to a goal of 1 million people per year — about 3,000 removals per day. But these numbers ignore the human reality: many of those targeted are long-settled, nonviolent workers with U.S. citizen children, homes, and steady taxpaying jobs.

Instead of strengthening our economy and communities, this massive budget expansion is a commitment to mass detention and forced separation — at an extraordinary cost to taxpayers.

Unrealistic Goals, Inflated Spending

Behind the headline promises of 1 million deportations per year lies a logistical and moral nightmare. The current immigration system is already struggling under a historic case backlog, with deportations this year reaching about 239,000 as of July — far below the new target. To scale up to 3,000 removals per day, as the bill envisions, would require more than doubling the pace of arrests, transportation, detention, and legal proceedings.

Beyond legal barriers, there are massive operational constraints. Immigration courts are severely understaffed. Flights to repatriate deportees are limited by international agreements. Many people targeted for removal have deep roots in U.S. communities, meaning their cases are far more complicated than a simple “in and out” deportation.

Yet the federal government plans to funnel billions of dollars toward these unrealistic targets anyway. Detention facilities will expand, but the human and financial costs of holding tens of thousands of nonviolent individuals indefinitely will only mount. The promised “efficiency” of this operation is a political talking point — not a realistic blueprint.

In the end, these inflated deportation goals will not just waste money; they will push an already-overwhelmed system closer to collapse, all while tearing apart families and communities in the name of an impossible enforcement agenda.

The Economic Fallout: Lost Tax Revenue

Beyond the staggering spending, there is another price Americans will pay: the loss of billions in tax revenue from deported workers. Undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to the public purse. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented workers pay roughly $8,889 per person in combined federal, state, and local taxes each year.

If the administration achieves its goal of deporting 1 million people annually, the nation would lose nearly $9 billion in annual tax revenue — money that helps pay for schools, roads, and essential services in every state. Over four years, that loss would total around $35 billion, nearly enough to fund free community college tuition nationwide.

And that’s just the beginning. Economic modeling suggests that mass deportations would reduce GDP, shrink the available labor force in critical sectors like agriculture, construction, and hospitality, and weaken local economies that depend on immigrant spending power. In the long run, the total impact of removing millions of workers could drain hundreds of billions from the nation’s economy and starve public budgets of future revenue.

By spending billions to deport tax-paying workers, this policy effectively cannibalizes the very resources that keep American communities afloat — a cruel irony that no one in Congress seems willing to acknowledge.

The Human Cost: Breaking Up Families and Communities

Numbers alone cannot fully capture the damage this policy inflicts on people. Most of those targeted under this massive enforcement push are nonviolent individuals who have built lives and families in the United States. They raise children, pay taxes, and contribute to their neighborhoods. Many have lived here for decades, with deep roots and ties to their communities.

When these individuals are detained or deported, the harm ripples outward. U.S. citizen children face the trauma of losing a parent and, in some cases, being placed in foster care. Family-owned businesses lose trusted employees and may even close down. Local schools and social services must absorb the shock of suddenly displaced families.

Beyond that, indefinite detention itself is a humanitarian crisis. Overcrowded facilities, poor medical care, and prolonged legal delays have led to deaths and severe mental health harm inside detention centers. Mass deportation plans will inevitably expand these abuses, trapping tens of thousands of people in conditions that violate basic human rights.

By investing billions to break up peaceful families and destabilize communities, this policy trades compassion and stability for fear and cruelty — all in the name of “enforcement.”

Better Uses for $170 Billion

Imagine what $170 billion could achieve if it were invested in strengthening American communities instead of tearing them apart. That money could expand affordable housing, modernize public schools, repair roads and bridges, or dramatically improve our health care system. It could jump-start clean energy projects, expand childcare support, or help reduce student debt.

For example, just a fraction of this enforcement budget — around $10–15 billion per year — could fully fund community college tuition for millions of students, or provide universal preschool nationwide. It could also help rebuild vital rural hospitals, expand mental health care, and improve emergency response systems that are often chronically underfunded.

One powerful alternative would be to invest in a path to legal status or citizenship for undocumented workers. Experts estimate that providing a path to legal status for the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would cost about $25–35 billion over a decade — a fraction of what mass deportation and detention will consume. And unlike deportation, this investment would pay dividends: newly legalized immigrants would contribute an estimated $100–150 billion in additional tax revenue over ten years, stabilizing families and fueling local economies.

Instead of spending $170 billion on mass detention and deportation — and losing an additional $35 billion in annual tax revenue from deported workers (a total hit of $205 billion) — we could invest far more wisely. For example, spending $25–35 billion on a path to citizenship, plus another $15–25 billion to fully fund community college or universal preschool, would cost around $50 billion total. This investment would pay itself back many times over, generating $100–150 billion in new tax revenue over a decade and delivering a net gain of $65–115 billion for the nation — not even counting the massive boost to productivity and economic growth from an educated workforce.

Instead of punishing peaceful, tax-paying workers, we could choose to strengthen families, grow the economy, and build a future rooted in fairness and opportunity — a far better return on investment than fear and cruelty.

Conclusion: A Cruel and Pointless Investment

The numbers are clear. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” plans to funnel $170 billion into a massive deportation and detention machine that will break apart families, destabilize communities, and drain billions in tax revenue from our own public budgets. By targeting nonviolent, tax-paying workers, these policies will rob the nation of both moral credibility and financial stability.

For a fraction of that spending — around $50 billion — we could build a path to citizenship and expand educational opportunities, earning back as much as $150 billion in new tax revenue while strengthening families and boosting the broader economy. That is an investment in our future, not an act of political vengeance.

It is time to see these mass deportation strategies for what they truly are: a cruel and pointless waste of taxpayer money. Instead of tearing down communities, we should build them up — with fairness, opportunity, and compassion guiding our policy choices. The American people deserve nothing less.

Do Undocumented Immigrants Really Drain Our Economy?

Let’s Follow the Money

In the latest push to tighten immigration enforcement, Congress has approved sweeping funding increases to expand detention, speed up deportations, and fortify border security. Supporters of these measures often argue that undocumented immigrants are a drain on taxpayers — that they take more than they give, burdening schools, hospitals, and social services.

But is that true?

Before we dive deeper into what this new enforcement surge could mean — which we’ll cover in a follow-up post — it’s worth pausing to look at the numbers behind a key question: what do undocumented immigrants actually contribute in taxes, and what do they receive in public benefits?

The answer might surprise you. Undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars every year to federal, state, and local governments — often into programs they will never be able to use. In this first post, we’ll break down the real tax contributions of undocumented immigrants and explain why their economic role is far more complicated, and more positive, than the headlines suggest.

Who Are Undocumented Immigrants?

When politicians and commentators talk about “illegal immigrants,” they’re usually referring to people who live and work in the United States without current legal authorization. This includes individuals who crossed the border without inspection as well as those who overstayed a visa.

Estimates put the undocumented population at around 10 to 11 million people nationwide — roughly 3% of the total U.S. population. Many have lived here for years, working in construction, hospitality, agriculture, food service, health care, and other essential sectors. They pay rent, buy groceries, raise families, and participate in their communities just like everyone else.

It’s important to recognize that undocumented immigrants are deeply woven into the fabric of the American workforce and economy. They are not a separate, hidden world — they live among neighbors, coworkers, and classmates across the country.

Who Are Undocumented Immigrants?

When politicians and commentators talk about “illegal immigrants,” they’re usually referring to people who live and work in the United States without current legal authorization. This includes individuals who crossed the border without inspection as well as those who overstayed a visa.

Estimates put the undocumented population at around 10 to 11 million people nationwide — roughly 3% of the total U.S. population. Many have lived here for years, working in construction, hospitality, agriculture, food service, health care, and other essential sectors. They pay rent, buy groceries, raise families, and participate in their communities just like everyone else.

It’s important to recognize that undocumented immigrants are deeply woven into the fabric of the American workforce and economy. They are not a separate, hidden world — they live among neighbors, coworkers, and classmates across the country.

What Taxes Do Undocumented Immigrants Pay?

One of the biggest misconceptions is that undocumented immigrants somehow live “off the books” and avoid paying any taxes. In reality, millions pay into public systems every single day — through multiple channels:

• Federal and state income taxes: Many file taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), a legal tool from the IRS for people without Social Security numbers. Others have taxes withheld directly from paychecks.

• Payroll taxes: Contributions to Social Security and Medicare are deducted from undocumented workers’ wages—despite their limited eligibility to ever draw benefits from these programs.

• State and local taxes: Every time they make a purchase, sales taxes apply. Even renters effectively pay property taxes indirectly through their rent.

According to a 2024 report by the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022—approximately $59.4 billion to federal and $37.3 billion to state and local governments.

This substantial contribution—roughly $90 to $97 billion annually—directly challenges the belief that undocumented workers avoid contributing to public coffers.

What Benefits Do They Receive?

It’s a common belief that undocumented immigrants drain public benefits, but the reality is far more limited than many assume. By law, undocumented immigrants are largely excluded from federal programs like Social Security retirement benefits, Medicare, Medicaid (except for emergency care), SNAP (food stamps), and most forms of welfare assistance.

At the state and local level, some benefits do exist — for example, public K–12 education is available to all children regardless of immigration status, thanks to Supreme Court precedent. Emergency medical care must also be provided to anyone in life-threatening circumstances, regardless of status.

Still, compared to what they pay in taxes, undocumented immigrants receive relatively few public benefits. Many pay billions into programs they will never be allowed to use, especially Social Security and Medicare.

In other words, while they do rely on some essential services — like schools for their children or emergency rooms in crisis — the scale of those benefits is small relative to the tax dollars they contribute.

The Net Impact: Are They a Drain or a Benefit?

When you look at the full picture — taxes paid in versus benefits received — undocumented immigrants are far from being a drain on the system. In fact, they create a clear surplus at the federal level.

They contribute billions to Social Security and Medicare each year but cannot claim those benefits, effectively subsidizing these programs for future retirees. On top of that, their spending supports local sales and property tax bases, funding public services and infrastructure.

At the state and local level, there can be modest costs — for example, funding public education for their children or emergency health care. However, multiple studies have found that these costs are generally offset, in whole or in part, by their tax contributions and their economic activity as workers and consumers.

Overall, the evidence shows that undocumented immigrants help stabilize key federal social programs while providing a net positive or near-neutral fiscal impact locally. They are far from the “drain” that headline rhetoric often portrays — and more accurately described as an under-recognized group of taxpayers contributing to America’s shared resources.

Why the Myth Persists

If the numbers so clearly show that undocumented immigrants contribute more than they receive, why does the opposite belief remain so widespread?

Part of the answer is political. The image of “taxpayer-funded freeloaders” makes for a powerful talking point, especially during budget negotiations or election seasons. It taps into broader fears about fairness, economic competition, and the sense that someone is gaming the system.

Another factor is how people see costs at the local level — for example, crowded schools or overburdened hospitals — without connecting those services to the tax money undocumented immigrants pay into those very same systems. Because most people aren’t aware of the billions of dollars these workers contribute behind the scenes, it’s easy to assume they only take and never give.

Finally, the term illegal triggers strong emotions and can overshadow facts. Once a group is labeled “illegal,” it becomes easier to view them as undeserving of basic rights or economic participation, even when the reality is far more complex.

In other words, the myth sticks around because it is emotionally powerful — even if it doesn’t hold up to the math.

Real-World Consequences of Misunderstanding

Believing the myth that undocumented immigrants are a drain on public resources doesn’t just distort the conversation — it can actively make things worse.

When policymakers base laws on the false idea that undocumented immigrants pay no taxes or overuse benefits, they may pass harsh measures that push people deeper into the shadows. That includes restricting work permits, limiting tax-filing protections, or scaring people away from filing taxes altogether.

The result? Less revenue for essential programs like Social Security and Medicare, and more workers pushed into cash-only informal economies, where their contributions disappear from public ledgers entirely.

Criminalizing or isolating millions of workers who are already paying taxes undercuts community stability and can harm local economies that depend on their spending and labor. The more we treat them as outside the system, the less they can legally and visibly contribute — creating exactly the problem the myths claim to fear.

A misunderstanding of the facts doesn’t just breed bad policy — it risks breaking the very tax base many of us rely on.

The Bottom Line

When you look past the slogans and the fear-based rhetoric, the facts are clear: undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, supporting vital programs they often cannot use. They help keep Social Security and Medicare solvent. They pay state and local taxes that fund public schools, roads, and emergency services.

While there are modest costs at the local level — like education and limited emergency care — these are generally balanced, if not exceeded, by their tax contributions and their role in sustaining local economies.

Undocumented immigrants are not a drain on the system. In many ways, they help keep it running.

As Congress directs more resources toward immigration enforcement in the new budget, it is worth asking: are we targeting people who strengthen the economy more than they weaken it?

This is a conversation worth having, based on numbers — not myths.

Sources & Further Reading

• Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP): Undocumented Immigrants’ State & Local Tax Contributions (2024)

• American Immigration Council: The Facts on Immigration

• Congressional Budget Office: The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Federal Budget

• Pew Research Center: Facts About Unauthorized Immigrants in the U.S.

---

If you found this explainer helpful, please consider sharing it — myths about undocumented immigrants and taxes remain powerful, but facts can change minds.

Next time, we’ll dive into how the expanded immigration enforcement funded by the recent budget bill could impact communities, economies, and even the nation’s tax base itself.

Compete or Collapse: The EV Shift America Can’t Ignore

Americans pride themselves on choice. The freedom to choose what we drive, what we build, and how we power our lives is woven into our culture. But today, those choices are at risk — not because someone is taking them away, but because the rest of the world is moving forward, and we’re standing still.

Globally, electric vehicles are taking over. In May 2025, one in four new vehicles sold worldwide was a plug-in. China has crossed the halfway mark, with more than half of its new car sales being electric or hybrid. Europe is racing to phase out gasoline and diesel. Meanwhile, American automakers and policymakers are still debating whether to invest in the future or cling to the past.

This is more than a story about cars. If we fail to compete, we won’t just lose export markets — we’ll lose our ability to make the vehicles Americans want to drive. Factories will close, jobs will vanish, and cheaper foreign EVs will fill our streets. In the name of preserving choice, we could end up with no real choices at all.

It’s time to face the facts: the world is electrifying. If we want to keep building cars in America, if we want to protect American jobs, and if we want Americans to have real freedom to choose, we must compete — now.

Global Surge in Electrification

While debate drags on in Washington and Detroit, the rest of the world isn’t waiting. Global plugin vehicle sales reached 25% of new car purchases in May 2025 — a remarkable milestone that would have seemed impossible just a few years ago. Fully electric vehicles alone now make up 16% of global sales, and that share is climbing fast.

China is leading the way, with more than 50% of its new car sales already plug-in or fully electric. Europe is close behind, steadily progressing toward its goal of phasing out gasoline and diesel cars by 2035. In markets from Southeast Asia to South America, EV adoption is accelerating thanks to lower prices, expanding charging networks, and growing consumer confidence.

And it isn’t just environmental policy pushing this shift. Automakers overseas are fiercely competing to give customers more choices, with hundreds of affordable EV models hitting showroom floors. In the U.S., however, many buyers still face a frustrating lack of selection, higher prices, and patchy charging infrastructure — making the gap between American and global markets even wider.

If we keep ignoring these trends, we risk more than lost exports. We risk having our own consumer options shrink as automakers shift production to meet global demand for EVs, leaving fewer resources to build gas-powered vehicles just for us. The global market is evolving — and it’s leaving the United States behind.

The U.S. is Falling Behind

Even as global EV adoption surges, the United States lags far behind. American EV sales have grown, but they still make up only a fraction of the new car market compared to Europe and China. Our infrastructure hasn’t kept up — public charging is still sparse in many areas, and high upfront prices make EVs feel out of reach for working families.

This leaves American drivers with fewer real choices. While other countries’ buyers enjoy a flood of new, affordable EV models, U.S. car shoppers often see only a limited selection of expensive options. And as global demand shifts, automakers are prioritizing production for the markets that are moving fastest. The risk is clear: if the United States doesn’t catch up, our local manufacturing will focus less on making vehicles for our own market and more on fulfilling overseas orders — or worse, will simply wither.

This is about more than consumer choice today. If American automakers can’t compete globally on EVs, they will lose scale, profits, and innovation capacity, making it harder to build any type of vehicle here at home. Our industry — and the millions of jobs connected to it — could collapse under the weight of global competition, leaving Americans dependent on imported vehicles, likely from China.

The world’s transition is picking up speed. If the U.S. fails to join it, we may soon find ourselves not just behind — but left out entirely.

What’s at Stake for American Jobs and Industry

The American auto industry is more than steel, wheels, and engines — it is millions of jobs, thousands of communities, and a cornerstone of our national identity. But those jobs, and the industries that support them, are facing a direct threat from a global EV transition that the U.S. is ignoring at its peril.

If other countries continue to electrify while we hesitate, American automakers will see shrinking export markets for traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. That will put assembly lines, supplier contracts, and dealership networks at risk. Communities that rely on auto plants could face devastating job losses. And the longer we delay building our own competitive EV sector, the harder it will be to catch up when demand for gas-powered cars finally collapses.

The risk goes even deeper. If our manufacturers lose their global edge, we could become dependent on foreign-built vehicles — most likely from China, which is investing heavily in both EV technology and production capacity. This is not just an economic vulnerability but a strategic one: ceding the future of transportation to geopolitical competitors threatens America’s ability to chart its own course.

By acting now, we can protect American workers, secure a thriving domestic auto industry, and keep the power to decide what we drive in our own hands. But if we don’t move soon, that power — and those jobs — will slip away.

The Oil Shock That’s Coming

For more than a century, America’s auto industry has been tightly bound to oil. From gasoline to diesel, fossil fuels have powered our vehicles, our supply chains, and entire communities. But as the world shifts to electric vehicles, that connection is under growing threat — and so is the stability of our energy-dependent industries.

Global oil demand is projected to decline sharply as more countries adopt EVs. That decline may seem gradual at first, but it will accelerate as more nations enforce phase-out targets for gasoline and diesel cars. When that happens, oil producers could see falling profits and tighter margins, leading to layoffs, bankruptcies, and economic ripple effects in communities that rely on fossil fuel jobs.

This coming oil shock matters to the auto industry because so much of our current manufacturing base — from parts suppliers to service shops — depends on the gasoline-powered ecosystem. As demand for oil shrinks, the economic foundation supporting that ecosystem will weaken. That threatens not just energy producers, but the millions of workers and small businesses connected to them.

If the United States fails to diversify — and fails to help its automakers make the shift to electric — we could face a dual crisis: collapsing demand for our oil exports, and a crumbling auto sector that cannot pivot in time. The longer we wait, the harder and more painful the transition will become.

Respecting Choice, Expanding Options

Some argue that America should not be forced into electric vehicles. They worry that mandates or bans will take away their freedom to choose what to drive. That concern deserves respect — after all, choice is one of America’s deepest values.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: if we do nothing, our choices will actually shrink. As global demand moves toward electric vehicles, automakers will focus their production, innovation, and marketing dollars on those growing markets. That means fewer gasoline-powered models built for the U.S., fewer parts available, and rising costs for maintaining older vehicles.

Meanwhile, other countries are flooding their markets with dozens of affordable EV options, giving their citizens more freedom to choose among price points, features, and styles. Americans, on the other hand, still see limited selection, higher sticker prices, and patchy charging networks. In other words, the lack of investment here is what’s truly limiting our freedom of choice.

Supporting a strong EV industry does not mean forcing anyone to give up their car tomorrow. It means expanding choices for everyone, ensuring Americans can buy a reliable, affordable, American-made EV — or a cleaner hybrid — if they want to. It also means protecting the ability of American workers to build those vehicles, instead of surrendering our manufacturing future to foreign competition.

True freedom comes from having options. Right now, we’re on a path where those options could disappear — unless we act.

Policy Proposals to Keep America Competitive

If we want to protect American jobs, expand consumer choice, and keep our auto industry thriving, we need a focused, actionable strategy. Here are practical, commonsense steps that respect market freedom while giving the U.S. a fair chance to compete in the global EV transition:

Phase Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Redirect Funds to the EV Transition

The United States spends billions of dollars each year supporting fossil fuel companies through tax breaks, credits, and other incentives. By gradually reducing these subsidies, we can free up resources to invest in the vehicles of the future, strengthening our economy and preserving consumer choice.

Boost Domestic EV Production Incentives

Redirected funds can help automakers build affordable, desirable EVs in the United States, protecting union jobs and keeping our manufacturing base strong and resilient.

Modernize Charging Infrastructure Nationwide

A reliable, nationwide network of fast chargers is essential to making EVs practical for everyone, whether they live in cities or rural areas. This infrastructure investment will expand access and confidence for American drivers.

Protect Workers with a “Just Transition”

The transition to EVs should not leave fossil fuel or auto workers behind. Retraining programs, wage protections, and support for union jobs can help ensure workers have good-paying careers in battery and EV production.

Preserve Consumer Freedom with Balanced Policies

Avoiding blanket bans while using incentives, targets, and fair rules can accelerate EV adoption without taking away consumers’ freedom to choose the best vehicle for their lifestyle.

Strengthen Strategic Battery and Supply Chains

Investments in critical minerals, advanced batteries, and other high-tech components should happen on American soil. This will protect us from foreign dependence and secure our leadership in the next generation of automotive technology.

By phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and investing those resources in the industries of the future, we can protect American freedom of choice, safeguard well-paying jobs, and ensure that our auto industry remains globally competitive for decades to come.

Conclusion: The Future Is Coming, Ready or Not

The global auto industry is moving forward with or without us. As other countries race to electrify their transportation systems, they are expanding consumer options, strengthening their manufacturing bases, and preparing their economies for the future. Meanwhile, America risks being left behind, clinging to outdated policies and an industry structure that cannot survive the coming changes.

This isn’t just about what kind of car we drive. It’s about whether American workers will keep building those cars, whether our communities will thrive, and whether we will continue to have the freedom to choose from a wide range of affordable, innovative vehicles. If we fail to act, we will see our choices shrink, our factories close, and our streets filled with imports made elsewhere.

We still have time to lead. By shifting resources away from fossil fuel subsidies and investing in a robust, competitive EV industry, we can protect American jobs, expand choices for consumers, and secure our place in a rapidly changing world.

The world is moving. The question is simple: will America compete — or collapse?

The Big Beautiful Bill’s Energy Provisions — A Pricey Mistake for America

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.

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:

1. Cut taxes.

2. Watch the deficit explode.

3. 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.

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.

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.

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.”

— Reuters, March 2018

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.

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.

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.npr.org/2025/06/05/nx-s1-5413364/concerns-over-conditions-in-u-s-immigration-detention-were-hearing-the-word-starving

https://www.vera.org/news/the-truth-about-immigration-detention-in-the-united-states

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/immigration-customs-enforcement-congressional-oversight-facility-conditions/

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/as-communities-mobilize-against-increasing-ice-abuses-members-of-congress-must-fulfill-their-responsibility-to-conduct-oversight-of-immigration-detention

‘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.

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.

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.