I can’t help but wonder if Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill was not only an example of the type of propaganda I discuss here at defenseofournation.com, but also of the quote I mention so often from Tragedy and Hope (p.1035). You remember, the one about the two parties working together to accomplish the same agenda? It seems bankrupting the nation is a high priority for both political parties, as each administration seems to want to outspend the last. During Trump’s first term, he increased the debt by 6.7 trillion. This was more than Obama spent in his first four years. In his two terms, Obama spent over eight trillion dollars of money we didn’t have. Biden increased it another six trillion after Trump. We are just over six months into Trump’s new term and already the debt is set to increase by an additional three trillion with the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill. Talk about a well-planned propaganda operation. The Republican party literally had their base begging for the bill to pass, as they had promised to include provisions that would gut the National Firearms Act. Specifically, people believed the registration requirements for suppressors and short barrel rifles were going to be repealed. Come on, did you really think they were going to do that? Since when does government give up power? In the end, all they did was change the $200 tax to a zero-dollar tax. This leaves the door open for the next anti-gun administration to raise it back to whatever they want. The gun community is livid over this. There is little chance they will show up to support any politician who turned their back on this promise, creating a high probability Democrats will retake the House and/or Senate in 2026. Oh well, this is par for the course. Groups like Gun Owners of America are promising to sue the government to get the NFA overturned, now that there is no tax. This, however, begs the question. Do they even know what was in the bill? Does anybody? Or were they so wrapped up in the idea of Trump being the savior, and the cleverness of a catchphrase like The Big Beautiful Bill, that they couldn’t see beyond their own hopes and aspirations? Unfortunately, this seems to be the case.
What exactly is in the bill? Aside from promises of tax cuts that in the end, will cost us more money, the highest military budget ever, and a bunch of stuff giving the looney-left a platform to campaign on, no one is really sure. Are they? If they were, they wouldn’t have blindly jumped on board and cheered on its passage. For example, Gun owners of America, and other gun advocacy groups were very supportive of this bill, as again, there was the promise of a new era of gun rights on the horizon. Was there though? I don’t know. The Big Beautiful Bill, like others, is over 900 pages of legalese. A language I don’t speak. Looking over it, and everything it entails, I find it hard to believe that any administration could come up with something like this in just a few months, but I digress. Anyway, according to The Firearm Policy Coalition, there is a provision somewhere in this monstrosity of a bill, that would have some serious implications for gun rights in the future. This provision just happens to coincide with a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning nationwide injunctions as well. FPC, along with twenty-five other advocacy groups, are warning the BBB would require a security bond be put up, that covers the costs the federal government stands to lose in a federal case, in order for a judge to issue a preliminary injunction. Did you get that? In other words, if an organization like Gun Owners of America were going to sue over the NFA issue, they would have to put up a bond–potentially in the millions–that would cover what the government could lose. Was that provision in the final passage of the bill? I don’t know. I didn’t see it in there, but the bill is over 900 pages long and written in a language I don’t speak. Do you understand it all? If you do, please enlighten me.
What does this provision mean? If you notice, the FPA’s letter contains the words “preliminary injunction” while the Supreme Court ruling dealt with nationwide injunctions. What’s the difference? A nationwide injunction would prohibit the enforcement of a law across the whole country while a case is being litigated, and a preliminary injunction deals specifically with the plaintiffs who brought the case. For example, GOA members were protected against the enforcement of the pistol brace rule under a preliminary injunction. If this provision was in the bill, what does it matter if GOA sues over the NFA? It could potentially bankrupt them. Furthermore, it will make it extremely difficult to bring suits against other unconstitutional infringements. Red Flag Laws anyone? Again, I don’t know if this was included in the final version or not. Would it surprise you though? Did we just trade a mere tax reduction for the loss of our ability to challenge unconstitutional laws?
What else is in the bill? According to an article at a website called Biometric Update.com, there are billions of dollars going towards the advancement of the digital surveillance state. Is this hard to believe? Considering that Trump, after twenty some years since its inception, is the one to start enforcing the Real ID, not really. Biometric Update states this bill does more than simply fund advanced surveillance systems; it codifies “a vision of the national security state where biometric surveillance, AI, and immigration enforcement converge at unprecedented scale.” Well, that sounds kind of scary. It also sounds like something liberty minded conservatives would normally oppose, but with all the focus on illegal immigration, they jumped right on board without asking many questions. This kind of reminds me of something I say all the time. What is it? Oh yeah, all propaganda is meant to gain acceptance on issues that would otherwise, be opposed by the targeted audience. Hmmm… Another interesting aspect of this bill, according to Biometric Update, prohibits states from enforcing any safeguards they may have implemented to ensure biometric privacy, by threatening to halt federal funding for AI technology advancement. In other words, the Trump administration is saying that individual states cannot protect the biometric data of their citizens if they want to receive funding for more AI initiatives. That’s wonderful–and exactly what everyone voted for. It is easy to get wrapped up in political movements that on the surface, seem to support the policies you believe in. Illegal immigration, for example, is certainly something that must be dealt with. The reality, however, is that it is an issue being used to advance, and gain acceptance of, a police state that no one in their otherwise right mind, would be supportive of.
I have argued before that conservative voters are suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance over Donald Trump. They justify their vote for him by clinging to the beliefs they held that he was the best option they had. He was definitely seen as a better option than Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, in a lesser than two evils sort of way–and we all know my opinion on that. Research has shown that people will often cling to–and seek out–information about a candidate that supports their views, while ignoring information that doesn’t. This doesn’t apply explicitly to conservative voters, but to people as a whole. It is a voting behavior that can likely be counted on by those who are running for office. It is something that is known, in other words. When it comes to the BBB, people’s minds were so wrapped up over what they thought would be a positive outcome in this bill, they ignored any information that contradicted these beliefs. This is undoubtedly due to the overwhelming sentiment among MAGA voters that Trump is the country’s savior. There is something eerily unsettling about the way they present everything he does as some kind of historical, unprecedented victory. The idea of Trump playing a masterclass, four-dimensional game of chess has rooted itself so deep in the consciousness of the MAGA movement, they can be brought to accept anything he does without question. There is no doubt, had Joe Biden been the one to advance this bill, conservatives would be arguing against the surveillance state advancements for fear they would be employed against gun owners. Do you think once Trump is out of office, and all of the illegal immigrants have been rounded up and processed at Alligator Alcatraz, this AI surveillance system will be shut down? Do you think, in this game of “if they can do it so can I,” revenge politics, that the next Democrat administration won’t use this to target their political enemies? Of course they will, but by that time no one will remember it was Trump that gave it to us. Just like the Covid vaccine, I might add. Does Operation Warp Speed ring a bell?
Do I know every detail about the provisions mentioned in this article? No. Do I know for certain that every aspect of these provisions made it in the final version? No. I do know, however, that the information was out there and readily available. I know that people’s hopes were so high concerning the NFA and its possible repeal, that very little attention was being paid to anything else. I know there was plenty to question about the bill. It was quite hilarious to see the gun rights community react in shock to something that was evident from the beginning. The registration requirements under the NFA were never going anywhere, and the issue was being used to keep your attention focused on passing a bill that in the long run, is just another that advances the interests of what so many people like to refer to as, the deep state.
