The GOP seems less like a big tent these days and more like a fragmented assembly. There isn’t a lot connecting the various factions apart from the party affiliation. This lack of unity makes it tough to get a reasonable budget bill together—one that manages to cut spending without throwing in hefty subsidies for high-tax blue states.
There’s a noticeable divide among the Freedom Caucus, K Street interests, and the Trump White House. So, what’s a practical way forward for reaching a budget deal?
True leadership allowed Trump to make progress on a key aspect of his 2024 agenda, focusing on a singular, unifying issue: immigration enforcement.
This week, the protests in Los Angeles seem to reinforce the need for an immigration-only settlement, making it even more pertinent. People are watching this unfold, and the urgency is palpable. Meanwhile, Trump seems less than pleased with the calendar—it’s June, and he hasn’t logged any major legislative victories yet—so he’s eager to act swiftly.
However, jamming unrelated taxes and medical provisions into an oversized bill makes disaster almost certain. Competent members might end up voting against their own interests. So, why not take decisive action?
If we separate the immigration regulations from the rest, we can strengthen them. The recent unrest in LA may pass, but the issue will still resonate. We can handle the financial disagreements later.
Breaking Down Immigration-Focused Bill
The proposed HR 1 draft outlines approximately $185 billion in new funding for immigration and customs enforcement, border security, and improved border infrastructure, along with another $150 billion for defense—this is a top priority for the White House.
Even the strongest regulations require financial offsets, yet cutting back on this ineffective spending is not just challenging; it’s almost considered off-limits.
Still, by streamlining the bill to focus on Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon expenses while discarding tax elements, Republicans could only offset $335 billion over a decade.
This is achievable. They’ve managed to arrive at that figure using already proposed reductions and immigration reforms. There’s no trickery involved—just a necessary sense of political momentum and timing.
As it stands, the bill projects around $77 billion in new revenue through taxes on immigration-related fees and remittances. By excluding illegal immigrants from Medicaid, Obamacare, and food stamps, we could potentially save hundreds of millions more in the next ten years.
The Republicans could go even further by preventing illegal immigrants from claiming child tax credits, which could add another $50 billion in savings.
Instead of cramming divisive, unrelated items into the initial settlement bill, the GOP should zero in on areas of agreement, ensuring national security, enforcing sovereignty, and prioritizing American workers.
If they take a more ambitious stance, they could leverage this bill to dismantle the Green New Deal. Funding for illegal immigration measures and the Green New Deal has been two of the most transformative—and unpopular—policies from the Biden administration. Going after both would signal a clear victory aligned with the mandate voters gave Trump, offering him a desperately needed legislative win.
More Funding Isn’t the Sole Solution
Injecting an additional $180 billion into enforcement won’t resolve the immigration crisis. There’s already spent a trillion on deportation, yet it’s all about whether the judicial system will continue blocking further action.
Even if Trump wins some unusual cases in the Supreme Court regarding immigration, judges may still insist that all illegal aliens undergo legitimate legal processes.
Trump can’t just wave away the ongoing border crisis. Even with a favorable judicial outcome, he won’t be able to deport enough illegal residents before another Democrat takes over. That’s the tough reality to face.
Now is the time to address this issue head-on.
As Americans witness dramatic, coordinated border incursions in real-time, the bill needs to make a firm declaration of action. It should also limit judicial reviews for deportation cases concerning non-citizens—potentially including legal permanent residents, as suggested by lawmakers like Chip Roy (R-Texas).
Making this reform would streamline removals, effectively preventing the possibility of judges interfering again. There would be no more delays, appeals, or new laws.
Roy’s amendment could transform the settlement bill into one that reflects Trump’s essential campaign promises, providing a swift, credible win while keeping the focus on border issues.
So, why not divide the agendas into two separate bills and pursue that route?
Here come the typical GOP justifications. They often cite the need to tackle issues one at a time.
Excuse 1: “We only get one shot at this.”
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has mentioned that Republicans should make the budgetary maneuver only once to avoid a Senate filibuster.
But Democrats broke that precedent back in 2021, pushing through two separate settlement bills. It’s been argued that settlements should be reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.”
Ultimately, the decision rests with Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Toon (R-SD). If Biden’s team can do it, then surely, Republicans should be able to as well.
Excuse 2: “Without this bill, Americans will see a huge tax burden.”
This claim is fairly alarmist. The 2024 elections aren’t solely about taxes. MAGA politics didn’t revolve around tax cuts for the elite. Yet, this bill seems to have morphed into another tax-heavy mess.
The truth? Many tax provisions within the draft have broad bipartisan support, be it expanded child tax credits for families, overtime pay, or new a tax break for tipped workers.
No Democrat wants to take the heat for allowing these provisions to expire. Even during contentious sessions, they’ve avoided public tax hikes. The only significant disagreement pertains to the highest marginal rate. Trump has indicated he’s open to a modest increase if it leads to a broader agenda being passed.
Let’s be real—the current bill isn’t exactly a model of Reagan-era fiscal policy. It’s packed with items that would please progressive members, such as an excessive extension of salt deductions.
Even the Tax Foundation rated the economic impact of this bill as weak and overly complex. It’s a muddled compromise rather than a robust package.
Oddly enough, the tax on tips—arguably Trump’s most significant tax concession—already passed the Senate unanimously. So why not incorporate similar provisions and expedite them instead of wasting time on this budget settlement?
Excuse 3: “Policy changes can’t be included in budget bills.”
Critics often reference the Bird Rule, which supposedly prevents including policy changes in budget bills, immigration reform, or judicial adjustments. This argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The original House bill had a segment that would forbid states from regulating artificial intelligence. That’s a clear policy issue unrelated to the budget.
Conversely, removing judicial reviews from deportation cases would directly lower costs by cutting out numerous court appearances. This is a valid budgeting strategy and far more defensible than sneaking regulations for AI into a budget bill.
Yes, the Bird Rule exists. But ultimately, the governing party decides what gets passed. The president and Senate leaders can override Congress. The Democrats managed it, so the Republicans could do so as well.
Fast forward to this week: Los Angeles is once again seeing unrest. Instead of seizing the moment to address pressing national priorities, Miller seems to be caught up with dramatics.
But if the true aim is to tackle immigration, the Republicans already have a chance. They could isolate the bill, set aside the judicial reform components, and move forward without delay.
True leadership would allow Trump to sign into law a crucial part of his 2024 mission.
