Big Beautiful Bill: Critiquing Expenditures & Rescissions with a New Federalism Vision

This article will dissect key components of the bill, reinforcing a fiscally conservative perspective focused on efficiency, market-based solutions, and a reduction in federal overreach.

A recurring theme will be the devolution of certain programs and responsibilities to the states. It is important to note that many of the responsibilities envisioned for state management are relatively minor in scope, aiming to return local control over local matters. However, even in these areas, and certainly in any more significant transfers, fiscal prudence is paramount. This necessary shift away from federal overreach cannot be a license for states to engage in fiscal malfeasance, particularly when such actions have broader national implications, such as contributing to inflationary pressures through unfunded liabilities or chronic deficit spending.

To ensure accountability without fostering inter-state conflict, any transfer of responsibilities must be accompanied by a carefully designed mechanism for mutual accountability. This system would involve regular reviews, based on clear, objective, and pre-agreed metrics, of state performance in managing these devolved areas. Should a state demonstrably and significantly mismanage its obligations, leading to measurable negative externalities for other states – for example, by directly exacerbating national inflation through irresponsible fiscal policies directly tied to these devolved functions – a transparent and impartially administered penalty system could be considered. Such penalties, if ever deemed necessary, should be narrowly targeted and proportionate, based on an automatic formula and/or pardons, to avoid politicization and ensure they serve as a corrective measure rather than a tool for “financial war.” The primary goal is to incentivize sound governance, not to create adversarial relationships between states.

I. Budgetary Impact and Appropriations: A Mixed Bag Demanding Scrutiny

The bill’s appropriations span numerous sectors, with significant implications for the federal budget.

A. Defense (Title II): Prioritizing True Strength, Questioning Motives

While a strong national defense is paramount, the allocation of funds within Title II raises several concerns:

• “Quality of Life Improvements” for Military Personnel: The stated billions for these improvements are viewed with skepticism. Cross-referencing with a White House release from May 16, 2025, titled “WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: Trillions in Great Deals Secured for America Thanks to President Trump,” reveals extensive U.S. corporate involvement in major international projects, such as Saudi Vision 2030. This article highlights deals in technology, defense, and infrastructure, indicating that the same influential corporate and governmental actors engaged in these multi-trillion dollar overseas ventures may be shaping domestic spending priorities. This raises concerns about whether these “quality of life” initiatives are truly optimized for our service members or influenced by broader, potentially misaligned, interests.
• Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) ($2.9 billion): Given the exorbitant rental rates plaguing the nation, the adequacy of this allowance is questionable. Research indicates that BAH often fails to keep pace with rapidly inflating housing markets, with a built-in lag of 6 to 18 months in rate adjustments. Studies have shown that while BAH might be sufficient on average, its volatility and inability to adapt quickly to market surges leave military personnel struggling. This appropriation needs to ensure it genuinely addresses the housing crisis for our troops, rather than being a mere token gesture.
• Shipbuilding (e.g., $4.6 billion for a second Virginia-class submarine) & Integrated Air and Missile Defense (e.g., $7.2 billion for space-based sensors): Decisions on these highly technical and strategic assets are best deferred to the Secretary of Defense. However, it is worth noting the performance of current missile defense systems globally. For instance, recent events where missiles launched by Iran against Israel appeared to penetrate defenses, with interception attempts occurring very late, suggest that a layered defense, potentially emphasizing proactive engagement with threats via fighter jets and other means, should be a core component of our strategy. The bill’s contribution to such a proactive posture is unclear.
• Positive Defense Allocations: Funding for low-cost weapons scaling, Indo-Pacific Command capabilities, readiness, and border support/counter-drug missions are commendable and align with critical national security needs. Space-based sensors also represent a vital investment.
• ICE Adult Alien Detention ($45 M?): This funding is supported.
• Family Residential Centers: This is a deeply problematic allocation. The federal government should not be involved in handling children in this context.

B. Agriculture (Title I):

This title includes funding for safety net programs, conservation, trade promotion, research (including $37 million for FFAR – Sec. 10104), rural schools, energy programs, and horticulture. While some areas like trade promotion and research can be beneficial if market-oriented, safety nets and conservation programs require careful oversight to prevent dependency and ensure fiscal responsibility.

C. Homeland Security (Title VI): Securing the Border is Non-Negotiable

The allocations for Homeland Security are largely strongly supported:

• Border Barrier Construction ($46.5 billion), Additional CBP Personnel and Vehicles, and Border Technology: These are excellent and crucial investments in our national sovereignty.
• State Border Security Reimbursement ($12 billion): This is a reasonable measure. However, transparency is needed to ensure these funds are distributed effectively among states, without favoritism.

D. Judiciary (Title VII): Streamlining Immigration Justice

• EOIR (Immigration Courts) ($1.25 billion): Funding for immigration courts is approved, as an efficient judiciary is essential. However, $1.25 billion appears excessive. A more fiscally responsible target, aiming for efficiency and an elimination of bureaucratic waste, would be closer to $500 million. It’s crucial to understand the precise needs driving this budget request. Furthermore, clarity is required on whether any portion of these funds is designated for DNA or RNA collection. It is noteworthy that a Department of Justice proposed rule in 2019 sought to expand the collection of DNA samples from immigration detainees for inclusion in the FBI’s CODIS database. The Executive Office for Immigration Review’s primary function is to conduct removal proceedings and adjudicate appeals.
• ICE Personnel and Operations: Funding for these areas is supported, aligning with robust immigration enforcement.

E. Transportation and Infrastructure (Title X): Hits and Misses

• Coast Guard Assets & Air Traffic Control Staffing and Modernization ($12.5 billion): These are reasonable and necessary investments.
• The Kennedy Center: This is an unacceptable use of taxpayer funds in this bill. Cultural institutions should seek private funding.

F. Energy (Title IV): Promoting Energy Independence, Not Malinvestment

• DOE Loan Guarantee Expenses: This is a hard “no.” Such programs often lead to malinvestment and distort the market. The government should not be picking winners and losers in the energy sector.
• Strategic Petroleum Reserve Maintenance and Acquisition ($1.321 billion for acquisition): This is a fine and prudent measure for national energy security.

G. Natural Resources (Title VIII): Sensible Investments

• Funding for Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Enhancement and America’s 250th Anniversary: Both of these initiatives sound good and are supported.

II. Rescissions: Reclaiming Taxpayer Dollars, Promoting Free Markets

The bill’s rescissions of previously appropriated funds, particularly from the Inflation Reduction Act, are largely welcome steps.

A. Energy (Title IV, Subtitle A & B): Correcting Course

• DUMP: State-based home energy efficiency contractor training grants, DOE loan programs office. These are inefficient and prone to cronyism.
• KEEP (Potentially): Advanced technology vehicle manufacturing (if truly innovative and market-driven), energy infrastructure reinvestment financing (if focused on genuine infrastructure needs, not green boondoggles), transmission facility financing, and grants for siting interstate electricity transmission lines.
• NO: Tribal energy loan guarantee program (no favoritism), interregional and offshore wind transmission planning (nuclear and solar power offer a more reliable and potent energy future).
• Advanced industrial facilities deployment program: Seems acceptable if it fosters genuine industrial strength.
• GET RID OF IT ALL (EPA Programs): Rescissions or repeals for EPA programs related to clean vehicles, ports, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, diesel emissions, air pollution, and low emissions electricity are strongly supported. A free and open market, unencumbered by excessive regulation, is the best path to innovation and affordability.

B. Agriculture (Title I):

• Rescission of unobligated balances from section 21001(a) of Public Law 117–169 (related to conservation) (Sec. 10102): Conservation efforts are best managed at the state or private level, not through sprawling federal programs.

C. Forestry (Title VIII):

• Rescission of funds for competitive grants for non-federal forest landowners and reduction in State and Private Forestry conservation programs: These programs should absolutely be the purview of the states. Federal intervention is unnecessary and inefficient.

D. Natural Resources (Title VIII):

• Rescissions for National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and NOAA facilities and programs related to coastal communities and climate resilience: Consistent with the forestry approach, these areas are better managed at the state and local level, or through private conservation efforts, especially those elements focused on “climate resilience” which often become avenues for wasteful spending.

E. Transportation (Title X): Eliminating Wasteful Spending

• SCAMS: Alternative fuel and low-emission aviation technology, neighborhood access and equity grant program. These are always inefficient diversions of taxpayer money.
• GOOD (with caveats): Federal building assistance for emerging technologies is supported only if it involves genuinely cost-effective and revolutionary technologies, such as large-scale 3D-printed buildings that drastically reduce construction costs.
• Unnecessary: Environmental review implementation funds and low-carbon transportation materials grants serve to slow projects and impose ideological agendas rather than provide tangible benefits.

F. Financial Services (Title V):

• Rescission of unobligated balances from the green and resilient retrofit program for multifamily housing: This is a clear scam. Individuals and property owners can and should pay for their own retrofits, or states can choose to support such initiatives if they deem them appropriate for their local contexts. The federal government has no business in this arena, especially concerning multifamily housing.

III. Debt Limit (Title XI, Subtitle D): Fiscal Insanity

• Increase the public debt limitation by $4,000,000,000,000: This is an absolute non-starter. The national debt is a crisis. This provision must be reversed, and instead, a DECREASE in the debt of an equivalent or greater amount should be mandated.

IV. Budgetary Controls and Mechanisms: Some Sensible Steps, Some Deep Concerns

• Limits Secretary of Education’s authority: This is a good measure. The Federal Government’s role in education should be drastically curtailed.
• Budget neutrality for Medicaid Section 1115 demonstration projects: Medicaid, in its current form, appears to be a convoluted and inefficient scam. Its abolishment should be advocated. Healthcare focus should shift towards transparently priced emergency services, ambulance transport, and preventative measures. The current fixed-cost healthcare model, laden with insurance complexities, is wasteful. A move towards robotic-assisted procedures could decrease liability concerns stemming from a medical field increasingly populated by graduates of institutions that resemble degree mills.
• New fees and modifications: This is a mixed bag and requires careful scrutiny as detailed in my other articles preceding this one.
• Modifies federal-state cost-sharing for SNAP: While a work requirement for SNAP is essential, the definition of “work” should be modernized to include entrepreneurial activities like leveraging social media (e.g., X) and internet advertising. Self-entrepreneurship needs to be codified as a legitimate pathway.

This “Big Beautiful Bill,” while ambitious, is riddled with provisions that threaten fiscal stability, expand government overreach, and pick winners and losers in the economy. A far more conservative and constitutionally sound approach is urgently needed.